OK - I know I'm late to this news item (it was in the Economist two weeks ago) but in case anyone has missed it feel the need to report.....that Blackberry (handheld e-mail and phone devices) users are getting symptoms of over-dependancy. Perfect distraction stuff.
One man admits that his wife "has threatened to flush his blackberry down the toilet. Meanwhile bosses grumble that no-one pays attention in business meetings any more, because they are so busy doing e-mail under the table".
The Economist cheerfully suggests that it is just a matter of time before people learn to adapt. Perhaps - but I'm not so optimistic. Incoming messages are addictive and suggest a level of social importance (somebody out there wants me!).
Several years ago (when I was at Razorfish) I was leading a meeting with a very well known technology company. An agreement had been made globally that Razorfish should partner with them. Our meeting was to discuss how this would work in practice in Europe. During the usual hiatus at the start while coffee was made and people settled down, all the people from the partner company opened their laptops, plugged into the internet (in our meeting room) and began to check their mail. Which was fine, except they continued to do so after the meeting had begun. Some of them were taking and sending text messages too, one actually had whispered phone conversations on his mobile. Not only was this completely dysfunctional behaviour, it was making it very hard to conduct a focussed event. I decided to make it clear that this had to stop in the interests of good, clear communication – so asked that everyone switch off their mobiles and shut down their laptops. This did not make me popular. In fact I had to repeat the request several times to the phone whisperer, with increasing insistence, until he reluctantly complied.
Telling this tale now I realise that for many familiar with big (and some small) corporations it will not come as a surprise – though it would surely be a huge shock to an executive time traveller from 15 years ago. Since then I have seen the same behaviour in many instances – often in very well disciplined companies . Perhaps it is endorsed and encouraged by those at the top.
A friend of mine who works in an IT services company says it happens all the time. He also observed that the cause is often people being in the wrong meetings. Stuck in a dull meeting, if someone decides that they have nothing to contribute or learn, then it is tempting to turn to other tasks if the opportunity is there. The answer to that problem is surely to ensure that people don’t waste time attending pointless meetings. This of course is an age old organisational conundrum, and not the fault of new communication technologies. One might argue that it is better for them to use time answering mail than pretending to participate. However what of those people who go to meetings, but decide that only bits of the day are relevant. Can they too selectively duck out until the time is right to pay attention? How do they know which bits to listen to? And what of the signals this sends to other participants? Charles Handy in “The Hungry Spirit ” tells of the head of a large consulting group who complained to him that “her people are now spending so much time listening, reading and responding to their incoming communications that they have ceased to think. Efficient? Yes. Effective? I’m not so sure”. Actually I’d question the efficiency too.
This reminds me of some work we did for a large global tech company a couple of years ago. We were running a process which required - in our view - a series of one-day workshops with managers. (We'd done it that way already with a wide range of organisations and it had worked). The client didn't think we'd get through the work in a day. When we got to the first session, the reason was clear; everyone was so plugged into their virtual channels that they weren't concentrating on what was happening in the room. Given that the value of the process to the company was having the people sharing the experience of the process and building something from their explicit and tacit knowledge, and some people had travelled a long way to be there (and they could anyway plug their virtual selves in during the lunch break, after the session finished mid-afternoon, etc) this was neither efficient nor effective.
Posted by: Andrew Curry | July 10, 2005 at 11:02 PM