The good news is that many companies are now offering in-office avatars or embodied social proxies (ESPs). Basically robots that can be remotely controlled, the ESPs are a substitute for a remote worker being in the same building as the rest of the team. The ESP usually has a speaker, video screen, microphone, and camera, which allows real-time audio and video to be sent and received by both the satellite and the hub. It’s like having your own robotic avatar roaming around the office building.

We’ve previously covered these ESPs or in-office avatars here at WWD, specifically mentioning Anybots – which costs $15,000 per unit. Similar products include VGo ($5,995 for the unit and a $1,195 annual service fee) and the Texai Remote Presence System (no pricing information yet).

The costs of these in-office proxies tends to make one skeptical about whether the value they provide is worth it. Will companies get a return on their investment? And what benefits can we expect from using these things?

What ESPs can do for remote workers and hub teams

According to researchers from Microsoft Research and the University of California, Irvine, the continuous presence of the proxies in each team improved their social connections as well as their mutual support in work activities. The lone remote workers were easily available to participate more fully in meetings and impromptu discussions. This lowered uncertainty among colleagues and gave them a closer sense of proximity.

Other studies support this, including this recent study published by ACM Press. Researchers Min Kyung Lee and Leila Takayama noted that even though teams previously used phone and video conferencing, these proved to be too limiting because the remote workers were often left out of meetings and decision-making. With the ESP, “[...] remotely controlled mobility enabled remote workers to live and work with local coworkers almost as if they were physically there.”

The informal and spontaneous interactions probably contributed a lot to this sense of proximity. Based on the interviews with the participants, impromptu work meetings, worker availability, and planned social interactions were the top three activities that showed the most improvement. Impromptu meetings, which were usually for getting answers or sharing ideas, mostly took place in hallways and other shared spaces. This kind of spontaneity would be almost impossible with web-based conferencing, email, or chat, since workers would have to return to their workstations to conduct these types of meetings.

The researchers note that these spur-of-the-moment meetings could show commitment and build stronger social connections among geographically distributed workers.

Apart from more nuanced real-time interactions, ESPs also provided the most value during creative design tasks. According to the Microsoft Research and Univeristy of California paper, “Teams involved in creative design activities perceived a greater use value of ESPs, as they allowed the satellite members to more fully participate in the design process, inside and outside meetings.” Remote workers and on-location teams could easily participate in fast-paced design discussions. It was also much easier for both parties to communicate ideas visually via gestures, diagrams, and whiteboards.

The challenges of using ESPs

Apart from cost, there are a few disadvantages or inconveniences to using ESPs.

The first of these is the remote worker’s difficulty simply driving the ESP. Though this is learned over time, driving was usually done simultaneously with other tasks such as conversation or presentation. In the study conducted by Lee and Takayama, sometimes it was more inconvenient to use the proxies for meetings because they had to drive it to the meeting room. Though driving in itself wasn’t difficult, it consumed a lot of time. Remote workers then had a tendency to be late for meetings.

Experiencing network delays also proved to be challenging. When the internet connection is slow or unreliable, the delays made it hard to achieve the impromptu and nuanced discussions that the ESPs were supposed to provide.

There were also cases when the quality of the machine had an impact on the perceived quality of the worker. When, unbeknownst to the remote worker, the machine was too loud, colleagues perceived the worker himself as loud and disruptive to the workplace.

New etiquette rules were also needed to foster smoother interactions between remote workers and hub teams. For example, it was sometimes seen as a violation of personal space when colleagues changed the volume, orientation, or location of an ESP without asking the remote worker’s permission. Co-located teams, on the other hand, found it rude whenever remote workers did not drive their ESP away at the end of a conversation — even if they were no longer paying attention to whatever went on around their ESPs.

Who benefits the most?

Based on the studies and tests done on ESPs so far, it seems that these devices are best used when the company setup includes a hub office where most workers are co-located, while having only very few remote workers. Fast and reliable Internet connections should also be available to both the hub office and the remote workers — without it, your team won’t experience the benefit of richer real-time interactions.

It’s clear that ESPs have their benefits, but whether these benefits are worth it would depend on how your team works and the kind of work that you do.

Do you think ESPs would be useful in your company? Why or why not?

Thumbnail photo courtesy of Anybots.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Millennials in the enterprise, part 1: strategies for supporting the new digital workforce
• Startup growth and the new recruiting ecosystem
• Personal tools lead to practical business

As virtual worlds become as prevalent in business as they are in games and socialization, we need to learn how to present ourselves as effectively as possible in this medium. Since first impressions count in virtual teams just as much as they do in face-to-face teams, we need to take our virtual appearance more seriously. In the case of these immersive environments, appearance is based on our avatars.

How do we create avatars that are more than just placeholders? Which avatar features contribute most to the quality and richness of the conversation?

Eye gaze

While 3-D avatars can generate motion and activity, it doesn’t seem to be enough. Just because an avatar looks and moves like a person, it doesn’t mean that the quality of communication mimics face-to-face interactions. Avatars still can’t use subtle body language in the way humans do. But adding even something as mundane as head and eye motion, combined as “gaze”, can make a huge difference.

This was demonstrated in a study conducted in University College London. The research compared an avatar whose gaze was based on the conversation’s turn-taking (informed-gaze) and an avatar whose animations were unrelated to the conversation (random-gaze). They also compared these two types of avatars to other media, such as live video and audio-only conversations.

According to the study, even the inclusion of a relevant, expressive gaze created a significant improvement in the perceived quality of the conversation. When comparing to the participants’ sense of involvement, informed-gaze avatars barely had a significant difference from communicating via video.

What’s even more surprising is that the random-gaze avatar had no significant improvement over pure audio. This implies that a mere 3-D presence doesn’t automatically mean that the communication quality and richness improves. To be truly useful and engaging, avatars must exhibit behaviors that are relevant to the conversation — even if it’s something as simple as eye gaze.

Gesture and manners

Taking a step beyond eye gaze, it appears that other non-verbal manners, and our responses to them, persist in virtual worlds.

In a study from Stanford University, researchers observed how interacting avatars used interpersonal distance and eye gaze in Second Life. Based on their observations, non-verbal norms were still present, even if controlling them meant moving a mouse and keyboard rather than our own eyes and legs. The study, which focused on gender norms, showed that male-male pairs, like their face-to-face counterparts, maintained less eye contact and were further apart than female-female pairs. Also, when the “physical” distance between avatars was decreased, the avatars compensated by avoiding eye contact — just like people would in the offline world.

But it’s not just gender norms that persist in virtual environments. Cultural norms are still exhibited, even when the technology allows us interaction with people from different cultures. An experiment from Augsburg University in Germany showed that cultural speech nuances such as timing and pauses affected a viewer’s preference for an avatar. Their results showed that people preferred avatars that exhibited the nuances from their own culture. Perhaps this means that even if we are meeting other people in a virtual environment, we should still take cultural factors into account when we’re communicating.

How important are these cues? Quoting from a paper on the use of avatars in collaboration (PDF):

The ability or inability to maintain an “appropriate” interpersonal distance or the ability or inability to control one’s viewpoint so other avatars may be seen, among other things, will affect the feeling of being there together. [...] Being in an environment where people feel connected is more likely to enhance development of trust and reduction of conflict, which in turn lead to more effective collaboration.

(Source: “Avatars, Text, and Miscommunication: The Impact of Communication Richness on Global Virtual Team Collaboration”, Columbia University)

Looking back at all the research, it’s a lot to take in. Doesn’t it seem cumbersome to have avatars that allow you to control all of these tiny factors? After all, in real life we barely even think about these non-verbal cues.

The answer is simple: it should be automated in our avatars’ programming, just as it is in our own minds and bodies. The more these virtual environments have an intuitive interface, and the more these communication nuances are automated, the more natural it will be for most people to successfully use their virtual world avatars for collaboration.

How do you create and control avatars?

Photo courtesy Flickr user cloud2013

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Report: Virtual Worlds for the Enterprise Market
• Virtual Worlds: Trends and Opportunities

But does video really perform as well as face-to-face interaction? How does it compare to audio-only communication? Does it always outperform text-only channels like instant messaging and email? Let’s look at different types of tasks and see how video affects the work and communication quality experienced by remote teams.

Technical Tasks

In a study from Carnegie Mellon University, instructors coached inexperienced participants to repair a bicycle. Each pair communicated in one of the following ways: side-by-side, with an audio link, or with an audio-video link. The groups who worked side-by-side accomplished the task around 25 percent faster than the audio-only and audio-video groups. The latter two groups had no significant difference in time taken to complete the task or work quality.

How come video made no difference to the effectiveness of communication? In the experiment, the setup also made it hard for instructors to see referenced equipment; the worker had to maneuver the camera in its direction. This suggests for technical tasks, audio-only and audio-video connections might not result in a significant difference in work quality unless a sufficient quantity of visual information is shared. We should include views of the workspace, necessary equipment, and even the facial and gestural expressions of the participants. Plus, everyone must understand what visual information is being shared, to avoid repeatedly and unnecessarily asking other participants what it is they can see.

Negotiation

Research shows when it comes to negotiation, the richer the medium, the more collaborative negotiation becomes. Competitive bargaining is reduced, and negotiators exert more effort seeking common ground. This also reduces bargaining time and allows participants to become more open to future negotiations. So when you need to conduct remote negotiation and want it to be as collaborative is possible, always go for the richer medium. This means favoring videoconferencing over audio-only communications.

There is also more subtle kind of negotiation: the negotiation of meaning. In one experiment, researchers studied how pairs of native English speakers and non-native English speakers explained map routes to each other. Some teams performed the task with audio only, while others could see their partner on a screen.

Did video improve the negotiations? Not necessarily. Pairs that consisted only of native English speakers did not benefit from video. On the other hand, pairs with a non-native speaker had a much better performance with video.

According to the analysis, non-native English speakers with video had a higher rate of instructions and checked their understanding more. This might be because instructors could see visual cues as to whether their instructions were being understood or not. Without these cues, an audio-only team might go ahead to the next step without realizing that the instructions were misunderstood.

Team Cohesiveness

When it comes to team building, remote teams face several challenges. According to several studies, the perceived distance between members may lead to decreased cooperation and increased deception within the team. The good news is that there is evidence that increased and improved interaction may lessen the perceived distance over time. Can adding video help?

In one study, the researchers pointed out the cohesiveness of a group can depend on the following factors:

• Interpersonal attraction: the feeling of affection among members of a team.
• Group pride: the feeling of prestige, satisfaction and loyalty towards the other team members.
• Task commitment: the sense of attraction towards the tasks of the team.

Their findings showed when it comes to achieving these three factors, videoconferencing was the most effective means of remote communication. For interpersonal attraction and task commitment, the second most effective medium was email. Audio conferencing was the least effective medium. As for group pride, videoconferencing was followed by audio conferencing, with email and instant messaging performing considerably less well.

While the various methods of communication provided no significant differences in performance, videoconferencing seemed to have the best effect on their cohesiveness. Another study from the University of Amsterdam may hold the explanation as to why this might be, indicating videoconferencing lowers the perceived distance between members of a group by creating the impression of shared space, even when workers are remotely located.

Socialization

Interactions in the workplace aren’t limited to business. There’s water cooler talk where colleagues discuss their families, hobbies, and other personal topics. These spontaneous interactions happen less frequently (or not at all) for remote teams because we don’t have a shared office. We may be tempted to dismiss spontaneous social interactions like these as trivial, or at least less important than our work, but research from the University of Michigan shows informal conversations before collaboration were an important aspect of establishing trust for remote teams. If video is added, will it make a difference?

A 2007 study from the University of Calgary showed remote teams socialized at the beginning of a videoconferencing session, mimicking face-to-face encounters. This was true even for teams where the members were already acquainted and had some tasks to finish. According to the researchers, these teams were probably encouraged by the “shared space” they had, since the central team had a dedicated facility with multiple projectors and screens.

But this kind of dedicated space for videoconferencing isn’t always possible. Elaborate telepresence setups may be costly and can take up too much room. Though the use of “virtual space” is a good alternative — such as a separate monitor or a section on your screen — many workers may not have enough screen real estate to accommodate both social videoconferences and working applications. This may mean that for now, videoconferencing isn’t the best medium for spontaneous social exchange.

In the book Distributed Work from The MIT Press, authors Bonnie Nardi and Steve Whittaker suggested chat contributed to a remote team’s sense of social connection. It also provided a venue for real-time impromptu conversations between members of a team. Perhaps chatting or instant messaging — without video — is a less intrusive, more cost-effective way of being open to social exchanges.

When it comes to technical tasks, negotiation, team building and socialization, simply adding video to communications doesn’t automatically add value. We need to make informed decisions about how and why we want to use it. Only then will our video equipment, software and efforts be worth it.

Do you use video in remote communication? When was it essential and when was it unnecessary?

Photo courtesy stock.xchng user speedy2

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• The Future of Work Platforms: An Overview
• Is a Distributed Workforce Good for Business?
• How to Manage Consumer-Grade Collaborative Tools in the Workplace

First, the form of communication that remote teams use most frequently is text-based — whether it’s through email, instant messaging, or discussions within a project management app. Misunderstandings are common; we might think we’re good at interpreting text-based messages, but research shows we get it wrong half the time, so it’s surprising that remote teams don’t experience conflict more often.

Another challenge is time zone differences. Colleagues aren’t always available whenever you need them, and scheduling a phone call, conference or other real-time conversation can require some planning.

Given that conflict is inevitable, especially for remote teams, what can we do to minimize the damage?

#1 Unreliable Technology

One cause of conflict is unreliable technology. Unexpected downtime and equipment problems will always occur, though we can have backup plans that can help us continue working with little interruption. But interruptions do happen and are, at times, expected. Conflict can occur when these technological malfunctions become excuses to not do the work.

In a study about communication and trust in virtual teams, researchers found that in teams with low trust, it was common practice to blame technology for tardiness or inability to accomplish tasks. This fueled an already existing feeling that the technology was unreliable.

On the other hand, teams with high trust levels found workarounds to technological problems. They notified each other when they’d be available for work, even if there were time zone differences.

If the unreliability of technology is an issue, especially if it’s imagined or exaggerated, it helps to implement a group-wide strategy for dealing with it so that tech failure can no longer be uses as an excuse. Does everyone on the team have a backup Internet connection, for example? If not, are there nearby venues with affordable or free Internet access? If they’re without an Internet connection, should the team send SMS updates via Twitter or a similar service? Or should they send a text message to the project coordinator directly? By having an established system in place, team members can have multiple means of contact that aren’t dependent on a single technology or service.

#2 Loafers

We’ve all been part of a group where at least one person did not contribute much, or at all, during a project. These people are often called free riders or loafers, and their lack of participation can have a negative effect on the team’s performance. But these non-contributing members are rarely malicious or lazy; often, there are barriers that are preventing them from making a proper contribution. For example,  in a study of employee participation at Caterpillar Inc. , employees failed to contribute because of fear of criticism, or the feeling that their contributions are irrelevant or insignificant.

If team members are failing to contribute, ask them privately about their barriers and find ways to remove them. If they feel their work is unimportant, highlight the team’s objective and how crucial each individual’s role is. If the barrier is fear of criticism, then the team should learn how to provide constructive feedback (something we’ll also discuss to in the next section).

The worst things you can do about non-participating members are to accept their lack of participation, or to single them out in front of the group. According to the study on communication and trust mentioned earlier, many low trust teams merely accepted or ignored free riders, giving the impression that a lack of participation wasn’t wrong. Pointing out an individual’s lack of participation in front of the group is also a bad idea, since the team will see this as a betrayal and this may lessen overall trust.

#3 Negative Feedback

Harsh criticism can be a source of major conflict within a remote team, especially if carried out in a text-based medium like email or instant messaging. Two characteristics are present in constructive feedback:

• The message should be substantial. Even if you’re conveying something positive about another person’s work, vague responses like “it’s OK” aren’t helpful. Praise must also be specific, so that individuals can identify the improvements they’ve made and also receive recognition for their successes.
• Any disagreement should be indirect. Instead of flat-out disagreeing with a person or a point, high trust teams tend to offer alternatives, together with explanations as to why they may be preferable. This approach may lessen the fear of criticism, since the target of the feedback is distanced from the person receiving it.

What conflicts have you experienced when working with remote teams? How did you prevent or resolve them?

Photo by stock.xchng user steved_np3

What remote teams actually experience is known as “swift trust“, which happens when you don’t have the time or means to build trust through multiple interactions. Also, you often don’t have prior experience with your colleagues to determine their trustworthiness. You act as if you trust each other from the beginning. While this type of trust cultivates easily, it’s also very fragile. Since all you have are your communication tools — email, phone, instant messaging, video conferencing, etc. — how can you establish and maintain trust using these channels?

Setting the Tone

Your team’s first few messages are crucial to maintaining and developing this “swift trust” into something more sustainable. In a study published in Organization Science, the researchers noted that “The first messages on the team appeared to set the tone for how the team interrelated.” Just as in face-to-face meetings, first impressions count. As much as possible, remote workers should make the effort to make their initial messages positive. You can do this is through expressing encouragement and motivation.

A study published by the Journal of Management Information Systems (JMIS) demonstrated that high trust teams were expressive about their enthusiasm for the project and gave ample encouragement and compliments to their colleagues. The Organization Science study backs this up. In teams with high initial trust, opening messages saying “I’m excited to work with this team” or “Looking forward to working with you all” were common. Teams with low initial trust lacked this enthusiasm.

High trust teams also gave positive motivation, focusing on what their team could accomplish if they performed well. Low trust teams, on the other hand, focused on what they could lose if they didn’t perform well.

Though first impressions are important, establishing a positive tone mid-project can still improve trust. The study included some teams showing low initial trust, but they moved on to high trust as they expressed more enthusiasm later on.

Task-oriented Communication

Typically, there are three types of communication that take place in virtual teams:

• Social communication. This includes discussions on topics unrelated to the project, such as messages about one’s hobbies, weekend activities and family.
• Procedure-oriented communication. This type of communication is based on setting rules and processes relevant to the task, including discussions on how often to check email, how to monitor work progress, and what the workflow should be like.
• Task-oriented communication. When you share your work with the team, request feedback or directly talk about the task at hand, you are engaging in task-oriented (or task-focused) communication.

In the Organization Science study, social exchanges helped facilitate early trust, but this proved to be insufficient in maintaining trust in the long run. Also, while procedure-oriented communication is important, a team must be able to move beyond it to get things done. Over-discussing work procedures and rules may appear productive, but they can be a way to escape responsibility and waste time while waiting for other people to start the work.

Both studies show that to maintain or create trust, your team must have the ability to move quickly from social and procedural communication to task-oriented communication. Even teams low on initial trust were able to develop more trust this way, and were eventually unaffected by negative feedback and non-contributing members. In high trust teams, communication became exclusively task-oriented and there were rarely any social exchanges. Still, members displayed empathy and support when discussing each other’s work.

Making Communication Predictable

One of the studies also emphasized predictability as an essential aspect of trust-building. Regular, predictable communication was more important than the quantity of communication for maintaining trust. In other words, sending messages often isn’t as important as sending them in a regular schedule or pattern. This means sending daily or weekly reports, acknowledging incoming contributions and informing others of your schedule.

Low trust teams often had unpredictable communication and no forewarning of member absences. High trust teams, on the other hand, informed each other of when they’d be available for work and sent each other prompt messages saying that they received and evaluated a member’s latest contribution. In the JMIS study, high trust teams were also more aware of time zone differences and scheduled their work in such a way that downtime was managed as effectively as possible.

With remote teams, we must know how to communicate effectively if we want to build long-term trust in our working relationships. We can do this by increasing our efforts in expressing our enthusiasm at the start of the project, keeping messages in a positive tone, staying focused on the task, and establishing a regular pattern of communication.

How do you encourage trust in your remote teams? What actions or incidents causes you to trust your colleagues less?

Photo courtesy Flickr user Max Klingensmith

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub. req.):

• How to Manage Consumer-Grade Collaborative Tools in the Workplace
• Top Remote Work Trends to Watch for in 2011
• Social Media in the Enterprise

In other words, anyone who’s a knowledge worker spends their working moments somewhere between two states: choke and flow.

Flow is a state of mind that gives you complete, energized focus on the task at hand. Psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi describes this state as being completely involved in a task, feeling a sense of ecstasy and clarity, and losing your awareness of time (a summary from Lateral Action can be found here). There are many alternative words used to describe flow. Programmers may call this “deep hack mode,” while athletes refer to it as being “in the zone.”

The other end of the scale is the “choke”, also known as a creative block. When you choke, your performance becomes poor or your work process is halted because of anxiety — even if you’re normally skilled and have performed exceptionally well in the past. Choking is a state full of worry, self-handicapping and pressure. Author Steven Pressfield calls this state “Resistance”, but other words used to describe this feeling include “mental block”, “writer’s block”,  and “performance anxiety”. When choking takes over your workday and accomplishing anything seems impossible, it may feel like an uphill battle.

So how does one encourage flow and break down blocks?

To avoid being crushed into inaction by our creative blocks, we need to understand how to break them. In a radio interview, psychologist Andy Evans of Arts Psychology Consultants discussed a two-pronged approach to breaking creative blocks: eliminate or lessen the elements that are causing the block, and to build up one’s self-esteem and confidence. How this is accomplished varies individually, but here are a few areas to start with:

Removing the Block

Some creative blocks are caused or triggered by complex issues such as depression or personal tragedies. But for the simpler, more mundane blocks we encounter regularly, they are mostly caused by distractions: thoughts and objects that take away our attention from our work. You may be worrying about what to cook for lunch, the laundry you have to do, or a client’s late payment. Instead of using your brain’s energy and resources on your work, they are spent on these. Fortunately, you can deal with these distractions accordingly:

• To avoid being bothered by miscellaneous tasks and errands, give them their own place and time. Schedule them for later so that even if you can’t do them now, you know that you’ve allotted time for them.
• Establishing routines also helps clear your mental clutter. If you find that you worry too much about food preparation, then prepare your ingredients and meals in batches. Or have a list of two or three “default” meals to buy if you don’t want to spend time thinking about what to eat.
• But if you find yourself interrupted by unforeseen, multiple worries such as a late paycheck, an argument with your boss, or other personal concerns, taking a break to mediate or do a mind sweep may help.

Once you feel like all the blocks you can control have been removed, it’s time to build your confidence to start working without choking.

Building Confidence

To gain confidence, we must take the pressure off. During creative work, we may have the tendency to control even the smallest details to ensure that the final output will be great. This may come in the form of editing, rewriting, and re-editing the first sentence of an article before finishing the first draft, or by erasing and redrawing imperfect lines in a pencil sketch. This is especially true if we are working in front of an audience (PDF) — whether they are supportive or not. As some studies (PDF) show, this extreme self-consciousness during a task we’re competent at, especially one we’ve heavily practiced, can lead to a decline in performance.

A simple way to put it is that if we waste our brain’s resources over-thinking how we’re going to do something we normally do well, we don’t leave enough brain power for the creative act itself. So instead of dwelling on unnecessary details, maybe it’s better to remind yourself that you’ve done this work before and trust the instincts that you’ve honed over the years.

Getting to “Flow”

But getting to the flow state requires more than alleviating pressure. It means we should sit down and work long enough to get to the point where our vision of the work is clear and we’re not distracted by anything else. But working on the web gives us easy access to hundreds of distractions. How do we avoid giving in, especially when being distracted has become a habit?

Positive self-talk (PDF) can be a simple way to start. When we encourage ourselves too keep working and not check Facebook or Twitter for the umpteenth time, it may help us curb our impulses and resist temptation.

And if that doesn’t seem to work, previous posts from Amber, Darrell, and Georgina contain other suggestions on how to focus and get back to the task at hand.

Going from choke to flow may seem easy on paper but, in reality, it’s different for everyone. It may even be different for you every time you encounter it. Ultimately, the best way to break down creative blocks and get to the flow state is to be aware enough when it happens so that you can test and apply what works for you.

How often do you experience creative blocks and how long do they usually last? What do you do to break them?

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub. req.):

• Enabling the Web Work Revolution
• Are You Empowering Your Mobile Workforce?
• Report: The Real-Time Enterprise

Last year, the New York Times published an article (login required) citing research finding that about 80 percent of people who make New Year’s resolutions break them by Valentine’s Day. A study from 2007 supports this, saying only twelve percent of people achieve their New Year’s goals.

Perhaps this means that before we list our goals for 2011, we should take a closer look at our own attitudes towards goal-setting. What misconceptions do we have, and what can we do to remedy them?

Myth #1: Tell everyone your goals so that you’re publicly accountable.

In theory, publicizing your goals with friends, or on your blog or Facebook profile, might force you to achieve them, so as not to be seen as someone who’s all talk and no action. But according to a 2009 study by goal-setting researcher Peter Gollwitzer (PDF), this isn’t always true. Most people state their behavioral goals in very general terms (“My goal is to eat healthier”) that gives the premature impression we’ve already done them.

Here’s what works instead: implementation intentions. Gollwitzer defines them (PDF) as a plan spelling out when, where, and how you intend to accomplish a goal. In fact, another study (PDF) shows that implementation intentions work so well that they can help you accomplish your goals despite the presence of distracting thoughts and emotions.

This doesn’t mean it’s easy after you establish a plan. You’ll need to check and update your plan often. It’s also important to start working on your goal as soon as possible. The more time your goal remains inactive after you’ve stated your intentions, the less likely you are to accomplish it.

Myth #2: Reward yourself for your progress.

Some people suggest that to keep yourself focused and motivated in your pursuit of a goal, you need to have rewards for accomplishments. For example, if you successfully stick to your schedule for a week, you’ll give yourself the license to go out with friends during the weekend. While there’s nothing wrong with rewards per se, you need to be careful about how you think of them.

Research shows that for large goals (e.g.. becoming healthier) that have many supporting subgoals (e.g.. sticking to a diet, exercising regularly), whenever you successfully achieve a subgoal, you should reward your personal commitment to the larger goal rather than to  your progress. Rewarding yourself for achieving one subgoal may lead you to ignore the other subgoals, because you’ll view them as substitutes. If you reward your commitment to the larger goal, the subgoals will seem interrelated, and you’ll be more driven to pursue each of them.

Myth #3: Focus on yearly goals.

By definition, New Year’s resolutions are goals that must be achieved within a year. While this tradition can work for some goals, it may not be effective to use such a long time-frame. First, even if we think we know ourselves well, we tend to be poor predictors of what we’ll need or feel in the future. Our perspectives, situations, and desires may differ greatly within a year. Second, most research (PDF) backs up the idea that setting short-term goals is more effective than looking at the big picture. This means that even if you have a list of yearly goals, it’s better to break them down into smaller monthly or weekly subgoals.

Given these goal-setting myths, we should be more attentive to how we set our goals, what works in practice, and what only seems effective in theory. By looking at our goal-setting behavior together with the goals themselves, we’ll be more likely to accomplish more this year.

Do you set goals during the New Year? Which tactics improve your success rate?

Photo by sxc.hu user lazydog

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub. req.):

• Enabling the Web Work Revolution
• Social Media in the Enterprise
• Are You Empowering Your Mobile Workforce?

Gantt Charts

Since the Gantt chart is one of the more popular project schedule formats, most people are familiar with how it looks. A horizontal axis represents time, while a vertical axis lists tasks/activities. Bars are used to illustrate the duration of each activity. These bars can be color-coded according to your needs. For example, using the same color for different bars can show task dependencies, who is assigned to the task, or what resources are used. You can also add lines and markers to specify milestones, notes, and other information.

When they’re useful: Gantt charts are effective for showing the big picture. Because smaller tasks are shown adjacent to each other in relation to the project as a whole, everyone in the team can see how their work will affect everyone else’s. This is especially useful for teams with remote workers. Gantt charts can also provide a useful template for projects with scopes and schedules that rarely change.

When they’re not: Since you need detailed breakdowns of project activities in order to develop Gantt charts, they may be difficult to implement in projects requiring many changes, such as in agile software development. The slightest change in dependencies, milestones, or tasks may force you to start a new chart from scratch. There are still ways to use a Gantt chart in these cases, but it’s not always the best choice.

The graphical representation in Gantt charts may also be unnecessary for projects that look more like the linear process of an assembly line, or for projects with only one or two participants.

Tools: If you want to try out Gantt charts, here are some apps you can start with:

• Tom’s Planner
• Gantter
• Gantto (currently in private beta).

Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) Charts

The PERT chart illustrates a project by focusing on the relationships between activities. The structure of a PERT chart is similar to a flowchart or mind map. An important characteristic of PERT charts is accurate time estimates. Examples and instructions can be found at NetMBA and Edraw Soft.

When they’re useful: The layout of a PERT chart makes the relationships between activities easier to see than with Gantt charts. Thus, PERT charts can be effective for projects that include many activities occurring sequentially and in parallel. PERT charts are also more flexible; you need to make three different time estimates per task, which allows for mid-process changes.

When they’re not: Some people don’t like the math involved in computing the “expected time”, which is the average time it may take to complete a task if it were repeated. Here is a concise explanation of the formula, which may make it seem less intimidating. Another disadvantage of PERT charts is that they can be difficult to understand and follow, if the project has many complex dependencies and simultaneous activities.

Tools: Since PERT charts resemble mind maps or flowcharts, most mind mapping tools can help you create a PERT chart quickly. You can start with:

• Gliffy
• Mindmeister
• Other tools we’ve reviewed

Task Calendars

Task calendars show the activities you need to accomplish each day, week, or month. Task calendars can be as simple as paper desk calendars or planners that are date or time based and have room for a to-do list each day.

Some calendars have blank spaces for a to-do list for items that don’t have to be assigned to a specific day. Some of them have indicators for task priorities, work-life balance, and task progress. David Seah has a number of different varieties of task calendars available from his blog,

When they’re useful: Task calendars are time-based, making them useful for those who are working on multiple projects at the same time. You can see the tasks you need to accomplish each day, week, or month, even if they’re attached to different projects. Breaking down tasks this way also makes them seem more manageable. Task calendars are also ideal for projects with simple, straightforward processes, since you don’t have to think about simultaneous activities or thorough time estimates.

When they’re not: Unlike Gantt or PERT charts, it’s not easy to see the connections, dependencies, and costs of your projects on a task calendar. Some calendar apps do give you the option to view only the tasks associated with a specific project, allowing you to check your progress for each project. Also, as the number of project participants increases, the daily task lists will become bulkier. This makes task calendars difficult to use for large teams, unless individual calendars are created for each participant. Because of these limitations, task calendars may be more effective when used in tandem with PERT or Gantt charts.

Tools: Most calendar apps allow you to create task lists or an agenda for the day, including:

• Google Calendar
• iCal
• MS Outlook
• Rainlendar

There are also a few to-do list apps that have a calendar view. Todoist is one of them, though you have to type in a search query to get custom calendar views. I also recommend Worktrek, especially since it tells you whether you’ve had an efficient day or not.

While these three models aren’t the only ways to schedule your projects, they can provide a good starting point when figuring out your approach. Will you benefit from the big-picture thinking inherent in creating a Gantt chart? Or will a PERT model serve you better, since you’ll make several changes along the way? Is having a daily to-do list of deliverables enough? You can even use these different models together, if necessary. After all, no matter how you dress them up these models all aim to do one thing: help you get that project finished.

Have you tried any of these project scheduling formats? What are the benefits and limitations you’ve encountered?

Photo by stock.xchng user jnatiuk

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub. req.):

• Enabling the Web Work Revolution
• By The Numbers: Running a Coworking Space
• Making Coworking Corporate-Scale

“We found that the collocated people formed an in-group, excluding the isolates. But, surprisingly, the isolates also formed an in-group, mainly because the collocated people ignored them and they responded to each other.”

Note that the on-site workers’ tendency to ignore the remote workers wasn’t intentional. It was just an effect of their physical proximity to each other and the greater inconvenience of contacting the remote workers. As a result, the remote workers were more responsive to each other, even though they couldn’t tell which participants worked on-site or remotely.

An earlier study, looking at Lucent Technologies’ software development department, supports these findings. At the time of the study, Lucent had teams working in the UK, Germany and India. The researchers found that employees interacted with local team members significantly more often than they did with remote team members.

Given the tendency of on site workers to ignore remote workers , how does one encourage unity in a mixed group? One way is to make communication between on-site and remote workers as easy as possible. This will minimize any difficulty for on-site workers to reach remote workers, and vice versa. You can do this by selecting communication channels that are easily accessible to everyone on the team. Whether it’s email, instant messaging, or a collaborative app, make sure that members can send and receive messages without compromising clarity. This is especially true with channels that are dependent on speed and signal quality, such as audio or video chat.

But it’s not just the quality of the tools and the speed of the Internet connection that matters. The speed of the replies and collaborative support among team members is also important. According to the Lucent Technologies study, multi-site groups have a tendency toward “a significant slowdown of work that spans sites, as compared to work involving the same people that does not cross sites.” Your team needs to understand that important remote requests require prompt responses to avoid this slowdown.

There are no shortage of tools to facilitate this kind of efficient communication. There are now hundreds of available communication and collaboration tools for teams to choose from, both in the form of hardware and software. Despite the broad choice of tools, however, it’s still best to stick to using as few of them as possible. This ensures that all the data, discussions, and content will be centralized and accessible in one place. So even if your people are not found in the same site, all the necessary information is.

When it comes to real-time communication, it may also help to establish cues that show whether a person welcomes incoming communication or not. Bos’ paper suggests that the lack of these cues may hinder successful communication, “Without contextual information it is difficult to know when someone is available or interruptible. Furthermore, people worry about appearing rude, so [they] do not initiate contact.” One way to use these cues would be type of presence status notification (the “Available”, “Busy”, and “Away” symbols) featured in most instant messaging apps. Make these cues consistent and enforced throughout the entire team.

But if you want to take a more radical step, why not encourage your entire team to work remotely — even if many of them live in the same city? A few years ago, Om interviewed Jason Fried of 37signals, who said that a distributed workforce was good for his company. Fried said that he believed people are more productive when they’re working apart. Even though (at the time) five members of the team lived in Chicago, they still worked apart. Since that interview, entire teams working remotely has become even more commonplace.

If you’d like to learn more about how to successfully manage remote teams, it’s one of the topics that we’ll be discussing in depth at our Net:Work conference, coming to San Francisco on December 9. Register here.

Do you work with a distributed, multi-site team? What are the challenges you’ve faced?

Photo by stock.xchng user kikashi

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub. req.):

• Enabling the Web Work Revolution
• Report: The Real-Time Enterprise
• By The Numbers: Running a Coworking Space

But taking on another person’s project can be very challenging, especially if they are no longer around, or are uncooperative. So how can you make the transition as smooth as possible?

Keep culture in mind. Your communications with the other people involved in the project should serve another purpose: learning their culture. This includes the culture of each individual in the team, as well as the team as a whole. This culture is the summation of their work processes, habits, interactions and attitudes. Keeping culture in mind can provide you with useful clues that will help you figure out how to talk to them, how to interpret their words, and what your potential challenges will be.

Debrief. Get your hands on as much of the project’s materials, resources, and tools as you can — even if you’re not going to use them. It helps to review the status of the project before you were assigned to handle it. Here are some questions you might want to ask:

• Did the project meet all of its objectives? Why/why not?
• Why did the person in charge leave? If the reason is relevant to the project, how will it affect your own work? How difficult will it be to reach him/her if needed?
• Which of the resources and materials are truly useful? Which of them just add clutter?
• If you’re able to communicate with the person who used to be in charge, how open are they to working with you during the transition? If it’s hard to get their cooperation, how can you change their mind?

Manage expectations. A crucial aspect of a successful transition is managing expectations. This includes the expectations of everyone you’re working with as well as your own. Some points to consider:

• What deliverables are expected of you? How are you expected to respond to queries and suggestions?
• Among the things expected of you, which are affected by how the project was previously handled?
• What can you do to ease any concerns or worries that your client or team has when it comes to working with you?

Assess. Given the information you’ve gathered, do you think it’s possible to continue the project in its current state or is it better to start afresh? While continuing the project may seem easier, sometimes it’s not the best approach to take — especially if it didn’t meet any of the established objectives.

Archive. File away all the old documents and materials pertaining to the project’s previous incarnation. Don’t throw them away, just make sure that they filed away but are easy to refer to later on. This helps you start without the existing physical and mental clutter caused by the project.

Restart. Even if you’re starting with someone else’s unfinished work, it helps to approach it as if it were a new project. Thinking of it as a blank slate helps you to break free from existing standards and processes that didn’t work.

Restarting or completing someone else’s project can put you through a rough transition. But after that, it’s just a matter of getting the work done.

Share your tips for managing project transitions below.

Photo by stock.xchng user webguitou

Related content from GigaOM Pro (sub. req.):

• Enabling the Web Work Revolution
• Report: The Real-Time Enterprise
• Social Media in the Enterprise