Email Archives - Leading Virtually

No Email Reply? Don’t Let an Unanswered Email Get the Better of You

Surinder Kahai — Fri, 28 Jun 2013 17:03:58 +0000

Technology is meant to connect us. Instead, it often creates feelings of isolation. Such as when there’s no reply to our emails. We don’t care as much when our email to a company’s customer service is unanswered but when we send it to someone we know or an individual we are trying to establish contact with, not receiving a reply leaves us unsettled.

Why?

Don’t we encounter silence in a face-to-face situation too? Why doesn’t that unsettle us?

Silence in a face-to-face situation can be awkward too. But it can be resolved quickly by reading the other person’s body language or by simply asking a question. If the question is unanswered, we may still be able to make sense of the silence by using the greetings and the small talk we exchanged (or their lack) that day with the other person.

In the absence of such possibilities in a virtual situation, silence no longer remains as such.

It produces thunder!

We begin to think of all possible reasons behind the silence. In a world where people have constant access to email, we find it very strange and shocking that the receiver has not responded. Distress, feelings of isolation and loss of control, frustration, anger, negative self-appraisal, bad mood, and a host of related effects occur as a consequence of email silence. Damage to one’s relationship with the unresponsive individual is usually not far behind.

Often, these reactions are unjustified. Why? Because it may not be as bad as you think.

Quite often, the other person is very busy or immersed in something else due to which our message is put away for a response later. But then the receiver gets caught up in the daily routine and our message remains unanswered despite good intentions. And we may erroneously conclude that the receiver doesn’t care about us or our email. In a NY Times article about unanswered emails, someone mentioned that she sometimes doesn’t have the time to give a careful response and puts off responding till later. Eventually, time goes by and after some time she feels that she has waited too long and is embarrassed. What does she do? She does not respond! So, you see, you may have not received a response because someone cared too much and not less!

Sure, there are times when things are really wrong because of which there is no response. In a research study, Catherine Cramton found that the US members of a virtual team misjudged the silence of their Portuguese partners after an electronic vote as consent when, in fact, the latter were expressing their disagreement with the chosen idea. You may have someone playing games with you by not responding — that individual may simply be trying to get an upper hand in the relationship with you. Then there are occasions when we are expecting some favor from the receiver of our email and the receiver wants to turn down our request but, instead of embarrassing us, does not respond.

So, there are times when email silence isn’t bad and there are other times when it is. Did someone say that email silence can be confusing?

Can we do something about it?

In virtual teams, we can reduce email silence considerably by drawing up a team compact in which we outline the rules of engagement. These rules of engagement typically cover expectations about email communication, including acceptable delay in responding to emails.

But we experience many situations outside of virtual teams in which our emails go unanswered. How do we deal with such situations?

For that we first need to look at some research. Research by Yoram Kalman and Sheizaf Rafaeli on response latency in electronic communication indicates that about 80% of responses get posted within the average response time and 97% of the responses get posted within 10 times the average response time. This is true for responses in various kinds of computer-mediated communication systems, including email and group discussion forums. Using the Enron email dataset, the authors found that the average time to respond to an email was about 29 hours. If we assume that this figure applies elsewhere too, then there’s a 80% chance that your email will get responded to within 29 hrs. Even if it does not get responded to within this time, there’s still about a 17% chance that your email gets will get responded to within another 11 days. After that, assume that the silence is for good.

Thus, research suggests that we wait for about 12 days before taking action for lack of response to our email. Of course, to the extent our email is time sensitive, we would need to act before that. Also, we need to be sensitive to individual differences. For some individuals, the average response latency may be more or less than the 29 hours we have assumed. To the extent we know enough about someone’s email behavior, we would need to adjust for that too. One recourse when we encounter silence might be to resend the email if we believe that the receiver may have simply forgotten. When we are uncertain, research suggests that a more effective action might be to make our request via another medium, such as the phone. For very critical emails, I have found it to be effective to let the recipient know that I would be following up by a certain date to see if there is any part of my email or request that needs additional clarification. If I don’t get a response by the follow up date, I call (or, if possible, stop by the persons office) to check if there are any questions or issues I can address. If there are any bad news, they come out during that call (or visit).

If none of the above actions work, don’t let the silence get the better of you. If you are seeking something very critical from the unresponsive person, figure out another way to get it. Else, it may be time to move on. If a response comes out of the blue in the future, as it sometimes does, count it as a blessing!

The post No Email Reply? Don’t Let an Unanswered Email Get the Better of You appeared first on Leading Virtually.

The Evolution of Harmful Email Habits

Surinder Kahai — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 00:28:10 +0000

During the last few years, I have noticed certain changes or patterns in email communication that can potentially damage virtual work. I am afraid that these patterns may be on their way to becoming a part of email communication culture. Many email users may be falling into these usage patterns without realizing their potentially damaging effects. With the idea of making email users more aware of their email usage patterns and the effects of such patterns, I discuss the following in this post:

The changes or patterns that I have been observing in email communication,
The potential for these patterns to damage virtual work, and
What one can do to minimize the damage.

Some recent patterns in email communication

Over time, I have been observing the following trends in email communication.

Increasing number of cases where there is no response or untimely response to queries.
Increasing lack of acknowledgment of receipt of task (from another team member or team leader) or confirmation of one’s ability to accomplish the task by the due date.
Absence of feedback or appreciation for work that was accomplished. I am referring to appreciation beyond a mere ‘thank-you’. I am referring to feedback that clearly indicates what contribution a team member’s work or effort has made to the accomplishment of team goals (e.g., “because of your input, the team has a fresh perspective on how we should approach the issues that we are facing”).
Increasing instances of emails in which the work that is due (e.g., a report) is sent as an attachment but the body of the email has absolutely nothing in it.

There are a variety of phenomena that may account for these trends. One of them is the email overload caused by the large number of emails that one receives these days. The above trends may simply be a consequence of fatigue and being overwhelmed by email overload. Feeling overwhelmed can lead to an inability to wade through one’s email in a timely manner as well as an inability to fully read and absorb others’ messages. Another phenomenon behind the above trends may be the increasing use of personal digital assistants such as the Blackberry or the Apple iPhone, which make it harder to craft an email.

Whatever the reasons, I believe that these trends are changing the norms for acceptable and unacceptable email communication. Individuals, for instance, may simply send emails with attachments but without any contextual messages to orient the receiver because that is how they have received communication from others. They may not see that if the patterns that I described above continue, they may damage virtual work.

Potential to damage virtual work

I see the above email usage patterns potentially damaging virtual work by undermining leadership in virtual teams. Responding to others’ emails, acknowledging the receipt of a task, indicating one’s ability to accomplish it by a certain time, giving feedback or expressing appreciation, and providing a context in one’s emails all serve to fulfill important leadership functions in virtual work, such as removing uncertainty, giving positive feedback to reinforce and motivate good performance, and showing consideration towards others. By not doing so, a leader may be missing simple and frequent opportunities to lead others.

The above pattern of email communication can also lead to erroneous assumptions within the team. Virtual work often involves a high level of interdependence among workers. It is rare that a team leader has to simply aggregate the inputs from all members to produce the team’s work. The output from one is often the input for others. Failing to confirm that the task was received and can be accomplished in a timely manner creates an uncertainty for the leader and others in the team about next steps. In the absence of an acknowledgment, the sender and the leader of the team may assume that the work was received and that the receiver will be able to accomplish it by the due date. But quite often this assumption proves to be wrong, leaving the team to scramble at the last moment to finish what could not be accomplished by a team member.

In addition to delaying the team’s work, this last minute scrambling could hurt the social relationships within the team by causing stress and frustration among members. In a past post, we discussed the importance of social relationships for virtual work. Social relationships are also slowly damaged by the stress and frustration that result when queries go unanswered. They are also damaged by the signal to other members about not wanting to communicate with them when one sends a blank email with the work due attached to it. When one continues to not provide feedback or show appreciation for the work done by others in the team, others are less motivated to make future contributions that positively impact the team’s work. I suspect that these effects on social relationships and motivation will be more acute in newer teams than in older teams with already strong bonds.

Actions to minimize damage

Leaders can be a positive influence on team members by modeling the behaviors they would like to see within the team. Leaders should make sure that they send emails acknowledging team member requests, provide feedback, and take the time to craft emails in a way that models effective communication. If these things are done from the beginning, the team will begin to establish norms based on these communication habits.

If a negative pattern of communication has developed within the team and it is affecting team work and/or relationships, then it may be necessary for the team leader to intervene. This could be done in several ways, such as (a) giving feedback to a team member or the team as necessary, and/or (b) asking the team to engage in a discussion about expectations and etiquette for email communication and establish agreed upon norms to ensure that uncertainty is minimized and the social bonds remain intact. Becky reminded me that she once sent an email to someone with an attachment and no message. Although the person who she was sending it to was expecting it, he very politely sent her a reply saying that he had a blanket rule of not accepting emails and opening attachments if there was no personalized message and signature from the sender. This was to protect him and his machine from potential viruses. This simple intervention provided a lasting lesson to Becky about the importance of adding contextual information to emails, whether work-related or personal.

Leaders can also make sure that email is used for situations it is best suited to. By doing so, they would cut down email overload. In past Leading Virtually posts, specifically in Freeing yourself from Email and Emergent Collaboration: The Reason Why Email Should Not Be Used For Collaboration, Betsy and I have described situations for which email may not be the best choice for communication. Team leaders and team members will need to be diligent in making sure that they match the tools available to them to the situations they face rather than use something that might be easiest or most familiar.

The post The Evolution of Harmful Email Habits appeared first on Leading Virtually.

What President Obama Teaches Us For Leading Virtually

Rebecca Jestice — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 20:02:02 +0000

I watched in awe from early this morning as the world got ready for the inauguration of Barack Obama as President. I felt joy and hope as I read my dad’s email this morning saying that he was so excited to see the moment that he had dreamed of, but thought might never come in his country. And I was inspired by Obama’s speech–a mixture of the stark reality of our time and determination for a bright future. This was truly an historical moment and it was amazing to see the first African-American president take office in the US.

Obama is an historical president in other aspects, too. Obama ran the first campaign in history that fully embraced technology in order to reach constituents and his transition is being touted as one of the most transparent (see this NY Times article for an interesting look at campaigning with Web 2.0). That’s in part because many of the technologies that gave Obama’s campaign momentum and transition visibility, such as YouTube or Facebook, were not available or well-known in previous elections. Obama seems to not only have surrounded himself with people who know how to leverage current technology to reach supporters and constituents, but he also has a good understanding of the potential benefits and drawbacks of that technology. Obama’s use of technology offers some insights and lessons to leading virtually, both in teams and organizations. Although most virtual leaders are not undertaking a task as huge as running for President or running the country, some of Obama’s use of technology can be adapted to the needs of other leaders.

1. Reach Out
Obama’s campaign was masterful in reaching out to millions of Americans to garner support and funding. He was able to raise record amounts of funding through millions of small donations through reaching out over web sites and email and encouraging people to leverage their personal networks to support his campaign. After the election, Obama continued to use the Internet to reach out to Americans on the change.gov website to gather opinions and concerns of citizens. The new whitehouse.gov site, launched almost at the instant Obama was sworn in, has already posted a blog relating the administrations intentions to use the site to stay connected to Americans. The insight here is that people outside of the team or organization can be reached, and in many cases are willing to help. Tools such as blogs, wikis, or Web sites can help teams and organizations reach out to others and gather ideas for creative solutions or problem solving. Blogs can be a place to start conversations with people interested in the same topic which can stimulate team member thinking.

2. Mix it Up
Obama’s campaign used a mix of media and technologies effectively to reach as many people as possible. He raised a majority of his money online and used it to buy airtime on network television for his final infomercial. The insight for virtual leaders is that the appropriate technology to reach and work with people may differ depending on the individuals involved and the context. Betsy’s post, Freeing Yourself from E-mail and Surinder’s post on emergent collaboration offer some good advice on when certain technologies might be useful and in what context.

3. Personalize the Message
During his campaign, Obama sent out a text message to supporters when he decided who his running mate would be. Many receivers of the message, who learned the news before most of the rest of the country, took the text as a personalized message, strengthening a sense of connection with the candidate. The Obama team plans to use the email addresses it collected during the days of the campaign to stay in touch with citizens and rally them to support Obama’s initiatives. Virtual leaders could take a cue from this and the importance of personalizing messages, even when addressing a group of people. Adding personal touches or proactively contacting team members to clarify information or send encouragement can help strengthen interpersonal relationships necessary for working effectively together.

4. Keep Boundaries
Obama is refusing to give up his Blackberry despite security and legal concerns. He is determined to find a way to keep it during his tenure at the White House. He sees the Blackberry as a way to escape from the Presidential bubble and to maintain some contact with the ‘outside world’, helping him keep perspective and get information from people other than those directly related to the White House. Keeping boundaries and separate spaces for work and personal communication may be harder to do in the days of instant access to everyone, but Obama’s point is well-taken. It’s not a bad idea to have separate business and personal email accounts and pay attention to those privacy settings on social networking sites.

5. Expect the Unexpected
Obama is aware that with the freedom of new media, comes some unexpected results. Rather than shy away from the technology, he seems to understand the results and takes them into consideration. For instance he has mentioned that he is aware that anything that he writes in a text message could end up on the Internet so he is careful to check before he presses send. This is a key point for anyone working and communicating with technology. With almost equal access to technology and adding information on outlets like the Web, virtual leaders and team members should remember that, along with the benefit of a record of events and project progress, comes the possibility of that record becoming public. On the other hand, the unexpected can lead to delightful results as the trend of re-mixing, re-using, mashups and viral video grows. For example, the spontaneous community that sprang up around an Obama campaign sign or the Super Obama World online video game are things that could not have happened without the connectivity and reach of the Internet.

Conclusion
Obama’s use of technology, however, would not have been as successful had his message and vision not resonated with people. After all, John McCain had a web site and a video game, too, but the impact was little compared to Obama’s. Effective use of technology is not enough. A leader’s desire and ability to connect to people and welcome new possibilities is important. When these qualities are present, along with integrity and sincerity, then technology will be useful.

The post What President Obama Teaches Us For Leading Virtually appeared first on Leading Virtually.

So Far And Yet So Near

Betsy Carroll — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 13:10:41 +0000

This week I read an interesting research article (Perceived Proximity in Virtual Work: Explaining the Paradox of Far-but-Close) that talked about perceived proximity. The authors (Wilson, O’Leary, Metiu, and Jett) define perceived proximity as two or more individuals having the feeling of being close, regardless of physical distance between them. Often, one assumes that physical proximity and perceived proximity are highly correlated, but the authors of this article investigate why actual geographic proximity doesn’t always coincide with a feeling of closeness.

In this article I cover the following:

What influences perceived proximity,
Perceived & physical proximity matrix,
Suggestions for moving a team from low perceived proximity to high perceived proximity, and
Suggestions for maintaining a positive situation of high perceived proximity.

What influences perceived proximity?

The authors argue that within a team, actual physical proximity, level of communication, and level of identification with other members are the main influences on perceived proximity. For instance, in a previous post Surinder talked about the outpouring of emotion that fans of Ms. Nielson’s blog offered when she was seriously injured in an accident. We can see from the reaction of her fans, who were located all over the world, that they felt very close to her. This feeling of proximity arose from Ms. Nielson’s frequent communication and her fans identifying strongly with the content of her blog.

Individual characteristics such as openness to experience and level of experience with dispersed work can influence this equation as well, as can socio-organizational factors. One example of a socio-organizational factor might be the collaboration technology employed by an organization – if it works, it helps team members to feel closer; if it doesn’t work well, it might make team members feel distant.

Perceived & physical proximity matrix

Perhaps the most useful part of this article for practitioners is a matrix the authors include, placing teams into one of four quadrants. The axes are based on two dimensions: physical proximity and perceived proximity of members. Generally, quadrants 1 and 2 are more desirable than quadrants 3 and 4 for the positive effect on productivity and team effectiveness.

Consider which quadrant your team is currently in. We offer some suggestions for what a team leader can do to help teams in quadrants 3 and 4 move towards quadrants 1 and 2. Similarly, we suggest things to look out for when your team is in quadrant 1 or 2 and you wish to stay there.

Low physical proximity

High physical proximity

High perceived

proximity

2. Far, but feel close

1. Close, and feel close

Low perceived

proximity

3. Far, and feel far

4. Close, but feel far

Moving from low perceived proximity to high perceived proximity

In most work situations, teams are more productive and effective when they have higher perceived proximity. Chances are there is little to be done about physical proximity in the near future. However, it is possible to lead a team from quadrant 3 to quadrant 2, or from quadrant 4 to quadrant 1.

Quadrant 3 – far, and feel far

This quadrant can be disastrous for virtual teams. The authors cite that teams with half of their members in one country and half in another often experience this lack of perceived proximity. Based on the examples they give, it seems that a lack of common goal is the most pervasive problem here. Leaders should be sure that all team members are dedicated to the same goal, and have similar ideas of how to get it done.

Be sure that no unit feels isolated, or like they are overlooked. The authors indicate that frequent, high-quality communication can help remedy this problem.
Develop a team compact to reduce uncertainty about the team’s goals and how it will accomplish its goals.
Support the move towards a shared team goal by showing individualized consideration to members in all locations, for the sake of the team as well as individual development.

Quadrant 4 – close, but feel far

Based on the article’s explanation, lack of perceived proximity for a geographically co-located might be based on individual differences, such as introverted team members. Also, it may occur because team members are not highly interdependent during completion of the task (for example, team members do separate work and compile it for a final report).

A team leader should first consider how important it is to achieve perceived proximity before dedicating resources to attempting a change.
You should also look for sources of dysfunctional conflict within the team – perhaps team members don’t particularly like one another on a personal level. In that case, find ways to increase the positive, task-related interactions while reducing dysfunctional conflict.
Perhaps the use of collaboration technologies could help team members to share necessary information without irritating one another.

Maintaining a positive situation of high perceived proximity

Higher perceived proximity is generally a good thing. However, even teams in quadrants 1 and 2 should monitor for some potential pitfalls.

Quadrant 1 – close, and feel close

This may sound ideal, and it can mean the team is high-performing. However, this quadrant is where groupthink can commonly occur. Be sure the team is not cohesive to the point of disregarding dissenting ideas. Also, a group in this quadrant might be in danger of excluding others. The dark side of having a cohesive in-group is excluding those who feel like part of the out-group, even other teams and units within the organization.

Utilize a little functional conflict to keep ideas flowing. This can include something as simple as assigning a devil’s advocate during brainstorming or decision making sessions.
Make sure team members can keep their focus on organizational goals in addition to team goals if their focus is becoming too narrow.
Provide reminders of the relationships and dependencies with other org members who are outside your team. Keeping those relationships salient to your team will counteract a dysfunctional out-group mentality.

Quadrant 2 – far, but feel close

Leaders of geographically dispersed teams are often aiming for this quadrant. Team leaders in this quadrant should make sure that team members not only feel close, but are also productive and effective. Feeling close is an antecedent of team productivity, but not necessarily a guarantee. In this quadrant, a team leader can probably relax a bit on monitoring perceived proximity and focus the team’s attention on high performance.

This means making sure that collaboration technologies employed work for the team, and that team members have access to information they need without being bogged down with information that is unorganized and overwhelming.
If you have a team compact, focus on milestones and how well they are being achieved. After Action Reviews are a simple and short, but effective, way to assess goal achievement.
In this quadrant, teams are in a great position to focus on individual development and self-actualization.

This article has much content that is useful to practitioners, and we have inferred some recommendations from their theory. Perhaps most important, though, is that it encourages us to question the assumption that physical or geographical proximity necessarily leads to a feeling of closeness among members. There are a number of other factors that can influence a team’s sense of proximity, which is good news to teams whose members are far from one another, and fair warning to those teams whose members are near.

The post So Far And Yet So Near appeared first on Leading Virtually.

Emergent Collaboration: The Reason Why Email Should Not Be Used for Collaboration

Surinder Kahai — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:55:27 +0000

In one of her recent posts, Betsy Carroll blogged about alternatives to email. Email tends to be misused because of its accessibility and convenience. People end up using it in situations where alternatives would be more suitable. While stressing that email is great for communication but not for collaboration, Betsy discussed alternatives to email and the situations where they would be more suitable. I want to extend her blog post by focusing on emergent collaboration, which I believe is going to be a significant way in which organizations will collaborate (or will need to collaborate) going forward. The idea of emergent collaboration is relevant to our blog because emergent collaboration relies on virtual groups or teams getting formed and accomplishing a task on the fly.

I will discuss the following in this post:

What is emergent collaboration?
Why is emergent collaboration relevant to businesses today?
What facilitates emergent collaboration?
Tools for emergent collaboration; specifically, why blogs and wikis are more suitable than email for emergent collaboration.

What is emergent collaboration?

The best way to learn about emergent collaboration is through an example. Visit the initial part of a Harvard Business Review article titled “Collaboration Rules” to get an idea of emergent collaboration. The example under the heading “Tuesday, December 2, 2003” illustrates the emergence of collaboration among individuals after a systems administrator at a university discovered a hacker attack on his university’s server and traced it to rsync, a synchronization tool for Unix/Linux machines. As you read through the example, you will notice a few things. While the goal of collaboration was known from the beginning, there was no prior determination of who the collaborators will be or the collaboration process itself. Nor was there a leader who guided the whole process. The collaboration evolved from a single person’s problem and relevant individuals were engaged when their expertise was needed. The next steps were determined just prior to their execution, taking into account whatever that had happened till then. In a nutshell, emergent collaboration is organic; while the goal of collaboration may be known, there is no prior determination of who the collaborators will be or of the collaboration process. Also, in emergent collaboration, the involvement of individuals and the collaboration processes are adaptive in that they evolve in response to the situation at any point of time. There is no one in particular who directs the whole process as it evolves.

Why is emergent collaboration relevant?

Today, businesses are facing greater uncertainty and complexity. Competition is emerging from industries and regions of the world that were not competing before (e.g., cable companies are now competing with telephone companies). Due to the Internet, business stakeholders (e.g., customers) have a louder and a far-reaching voice. Consequently, issues that any businesses need to address are emerging from unexpected quarters and with greater uncertainty. How can businesses respond to such pressures? When faced with a highly complex issue, a business needs to make sure that it enables collaboration among individuals who can cover the many different aspects of the issue. However, due to the uncertainty with which the business issues arise, it is not possible for a business to plan beforehand who should collaborate and how. Nor is it possible for a business to develop a clear idea of how the collaboration should evolve once an issue is right in front of it. Relevant collaboration will have to emerge on its own and at the right time to enable an effective response. The key thing that a business will have to do is to make sure that it puts into place a system that enables emergent collaboration.

What facilitates emergent collaboration?

An important requirement for emergent collaboration is a shared workspace that is accessible to all collaborators. Ideally, this workspace should include all the important transactions that have taken place among business workers. In addition to helping a group of collaborators learn from past transactions and take the best step forward, such a workspace facilitates stigmergy, i.e., it enables a worker’s contribution to stimulate others to build on that contribution without any direct communication between the workers. Stigmergy facilitates emergent collaboration by not requiring a single person or a leader with a top level view to coordinate the actions of others. According to Francis Heylighen, an example of stigmergy is seen in the Open Source community when a contributor uploads a piece of code to a community site. This posting invites examination from others interested in using that code. If they discover any problems with the software, they either fix the problem themselves or alert the community about the problem, thereby encouraging others to work on the problem. There is no direct communication from one worker to another – the openness or accessibility of all the critical actions by community members enables work to be coordinated among “undesignated” community members who, at a particular moment, happen to have the resources (time and capability) needed to advance the community’s work.

In addition to a shared and open workspace, emergent collaboration requires meta-level information that highlights the significance of the transactions that are occurring or have occurred within a group of collaborators. Since many workers may be making their contributions at any point in time, which of these many contributions should other members be focusing on and building on at that time? How should they prioritize their effort? Meta-level information that indicates the significance of transactions within a group can help a group determine which issues it should tackle first and which contributions should be given more weight than others.

Tools for emergent collaboration

The above discussion provides reasons for why businesses should move away from email as a platform for collaboration. To respond to increasing uncertainty and complexity, businesses will have to put into place systems that facilitate emergent collaboration. Email is not likely to facilitate emergent collaboration. It does not provide a shared and open workspace, nor does it provide the meta-level information I refer to above – at least not without loading it up with additional tools.

On the other hand, blogs and wikis, two prominent Web 2.0 tools, provide the shared and open workspace needed for emergent collaboration. They can also be set up to provide the meta-level information needed to facilitate emergent collaboration. Specifically, blogs and wikis have the linking and tagging features which make them suitable for generating the meta-level information that indicates the significance of transactions among a group of workers. You can see examples of this meta-level information by visiting Wikipedia and clicking on Special pages under toolbox on the left. Under Special pages, you will see a variety of links, many of which provide meta-level information about the Wikipedia community. For instance, New Pages and Recent Changes tell you what the community members are most interested in now; “Pages with the most revisions” indicate what is popular and/or controversial; “Most linked-to pages” show you the ideas or topics that have had the most impact on the community. In a blogging system, a tag cloud indicates the relative popularity of different topics among bloggers. Linking among bloggers indicates who carries weight for a particular topic. With the help of such meta-level information, blogs and wikis can facilitate emergent collaboration among a group of workers by helping them determine if there are topics or events that need their attention and if there is anybody in particular who should be engaged for addressing those topics or events.

A brief example of the usefulness of blogs and wikis for emergent collaboration can be seen in a New York Times article titled Open Source Spying. In this article, which discusses the use of blogs and wikis by US Intelligence Agencies to counter the threat posed by terrorists, the author gives the following example of how Intellipedia, a wiki used by US Intelligence agencies, enabled emergent collaboration in the Fall of 2006:

…the usefulness of Intellipedia proved itself just a couple of months ago, when a small two-seater plane crashed into a Manhattan building. An analyst created a page within 20 minutes, and over the next two hours it was edited 80 times by employees of nine different spy agencies, as news trickled out. Together, they rapidly concluded the crash was not a terrorist act.

In this post, I have briefly touched upon some of the things that are required for emergent collaboration. Besides the right technology, one needs the right mix of leadership, culture, rewards, and policies for emergent collaboration to occur. It is certainly a challenge for a business to figure of what this right mix is and we hope to cover more on this topic in our future posts. What makes it even more challenging for a business to create conditions that facilitate emergent collaboration is that it also needs to enable structured or planned collaboration along with emergent collaboration. How a business can put into place a system that enables both structured and emergent collaboration is still a wide open question with no simple answer.

The post Emergent Collaboration: The Reason Why Email Should Not Be Used for Collaboration appeared first on Leading Virtually.

Freeing Yourself from Email

Betsy Carroll — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 03:46:59 +0000

A common problem that office workers face today is email overload. For some, email has taken over their work life and it is damaging, rather than improving, their productivity. In our Leading Virtually Digest of June 20th, we point to an article that reports how the onslaught of email or webmail is hurting productivity. A major reason for email’s negative effect on productivity is its injudicious use. Because of its accessibility and convenience, email tends to get used for purposes it was not designed or best suited for. In this post, I cover the following:

The story of someone who freed himself from email’s grip;
Responses to the story;
Alternatives to email; and
What is needed for those alternatives to succeed.

Last week, I saw an article in New York Times about an IBM employee, Luis Suarez, who has freed himself from email’s grip. Suarez was tired of spending hours catching up on email every morning. In order to take control of his productivity, he started using other communication methods, both computer-based (e.g., instant messaging, blogs, wikis, RSS, and social networking) and traditional (phone and face-to-face meetings). Suarez prefers to use instant messaging (IM) because it enables real-time interaction. But anytime an instant-message exchange goes beyond three minutes, he moves the discussion to the telephone. He posts answers to common questions on a blog. Suarez says that he still helps people, but in a more open and collaborative way so that others can join in the discussions and, perhaps, offer a better idea than his. He shares and updates big files with a file sharing system rather than engaging in a back-and-forth exchange via email. To receive notifications of relevant content, Suarez subscribes to RSS/Atom feeds. He was able to cut down the incoming emails by 80% in a single week. Suarez still uses email but he uses it judiciously, such as when he has to discuss private and confidential matters.

Suarez’s article has attracted a fair amount of responses from readers. But it seems to me that a significant number of those who commented missed Suarez’s main point. Suarez suggests that people have an array of technologies available for communication and collaboration, and that those options should be chosen depending on how well they are suited to the task at hand. Suarez uses wikis, instant messaging, emails, phone calls, blogs, and social networking each for different purposes. Here we outline the situations or purposes for which the technologies that Suarez is using are likely to be suitable.

Email

Suarez points out that email is good for communication (one-to-one interaction) but not very effective for collaboration (many-to-many interaction). If you simply need to send something, such as a report, document, or simple message, email is well-suited. Also, if you have something sensitive or private to distribute, email is more appropriate than many other forms of communication.

Email is not ideal for collaboration (such as brainstorming, resolving complex issues, or making multi-person decisions) because the time in between messages makes it difficult to stay focused on the task. Email is just too cumbersome for collaboration that has any complexity to it. It’s not that people couldn’t possibly do this kind of work via email, but Suarez is making the point that there are more effective alternatives.

Instant messaging

Instant messaging is, of course, only useful if your organization supports it – in some organizations IM is forbidden. This form of communication is very useful for collaboration that isn’t too long in duration. Two (or sometimes more) people can have a coherent, uninterrupted back and forth of ideas quickly and easily with this medium. There is the option to save the transcript of the conversation for later with a simple copy and paste function.

IM can seem a little impersonal to those who are not accustomed to using it, but many people are comfortable with this very convenient medium.

Wikis

Wikis are extremely useful for disseminating information that is needed by a lot of people; for example, this is a great tool to use for answering questions that are asked by a lot of your colleagues. This can even be an effective tool for collaboration, since wiki owners can allow others to contribute to the posted material. Also, since people can access a wiki at any time, they are useful for providing information for people in different parts of the world on different schedules than your own. Wikis also have the benefit of tracking changes so a previous draft or revision can be looked at or reverted to if necessary.

Depending on comfort level of users, wikis can even be effective for synchronous work where several people are contributing simultaneously. But it’s probably not the most effective tool for collaboration such as brainstorming or group decision making, and is only appropriate for sensitive information if you have a reliable password protection system.

Phone calls

The effectiveness of using the telephone seems to be largely a question of personal preference. Judging from the responses to Suarez’s article, some readers find phone calls personal and useful, while others find themselves getting caught in longer exchanges than if they email. Suarez suggests using telephone calls for complex multi-person tasks (brainstorming, decision making) that can’t be finished quickly. He switches from IM to phone if a conversation is taking more than 3 minutes. It seems that the personal nature can be a strong benefit of making a phone call, particularly in this age of impersonal emails, but again, this is personal preference.

Remember that phone calls leave no record of the conversation, unlike IM or wikis. Long distance calls can quickly grow expensive for longer collaborative processes, so telephone may not be a cost effective method if you collaborate with people around the globe. Also, if you collaborate with people in different time zones, it might be hard to plan a time to meet, making asynchronous document sharing more effective.

Blogs

People tend to think of blogs either as a news source or a nightmare of personal gushing, but they can be used in the workplace as well. Within an intranet, workers can post information about what they are currently working on for others to see, saving a phone call or email. This is particularly useful when one employee’s output is another’s input. Since they are inexpensive and easy to use, any time saved by implementing a blog represents a benefit.

One downside is that blogs are largely one-sided (even if comments can be posted, it’s not truly collaborative). Also, it may require some discretion to make sure the posted material is relevant and appropriate to those who would view it.

Social networking

Social networking has proved to be a great way to stay connected with people, and the sites available to anyone seem to be very flexible. Suarez talks about using a social networking application within IBM that was developed to help people connect with others who have needed skills or expertise. This requires investment on the organizational level (providing a platform), but seems very useful when employees require the input of others. Especially if workers might have to search the company to find specific knowledge, social networking is a great way to connect individuals.

The main downside seems to be that the company itself has to decide to invest in this networking. Also, social networking may be less relevant in organizations where this collaboration of far-flung experts rarely happens.

This is not an exhaustive list of options, but gives you an idea what Suarez meant by suggesting that workers use communication tools to do what they are best at. But a few caveats apply as well.

First, the effectiveness of using these tools may depend somewhat on the openness of your colleagues. This seems to be a generational difference, based on level of comfort and experience using some of these tools. The workers joining today’s workforce are not as reliant on email as the older generation of workers, but are adept at using social networking tools to communicate and carry out their activities. Surinder was recently telling me how much his son relied on social networking tools. His son, who recently graduated from high school, sent out the invitation to his graduation party via Facebook. When he got a new cell phone number, he did not send an email to those he thought should know his new number – he simply put the new number on Facebook. When Surinder asked him a while back to conduct some of his duties as Class President via email, he said that the other students (e.g., secretary, treasurer) he was working with did not use email! Moving to email alternatives may make sense if you are trying to engage younger workers in the workplace.
Support of management is another crucial factor in escaping email for other collaboration tools. Suarez seems to have strong support in IBM for shifting away from email; in other organizations this may not be a welcome change. If the organization is not supportive and others are not interested in using other tools, email will probably remain the primary medium of communication no matter how much you try to utilize other tools.
Lastly, don’t forget to consider your own work habits. Try to use not only the strengths of each communication tool, but also the ones you will keep up with. For example, it’s not useful to have a blog that you only remember to update once every few weeks. Be a little bit strict with yourself – if making a phone call is most effective but you don’t like getting caught in idle conversation for 60 seconds, you might need to make that call anyway. In other words, don’t use alternative forms of communication as a crutch for avoidance. Try to focus on what helps get your tasks accomplished in an effective way. There are so many inexpensive options these days, it should be possible to make a few of them work for you and your collaborators.

The post Freeing Yourself from Email appeared first on Leading Virtually.

The Leading Virtually Digest, June 27, 2008

Betsy Carroll — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:52:56 +0000

What: This past week, there continued to be a number of articles in regional newspapers about companies who are considering or trying out telecommuting. Check out a few from Michigan, Virginia, and Connecticut. There are plenty more available with a search.
Posts to which it is related: Journal article cited in the Digest on June 13, Leading in Face to Face Versus Virtual Teams.
Bottom line: Telecommuting is a hot topic. Very basic articles continue to show up in the popular press, saying that people are struggling with different pressures and thinking of telecommuting as a solution. However, most articles aren’t going in depth enough to help workers or managers understand the issues surrounding telecommuting. Sounds like great fodder for a full fledged Leading Virtually post.

What: This isn’t an article per se, but an opinion piece on WalletPop about the limits of working when not at work.
Posts to which it is related: The Leading Virtually Digest from June 20.
Bottom line: This piece raises the question of whether people should be compensated in some way when they have to check email (e.g., on a Blackberry) constantly. It seems to be increasingly expected that people are accessible any time, any place for work related issues. The bigger issue might be how people can manage work and non-work aspects of life when technology and norms are blurring the boundary between the two.

The post The Leading Virtually Digest, June 27, 2008 appeared first on Leading Virtually.

Email Etiquette: Is The Thank You Email Simply a Thank You?

Angelo Sasso — Thu, 29 May 2008 15:21:51 +0000

You can also find other email tips in these articles:

Freeing Yourself From Email

Digest on Email

Why Email Should Not Be Used For Collaboration

Email has become part of our everyday communication both in the office and at home. Correspondence that use to take place via the phone or in person are now being done virtually via email or webmail. For instance, a businessman may send an email to his colleague that sits just a few desks away to alert him of the latest developments in the office when once he might have just made contact in person. Because of the unique nature of email contact and the prevalence of email in our everyday communication, a new set of challenges have arisen when it comes to the rules of email etiquette. These rules are much different from those that govern other forms of contact and communication. Although people have been using email for many years, it is still not always clear what the rules of contact are.

One such rule occurs when writing a thank you email. Ambiguity in the rules of saying thank you was recently brought to my attention via an email exchange I had with a colleague who contacted Surinder for assistance with an IT-related problem. Surinder copied me on the email and told my colleague that I would be a good source for this information. I wrote back with a lengthy reply with some tips and advice for my colleague. He never took the time to simply thank Surinder or me, which I felt was inappropriate. However, others disagreed, arguing that my colleague may have felt it would have been a waste of Inbox space to send another email contact just to say thanks. This made me wonder: when is it appropriate to send a thank you via email? I would like to discuss some rules behind the email thank you message and when sending a thank you message via email is appropriate. I would also like to discuss the other roles that a thank you email can play. I think that the thank you email message is vital to effective email communication and is good etiquette when it comes to electronic communications; however, senders of a thank you email should make optimal use of the communication to make it more than a waste of space.

There are many instances when a thank you message should be sent. This is often overlooked during our busy schedule; however, not saying thank you can leave a substantial negative impression on team members. The example I noted above about my colleague serves as the perfect example of when a thank you message is appropriate and not just a waste of space. I spent time writing my reply to his question and a simple thank you was in order. Because of my colleague’s lack of etiquette in this communication, I am hesitant to go out of my way for him in the future. In situations where someone has taken the time to respond to your special request, it is important to reply with a thank you message. A good rule of thumb that you can use is to ask yourself whether or not you would expect to be thanked if you were the one providing the information. Another thing to consider is whether you would thank the person if you were receiving the information face-to-face or via phone. Sending a thank you message to a colleague is also appropriate if you do significant amount of work with that colleague but you don’t see her/him often. In these days of distributed work, saying a thank you may simply be another opportunity for you to build your relationship with a remote colleague.

On the other hand, there are times when a thank you message may be seen as Inbox filler and may even make the receiver angry. For instance, if you know the person you are dealing with is very busy and prefers brief email contact (you may see this in the form of one line emails you receive from this person), it would be appropriate to say thank you in advance along with your request. In fact, you may be helping yourself by putting a little pressure on this person to follow up on your request!

A thank you email message can also serve multiple purposes that have less to do with email etiquette and are more practical in nature. In today’s world of spam mail and imperfect email spam filters, legitimate email often gets blocked by an email host’s spam filter or gets lost in the spam folder on the recipient’s computer. I have often not received important emails because Outlook decided that they were spam mail. In other words, email senders can not be 100% sure if their email reached the recipient as intended. Therefore, a simple “Thank You” reply to an email can serve as more than just a form of email etiquette or wasteful contact; it can be an important way of confirming the receipt of critical or time sensitive material. A thank you message can be also be used to move a project or a set of tasks forward. When you receive somebody’s work, you can thank that person to not only acknowledge the work done but also to indicate what the next steps are (e.g., I will review your work and integrate it with the rest of the proposal) and to inform the sender about her/his next task (e.g., I look forward to reviewing the next part that you will be submitting next week). In other words, the thank you email can be used as a “springboard” for the next step in a series of communications between two people. It reinforces a time line for you and your colleague and sets expectations for what is to do be done next. Thus, if utilized effectively, a thank you message can become an important coordination message for your team.

It is important for us to keep in mind that email communication is prone to miscommunication. Lack of courtesy and etiquette in email communication can create feelings of negativity and resentment in a team. It can reduce morale if team members do not feel that their work or input is appreciated. At the same time, a simple ‘thank you’ email message can serve practical purposes for effective project management if used correctly. There are some instances in which you can excuse yourself from sending a thank you email. If you have substantial face-to-face contact with the person, communicate with the sender regularly in other ways, and if the issue is not a major issue, feel free to not say thank you via email. However, you should be conscious of simply putting away an email before considering saying thank you. It is important to put yourself into the other person’s shoes and asking yourself if you expect to be thanked for what you have communicated. And, if possible, make your thank you message more than a simple thank you message by using it as a tool for moving your team and its project forward.

Continue reading to see a “cheat sheet” with a summary of this post for a handy reference in writing thank you emails!

When To Send a Thank You Email:

If the sender has gone out of her/his way to provide you with something;
If you would want to be thanked if you were providing the information you received;
If you would thank the person had the communication taken place on the phone or in person;
If the email was about a critical or time-sensitive issue and you believe it is important for the sender to know you have received it and will act on it in a timely fashion;
If you do significant amount of work with your colleague but don’t see her/him often.

When You Might Not Need To Send a Simple Thank You Email:

If you know the person is very busy and would not appreciate a thank you email (you may see this in the form of one line emails from that person); however, you can thank this person in advance with your request;
You meet that person often and can thank her/him during your next meeting;
The email you received was about something insignificant (e.g., chain letters, etc.).

When to Make the Most Out of Your Thank You Email:

When you want to keep the momentum going on a project and set expectations for the future steps and deadlines.

The post Email Etiquette: Is The Thank You Email Simply a Thank You? appeared first on Leading Virtually.

Rethinking the Value of Virtual Worlds for Virtual Team Collaboration

Surinder Kahai — Mon, 12 May 2008 21:49:31 +0000

The unexpected results from our studies comparing virtual team collaboration in virtual worlds to that in instant messaging (see previous post in which we discussed this) have prompted me to rethink the value of virtual worlds for virtual team collaboration. I have so far been focusing on the potential of virtual worlds to add value during the collaboration event itself. Examples of collaboration events might include meetings, problem-solving discussions, submissions of one’s document for review, or anything that involves interaction between team member to move the team’s project forward. Some of our earlier posts (e.g., Building Trust in Virtual Teams) as well as some of the articles I re-read recently reminded me that the happenings BETWEEN collaboration events also may add value to virtual team collaboration and that I should focus on such happenings as well. The happenings between collaboration events include casual conversation, observation of team members as they interact with others on matters unrelated to the team’s work, or any other interactions that don’t pertain to the team’s task or don’t move the team’s task forward.

One does not usually think about what happens between collaboration events in virtual teams because interactions among virtual team members are typically about the project and, thus, collaboration-oriented. It is atypical for a virtual team member to call or email another member just to chat. Interactions tend to be deliberate, focusing on the team’s tasks and moving the project forward. However, in a traditional setting (i.e., one in which team members are physically located in the same place), there may be interaction between collaboration events in the form of social chit-chat, observation of team members, etc. These interactions facilitate future work and help build relationships, and it is possible for virtual worlds to enable such interactions. Before we explore that possibility, let us briefly look at the work of Marjorie Sarbaugh-Thompson and Martha Feldman, who discuss these interactions in their paper “Electronic Mail and Organizational Communication: Does Saying ‘Hi’ Really Matter?.”

Sarbaugh-Thompson and Feldman say that in a traditional setting, there are two types of interactions between collaboration events. The first type is the casual social conversations. Social conversations may occur, for example, when we happen to meet someone in the hallway. One aspect of such interactions is that we signal to our communication partner that we are available or interested in having such interaction with her/him. Without such a signal, an engaging social conversation would not be possible. The second type of interaction that occurs between collaboration events consists of those in which we don’t wish to be engaged or it is not appropriate for us to be engaged. This may happen, for instance, when we are in somebody’s office talking and that individual receives a phone call. In such a situation, we signal our lack of interest in the conversation (the authors refer to this as signaling our unavailability) by looking outside the window. One thing common to both types of interactions that occur between collaboration events is that they tend to be unplanned and brief.

Sarbaugh-Thompson and Feldman argue that both types of interaction are crucial for team building and collaboration. Casual, unplanned conversations provide opportunities for organizational members to expand their network of contacts and their knowledge about other members. They enable gossip, which opens up channels that can be used for substantive work in the future. They are also important for socializing organizational members into an organization’s culture. In short, these casual, unplanned conversations are useful for facilitating work and social relationships in an organization. The researchers argue that such conversations are not possible in electronic media, such as electronic mail and discussion boards, because they (the electronic media) require planning or intent to communicate with someone, even if that someone is unknown or unplanned.

While casual, unplanned conversations are often recognized as valuable, the other type of interaction that Sarbaugh-Thompson and Feldman talk about is typically not even discussed. I believe a key point in Sarbaugh-Thompson and Feldman’s work is that interactions in which we don’t wish to be engaged or in which it is not appropriate for us to be engaged make an important contribution to collaboration, though in a less direct way. The researchers argue that how we signal our lack of interest in being engaged or engaging further is critical to the formation of our trustworthiness as communication partners. We may use a variety of nonverbal behaviors, such as appearing rushed in the hallway, remaining standing during a meeting, or edging towards the door to signal our unavailability for an engagement or to signal our wish to end an engagement. When, as we are passing by, we see A engaged in a conversation with B we may signal lack of our interest in that conversation through cues such as avoiding eye contact or scanning over a document that we are holding. By signaling our unavailability or lack of interest in engagement in a socially accepted way, we establish our social reputation (to those who can observe us) as trustworthy and valuable communication partners.

Based on their analysis of interactions that take place between collaboration events, Sarbaugh-Thompson and Feldman say (note their point about signaling unavailability):

We encourage managers to treat opportunities for casual contact as an important part of work. Our research suggests some reasons that the casual contact that occurs not only at conference resorts but also at such places as the coffee pot, the lounge, the hallway and the company picnic is important in building trust. Not only do such settings encourage casual conversation, but they also place people in circumstances in which they must signal that they are not available to chat. The ability to do so in ways that do not unduly embarrass the potential partner is an essential element in social interaction.

However, the interactions that Sarbaugh-Thompson and Feldman encourage are not possible in electronic mail, discussion boards, telephone/web conferencing, or shared folders, all of which are technologies that are commonly used by virtual teams. One is not a witness to the behaviors or activities of others in between the planned interactions enabled by these media. Could virtual worlds help us overcome this limitation of electronic media that are typically used by virtual teams?

Information in popular press about the use virtual worlds by virtual teams (e.g., see interview with Nicole Yankelovich, primary investigator or Sun Microsystem’s virtual world, MPK20) suggests that virtual worlds may enable useful interaction between collaboration events (see a video of Sun Microsystem’s MPK20, which demonstrates the informal encounters possible in virtual worlds used in an organizational setting). Virtual worlds may enable casual bumping into a team member and sharing reactions to last night’s championship game. If there is a gathering in the hallway that you should not interrupt, you may be able to show disinterest tactfully. Or, if you are having a meeting with someone, you may be able to shoot a quick “I will get back to you via email” to a team member who stops by looking for an answer s/he had requested earlier. Sure, some of the informal encounters in virtual worlds may help you conduct useful task exchanges and directly build relationships as has been previously recognized (see results of a survey on the use of virtual worlds for collaboration), but in others you may simply be signaling your unavailability for or lack of interest in engagement in a socially acceptable way. When these signals repeat over a period of time, they may contribute to the formation of an impression of you as someone who adheres to social norms and can be expected to carry out her/his role expectations and, thus, they may contribute to the formation of trust and collaboration within the team.

It may be interesting for researchers and designers of media for virtual teams to explore the combination of virtual worlds with social networking technology. Social-networking technology can provide transparency about what others have been doing between formal meetings or collaboration events. This may show how well an individual follows social norms when that individual engages others virtually. While virtual worlds rely on synchronous events to learn about others, social-networking technologies don’t and, therefore, may be an interesting complement to virtual worlds for teams that span distant time zones. However, it is not clear how signaling of unavailability when one is present occurs in social-networking technology, what it means, and what impact it has on the formation the impression of someone as worthy of communicating and working with. We need systematic research studies to evaluate the benefits of informal encounters enabled by virtual worlds and the increased transparency of others’ behaviors/activities enabled by social-networking technology to be able to arrive at useful prescriptions about which technology to use when. What this means is that it is time for me to get back to research!

The post Rethinking the Value of Virtual Worlds for Virtual Team Collaboration appeared first on Leading Virtually.

Manipulate Perceptions to Improve Virtual Team Performance

Surinder Kahai — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:00:42 +0000

Betsy’s last post on the power of self-efficacy perceptions reminded me of a recent study by Professor Ellen Langer of Harvard University. I am fascinated by Prof. Langer’s ability to conduct provocative research and have used her ideas in my research on the illusion of control in spreadsheet-based decision making. Prof. Langer’s recent study, which showed that perceptions can be more important than reality, is equally provocative. She surveyed hotel maids and found that even though their daily physical activity at work exceeded the U.S. surgeon general’s recommendation for daily exercise, 67% of those surveyed did not see themselves as exercising. In fact, the hotel maids’ body fat, waist-to-hip ratio, blood pressure, weight and body mass index matched their perceived rather than their actual amount of exercise.

Prof. Langer then set out to see if perceptions were influencing these health indicators. She broke up 84 maids into two groups. Maids in one group were explained how many calories they were burning when they did different tasks during the day. They were told that their level of activity already met the surgeon general’s definition of an active lifestyle. The other group was not given any information. Physical measurements of the maids taken a month after this surprised Prof. Langer and her team: the blood pressure, weight, and waist-to-hip ratio of maids who were given information dropped! Since there was no change in the maids’ work routines, Prof. Langer concluded that the physical change was due to a change in their mindset. The physical body was simply responding to the maids’ perceptions (altered by education) that they were exercising as they went about doing their work. Thus, what mattered was not the actual level of exercise (i.e., the real thing) but rather how it was perceived.

In virtual teams too, perceptions matter and can be made to matter more than reality. As in any encounter, virtual team members need some information about other team members. They use this information to size up others in their team. This sizing up determines future interaction by influencing the trust that is formed and by acting as a filter through which the behaviors and the work of others is interpreted. Eventually, it determines the team’s outcomes, including how well the team executes its project or task. If there is no past or current interaction to help members of a virtual team build this information, they rely on information provided by the stereotypes that they associate with other members of the team. The basis of stereotyping is likely to come from demographic and occupational information about team members. Thus, team members’ perceptions about others based on their demographic and occupational profile is likely to play a significant role in a team’s process and outcomes and may even supersede the individual abilities of team members to contribute to the team’s project.

Much like Prof. Langer, who tried to control how the physical body responded by influencing the perceptions about exercise, the leader of a virtual team can cue the perceptions of team members to build team spirit, cohesion, and trust. One often hears that it is not possible or very difficult to build these in virtual teams. In fact, a recent study also indicated this difficulty. It found that virtual teams displayed lower cohesion and satisfaction and greater leader emergence than face-to-face teams. The authors attributed the higher level of leader emergence in virtual teams to perceived failure of communal decision making. But we know from other studies (see a review of some of these studies) that people do form strong, trusting bonds with others in online groups/forums and, in many cases, even fall in love with someone online. So what can a leader do to build cohesion and trust in a virtual team? The Social Identity Model of Deindividuation Effects (SIDE) provides an answer.

A short form of the SIDE model is that when members of a virtual team don’t have visual information about other team members, they become sensitive to identity cues provided by the team’s interaction. If the cues consistently highlight the team’s social identity, then that social identity becomes salient to team members and they behave in accord with the norms associated with that identity. For example, consider a group of information technology (IT) specialists who assemble for an online discussion. If these specialists repeatedly refer to their professional background to make a point (e.g., we as IT professionals should do this, we as IT professions should do that, etc.), SIDE says that the specialists will pay more attention to their identity as IT professionals and they will conform to expectations of how IT professionals should behave. I have observed support for this model in my research, as have several other researchers. Incidentally, the social identity does not have to be a publicly recognizable identity. Studies have shown that even labeling the team members as TeamA_M1 (Member 1 of Team A), TeamA_M2 (Member 2 of Team A), etc. makes their identity as members of Team A salient to them.

This model tells us that the leader of a virtual team who wants to build team spirit, cohesion and trust should consistently cue team members to focus on a shared identity. For instance, team members may have experience with new product development. When team members cannot see each other, their attention is taken away from individual differences and they latch on information that highlights their shared identity. They begin to see others in terms of this shared identity. Team members are likely to see this shared identity positively because they are themselves associated with it. Furthermore, to be consistent with how they feel about having this identity, they are also likely to have a more positive view of their team mates who share this identity. In such a climate, team members are likely to cooperate with each other, trust each other, and be more influenced by each other. In my own research, I have found that when individual identities were downplayed (by keeping members’ input as anonymous) and group membership was made salient, group members agreed more with each other at the end of their task. Essentially, anonymity took members’ attention away from individuals and, therefore, from individual differences, in the group. This increased the salience of the group membership information provided to team members and they became more aware of themselves as part of a team, which apparently led to greater agreement with others in the team.

What does this mean for leading virtual teams? Here are some implications. All of them are based on this idea: emphasize the team and how its members are an important part of it. The focus should be on the whole (the team and its purpose). Even when you talk about the parts (the members), emphasize how the parts are related to the whole. Always keep the whole in perspective — this will help the members identify themselves in terms of the team and its purpose.

Think about how to focus attention during introductions and initial meetings. Team members will of course introduce themselves, and some virtual team experts recommend allowing each member to discuss him/herself a bit in order to make each team member feel like a person. During these introductions, the team leader should be steering the conversation towards experiences, skills, and abilities that can be related to the team project and team goals. This might even mean asking team members ahead of time to present themselves with team building in mind. It certainly means the team leader should be prepared for the meeting, knowing something about each member that can be related to the group. If your team is meeting for the first time face-to-face, you may want to share the team’s purpose and and how each member’s skills and experiences fit with that purpose before the meeting. This means the first impression formed about team members will be relating to group’s goals and its ability to accomplish them so that stereotypes based on demographics are less salient during the first meeting.
Use collaboration technology that makes the group identity salient. Email is not suitable because it relies on individual addresses. If you have to use email, see if there is a way for you to set up a group address that highlights the shared identity (e.g., NewProductDevGroup) and which you and others can use to address email to the team. This would be similar to what you can do with Google Groups. Google Groups allows you to set up a group consisting of all the members of your virtual team and you can use the email address it sets up to send email to all. When an email is sent to this address, others who it is from and the name of the group. Ideally, you will set up a collaboration workspace where you can share documents and calendars, conduct discussions, and manage your project. The ideal workspace would identify the team by its name and present the team’s purpose, its members and their roles (Ann Majchrzak, Arvind Malhotra, Jeffrey Stamps, and Jessica Lipnack provide an example of such a workspace in their paper “Can Absence Make a Team Grow Stronger?“). Seeing the names together can be the beginning of thinking of oneself as a team. These cues may be subtle, but can have an effect if they are pervasive. The point is that the team leader should take every opportunity to make the team salient.
For teams meeting or working in a virtual world, it may also help to minimize the differences between avatars. This might mean pre-designing avatars that are fairly similar, and that don’t have any pronounced demographic characteristics that would make members feel different or excluded. In order to make this feel fun, you might find creative ways to make the avatars represent the organization’s overarching identity or the team’s purpose and goals. For example, the avatars might all wear Tshirts with the organization’s logo on them, or even wear clothing that the organization manufactures. Or they might all wear colors that are associated with the organization (e.g., blue for IBM). Since they are avatars, this can be used to mask what might normally separate into demographic groups – perhaps the avatars all have blue hair to represent the company and NOT clearly represent any human population. In a virtual world, you will have a lot of creative leeway to use avatar design to focus attention on what team members have in common, rather than how they differ or what each person looks like in “real” life.
In many of our latest blog entries, we mention the benefits of creating a team compact. In this case, the benefit is that it asks team members to carefully consider how they fit into the team, what the team’s purpose will be, and how the team will do work. All of this focuses attention on aspects of the group rather than aspects of each individual.

What we suggest in this post requires leaders to use some very careful judgment. Chances are that the members of your team were brought together because they have a variety of skills needed for a project. There is no question that this kind of diversity is useful, particularly for innovative or creative tasks. But remember as a leader to keep focusing attention, at every opportunity, on how these skills complement each other to produce a capable team. Ultimately, your goal is to prevent team members from thinking about themselves as individuals with different skills than their teammates. Help them think about how they are a team that possesses a broad range of abilities and experiences.

The post Manipulate Perceptions to Improve Virtual Team Performance appeared first on Leading Virtually.