The Space Between Us

In a recent webinar by Luis Suarez (@elsua) he asked the question of the attendees of what the biggest problem was in organizations today.  He stated that it was employee disengagement.  I do agree that it's a problem but I believe this disengagement is more a symptom of a greater problem. That problem being space; the space between us.

Space is created naturally or deliberately. It's also physical and psychological. We have space when organizations expand; space exists in time, geography, and culture. We have space when a workforce is geographically dispersed, no longer can we see the many we work and interact with. Space exists when hierarchy places people in rank and file as an artificial pecking order is created and this space between us defines who we are and how we interact.  Finally, our departmentalized functions create silos of work where space exists between them. And those functions of course are controlled by people who decide on how much space. 

When space exists we can choose to fill it constructively or like a vacuum, it just gets filled like silt settling after a heavy rain. Regardless, it never stays empty for long. Hierarchies fill the space with the written and unwritten. Policies serve to reinforce space between people by having somewhere to point to rather than someone to have conversation with. Unwritten protocol is that which maintains space by authority and creates a false respect based on fear. 

Disengagement then doesn't create space, space creates disengagement. 

What can be done? The opposite of disengage is to engage and to engage is an action of people and their work being drawn together. If we want to eliminate disengagement, we must first create the opportunities to engage, to fill the space.

Social media is that opportunity in organizations that bridges the geographic divides, opens up silos of work and can level hierarchy so meritocracy can flourish. There is no question it can do the job - but it can also be an empty vessel if not strengthened by the substance of meaningful conversation, dialog and debate. If social channels swell only with courtesies to avoid conflict, content that reinforces positions, or sharing to show off, then the space not only remains but becomes more permanent.

There are far more pressing questions to be answer in organizations than "how do we measure this?" Or "how do we get people to use this?" when considering social media in an organization.  We need to first be able to answer "Who are we?" And "who do we want to become?"

Openness: the agent of inclusivity

"How do we get people to ... ?"

I hear this all the time in my work on organizational learning initiatives and social tool use is definitely no exception. I've heard it so much that it's just became unquestioned white noise - until I heard it today, and something just felt wrong.

Worse than the directive of "get" is "we." The we here speaks of only those involved in the exclusive conversation and nobody else.

Us and them. Owner and worker. Manager and employee.... Have and have not.

If we start with a goal of changing people's behavior without those people in the conversation haven't we just set the stage for manipulation and disempowerment? Won't we just be playing the traditional role of power broker reinforcing all that is wrong with hierarchy?

Here's the thing. Don't we instinctively speak differently when we know everyone is listening? If everyone could at least hear the conversation, be in that space (if they choose to listen or join in is on them), I suspect the "how do we get people to..." questions wouldn't even be uttered or better yet, would be phrased in a very inclusive way. How could they not?

More community, less control.

Being There

People often shake their heads at a common scene today; families in a restaurant, all tapping away at their phones, rarely looking up while loved ones sit a mere 2 feet away. Oh, the demise of the Family they cry! These of course are just snapshots in time and in no way reflect anti-social behavior, or should mark the downfall of the family unit. On the contrary, the family is exhibiting Supersocial behaviors by interacting with physical and virtual participants synchronous and asynchronously... simultaneously.

Recently a co-worker in IT pinged me on our internal IM system. He was inquiring about some images we might have to support an interface he wanted to redesign. I told him who to ask but encouraged him to post the request in our ESN and tag the person in Marketing. This way more than he could benefit from the exchange. He was hesitant and jokingly shared that the system he was developing was one that would get him hated throughout the organization.  He further explained that it was a password reset process to take place every 3 months and that he was to roll it out. OK, I thought, maybe not hated but certainly annoyed. We then preceded to exchanged funny, sarcastic comparisons; 5th horseman of the apocalypse, blame it on "Obama care" and on and on it went. I'm confident that in our 3 minute exchange we both chuckled quite a bit. In the end he got what he needed, a few new thoughts and all with a smile.

Later that day we passed in the hallway, eye contact and a head nod hello and on our way. Nothing more, no smirk or recall of our earlier humorous exchanges. It was over, it was actually over shortly after the last sarcastic quip. Some might say that is a problem, that we are perpetuating some type of anti-social behaviors and losing our ability to converse live. I pondered this experience for a bit and as I walked from his office to mine I counted that it was 28 steps away from my office. He could have been 2800 miles away as many of my exchanges; humorous or informative are. I thought that if communication is used to transfer ideas and information then this type of communication, the one we experienced together is the heart of social. It had cognitive fodder but also emotional sentiment. Between us, in that flurry of humorous exchanges, we felt the same emotions of happiness, connection, and a kindred spirit as if we had been seated together. It was just as real as being there.

Social tools can do much more than connect us to others as sources of knowledge, they can (if we accept it) extend the entirety of our humanity.