Micro Organizational Behaviour

School is back in for lots of people, including, yours truly. Among my back-to-school activities was spending a day this week in the Schulich Centre for Teaching Excellence. It lived up to its name in providing a high bar, as well as insight, tools, resources and support to clear the bar. Following the “diversity” that underpins all aspects of the school, instructors are encouraged to meet/exceed expectations in any way they see fit.

Perhaps not surprisingly, there was lots of discussion on how to handle the use of laptops (the entire facility has wireless Internet access), and presumably other communication devices in the class. Just like the real world, there is no formal policy, and the guidance from experienced faculty covered the gamut, including one instructor who said that a full out ban was the best answer. Comparable rules in the workplace are not unheard of (e.g. hand over your device to the Blackberry Check before you enter the meeting… don’t lose that ticket!).

What to do?

For those of you taking my course this semester, here is what you can expect. In the spirit of “dialogue,”  we will clarify expectations on both sides, and see if we can agree upon (negotiate) some behaviours that support meeting those expectations. I have no idea if it will work but I do have a strong BATNA. I would suggest that students show up with pens and paper just in case.

For those of you not taking the course, I will keep you posted on any agreement that we reach and detail it here, if possible. I am not expecting anything groundshaking, nor do I think this approach is extremely innovative. In most settings, I think that the behaviours and norms develop, but I hope this dialogue can clarify and accelerate a healthy balance while meeting needs and expectations of all parties. I know of some organizations that are starting to encourage these same dialogues.

Maybe we are onto something here.

Stories about work/life balance and mobile communication (usually Blackberrys) are easy fodder for articles and columns on business skills, careers, etc. A recent such article (Blacking out the Blackberry from canada.com) provides one “after work solution” and one “during work solution” in its discussion of the “PDA pandemic.” Both suggestions are problematic, in my view.

Apparently the Canadian Citizenship and Immigration Department has issued a “Blackberry blackout” between 7PM and 7AM to help people detach from work and focus on family members. I guess the message could be: be productive while you are here, so you don’t need to take work home. Great idea, right?

I would say “No.” What about the people who jet out the door at 5 (to get home for dinner with their family, make a yoga class, etc.) but then log on from home later (after the kids are in bed, or after “So You Think You Can Dance,” etc.) to tidy things up that can be handled by e-mail? Smart employers will find employees who can balance themselves and provide them with the tools and flexibility to do so.

The “during work” rule used soccer (aka football) precedent of two strikes your out: employees get a yellow card warning for checking their Blackberry during a meeting; the second offense garners a red card, which brings a penalty of paying your own PDA “phone bill” for the month (likely in the neighbourhood of $500). What a great deterrent, right?  Not if you think back to your Psych 101 discussion of rewards and punishment (Skinner anyone?).

In this world with information and request overload, why not be explicit about “competing” for people’s attention? If I have called a meeting (or am delivering a presentation) it should be my job to get your attendance and keep your attention. Colleagues should have the right to decline on both fronts, but more often give the former and withhold the latter. Let’s shift meetings from “necessary until proven useless” and put the onus on people to explain why others should be there. Do we really need the update? If so, why? Do we really need to get together every week to “go over” things? If so, why?

NOTE: The trick is in asking those questions (especially of superiors) without getting backs up.

If I, as the meeting instigator, have failed to get your attention, go ahead and catch up your e-mails. It’s probably the best use of your time. Maybe then you can get your work done before they turn the servers off at 7PM!

“The Boy Who Cried Wolf” was written by Aesop in the 17th century. The premise of the fable is that lying will diminish your credibility. Perhaps a modern take on the fable is: assume that people don’t believe you. This may be the result of the “urban myth” or of the constant onslaught of spinformation, but there is nothing wrong with some healthy skepticism.

I think some skepticism is warranted toward a community warning regarding Withrow Park in Toronto. There was apparently a incident involving a rape in the area. One member of a community group took it upon themselves to e-mail the warning the rest of the community and confirm that the incident did indeed take place. Further more, a man (who did not want to be identified) suggested in the National Post account that police ought to do something because the source was “reliable” and something serious took place. His argument: put the unsupported information out there and let people make up their own minds!

Forcing people to “make up their own minds” in this situation is calling to murky underlying beliefs that have no place in solving the problem. “He said; she said” forces you to side with “he” or “she.” Who gets the benefit of the doubt in that case depends on many variables. “We can’t tell you what she/he said or who she/he is, but please listen to how serious this is” makes it much less rational and begs for overgeneralization. Knowing the details (as uncomfortable and private as they may be), will shine some light on what should be done.

The police have work to do in order to be a trusted partner in finding the solution. Not being brought “into the loop” is a strong indication that they are viewed as an “out-group” in this community. Once the right information is out, we can start to clearly address the issue. Until then, as interesting as it is to observe, the issue gets increasingly clouded by unsubstantiated claims.

Try discussing communication without mentioning technology and you start to feel old because you have to revive images of how people did their jobs “before e-mail” or “before the Internet.” It is therefore not surprising that stories about controversies involving communication and technology tend to have legs, a la “Chris Avenir, Facebook and Ryerson” tale, which reared its head in a National/Financial Post/canada.com article by Blair Makin.

(I have to say that I do not envy Ryerson the negative PR they appear to continue to garner! See my discussion from my earlier post on this story.)

I think that Mr. Makin misses an important part of the need for Gen Ys to communicate effectively with each other and with their organizations: the problems are rarely about the technology! Compromised intellectual property and security are important, but far from the largest concern when opening communications and harnessing the collaborative nature of Web 2.0. The problem that communications and technology run into is that I lose control of the ability to choose who sees my message. This takes away the essential “positioning” (e.g. grease for the wheels) that has to take place with those who may trust me to a lesser extent because (a) they don’t know me yet, or (b) they have made up their mind, based on previous communications, that they shouldn’t. (If I have the time and skill to bullet proof my arguments, I needn’t worry. Case in point: how many iterations did this piece go through before being released to editorial staff at the Post? I would guess lots!)

He glosses over the challenges of collaboration when “young egos are at stake.” I would be worried more about the higher-ups, who may be feeling a tad insecure about all the change and may respond negatively because of their own ego issues. Beyond ego, there is old-fashioned manners and respect (here I go sounding old again!), which are tough to convey electronically in a written form. These subtleties can be conveyed in an voice or face-to-face interaction, but will be inferred from an written communication. If you have the benefit of the doubt, you need not worry. If you don’t (and you don’t!), you may affect your reading on the benefit-of-the-doubt meter.

Not surprisingly from an executive from a communications technology provider the article concludes that “Today’s bright and energetic Gen-Yers” need to be given connectivity tools. If no one is listening to them anyway (because they have failed individually to garner the benefit of the doubt), connectivity merely enables more noise in the workplace. The non-Yers, sadly, may decide to disconnect.

I had the opportunity to sit in on a discussion this week among CIOs and senior technology executives. The theme of the discussion what “Innovation” and what is standing in the way of it. One common issue in the discussion was the overwhelming lack of credibility that these executives appear to have in their organizations. Backing up from the situation, this is appalling. Even followers of Nicholas Carr realize that operationally technology plays a giant part in all organizations today. Apparently the backlash from Y2K and dot-come has yet to wane.
Note: It is pointless to debate whether or not companies can derive sustainable competitive advantage from technology. If it were easy to pinpoint areas to develop the source of advantages, they would cease to be sustainable.
Here are two things that arose in the discussion that I believe can help the case of the CIO who gets no benefit of the doubt from the executives.

1 –Have the pound of cure ready

When you cries of warning are treated like “crying wolf,” and the executives aren’t buying into the ideas, turn your attention to the contingency plan. The ounce of prevention only has appeal to those who understand the potential problem. If hypothetical scenarios aren’t getting through, powerful evidence can come in the form of a real-live incident.

Note: it would be professionally irresponsible to let a major failure occur.

Small incidents that are successfully rectified can provide the objective evidence that some may need to believe you next time. Garnering zero benefit of the doubt may be a reality for some IT executives. This is a way to gain relevance by attracting a bit of negative attention.

2 – Whisper to the King

Art Kleiner’s book “Who Really Matters” is an extremely interesting discussion of who has swagger in organizations. (Look for more discussion on this book!) From the conversation this week, IT executives are very clear on who is “king” in the organization. (Marketing was identified as the “in group” by one CIO; not surprisingly, “editorial” reigns according to a media-industry CIO.) The internal sales job starts with why would this matter to them, and can this become a priority issue for this group.

This is common sense for anyone who has worked in sales, but it seemed like an “aha” for some of the people in the room. Having the conversation with individuals in these groups can help raise the benefit-of-the-doubt reading, and can also identify the levers available to be pulled.

Building what Art Kleiner calls “reputation equity” appears to be a priority for at least some of the group that gathered this week. Events in the later 90s and early millennium have not helped the reputation of the entire function, but there are some ways to add value while bearing that particular albatross.

Helping to clean up a mess can be an effective way of demonstrating relevance. Reputation equity can help, whether in providing strength for the albatross or downsizing it to seagull status. Needless to say, many CIOs have a tough row to hoe.

Martin Byrne from Yahoo Canada was quoted earlier this month talking about the importance of search in the modern marketing mix (here). This lead me to look at his personal website, which, among other things, lists advice on how to get in touch with him. The gist of his advice provides part of the dilemma that technology in communication has created.

Want to reach out to Martin Byrne?
Note to those from the just-so-crazy-it-might-work school of thought: no postal address or fax number is even listed.
Not surprisingly, the advice is “send me an e-mail.” The address of choice is “work.” By the way, there are two phone numbers. Call display will likely give you voice mail on the cellphone, and calling the deskphone appears to be as effective as opening your window and yelling, “Hey Martin!”

I admire the honesty of Mr. Byrne’s advice: “Send me an email and I’ll send you my home phone…unless I don’t want you calling me at home.” Technology in communication puts enormous pressure on written communication in the unsolicited modern-day cold call. The first hurdle for a terse and attention-getting message will be to get past the spam filter. Breaking through the clutter is still unlikely given the amount of e-mail we receive. (One might assume that traffic at Yahoo! Canada is higher than average.)

What to do? We actually come full circle, back to the days of relationship. If you really want to get through to Martin Byrne, you want to find an “in.” We are back to the old-school relationship whereby you get past the gatekeeper. Today’s gatekeepers are call-display numbers and from-box names.

If you can’t get the “in” and have to resort to the work e-mail approach, it is well worth spending time on the message (and ensuring that you steer clear of filters). Mark Twain famously apologizes to a correspondent for not spending the time to write a shorter letter. When your chance at a first impression is reduced to 20 typed words, it will be worth investing the time to choose them wisely.

I had the opportunity to work with a group of undergraduate business students over the weekend, and the subject of Ryerson’s Chris Avenir arose. He is the Facebook group administrator who is bearing the brunt of student collaboration on an individual chemistry assignment.

If there was any support for Ryerson’s position (that Chris enabled cheating), it was not voiced in the room; I suspect it was absent because fellow students “get” how silly it is to treat Facebook collaboration as anything more serious than a library study group. Those on the “inside” won’t argue that, and would be discouraged from doing so, especially in that room.

Outside the room, in the cold March light of day, let’s ask the question:

Is it cheating because they were cheating, or is it cheating because they (and Chris as the administrator) got caught?

Argue whether or not the falling tree makes a noise, but I think that the public group’s description puts Ryerson in the tough position of having to turn a blind eye when there is evidence that the rules (or, at least instructor directives) have been breached. Students have to take responsibility for keeping the collaboration secretive. Study groups don’t take place within earshot of the instructor!

Earlier this year, I was working with another group of twenty-somethings. One of the crew shared with me a story that equates. On an unnamed highway in Western Canada, he was driving in a line of cars behind a police car. The police car was driving about 10 km/hr above the posted speed limit. Highway drivers in Canada know that the understood highway limit is up to 20 km/hr over the speed limit. Confident in this knowledge, our friend pulled out and passed the police officer, making sure to remain slightly under the understood limit.

Did he get pulled over?

Of course he did… and the officer rightly questioned his capacity for good judgement.

Some mutual understandings can counter explicit rules, but when dealing with people in authority (school administration, police officers, etc.), be careful how openly you flaunt the rule bending. If the Facebook group description had not talked about “sharing answers” and stuck to “discussing problems,” it may have allowed Ryerson administrators to keep a blind eye, and not have to turn one.