We have been empowered with a plethora of technologies that close the gap between employees, irrespective of geographical location.
Why then is there still such resistance from companies to embracing these new communications platforms (instant messaging, Twitter, and Skype etc)? After all it would even cut their telephone bill!
I believe it comes down to the need for a change in assessment or performance management. Perhaps I’ll start by explaining why I think the new platforms are important and efficiency-driving tools.
Having worked across international borders for most of my career, and having worked remotely for an extended period in the UK, I have perhaps grown to use instant messaging more than many for the purposes of work.
In roles such as mine (global corporate communications manager) that work with many country offices, sharing information and collaborating daily, communicating with colleagues in their various geographies through platforms such as MSN, makes life so much easier than relying on the telephone and email.
Despite the risk of sounding stupid, let me take Bill and Ben as an example.
- Ben uses instant messaging all the time and works remotely for about half of his week and the other half in the office, whereas Ben is office-based but does not have instant messaging. Both of them have a report to finish which requires input from other markets. At 11am UK time, Ben sends an instant message to his contact in each market saying that he needs X – he can then carry on working on the other aspects of the report, while he waits for the responses from each market. He immediately gets responses from Paris and Dubai asking what specifically he needs – he is able to answer all of their questions within minutes. A few hours later when his colleagues in Atlanta awaken, they reply to his message – again he has answered all of their questions within minutes and is free to continue with his other work. By mid-afternoon all of his colleagues have sent their market information and he is able to finish the report before close of business.
- In contrast, at the same time (11am) Bill has to send an email to his contacts in each market – two hours later he gets a response from France (as his colleague in France waited until after lunch as they are an hour ahead) asking for more specific criteria, he replies via email explaining in more detail what he needs. The guy in Dubai is working on something and not looking at his emails, by the time he replies, asking for clarification, you are not able to respond in time as it is the end of the day in Dubai and he has left the office, so it must wait until the morning. Bill manages to finish his report by 10am the next day after receiving feedback from Dubai.
Some may argue that instant messaging platforms are pure timewasters, I disagree. In particular when working across time-zones, having an easy to use, constant connection whenever your counterparts are online makes communication so much easier and less formal then a telephone call, which usually requires something specific, as does an email. Furthermore, instant messaging allows the person at the other end to reply at a time that is convenient for them.
I think the resistance comes as companies feel they do not have control over the situation and the employee might be taking advantage.
Measuring on deliverables and results rather than process
It seems to me that in order to become comfortable with the use of new communications mediums (and remote working), companies need to readdress how they measure employees. The key is to look at the work that is achieved rather than the ‘process’ of having them sitting at their computer. To give an example – in my role, the measure is how many hits I achieve in the media, how many case studies I deliver, whether I complete web-content to a specific deadline etc.
Those companies that truly embrace these new technologies and allow people to commuicate in whichever channel is most effective will see efficiency gains and a better-integrated cross border team.
______________________________________________________
Filed under: Technology | Tagged: instant messaging, LinkedIN, new communications media, Technology, twitter
Hear hear! I don’t have a working hour when I’m not using IM in some form, whether its OCS, MSN, Skype or IBM Sametime – I don’t know how I would get answers if I didn’t have it ! Or even contact some people. Have you tried voicemail these days?
Our recent survey backs up exactly what you’re saying – the users (ah that would be me then..) are using all these tools, to both work and play! – more at http://www.facetime.com/forms/survey08_request.aspx
Thanks for the note Sarah – I am glad to you agree. There is so much press about companies banning these apps and seeing them as timewasters. Looking at your report, less than 40% of companies with fewer than 5,000 emplyees are embracing IM. I wonder when the tipping point will come and companies (progressive companies like Cisco and IBM aside) will enthusiastically embrace these channels of communication.
I just found this article referencing a study done by Ohio State University and University of California (found here: http://is.gd/r1G) which reinforces the “silly example” in my post above, that far froim being a timewaster these media are actually reducing disruption.
—————————
Instant Messaging Proves Useful In Reducing Workplace Interruption
ScienceDaily (June 4, 2008) — Employers seeking to decrease interruptions may want to have their workers use instant messaging software, a new study suggests. A recent study by researchers at Ohio State University and University of California, Irvine found that workers who used instant messaging on the job reported less interruption than colleagues who did not.
The study challenges the widespread belief that instant messaging leads to an increase in disruption. Some researchers have speculated that workers would use instant messaging in addition to the phone and e-mail, leading to increased interruption and reduced productivity.
Instead, research showed that instant messaging was often used as a substitute for other, more disruptive forms of communication such as the telephone, e-mail, and face-to-face conversations. Using instant messaging led to more conversations on the computer, but the conversations were briefer, said R. Kelly Garrett, co-author of the study and assistant professor of communication at Ohio State.
“The key take away is that instant messaging has some benefits where many people had feared that it might be harmful,” Garrett said.
“We found that the effect of instant messaging is actually positive. People who used instant messaging reported that they felt they were being interrupted less frequently.”
The study involved 912 people who worked at least 30 hours per week in an office and used a computer for at least five hours in a workday. Randomly selected participants from 12 metropolitan areas took a telephone survey between May and September 2006. The results were published recently in the Journal of Computer Mediated Communication.
The key to unlocking the effects of instant messaging lies in how people are using the technology, Garrett said.
Instead of dropping in unexpectedly, many are using the technology to check in with coworkers to see when they are available. Many also use the technology to get quick answers to general questions or to inquire about current work tasks instead of engaging in longer face-to-face conversations.
“We find that employees are quite strategic in their use of instant messaging. They are using it to check in with their colleagues to find out if they’re busy before interrupting them in a more intrusive way,” Garrett said.
Because of its unique setup, instant messaging allows users to control how and when they communicate with coworkers. The technology gives people the ability to flag their availability or postpone responses to a more convenient time, and because it is socially acceptable to ignore or dismiss a message, many use the technology to put off more disruptive conversations, he said.
“People see a new technology and they are innovative in how they use it. They will tailor their use of the technology to their needs and their expectations. And with IM, people had enough time to learn about the technology at home and to find ways to use it productively,” Garrett said.
“It is not the case that people are engaging in extensive conversations or trying to resolve complex problems over this very limited medium. Instead, people are using the technology to solicit answers to quick questions from colleagues and coordinate their conversations at more convenient times,” he said.
Ease of use and similarities to e-mail could foster greater acceptance of instant messaging in the workplace. And while the study provides clear evidence that instant messaging can be used successfully in the workplace, Garrett said the technology will not likely be as widely used as e-mail.
Garrett conducted the study with James N. Danziger, a professor of political science at the University of California, Irvine. The study was funded by the National Science Foundation and the Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations at University of California, Irvine.
—————————————————————————
Adapted from materials provided by Ohio State University.