Social Bonding Over Distance & a Look at the Lives of Digital Natives

Do we really need to commute back and forth every workday in order to foster and maintain relationships with a given group of people? Let’s consider this question. During my exploration of how dispersed teams function, I’ve encountered people (such as described in this post) who meet in person as infrequently as once a quarter. It surprises most people that this can work. Speaking from my own experience as a team member of Better Collaboration, I’m happy to report that there are other factors (aside from opportunities for in-person interaction) contributing to a sense of cohesion.

Upon comparing my experiences with in-person versus technologically-mediated meetings, I’ve observed that having a strong shared sense of purpose and common interests helps transcend the physical distance factor. So when I hear people say they would rather have others drive from one city to another just for the sake of getting everyone in one room for every meeting rather than have occasional virtual meetings, I wince.

Driving Cars in a Traffic Jam

Driving Cars in a Traffic Jam (Photo credit: epSos.de)



I propose that we look carefully at different variables that contribute to a sense of group cohesion. How much of this cohesion can be attributed to being physically present and how much can be attributed to group members having the same vision, goals, and interests? Have you ever been to a bunch of face-to-face meetings with the same people and NOT felt a sense of group cohesion? I have! For more times than I can count! I don’t discount the contribution of in-person presence. However, as someone who has forged some great friendships with people I might never meet in person, I think there’s something to be said for being passionate about the same issues.

Having been an online gamer and having known other online gamers has allowed me to gain insight into how readily people can form social bonds over the Internet (and yes, this isn’t always a good thing where young ones are concerned). However, it is interesting to see gamers playing alongside others who’re on the opposite side of the world, transcending distance and cross-cultural barriers, on a myriad of games – from MMORPGs to console games such as Call of Duty. From this experience, I’ve observed the type of trust, communication skills, and a sense of camaraderie that I’ve seen missing among employees who see each other 40 hours a week. However, you can also expect hostile interactions due to anonymity and disinhibition, especially in situations that don’t involve teamwork, as well! Back to the point – physical presence does not make up for a lack of engagement and shared interest in the endeavor at hand. Oh, and before you ask, yes, many avid gamers do go outside and have “irl” friends. So the entire bonding experience can’t be simply explained by not having an outside life.

Hanalei: a real Digital Native on the iPad

Hanalei: a real Digital Native on the iPad (Photo credit: Wayan Vota)



What’s more is that you can simply look at the social and recreational habits of digital natives, comprised of Generations Y and Z, to see that their lives are already characterized by a much greater degree of social bonding via communication technology when compared to previous generational cohorts. Their social circles are more likely to include friends in other regions of the world who they have not met face-to-face. See Figure 3B and the ensuing discussion in New Digital Influencers: The Coming Youthquake by Brian Solis. Although concern has been expressed over how much time young people are spending online and offline, it’s not realistic to turn back the clock to technologically simpler times. Concerned parties might be able to spur interest in offline activities however, as digital anthropologists like Brian Solis say, being born into a time with such advanced communication technology has impacted their life experiences. Rest assured, young people generally still want spend time offline with others.

Finally, note that there are other ways to foster group cohesion for dispersed teams as well. Some helpful strategies are laid out in 6 Strategies for Managing Dispersed Intelligence Teams by Orlaith Finnegan. However, with regard to the issues covered in this post I believe that more weight should be placed on selecting and cultivating people who share the same vision, sense of purpose, and goals rather than merely conducting frequent in-person meetings or squeezing everyone into the same building for 40 hours a week. (As a side note, a proper amount of space and time apart is good for relationships as well!)

In closing, here’s the first video in a series providing analysis of digital natives’ lives as well as contributions and challenges to organizations. Please share your thoughts, and stay tuned for the next installment of Images of Industrial Age Office Work!

For further interest in this subject matter, check out Connecting: How We Form Social Bonds and Communities in the Internet Age by Mary Chayko is Assistant Professor and Chair of Sociology at the College of St. Elizabeth (click here to buy the e-book and here for paperback).

The Evolutionary, the Catastrophic, and the Transformational

Great Transitions

Are you a technological evolutionist, catastrophist, or transformationist? This post will go over the meaning of these worldviews against the backdrop of technological advancement and globalization as considered by Great Transitions: The Promise and Lure of the Times Ahead (Rasin, P.; Banuri, T.; Gallopin, G.; Gutman, P.; Hammond, A.; Kates, R.; & Swart, R.; 2002).

In comparing the magnitude of the current technological transition to previous major transitions (e.g., stone age to early civilization and early civilization to the current modern era), Great Transitions, which is available here, introduces six worldviews with respect to technological advances, each describing a possible future. These worldviews encompass various philosophical and political thoughts including, “technological optimists and pessimists, market celebrants and Cassandras, social engineers and anarchists. Crudely, archetypal social philosophies can be placed in three broad streams – the evolutionary, the catastrophic, and the transformational…” (p. 9) and these are explained further below (pp. 9-10):

Evolutionists are optimistic that the dominant patterns we observe today can deliver prosperity, stability, and ecological health. Catastrophists fear that deepening social, economic and environmental tensions will not be resolved, with dire consequences for the world’s future. Transformationists share these fears, but believe that global transition can be seized as an opportunity to forge a better civilization. In a sense, these represent three different worlds – a world of incremental adjustment, a world of discontinuous cataclysm and a world of structural shift and renewal.

Unfortunately, Great Transition focuses in-depth discussion on the worldview Policy Reform while giving some treatment to Market Forces. I would’ve enjoyed more equal treatment across all six worldviews, however the authors provide a descriptive table of worldview categories which I’ve reconstructed (based on Table 2 Archetypal Worldviews, p. 17):

Archetypal Worldviews

…some see technology, rather than social agents, as the primary driver of change. Optimists celebrate the potential for information technology, biotechnology and artificial intelligence to entrain a broad web of favorable societal transformation. Pessimists warn of a dehumanized digital, robotic and bio-engineered society. But all scenarios – Market Forces, Policy Reform, Great Transitions and even Fortress World – are compatible with the continuing technological revolution (p.54).

Although aware of the possible downsides and dangers this technological revolution can bring (e.g., loss of privacy, etc.) as well as the challenges we are already experiencing (e.g., a world growing in complexity, work transition difficulties for many in the face of evolving and disappearing jobs, etc.) I see opportunities for a better work-life as well. Hence, I remain a cautious optimist. How about you?

Announcing the next Better Collaboration online Meetup, on Wednesday, May 22nd, 2:30-4:00 pm EST (11:30-1:00 pm PST): Innovating the way dispersed teams collaborate!
*******
Featured speaker in this event will be Paul Brody, CEO and Co-Founder of Sococo. Sococo is an innovative tool for fostering impromptu collaboration without having to physically be at the same place. Everyone can see who is around and, with one click, can immediately start a conversation or meeting (voice, video, chat, multiple screen shares).

These educational video conference series are geared towards organizational leaders wishing to learn more about improving collaboration and productivity through the use of online tools. Visit the Better Collaboration website or register here at on the Better Collaboration meetup page!

Is 100% unemployment realistic, desirable, and statelessly doable?

Reblogged from In defense of anagorism:

I find it hard to imagine a situation in which all real needs can be satisfied without any work being performed by people. I find it equally hard to believe that we will ever see full employment; understood to mean enough jobs to go around. Automation is real, and it's inconceivable to me that the future needs all of us. Thus, as long as we are living under a market economy, some of us will be expendable.

Read more… 531 more words

Is it conceivable? Thinking of a way to reconstruct a society in which all the work is being performed by technology makes for an interesting thought exercise indeed. However, some thinkers (such as Andrew McAfee in his TED presentation - see my previous post "The Move Towards Self-Employment") do see the possibility of a life where people are freed up to do other things. Can the currently assumed exchange between work and consumption be broken? Can the current unemployment situation be but a painful transition on to a life that is ultimately better? If money no longer mattered, perhaps some people would still be working and striving, but for different rewards (such as popularity or mere thrill of competition) as one of my conversation partners hypothesized. This possibility has optimists exclaiming "100% unemployment now!" However if we are striving towards this type of society, one of the worst risks we take is that our creations turn on us and we live out an event akin to "The Terminator: Rise of the Machines." On the other hand, the way we currently work is already ruining people's health and therefore slowly killing a good number of us so, if things keep going the way they are, the issue of our welfare becomes moot. Check out this interesting blog post, "Is 100% unemployment realistic, desirable, and statelessly doable?"

Office Robot Avatars for Telecommuters

Which do you think is likely to occur first? Sophisticated, remote-controlled, look-alike robots becoming affordable to the average person or full-time telework (for jobs that can be done remotely) gaining widespread acceptance? I’ve often wondered this. If it’s the former, and since I’m petite in stature, I imagine I would stash my stand-in double in the workstation’s coat closet so it would be ready to warm that office chair bright and early! I’d command it to work, and I’d collect the paychecks from afar. I’ve often shared this fantasy in jest without knowing, until recently, that this idea has manifested into reality in the past several years. It’s called telepresence.

The following are video clips of such a robot developed by Willow Garage, and it seems to run smoothly.

Robots Changing the Face of Telecommuting

However, this recent (August 2012) footage of the QB-82 shows that there is still room for improvement. Notice how awkward navigation can be and the occasional Wi-Fi signal interruptions.

My Life as a Telecommuting Robot

Finally this performance review for IvanAnywhere is rather funny.

Some Internet commenters have rightly pointed out that many of us want to work from home in order to avoid office commotion and noise as some jobs are better performed in a peaceful, quiet environment allowing for better concentration and reflection. Thus, having to experience the office chatter and interruptions through robots goes against the whole purpose of working remotely. However, I don’t think this has to be an “all or nothing” issue. If such robots become sufficiently cost-effective,  even those of us who enjoy working in an isolated, quiet environment have some reason to use them sparingly and when it’s most important to (e.g., at important meetings, to establish a presence at the office from time to time). Finally, this technology is a great solution for those who can’t travel for whatever reason (e.g., disabilities, illness, etc.) and want to work from home but yet be fully integrated into the office scene. What are your thoughts?

Nine Shift: Work, Life, and Education in the 21st Century

By William A. Draves and Julie Coates, Nine Shift: Work, Life, and Education in the 21st Century opens up with some historical overview about the transition from the Agrarian Age to the Industrial Age in the United States and compares this to the transition from the Industrial Age to the Information Age. The authors aptly noted cultural resistance to new technology and transitions in work systems both at the turn of the 1800s and at the time of the writing of their book. In doing so they present interesting and entertaining side stories such as L. Frank Baum‘s writing of The Wizard of Oz to convey pro-Agrarian values and resistance to encroaching Industrialization.

Draves’ and Coates’ anticipation that the transition from an Industrial Age work system to an Information Age work system would occur in a 20-year period similar to the transition from Agrarian Age to Industrial Age has not come to pass. However, their comprehensive and compelling list of arguments in favor of telework, an organizational structure that emphasizes fluid, flexible information networks instead of a hierarchical pyramid, and written over oral communication are, in my opinion, the most valuable information to consider in this book. They make a wonderful case, for the good of businesses (noting costs beyond the price of real estate) and employee productivity (allowing employees to choose the time and place for peak performance), to “stop building buildings.” The remainder of this book covers the ways in which the authors see the Information Age impacting other facets of societal life: motivating people to value their own time so that they come to prefer the use of trains over cars,  increasing consideration of whether or not space is well-utilized or not (using 18 hours per day as the threshold), and prevalence of online learning changing the roles of teachers and students.

For those unfamiliar with the topic of the Internet’s potential to change the way we work and live, this book is a great place to start. It is easy to understand and contains interesting, entertaining stories that underline their points. The book is also written from a personal perspective as the authors recount how they successfully reduced their commercial real estate expense and continued operating virtually.