A while back when the internet was still fairly new, my colleague Tony Larcombe and I realized that electronic communications had made office location irrelevant to getting projects and work done. Not only did location not matter, physical boundaries and time differences didn’t matter either.
What mattered was that technology could be used to make sure that individuals and working teams could work on projects seamlessly regardless of where they were. We called our model the Electronic Umbrella and we set out our ideas in a white paper called The Electronic Umbrella: Fusing People and Technology so the Organization Really Works.
We were way ahead of our time. People thought the Umbrella Model was unrealistic.
In fact, our vision has begun to come true, in part, because of improved electronics and in part, because of the rising cost of travel both in terms of time and money. It’s more effective and cheaper to have the right team members whether or not they are in the same place. Moreover, easy communications can make re-location unnecessary. Some people call this using a distributed workforce.
Improved electronics, communications coupled with high travel costs all act in favor of a distributed workforce. Even so, the distributed workforce will not work well unless the entire staff has bought into some form of the Umbrella model and is not merely giving it lip-service in order to have a job. It will not work well unless a comfort zone is created so that people who are miles or even oceans apart are willing and able to work together on an on-going basis without thinking about or being affected by physical location or by any discomfort with the technology that makes this possible.
Getting that done takes some expertise. But it is possible, it is effective and it is likely the model for the future.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Basic Assumptions
Almost all of us have at least one area of expertise. Whatever it is, we know the subject matter backwards, forwards and in our sleep. Our expertise has been amassed over time and often, we’ve forgotten how hard we had to work when we first began to learn the material.
Indeed, because we are so familiar with the material, we know the items in the foundation on which they rest so well that we don’t have to think about them anymore. Over time, they have become basic assumptions. When we talk to others, we generally don’t mention them much less think about them — we likely proceed from the level above the foundation that comprises our basic assumptions.
The problem is that most people outside our area of expertise don’t know our area very well. They may know very little about it or nothing at all. They have no way to identify the basic assumptions that are crucial to understanding what we are saying. As a result, they may not understand what we are trying to tell them. It’s not that they are stupid. They are simply not experts in our field. In fact, if they were to talk to us about their area of expertise, we would run into the same problem.
It doesn’t matter whether one is an IT person, a financial expert, someone who knows history or politics or something else. If we want to talk to someone outside our own area of expertise and have them understand what we are saying, we have to dredge up those basic assumptions, uncover them and lay them out in the light of day.
Indeed, because we are so familiar with the material, we know the items in the foundation on which they rest so well that we don’t have to think about them anymore. Over time, they have become basic assumptions. When we talk to others, we generally don’t mention them much less think about them — we likely proceed from the level above the foundation that comprises our basic assumptions.
The problem is that most people outside our area of expertise don’t know our area very well. They may know very little about it or nothing at all. They have no way to identify the basic assumptions that are crucial to understanding what we are saying. As a result, they may not understand what we are trying to tell them. It’s not that they are stupid. They are simply not experts in our field. In fact, if they were to talk to us about their area of expertise, we would run into the same problem.
It doesn’t matter whether one is an IT person, a financial expert, someone who knows history or politics or something else. If we want to talk to someone outside our own area of expertise and have them understand what we are saying, we have to dredge up those basic assumptions, uncover them and lay them out in the light of day.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Learning is in the Eye of the Beholder
Learning occurs in many places and under a variety of circumstances — at work, in school, in social situations. But wherever it occurs, it’s important to remember that it’s the person doing the learning — trying something new — who is important. The teacher — be he/she a boss, a colleague, a teacher or a friend — is there to enable — to do what it takes to make the effort successful.
In fact, there are two ways that people learn. There’s the Dive In and Figure It Out Approach and the Template Approach. People do one or the other, not because they chose to, but because that’s how their brains work. There’s nothing good or bad about either —they just are.
The Dive In and Figure It Out Approach puts the learner into a situation and lets him/her handle it. The assumption is that the person will figure out what to do and be successful even though he/she has never attempted the task, worked with the people, undertaken the tasks, seen the software, the equipment … whatever.
The Template Approach provides the learner with some guidelines to use the first time something is attempted. It assumes that by using them the person will be reasonably successful the first time something is tried, become comfortable with the situation, people, tasks and so on and, from then on, be innovative and creative. In other words, once people get the idea, they will experiment.
Both approaches have variations. Combinations of the two occur. But the basics remain the same.
The biggest mistake the person teaching — regardless of venue or title — can make is to assume that what works for him will work for the person trying something new. In fact, the only thing that matters is what works for the person doing the learning — trying something new.
Left to their own devices, people automatically use the approach that works best for them unless they feel threatened, as for example, if they think their job is at risk. Under those circumstances, they will pull in and do whatever feels as though it is least risky.
Absent that, the person learning will use the approach that works best for him/her. And it’s the learner who counts.
In fact, there are two ways that people learn. There’s the Dive In and Figure It Out Approach and the Template Approach. People do one or the other, not because they chose to, but because that’s how their brains work. There’s nothing good or bad about either —they just are.
The Dive In and Figure It Out Approach puts the learner into a situation and lets him/her handle it. The assumption is that the person will figure out what to do and be successful even though he/she has never attempted the task, worked with the people, undertaken the tasks, seen the software, the equipment … whatever.
The Template Approach provides the learner with some guidelines to use the first time something is attempted. It assumes that by using them the person will be reasonably successful the first time something is tried, become comfortable with the situation, people, tasks and so on and, from then on, be innovative and creative. In other words, once people get the idea, they will experiment.
Both approaches have variations. Combinations of the two occur. But the basics remain the same.
The biggest mistake the person teaching — regardless of venue or title — can make is to assume that what works for him will work for the person trying something new. In fact, the only thing that matters is what works for the person doing the learning — trying something new.
Left to their own devices, people automatically use the approach that works best for them unless they feel threatened, as for example, if they think their job is at risk. Under those circumstances, they will pull in and do whatever feels as though it is least risky.
Absent that, the person learning will use the approach that works best for him/her. And it’s the learner who counts.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
The Far-flung Business Team — More Plus Ca Change …
Going from the time of long letters about anything — business, government or friendship — to using the internet as a conduit for linking an enterprise and its teams without regard for borders or time zones appears farfetched to some. But it is it really so very different?
It is not as though the broadly based work team is new. After all, when what we now call snail mail was the only game in town, people collaborated through long letters and rarely, if ever, met. The ability to think things through was affected positively by the distance between team members because everyone had a chance to reflect and to develop ideas, concepts and solutions for business issues.
Mail traveled within a country or beyond its borders. Decision making was spread among people residing in vastly different areas — distance was a valued aspect of the process. Indeed, excluding far-flung team members or populations had serious consequences — the British lost 13 colonies for precisely that reason.
The telegraph and the telephone made it easier to communicate more quickly. But the railroad, the car and the airplane changed the way business was and is done. Actual physical presence became required. If a team was not in the same office and supervised in the same place, a cohesive approach was thought to be questionable at best.
The internet has the capacity to create as big a change in the way business is done as the railroad, car and airplane But that change is a modification of a proven approach. The internet and its tools — the video camera, e-mail, i-phone — make team cohesion possible regardless of physical location. Actual physical presence need no longer be required — the team will function and develop regardless of where its members actually are. Cohesion will occur and be maintained for exactly the same reasons as it did when long, detailed letters were the sole means of communication — and it will produce the same excellent results
It is not as though the broadly based work team is new. After all, when what we now call snail mail was the only game in town, people collaborated through long letters and rarely, if ever, met. The ability to think things through was affected positively by the distance between team members because everyone had a chance to reflect and to develop ideas, concepts and solutions for business issues.
Mail traveled within a country or beyond its borders. Decision making was spread among people residing in vastly different areas — distance was a valued aspect of the process. Indeed, excluding far-flung team members or populations had serious consequences — the British lost 13 colonies for precisely that reason.
The telegraph and the telephone made it easier to communicate more quickly. But the railroad, the car and the airplane changed the way business was and is done. Actual physical presence became required. If a team was not in the same office and supervised in the same place, a cohesive approach was thought to be questionable at best.
The internet has the capacity to create as big a change in the way business is done as the railroad, car and airplane But that change is a modification of a proven approach. The internet and its tools — the video camera, e-mail, i-phone — make team cohesion possible regardless of physical location. Actual physical presence need no longer be required — the team will function and develop regardless of where its members actually are. Cohesion will occur and be maintained for exactly the same reasons as it did when long, detailed letters were the sole means of communication — and it will produce the same excellent results
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Plus Ca Change, Plus Le Meme Chose
Why write a blog? Often it’s a marketing tool, a way to publicize — providing, of course — one can get people to come take a look at it. It is the obverse of the website which resembles traditional marketing techniques in that it looks to reach strangers who have never heard of you — thousands of them — relies on SEOs and advertising — and then seeks to convert these into paying customers.
As a marketing tool, a blog is different. It relies on inbound marketing which stipulates that if good stuff is put out in the world for free, as it travels along the lines of your social networks, the people who find you (1) will already be familiar with you; (2) will be favorably disposed to you because of what they've seen from you in the past and where they got it from; and (3) will be easier to convert into customers. Not only that, it's cheap or free (in terms of dollars needed), and bypasses all the problems with traditional advertising (both offline and online).
Beyond that, a blog is more than a marketing tool. A blog lets you talk to people. In that sense, a blog isn’t really very different than writing a letter was back in the 19th century before there were phones or e-mail. Writing letters — long literate letters — was the way people had conversations — conversations about anything — business, methodologies, politics, science, technology — anything at all. The conversations were serious, humorous, provided solutions, identified problems – and they went to friends and colleagues – and often were spread to their friends and colleagues. They went anywhere and knew no boundaries.
Letters let people transcend borders. Friends became closer, made introductions and the circles widened. Words let people converse whether or not they ever saw each other.
Plus ca change, plus le meme chose.
As a marketing tool, a blog is different. It relies on inbound marketing which stipulates that if good stuff is put out in the world for free, as it travels along the lines of your social networks, the people who find you (1) will already be familiar with you; (2) will be favorably disposed to you because of what they've seen from you in the past and where they got it from; and (3) will be easier to convert into customers. Not only that, it's cheap or free (in terms of dollars needed), and bypasses all the problems with traditional advertising (both offline and online).
Beyond that, a blog is more than a marketing tool. A blog lets you talk to people. In that sense, a blog isn’t really very different than writing a letter was back in the 19th century before there were phones or e-mail. Writing letters — long literate letters — was the way people had conversations — conversations about anything — business, methodologies, politics, science, technology — anything at all. The conversations were serious, humorous, provided solutions, identified problems – and they went to friends and colleagues – and often were spread to their friends and colleagues. They went anywhere and knew no boundaries.
Letters let people transcend borders. Friends became closer, made introductions and the circles widened. Words let people converse whether or not they ever saw each other.
Plus ca change, plus le meme chose.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
