Tag Archives: telework

Virtual Teams and the Challenge of Cross-Cultural Differences

Posted on by
1
Cover of "The Handbook of Culture and Psy...

Cover of The Handbook of Culture and Psychology

From David Matsumoto’s The Handbook of Culture and Psychology:

The next two decades promise to be even more exciting for research on culture and emotion. Interesting programs have sprung up all around the world and in all disciplines of psychology. New technologies for mapping culture as a psychological construct on the individual level are being developed, as well as ways to measure precisely moment-to-moment changes in our brains and bodies when we feel or judge emotion. Collectively, these endeavors will tell us more in the future about the relationship between culture and the physiology of emotion, the representation of display and decoding rules, emotion perception, and culture itself in the brain (p. 161)

Having written a couple of posts (here and here) on the difficulties of cross-cultural communication and misunderstanding, the quote above provides hope that advancing technology and emphasis on cross-cultural research may help promote improved cross-cultural understanding in the future. Indeed, at the time that The Handbook of Culture and Psychology was published (in 2001), academics acknowledged that, even though contact and communication via computer-mediated technologies across different cultures around the world would increase dramatically (especially for work-related reasons), we are a step behind as far as cross-cultural communication research in this realm goes. Up through this point in time, cross-cultural researchers had focused on cross-cultural face-to-face communication and had largely neglected cross-cultural communication via technology. Just as we don’t want to assume that our understanding of people from the standpoint of Western psychology applies to everyone around the world, it’s also vital that we don’t assume that communicating via technology is identical to communicating face-to-face.

However, what can organizational leaders and managers do at this point in time to assure that their virtual team members around the world collaborate effectively? As I mentioned in this post, expecting to become an expert on another person by picking up and reading a book about that person’s culture isn’t reasonable. It’s unlikely that a summary of a culture will describe all the components of that given culture. Additionally, people in any specific region will differ from each other culturally due to many other factors – e.g., socioeconomic status, education level, life experiences, gender, age, etc. Comparisons of culture on a large-scale can tell you something about group-level differences, but knowing these averages will not help when dealing with individuals from a given culture as they can fall anywhere along the group distribution representing the whole group’s characteristics.

When cross-cultural miscommunication occurs however, it would be helpful to understand the way in which the other person views the situation. To this end, some steps that organizational leaders and managers can take include employing the services of culturally knowledgeable mediators or arbitrators and using behaviorally-based culture learning programs (Matsumoto, D., p. 427). The latter includes the following programs:

  • Information giving
  • Cultural sensitization
  • Simulations
  • Critical incident techniques
  • Culture assimilators
  • Experiential learning

Finally, in this video, Geert Hofstede compares and contrasts the acquisition of culture within societies and organizations, explains the introduction and impact of people’s native (i.e., acquired within society) culture on relational dynamics within organizations, and much more!

Want to learn about other aspects of innovating and improving collaboration of dispersed teams?

Don’t miss Better Collaboration’s upcoming videoconference! These events are specifically geared towards organizational leaders and this next one, on April 24th 1:00-2:30PM EST (10:00-11:30AM PST), will feature Matt Boyd, Co-Founder at Sqwiggle. Sqwiggle is an always on online workplace for your remote team to work together throughout the day. Their slogan: Remote Working, Made Awesome.

Register at the Better Collaboration Meetup site and check out services offered through Better Collaboration.

Related articles

Workshifting is the new telework. And it’s compatible with ROWE.

Posted on by
Reply

First there was telecommuting.  Then there was telework.  Now telework is workshifting.  WORKshift, an organization “dedicated to promoting, educating and accelerating the adoption of flexible work programs that allow companies across Canada,” explains:

WORKshift is more than just a telework program.

It’s a flexible work program that focuses on results, not the hours an employee sits at their desk.

When many people hear about flexible work programs, they think telecommuting. They think of people sitting at home in their bunny slippers with a laptop 5 days a week.

No longer does flexible mean telecommuting. WORKshift is a management practice that gives employees “permission” to work where and when they are most effective. Often this means someone is working from homes, an airport or a coffee shop just one or 2 days a week.

It’s not about reinventing your business – it’s about accepting that the change has already happened, and understanding how our companies, cities and families can benefit from it.

Cali Ressler and Jody Thompson, innovators of the Results Only Work Environment (ROWE) management philosophy that places the management emphasis where it properly should be — on the work and not the workers — might be wincing as they read the above description. Ressler and Thompson — the kick ass, no bullshit Thelma and Louise pair challenging the rationale and relevance of the traditional human resources-based management model in the digital age – might object to the use of what they term the new F-word: flexibility.

In the context of “workplace flexibility,” flexibility implies adjusting the outmoded 8-5, Monday through Friday, office attendance paradigm to accommodate people’s needs and not the work that needs to be done.  To hell with adjusting that model, Ressler and Thomson argue.  It’s time to junk it as an obsolete, pre-Internet, Industrial Age throwback grossly inappropriate to a time when knowledge work can be done most anytime and anyplace.

Their point is well taken and shows the importance of keeping the focus on the work and not who is shifting it to when and wherever productivity can be had. WORKshift does that by defining workshifting as a “flexible work program that focuses on results.”

Unlike “telecommuting” where the worker – the commuter – is the focus, in workshifting the work is what’s important. WORKshift also emphasizes work by capitalizing the word in its organizational name.  Gone is the “tele” prefix of telework that to the listener connotes and harkens back to its Industrial Age predecessor “telecommuting.”

Words are very important to perception and practice. WORKshift provides the critical distinction that makes workshifting quite compatible with ROWE. It’s a management model for our time, one that is clearly ready for export beyond Canada in an increasingly information-based global economy.

Work-Life Detours: Reflections on Yahoo’s Remote Work Policy Change

Posted on by
2
English: Yahoo! headquarters

English: Yahoo! headquarters (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By now many of you have heard the news about Yahoo’s CEO, Marissa Mayer, requiring all remote workers, regardless of where they live, to become onsite office workers or else quit. Even those who telecommute one or two days a week will no longer be able to do so. If you haven’t heard about this, here’s the story in a nutshell:



I don’t know, of course, the details of the situation and, much less, Mayer’s decision-making process when she chose to steer things in this direction. However I will say that, from an outsider’s perspective, moves like this one will damage the trust and faith of productive remote workers towards organizations that can’t take steps to resolve problems without yanking employees back and forth with changes in policy. Organizational leaders do have the prerogative to change their minds and take things in another direction. However extreme policies requiring hundreds of employees to suddenly uproot their lives and relocate so suddenly will have negative repercussions as a side effect.

Hopefully, the level of attention this news is receiving will open up the necessary discourse to instigate more serious inquiry into how to objectively assess employees’ productivity. As I detailed in a previous post, They need to see you there to know that you are working… Not!, serious investigation has not been happening! Visual confirmation of people arriving and leaving the office at certain, appointed times does not constitute objective assessment of productivity. Visual confirmation that people have spent nearly 8 hours at their workstation does not constitute objective assessment of productivity. Tracking and measuring results however, is the way to objectively assess productivity.

So you think that having employees work side-by-side and interacting face-to-face will enhance collaboration? Yes, a certain amount of that may help some come up with new ideas, although many writers and artists do this very well on their own. Moreover, anyone who’s ever been in a relationship before knows that too much time spent together can also cause friction, fallout, and unnecessary drama. Being forced to share the same physical space for 40 hours a week is a recipe for magnifying all the little, irritating traits and behaviors you find in your fellow coworkers. I’m going to go out on a limb by saying that more studies should be conducted on the impact of forced “togetherness” (according to time duration) on the quality of relationships with coworkers.

Often I have stated that the only way to guarantee that you can dictate when, where, and how you work is through self-employment, tough though it is to become established. I had been a huge supporter for clients who’re trying to launch their small business but, alas, I watched as some of them had to eventually give up and return to the 9-to-5 world. This news comes at a time when I’m also compelled by extenuating circumstances, for the time being, to focus less on self-employment and take up an employment opportunity beginning next week. It’s a good opportunity though, somewhere further down the line, I expect to keep chipping away at establishing a situation in which I can dictate the manner by which I work. I just figure this way I won’t have to be at the mercy of situations such as the one Yahoo’s remote workers are currently facing. For the movement towards accepting remote work options however, I hope that the overwhelming responses to Yahoo’s policy change will help turn this into a case of “one step back, two steps forward.”

Note to readers:

I’ll continue to contribute content 2 or 3 times per week and will soon make available a list of source materials that are readily accessible online. Also, look forward to future posts by guest blogger, Frederick Pilot, on the subject of work system transitional strategy and infrastructure.

Related articles

Towards Recognition of Individual Differences and a Less Standardized Work World

Posted on by
3

“But not everyone can work this way!” is the most common, instinctive response I hear when talking about telework (especially in a full-time capacity) or results-only-work-environment (ROWE). Through everyday conversations I learn about instances where a full-time teleworker had a difficult time working this way because the presence of a spouse or child at home was distracting. In such a case, I point out that teleworkers need to establish ground rules before attempting to work from home. Moreover, one can still keep daycare arrangements, enlist the services of a sitter, or work at a co-working facility if one is available. On the other hand, I’ve experienced working with coworkers who’ve constantly distracted me with non-work related issues as well (e.g., peppering me with questions about whether or not I want to have children for the umpteenth time), so working in a centralized office isn’t a definite solution to distractions. My conversation partner also pointed out that I’m just lucky to be able to function more autonomously and not need so much social support at work and that this is the reason why the benefits of telework speak to me so much. She followed up by saying that other people are not this way, but I already know that.

With regard to ROWE, a former salesperson who had worked in this capacity before (i.e., on commission) pointed out how intense the demand to constantly produce results gets and how he’d appreciate being paid for his time (along with the downtime) while on the job as well. Also, I can see why someone would want to be paid for the time spent attempting to accomplish a task even if success couldn’t ultimately be realized. As with telework, the benefits of ROWE stand out to me personally because I have a track record of finding faster, more efficient ways of accomplishing tasks. Hence, I’d feel more rewarded by a ROWE system than the standard method of assuming the necessity of an 8-hour workday.

When all the tasks I’ve been assigned to accomplish are finished, I ask for more to do anyway because I don’t like having to ride out the rest of the day, out of a sense of obligation, with nothing to do. Superiors seem to think they’re doing you a favor when they kindly respond with, “No, there’s nothing else for you to do today sweetie” and, without saying that  I may also call it a day and go home, I start thinking that I know how a prison inmate feels – restless, bored, and waiting for time to be up. At the same time, I’ve always realized that the standard system “cheapens” my labor as the larger number units of work I produce is compensated for at about the same amount as a coworker who produces fewer units of work in the same amount of time. Normally, fast workers would go along with this arrangement anyway in order to climb the hierarchical career ladder within the organization, but it looks like this is becoming less of a goal than it once was.

Yes, I understand that not everyone is like me. However, there are many, many jobs out there that aren’t compatible with telework or ROWE. So, I expect that there will always be room for people who can’t or don’t want to work under those conditions. People who protest “Not everyone can work this way!” should also remember that a large number of people don’t want to commute and work 8-to-5 or 9-to-5 either. Just because the vast majority have been forced to work this way for so long doesn’t mean that this is a great arrangement for everyone.

For some reason, whether through conversations with people I know or Internet surfing, I find that a lot of people are under the impression that work-life innovation advocates are somehow trying to get everyone to work this way or that way but it just isn’t the case. Such a goal would not even be realistic. This isn’t similar to a political movement that would have widespread application and bind everyone to it. Rather, this is about individualism and, in particular, helping others understand how to harness this knowledge about individual differences in order to boost the productivity of a society. This is about freedom and promoting more work situation choices. With enough choices, everyone will be able to find a suitable work situation. So, please don’t misunderstand. This isn’t about finding an alternative way to work and then subjecting everyone to it. I never envisioned that we would all want the same things. As a hardcore individualist, I have no problem if someone else, out of personal preference, works 9-to-5 at a centralized office while I telework under a ROWE even if we’re performing the same tasks. I just ask everyone to consider honoring individual differences by supporting choices.

The End of Organizations as We Know Them

Posted on by
2

Nanyangosaurus is the name given to a genus of...

My previous post, The Move Towards Self-Employment, touched upon the decline of organizations. This post will explain and expand upon this phenomenon. Just over a couple of weeks ago, I attended an educational forum on effective teleworking in Walnut Creek, California. James Hall,Vice President of Sales and Business Development at CoreLogic, was the guest presenter. He works virtually and mentioned that meeting face-to-face with employees about once a quarter worked for him. Thus, he extolled the strengths of the virtual organization in stating that organizations that don’t work this way will be left behind.

This isn’t the first time I’ve heard this message as several telework authors I’ve come across have presaged this as well. For instance, William A. Draves and Julie Coates, authors Nine Shift: Work, Life, and Education in the 21st Century, noted that the sign of a powerful organization will no longer be represented by a tall, beautiful building but by how geographically and/or temporally dispersed it is. (You may read more about Nine Shift here.)

However, when Mr. Hall put the eventual wipe-out of traditional, brick-and-mortar organizations in terms of a “dinosaur-level extinction,” I’ve wondered whether this was meant for dramatic effect ever since. Of course, it’s not difficult to understand why an organization with a decentralized, virtual workforce working at different times (i.e., business can run 24 hours a day with virtual teams working as if in a relay race) would annihilate an organization that limits itself to operating from 9 to 5, all else being equal. Notice that an organization is not even required to have employees at every point around the world to pull this off. Just allow employees to work when they want. Those of us with night-owl tendencies will happily take on the graveyard shift.

In contrast to Mr. Hall’s opinion, I’ve come across a few individuals of the Industrial Age mindset who assert that the outcome of this competition might actually be the reverse. However, this opinion seemed to be hastily expressed out of fear and anxiety that everything can change so profoundly in our lifetimes. In other words, they want to know that their current understanding of how everything is will carry forth into the future so that they can feel safe and secure in their knowledge and understanding of how to succeed in the working world. This very unwillingness to adapt one’s understanding to new circumstances is the issue that will lead to the downfall of organizations that don’t adapt.

So, I agree with the opinion of the many telework authors I’ve come across in speculating that few will adapt. Thus, a great majority of organizations will not relinquish their centralized, commercial real estate space, thereby freeing up capital, and opt for the more competitive, decentralized model. The only chance that brick-and-mortar organizations will see the light is, of course, by facing the difficulties of continuing operations through calamitous events (e.g., major pandemics, natural disasters, terrorist attacks). Moreover, making this transition to working virtually is no easy task for those that are interested in doing so. You may read about all that is involved in the following publications: The Reality of Virtual Work: Is Your Organization Ready? by Aon Consulting and Managing a Remote Workforce: Proven Practices from Successful Leaders by Future of Work.

I can’t guess when this eventual mass culling will take place. However, change is definitely coming and, in this competition, I’d put my money on the organization that works virtually for sure. What are your thoughts on this?

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

Posted on by
Reply

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.