One collaboration-killing mistake you’re probably making

Jessica Stillman — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 14:47:29 +0000

Poets sometimes claim that writing within strict formal structures spurs creativity, and parents are told that firm boundaries actually help kids flourish. Freedom may be awesome, but in some areas there clearly is such a thing as too much of it. Now author and HBR Blog Network pundit Tammy Erickson is adding another domain to the list of areas where less freedom and more structure is actually a good thing – collaboration.

Bosses, she writes, often make the sensible sounding decision to focus on clarifying their team’s goals and approach to reaching them then leave the task of defining exactly who does what to make progress toward that goal for the team to work out themselves. This sounds empowering, but according to Erickson, it’s actually energy sapping:

Our research has shown that… collaboration improves when the roles of individual team members are clearly defined and well understood — in fact, when individuals feel their role is bounded in ways that allow them to do a significant portion of their work independently. Without such clarity, team members are likely to waste energy negotiating roles or protecting turf, rather than focusing on the task.

We’ve also found that team members are more likely to want to collaborate if the path to achieving the team’s goal is left somewhat ambiguous. If a team perceives the task as one that requires creativity, where the approach is not yet well known or predefined, its members are more likely to invest more time and energy in collaboration.

Citing well functioning teams at emergency rooms, the BBC and Reuters, Erickson goes on to explain that when expert collaborators are very clear on their area of responsibility and feel empowered to work in their own way within it, teams work together smoothly and individuals within them channel their energy towards productive work rather than politics, turf wars or coordination.

Is your team being hamstrung by ambiguous roles?

Image courtesy of Flickr user Dru Bloomfield – At Home in Scottsdale.

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

Virtual managers less effective, study finds

Jessica Stillman — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 13:03:24 +0000

Researchers have reached a pretty strong consensus on telecommuting – it’s awesome for employees. A recent study done by Stanford researchers in China demonstrated that working remotely makes employees more productive (and profitable), while teleworkers themselves consistently tell those that ask that they love the flexibility or working where they please. But does this rosy picture of remote work extend to managers?

Maybe not, suggests a new study appearing in Human Relations and highlighted on the British Psychological Society’s Research Digest blog. The study was co-authored by a professor from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and involved polling more than 11,000 employees of a U.S. Fortune 500 company. Participants were asked how often they and their manager worked remotely, as well as about several work outcomes. BPS reports the results:

Respondents managed by teleworking managers reported receiving less feedback and professional development, a more unbalanced workload and feeling less empowered. A similar negative pattern was found for those with fully virtual managers. The effect sizes were small overall, suggesting this needn’t be a make or break issue, but the trend was there.

Note though that the negative effects of managers working virtually were only observed compared to when supervisors were co-located with their teams. When a boss’s reports were themselves telecommuters, it made no difference where the supervisor was located. This suggests it might be worth investigating if having a boss with the freedom to work from their back garden or the local coffee shop while his or her employees are stuck in cubes could be behind some of the negativity reported by those who report to telecommuting supervisors. The researchers, however, had another explanation for the fall off in satisfaction when a manager went virtual. The researchers chalked the problem up to social exchange theory, which BPS explains:

Working relationships that are partly virtual have less opportunities for rich exchanges, with communications lacking the face-to-face component and fewer obvious opportunities to ‘grab a moment’, described by social innovator David Engwicht as spontaneous exchanges. Interactions are likely to be more task-focused and obligatory, as email is more onerous to produce when compared to a quick coffee or moment in the corridor. And professional development and mentoring becomes similarly laborious, always a dangerous place for any ‘important to do’ but non-urgent activity to be.

If you’ve experienced working in an office while your manager is working virtually, share your feelings –did having a remote manager decrease your satisfaction with your work?

Image courtesy of Flickr user snre.

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

GigaOM » managing remotely

One collaboration-killing mistake you’re probably making

Virtual managers less effective, study finds