Comments

Madeleine, thanks for the blog entry!

I think I should visit your office so I can sit near you and the other UK team members and learn some new things. I'll work on that.

Posted by cathy mosca at February 13, 2008 7:20 AM

Interesting study...yet I wonder if it will remain true with the digital natives entering the workforce. In the last year, I have been using social networking tools such as delicious mixed with RSS feeds from blogs (such as this one), and I now find that I have friends (and I do think of them as friends) who I routinely correspond with and collaborate with but who live half a world away, friends I have never physically met.

Posted by Britt Watwood at February 13, 2008 7:57 AM

I'm not surprised at this finding. Put people into a shared space in the office and in most situations they'll get into a huddle together. It doesn't matter what function or grade they are, their proximity will drive this. You want two warring functions to co-operate better? Start by co-locating them. You want a supplier / customer collaboration to take off? Start by co-locating them.

Given that large companies cannot physically co-locate everyone, it seems to me there's no substitute for good old MBWA, lunching with the organisations oddballs and taking time to be open and frank with your reports and superiors.

Posted by Mark JF at February 13, 2008 8:09 AM

I think that the physical proximity almost always kills the tendency to label others as "them," as outsiders. With proximity, they can not be "them" and, almost always, must be "us."

I think this is an underlying cause (one of a number) to reducing team size for effectiveness. If the team is too large, it inhibits "us" and the tremendous associated benefits.

Posted by s g at February 13, 2008 9:37 AM

In my experience, you can have a very close "virtual team" However, this requires personal accountability, professional commitment, and regular communications, including old-fashioned phone calls.

An occasional live and in person meeting is essential. (With the best work often being done in the bar after the official meeting.)

Posted by Mary Schmidt at February 13, 2008 10:50 AM

There is no real substitute for face to face conversations that creates communion. But technology can enhance the possibility of greater communion in which to do business and to socialize. The physical proximity of others working together on a problem or rarely being in the space of a friend or loved one cannot be really replaced in my book. There can, however, be means of simulating this all important communion through technology. (Now, I realize I have basically said the above in two different ways, essentially saying the same thing, trying to make the connection or the lack thereof between communion and space.) But how real is the communion? And can it exist over long periods of time without face to face communion?

It seems to me that while there may be shops in India, China and the Philippines, for example, doing necessary parts of the business, unless the location is the central one, this can not be the core architecture or infrastructure of a successful business. (Branding, ideas, and how things are done do matter.) Business is about communion. Communion is people and talent. Talent (knowledge workers) and people (customers) make up the core. As long as the core remains engaged in the culture, in various huddle interchangeably over various periods of time--where knowledge worker huddles (preferably small) are created and re-created and where customers are satisfied and increase based on excellent products and services--there will remain a semblance of community.

The question is whether this semblance, the core, can be piecemealed out and remain viable. Yes, I understand the necessity of sourcing to larger markets, usually overseas that produce services to reduce cost, in order to frankly stay in business. (Our greed has probably had a hand in this, though there is no turning back now. It might also just be the natural order of things, the bringing together of peoples worldwide.)

The branding and ideas of the company must flow from a central location where small huddles are created to move innovation forward—face to face. (From this central location are others with the semblance of the central. This is not novel but how we approach, use systems and regard timing will be novel…again and again.) If this is in place and quality maintained, technology can greatly enhance the lack of face to face, though- in my book-it will only a great necessary semblance. But it can and has worked wonderfully for some.

With this necessary semblance, it becomes increasingly more important how we will do what we do when we do it (The "how," "what," and "when" refers to approach, systems, and timing.) With this necessary semblance a system is needed that has a built-changeability mechanism that can be adjusted readily to “Shape” the central location and its various locations nationally and world wide. The Future Shape of the Winner seems like a great system to do this in that it allows for variations, enabling all knowledge workers to get on the same page by contributing within there specific groups in various ways.

So, say, the central location has a new initiative, the FSW can work with this initiative through the use of various orientations that spin with greater or lesser velocity within a huddle around the nation and the world, tailoring specific groups that contribute individually, towards the same collective execution albeit differently depending on the goal of the area and particulars of the division or body. (I hope you have gotten that. Do try again, taking the commas as moment to breathe and reflect.) I like to use the term “body” in that it refers to a living organism working together. It’s amazing how just one member of the body has many components toward the execution of movement. For example, the human eye alone has many components and when functioning properly converts light to impulses and when conveyed to the brain a “Shape” is created.

As with these components of a human eye, a company needs various components that are converted actualities to create a “Shape” that will enable all knowledge workers and customers to be on the same page (this is internal and external branding), nationally and locally, in person or virtually. This is not a mere idea but a system with components that are actualized by benchmarking. The beauty is in the built-in changeability though talent creating work that matters. FSW seems to be a great system to create the Shape of the Future Winner and various winning shapes in the central location and in various locations that allows for systematic execution through brilliant changes, engaging all talent, though though differently.

The FSW seems to better allow to us to do how we do what we do when we do it. The axis (system) is spun with greater or lesser velocity (timing) to different orientations (approach), where the talent is the rotor and ambition, architecture, brand, experience, execution, and performance are its components. This is innovation that affects knowledge workers, giving them a sense of ownership in the process, and satisfied customers. Such a system brings viability to business and life. Without viable profitable business, life itself is challenged. If this is not believed, just ask any person today in a State affected by what feels like a major recession or another in a country where there is not an open market.

I know this is long. I hope you have made it to the end. I will return the courtesy.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 13, 2008 1:20 PM

I guess few of us would deny the importance and relevance of physical relationships in building a community. Some great posts on the subject....giving much food for thought.

But, Britt's point about the changing bias of humans is the main reason I posted this blog. Of all the organisations that would seem likely to number digital natives amongst its ranks, Google would be way up there in my book. So when even Google's people are measurably more influenced by physical proximity than anything else, I am given pause for thought. Are human beings evolving as the Facebook generation joins the workforce, or are there certain human/social tendencies that are much more deeply rooted in the human psyche?

I am certain we communicate much more using the virtual media, but the Google study connects communication with actions that people take as a result of the communication......Is there any evidence of or research into the behaviour of humans that were reared in the digital era to point to fundamental shifts in how we communicate and influence each other?

Posted by Madeleine at February 13, 2008 4:04 PM

You're not doomed. It will simply take you longer and cost much more to accomplish what those in close physical proximity can do faster, cheaper, and more holistically.

Posted by Tom Asacker at February 13, 2008 4:14 PM

Quote: "fundamental shifts in how we communicate and influence each other?"
Anecdotal evidence: I teach professional courses on the Internet, and never meet nor telephone my students. Their choices of internet-pseudonym and personal-icon have a major influence in how I communicate with them. "Groucho" is likely to get ironical feedback, but "Einstein" will get something intellectual.

Posted by Mike L. at February 13, 2008 6:04 PM

Toward the end of my career in corporate healthcare I suggested in our open plan office that all of us should move seats to sit opposite or adjacent to someone new at least twice a year so that we all continued our learning. I was the only one of approximately 30 people to move seats. That, as much as anything else, made up my mind it was time to get out. I was no longer good for the organisation and - sure as hell - the organisation was no longer good for me. Virtual relationships are wonderful – I love them – I now have more friends I’ve never met than those I’ve met. There is, however, nothing like physical proximity combined with an open mind – those two single issues combined can change the world. It is inexplicably brilliant.

Posted by Trevor Gay at February 13, 2008 7:08 PM

Mark's comment on Internet-pseudonyms and personal-icons and his subsequent response to the students gives me reason for some concern. Just because I call myself Einstein, Groucho or Betty Boop for that matter does not make it so. If my communication with another is largely influenced by what I am called, how is my essence or work defined? The funny thing, and perhaps not so funny for those men and women duped by online fantasy, is that what often appears in social networks and blogs are not real. This being so, could Mark's judgment be impaired by a pseudonym that has no basis in reality? This is not the kind of relationship upon which to build lasting community. But I completely understand fully that as long as there are people there there will always be community of some sort. The question becomes the kind of community we desire. The Google report proves that we are all, even digital natives, are looking for the honesty of face to face communication. If we are as a whole conceive that this honesty...

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 13, 2008 8:08 PM

...is achievable through technoloqy, we would go for it. But it is obvious that the jury is still out on this based on the Google report among those who many would have believed would not need physical proximity. This talk of honesty got me to thinking me to thinking about the Cool Friend interview with Dan Hill. In talking about facial coding he reminds us that "first and foremost we have to realize that people aren't necessarily honest, even to themselves. From an evolutionary point of view, we're all facial coders. There's a part of the brain that reads other people's faces." The face, then, serves as a decoder to what we "spin, deflect, hint, and hold back." Where is this element of truth in virtual communities? The face seems to speak the truth that our words mask. The digital natives will probably come full circle to communicating and influencing each other in close proxmity. Their most intimate relationships were, after all, first formed with parents, siblings, friends and school mates with whom...

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 13, 2008 8:41 PM

...physical proximity is shared. Those first years are crucial to understanding community. Hill speaks about a child as early as age two understanding intuitively the nature of community and the relations therein. Digitives natives did not arrive with computer in hand and they had to be taught at the age of three or so how to use it. But it is not the same way with communiction. Though we first learn through listening at an early age, we come with emotions worn on our faces. In fact, at an early age we are taught etiquette or our raw emotions would find unsavory expressions, though often worn on our faces. Accordinq to the Google report, it appears that digital natives have not strayed away very far from the desire for physical proximity. It mattes. But perhaps there are ways of achieving a semblance of physical proximity through technology in real time that fortifies the work already achieved through approach, systems and timing that better ensures honest and inclusion. These two may be the real issues.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 13, 2008 9:20 PM

Thank you for your comments, Judith. You write: "Just because I call myself Einstein, Groucho or Betty Boop for that matter does not make it so."
True! But it tells me a lot about how you want me to think of you, and how you want me to communicate with you. And communication is everything!

Posted by Mike L. at February 13, 2008 10:57 PM

MarkL - I completely agree with you on the importance of communication. But I was wondering about the quality, the honesty, of the communication. Yes, as a teacher it would be interesting to know how you would like to be seen but this would be a mere start, a simple introduction as in "Hi, I'm Judith." (We would be dealing with a given, as in the name given to you.) What then evolves is who you ARE by the work you do but beginning with honesty. This is also needed in work environments. The reason teachers and management do not use pseudonyms en masse in class or at work is probably because it breaks down a necessary reality, separating the student or knowledge worker from the work. I wonder if a certain formality in class rooms or at work increases the honesty in ways that pseudonyms do not. While there is reportedly a laid back environment in highly innovative cultures such as Microsoft, it would be difficult to perceive an environment where pseudonyms are used by management or by knowledge workers as...

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 14, 2008 3:54 AM

...as a norm. A certain honesty is needed for communication and innovation. How we want to be seen may be tantamount to mere appearances alone. The question for me stemmed from pseudonyms or screen names that may inhibit a sense of necessary honesty needed in classrooms and work environments.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 14, 2008 4:12 AM

Madeleine - I suspect a main reason why Google people haven't entirely "gone digital" isn't so much a Google thing as a generational issue. OK, Google probably have a lower age profile than most companies but until the current cohort of teenagers start to come into the workforce and oldies like me fade away or get with it, digital will still be less effective.

The interesting thing in all this is the use of the word, "communicate." There seems to be an assumption among many people of all ages that simply issuing a message, be it paper or digital, is communication. Well, not in my book! Communication means being able to pitch a message to the audience (1 person or 1 million) in language and a format that they will easily understand. It is the prime responsibility of the person doing the communication to make sure the message is understood and to me the fundamental are clear language in an appropriate format with follow up to ensure the communication was successful.

Posted by Mark JF at February 14, 2008 4:37 AM

Great comment, MarkF. I agree wholeheartedly.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 14, 2008 5:12 AM

Great comments Mark – I’m with you entirely.

‘The problem with communication is the ILLUSION that is has been accomplished’ George Bernard Shaw

I came across this quote about 10 years ago and it says it all. I use it in every presentation I do. I am obsessive about simplicity and simplicity starts with the language we use in my view. Even at my grand old age I am still surprised by some of the indecipherable language used in management and business generally. I conclude that is about mystifying stuff that we all know is simple. The only rationale I can think of is protectionism and elitism.

The key issue is not the medium we use to communicate it is the words we use.

Posted by Trevor Gay at February 14, 2008 6:01 AM

A friend of mine who has to communicate with a large global group (inside my company)did a quick survey to find out what people felt were the effective ways and how they wanted information sent.

We are a fast moving software company with highly skilled and IT savvy people so loads of options: Wikis, email, web pages,newsletters, meetings etc

The voting did not follow any particular technology but what was interesting is that it did follow hierarchy - i.e. find some way of getting my boss to tell me what I need to know!

I wonder if basically what we are all looking for is a spam filter in human form .......!

Posted by PaulH at February 14, 2008 7:02 AM

Well said, Paul and too funny, though very true. The filter, though, must be able to distinguish useless jargon from the neccessity of image evoking descriptions. I'm with Trevor on simplicity just so long as it is not simplicity for its own sake void of brilliant word execution which generally evokes pictures in the mind of some sort. Even mathematical equations can evoke beautiful pictures. Remember the movie, "A Beautiful Mind?"

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 14, 2008 7:37 AM

Judith! – Thank you so much for mentioning 'A Beautiful Mind' - My favourite film of the last 10 years. Russell Crowe was absolutely brilliant as John Nash don’t you think? I've watched it at least a dozen times. Another favourite film on my all time greats list is 'One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest ' ... I am beginning to see a trend emerge here :-)

I am with Judith 100% that simplicity must not undermine the use of words by talented wordsmiths to create fabulous images in our minds to get a message over. That is a million miles away from my grouse which is with those in business and management who invent languages designed to confuse. I can only assume the inventors of such an abuse of the English language presumably believe this jargon shelters them from the real world where ordinary language suffices. Neither front line employees nor customers are taken in for one nanosecond by management jargon - they see straight through it. Front line employees in touch with customers and supported by effective leadership, know the right words.

When will we learn that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like duck it probably is a duck?

Posted by Trevor Gay at February 14, 2008 8:37 AM

There is no either/or. Simplicity embraces the whole simultaneously: beauty and utility. One does not begin where another ends. A wordsmith is exactly that, nothing more, engendering or sparking no beauty and creativity in others. Wordsmiths are in the business of being noticed for their craft, of being witty, funny, brilliant etc., with a sense of self often superceding purpose or racing closely next to it. This does not draw or evoke beauty in others. The simplicity about which I refer causes an explosive and effortless effect in the brain,with powerful images, propelling us to action. This simplicity can be three words OR three hundred pages produced in all industries, all kinds of manuals and all communication mediums. Trevor, I love "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest!"

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 14, 2008 9:44 AM

Trevor – I find it very difficult to believe that “those in business and management who invent languages” set out “to confuse.” These persons do not wish to communicate or execute. This would be pure lunacy, pure sociopathic. And if we’re dealing with lunatics and sociopaths here, we are fighting a loosing battle.

Let’s say, instead, that such jargon was created because it was believed to be brilliant and needed for distinction for the lofty work of business; it may have simply evolved into such over time from a perceived notion of business. Think about it: back in the day there were fewer businesses and only a select group of people owned them.

Most managers and business owners would probably love change that resulted in increased revenue. I think sometimes that “grousing”—a new word for me, thanks—and creating a storm about what needs to change is not necessarily the best approach ALL the time. Wisdom and understanding are needed which for me is how we do what we do when we do it.

I wonder what pure results would do? A soap box is often not needed when results are evident. All we need is entry which we won’t gain through belittling or exalting our sense of what is needed over their working knowledge. Once given entry, let’s show managers and business owners another way through wisdom and understanding. Let’s go in with loads of examples of systems improvement that resulted in results.

What are your thoughts?

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 14, 2008 11:18 AM

I, too, struggle to believe that people invent language simply to confuse. As the world and our understandingof it evolves, language must evolve to explain new ideas and findings. Words will thus be born, grow, live and die like anything else. I think the true issues are:

Just because a word describes a very complicated concept that only a handful of boffins understand doesn't invalidate it. This word is needed so that those at the forefront of a field can communicate clearly with each other.

The problems arise when the boffins use the words when talking to non-specialists without explaining what they mean. This is when we rely on them to be able to simplify a complicated concept into something we ordinary mortals can understand, which is not easy to do!

Further problems arise when smart-alecs with a half-understanding of the word decide to co-opt it and use it in their jargon. Then the risk is that the meaning of the word becomes perverted, e.g. quantuum leap vs. quantuum physics. I suspect this is more to do with showing-off than an attempt to confuse.

I agree we should use clear laguage but there's also a distinction to be drawn between simple language and simplistic language. The problem is, of course, where is that fine line...?

Posted by Mark JF at February 14, 2008 12:29 PM

Great response Judith.

I agree those who invent this management jargon probably start with a concept of it being helpful for them and their peers. I think it is definitely not helpful – in fact positively off putting - to the 98% of people who are not managers. More damaging is that I actually think the use of unnecessary jargon strips the manager of an awful lot of their credibility with front line staff and therein we have a massive problem. I’ve lost count of the number of times at meetings when I have been completely baffled by the language – even after all my centuries at work. I am not a dim person – after all I tick all the right management academic boxes – I even went to Business School for Three Years in the 1990’s and managed to emerge with limited jargon damage to my plain English vocabulary.

I am really not just ‘manager knocking’ here – I am one after all!!

I am trying to say that management is still full of unnecessary jargon that does nothing to add value. I would be tempted to say it adds negative value.

I would just love to walk around the average organisation and ask randomly 100 people if they really understand this sort of language:

'Blue-sky thinking'
'Heads up'
'Think outside the box'
'The helicopter view'
Get our ducks in a row'
Joined up thinking'
'On the runway'
'Brain dump'

None of these expressions can by any stretch of the imagination be described as the beautiful use of the English language and that is my point. The front line folks who hear managers using this stuff are laughing at those managers over the coffee break. That is the reality.

Using words beautifully is a gift possessed by a few really talented people.

Writing ‘beautifully’ is not a pre-requisite of being an effective manager but in my experience the use of plain, understandable and clear language is crucial for managers who want to get things done.

PS

Investors in People urges managers to ditch needless management-speak

November 6 2006 - A survey for Investors in People finds that 54% of employees in the UK regard management jargon as a source of communication problems

http://www.hrmguide.co.uk/communication/management-jargon.htm

Comments?

Posted by Trevor Gay at February 14, 2008 12:31 PM

Hi Mark- We are saying the same thing. I couldn’t agree with you more about leaving the in-house language in house. This is an extract from my book of three years ago about the same issue in healthcare and the use of jargon by managers – your words and mine are very similar:

‘Meetings can – at worst – become a stage or arena for the manager to show their prowess of mastering a language that leaves patients and carers confused, as yet another acronym or buzz word or phrase emerges from the lips of the well meaning manager. This is not intended to be either an insult to my colleagues in management – I am proud to be one of their number - or a patronising statement about the intellectual ability of patients and carers It is simply my contention that “in-house” language should remain in house. The moment we engage in dialogue with patients and carers outside the “warmth” of our own health care environment, the language should change to what most people would call normal’

Posted by Trevor Gay at February 14, 2008 12:45 PM

MarkJF- Beautiful! And quite funny. Often I smile when I read comments on this blog. Lately I've been flat out laughing! The mere thought of some lines written here recently gets me going.

Loved your idea about stripping a word from language because others may not know its meaning as well as the smart-alec comment of co-opting words without fully understanding thereby turning them into private jargon.

My notion of languague is that it is not, by its sheer communicative origin, meant for private interpretation. Thus, it is an open source of expression to be shared by all.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 14, 2008 1:11 PM

Now...how does all of this relate to Madeleine's brillant post? I guess this is what language does best....find new openings....

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 14, 2008 1:27 PM

Whether a persons chosen words are meant to confuse or they just have the effect is simply a question of motive. That they do have that effect that Trevor describes on frontline folks however is to me and my experience, irrefutable. "Buzz words", "quality babble", "business speak"is exactly how these get labeled and regardless of how good or useful the concepts behind them it's an "excuse" used to ignore them. I don't know the source but the phrase "The problem with using simple language is that you have to know what you are talking about" perhaps explains why some managers use these types of words to feed their ego or try to impress or compensate for other skills/knowledge they lack Some of my "favorites"....relanguage, touchpoints, electronify, and price-optimized appear frequently on conference calls I have to attend. Guess it gives the leaders and frontliners something to have in common. Neither one of us knows what in the heck the other is talking about. No wonder people go "zip + 4"....(buzzwhack.com)

Posted by Dave Wheeler at February 14, 2008 11:57 PM

Thanks Dave. Maybe I was a wee bit harsh to say people invent this language to confuse - but the end result is precisely that for - I estimate - 98% of people in organisations where jargon is rife. Apologies for my initial overstatement - it was not meant as a criticism of individuals. Obviously some people enjoy this type of language. The other 98% of us I'm sure will and should continue to use plain language.

Posted by Trevor Gay at February 15, 2008 4:31 AM

No apologies necessary, Trevor. Your heart seems to forever be in the right place and it would be highly unlikely that a TP board will be void of rants. This is not the desire, though I NEVER get the slightest inkling of distain or belittlement of senior management from TP. Rather, he seems to love and value the client; this the place from which his rants rise. It is always a matter of how we do things - our approach- including what we say, when working with senior management and frontliners. The latter group is not usually an issue here, but the former sometimes is. Our feelings are irrelevant. By this, I mean, they have no real place in the solution, save to have more passion to build with the client the Shape of the Future Winner. (You might can tell that I'm sold on FSW!) Let's say the right things about our clients which will come from what we think about them. Let's love 'em. Great things follow.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 15, 2008 7:47 AM

viagra black Regarding the "irrefutability" of things (the phrase alone makes me uneasy), it remains to be how we do what we do (including what we say) that will bring about results for the client. We are - in partnership with the client - the conciliators of management and frontline relations, the uncoverers of the concealed, the architects, those with ambition, the branders, the talent (the rotor which moves the axis of change), the performers, and those who execute and experience the shape of the future winner, a moldable changeable shape as that which is in the hands of a master potter.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 15, 2008 8:20 AM

Trevor - The excerpt from your book above is beautiful. Thank you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 15, 2008 9:14 AM

Communication is about connection...not information. In our world today we have many ways to push information and we quickly become overwhelmed with it. What remains at the end of the day is what connected with us. Connection is easier accomplished with physical presence. Body language still remains preeminent. Even the digital generation wants to meet their virtual friends. I often find organizations want to push information and not take the time to connect. Then they wonder why people feel isolated or at least not connected or dedicated to the organization. Since the days of the caveman we really haven't changed. Tools change...but we still need to belong.

Please, please, do not let a virtually trained doctor do their first brain surgery on me.

Posted by Phil at February 15, 2008 3:13 PM

Judith-my use of the word "irrefutable" was prefaced by it being based on me and my experience. My perspective is middle of the organization looking up at management and leadership and operational responsibility at the frontline level. What will bring results for your client will be the degree that system/idea/initiative is deployed to the frontline. Do WE (me and my team)have the tools, time, training,information, and the "intangibles" ...leadership credibility/confidence...to make it work. WE know WE will be accountable. WE want to know what is going to be expected and how OUR performance will be assessed. Our work culture has to be based on trust, teamwork, and continuous improvement and my most critical tools are my credibility and the respect I earn that gives me my real authority. WE speak the language of process, of the systems. My knowledge and understanding of the tools and systems they use to produce the service we provide is equally as critical as my knowledge of leadership and business practices. I see with clarity and certainty Trevor's point. I use words like we, us, our......roll down here with labels like "my staff", "my people" or phrases like "on my radar screen".....you have no credibility. The white collar vs blue collar gap is alive culturally although it is seldom labeled that verbally. Successful leaders bridge that gap with credibility....or as Trevor puts it.....simplicity! Judith, you have a marvelous gift for expressing your thoughts with great clarity and I would suspect that a communicator with your skill excels at adjusting the message to the audience. The ability to take the complex and say something that enables the receiver to assign meaning to it is the essense of learning. Simply put, when your mouth says one thing and your actions/policies/processes don't contradict you.....you have credibility. Many can't do that, even more aren't smart enough to realize they need to!

Posted by Dave Wheeler at February 16, 2008 12:41 AM

Phil - I love your comments!! That's why I chose the word communion interchangably with connection, as the latter is not perceived as the former, though real connection requires communion. "Body language still remains preeminent." Love it! "Tools change...but we still need to belong." Love it! And your ending comment: "Please don't let a virtually trained doctor dn their brain surgery on me." Beautiful! Thank you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 16, 2008 8:33 AM

Dave - your detailed explanation is well received. Thank you. But are personal experiences irrefutable? Or, are they perspective-based? In any case, my concern is always how we do or speak of a thing that affects the whole. Your "critical tools, credibility and respect" comment earning real "authority" has import. And I assume by "authority" you mean the weight of your professionalism brought to the team. Bravo! I'm a little concern, however, about your "speaking the language of process comment." Language or process (anybody's process) do not inherently produce results. Dave, some of your comments (I must add) leave me a tad bit cold (though often very brilliant) because of this "irrefutable" sense when it comes to systems and processes. ( Now, I may be sincere, BUT sincerely wrong. For the latter, I ask for pardon in advance.) But processes need altering! Systems need change! The building built squarely in brick or stone may be good for a sense of protectionism, but it is inflexible to the intangibles...

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 16, 2008 9:53 AM

...innate in talent. So, creativity and innovation are thwarted and assembly-line products and services are produced. As a result, cars remain in lots, products on shelves, and no energy and enthusiasm in work environments. Since "everything deteriorates over time," let's embrace systems and process, shaping them in our thoughts first which can then become actionable in word and deed. Dave - let me be very clear about this: I value your experienbe, sensitivity, knowledge, and the force of your ideas. For these, I sincerely thank you many times.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 16, 2008 10:20 AM

Judith- I believe we place the same value and importance on a systems based approach. You in the FSW model, me in a Baldrige based system but the core concepts are virtually identical. I could have chosen numder of words such as definite, certain, undeniable, unmistakeable, inarguable, or many more because they convey the same message to me that irrefuutable does. What is irrefutable to me is the issue of language, not systems and processes on which we agree. But I didn't. This word sparked a reaction in you which to me shows our differences are probably semantics or context. Experience is my teacher and shapes my point of view. My experience however is that language can affect results. Language can motivate or de-motivate. Language can teach or confuse. Language can build a team or demoralize one. Leaders "dictate" the work environment....the culture....by what they say and what they do. Words and actions must match and when they do consistently you build an environment that promotes trust, teamwork and continuous improvement.....this is actually what rotates rotors, spins the axis, and drives/enables the system to great results. I use the phrase "real authority" to describe the degree to which my team allows me to lead....completely different than "positional" authority. It's what "makes them do what I want done because they want to do it" to paraphrase President Eisenhower. It is also the reason my customers (my team) sees my personal "Brand" as that of the team's leader....not as "their manager". Judith, please know that your "I value your experienbe, sensitivity, knowledge, and the force of your ideas. For these, I sincerely thank you many times." comment is language that precisely conveys my thoughts regarding your contrbutions to these discussions.

Posted by Dave Wheeler at February 16, 2008 1:45 PM

Dave - thank you. I appreciate your reply.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 16, 2008 2:02 PM

I love your "real authority" explanation and Eisenhower paraphrase, Dave. They embrace the whole.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 16, 2008 2:27 PM

I don't understand why we are supposed to be different from our forefathers who got together in groups to pass around information. We are still human and humans are gregarious and most of our communications is done in a one-on-one relationship which is only fostered by close proximity.

Posted by Business Loans at February 16, 2008 5:25 PM

I'm sure many of you will have come across the Buzzword Generator. I love this - if it wasn’t so serious it would be funny! Good light entertainment for the weekend :-)

The Buzzword Generator

Do you hold your friends spellbound with your eloquence? Are your sentences interesting and full of brain bending utterances or are they just plain boring? Spice them up with Buzz Words and instantly impress your friends and confound your enemies.

It's easy with the Buzz Word Generator. Just pick any word from Column One. Follow it with any word from Column Two and finish off the trio with any word from Column Three. The combination of these three words will turn any boring sentence into one of sophistication and maximum unintelligibility.

For example: 'Integrated reciprocal contingency'

Try it out on your boss, though you might find that he already uses one.

Column One Column Two Column Three
integrated/ management/ options
total/ organisational/ flexibility
systemised/ monitored/ capability
parallel/ reciprocal/ mobility
functional/ digital/ programming
responsive/ logic/ concept
optical/ transitional/ time-phase
synchronised/ incremental/ projection
compatible/ third-generation/ hardware
balanced/ policy/ contingency

Posted by Trevor Gay at February 16, 2008 6:58 PM

Trevor....the Buzzword Generator is terrific. I too swear I have heard several of these phrases over the years. I will keep a copy handy during conference calls and see how many I can introduce in the discussion! I feel so....educated and special! But it goes to your original point....empty rhetoric might be not intentionally confusing but it has that net effect....Have a total, transitional, time phase sir!

Posted by Dave Wheeler at February 16, 2008 10:18 PM

Great entry, thanks.

I agree with the research conclusions and Mark JF's pov.

There's no substitute for proximity that includes full visual, full auditory contact. There's so much communications research on this already, and it's just plain unambiguous. Face-to-face means both sides have the opportunity to gather immediate non-verbal gestures indicating agreement, upset, disagreement, skepticism, etc., as well as a desire to respond or a desire to discontinue the dialogue, etc. And you see hand gestures and other body language. There's no latency in the auditory signal (landline phone ~.2 sec, cordless phone ~.4 sec, cell phone up to ~1.5 sec) that decouples the words from the message the speakers are attemtping to communicate. And in some cultures, particularly Middle Eastern ones, where scent or other odors are generally applied as part of the message (fear, relaxation, etc.), there's data you can only gather face-to-face.

Yes, digital generation people will be more naturally comfortable with thinned-out communication, but it doesn't mean they're getting more actual communication out of the interaction.

If people need to communicate actionably, they need to either do it face to face or know they're paying a price in getting & sending only partial data, leaving questions unasked, ergo unanswered, and slowing down the workflow.

Some of the stronger past work:
E Goffman on focused interaction
http://www.paulos.net/hcc/papers/goffman.html

Posted by jeff angus at February 16, 2008 11:46 PM

Dave - regarding your prior comment, I offer these thoughts: I do not believe we look at things similarily, nor that our values altogether have the same import. (This, however, is not necessary.) What I value is first placed on the HOW which affects the system that changes over time based on the client's particulars. The system, in large, is based on discovering the intangibles innate in talent - NOT IN A SYSTEM - based upon the client's particulars. Solutions for the client are within the system (which for all intent and purposes should NOT be called such but for explanation must be) that changes constantly. The import is on the HOW which defines the "system" that forever shapes the future winner - NOT the reverse as your system (in the traditional sense) seems to imply. The changeabiliy component is key to shaping future winners. Without this change, a solid traditional system may be producing, but it will NOT be most effective without the necessary built-in changeability component...

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 17, 2008 3:57 AM

...(The "built-in" is a mind-set which we markedly differ.) Regarding your explanation about word choice, this to me is not most significant here, as you have not seemingly left base one. All of the words which you have listed, in fact, clarifies for me that our differences are indeed fundamental NOT semantics as suggested. It is not about whether "they convey the same message...that irrefutable does" but rather that the message itself is flawed. Language has, in fact, placed your argument squarely in that brick building systems, a traditional one that, to a large, degree does not shape the future winner, as there is an inherent flaw of systems conformity. Language, by the way, is NEVER irrefutable in that it infers so many things to so many people, though the root and universal meaning remain. (Here there is another thing we differ on.) Word games, buzz words etc., are great fun and instructional. But they are a part of a greater process. Their very essence defies the notion that language is irrefutable...

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 17, 2008 4:43 AM

...I see the language discussion as a training module, not as a system or process, albeit a most necessary one. Your explanation of the useage of language is great. No disagreement here: "Language motivates or de-motivates. Language can teach or confuse. Language can value a team or demoralize one." We also seem to agree on accountability in what we say and do which engenders good processes. The things you mention and the language chosen i.e., "rotor," "shape," and "spins the axis" will be meaningless with a system without built-in changeability. The adaptation of words without the understanding of the marked difference therein is, in fact, what confuses.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 17, 2008 5:14 AM

Jeff Angus...you silence me. Thank you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 17, 2008 10:29 AM

Judith-one of the core concepts in any effective performance management system is continuous performance improvement....in all elements of the system. If by "built in changeability" you mean there is a systematic process in place to continuously evaluate and improve the effectiveness of all key people (the "T" word), leadership, strategy. process/product design, customer/supplier management, balanced scorecard data collection and review processes....and more, the Baldrige system addresses it. In addition, since the criteria are also a tool you can use to audit and measure the degree to which your systems are developed and deployed organization wide you have a Plan-Do-Check-Act systematic "cycle of refinement institutionalized in the day to day . Perhaps I did however mis-interpret the meaning of built in changeability. As for the "language"....all I'm saying is that if anyone internal or external to my company came down to the floor and used words such as "talent" or any other common piece of quality babble or business speak...eyes would glaze over, barriers would be put up. It might not be a barrier from your perspective, depending on where your clients reside in the organization. But it sure would be a barrier down here on the "production" side where mine do. It's not the meaning of the words as much as it's in the messenger and their "perception" of the one doing the delivery. That's the only point I was trying to make with the "irrefuteability" of anything....

Posted by Dave Wheeler at February 17, 2008 12:46 PM

Thanks, Dave.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 17, 2008 1:01 PM

Speaking of language, I just got Trevor's book, "I Want to Tell You a Story" in the mail and it is simply beautiful. Thanks so much Trevor!

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 17, 2008 6:36 PM

And thank you as well Judith. Whether we agree, disagree, or regardless of the degree to which we do either...I always enjoy your perspective and point of view. I also learn something with every exchange of ideas.

Posted by Dave Wheeler at February 18, 2008 1:27 AM

"If space and time, as sages say, are things which cannot be, the fly that lives a single day has lived as long as we. But let us live while yet we may, while life and love are free, for time is time and runs away, though sages disagree." T.S. Eliot

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 18, 2008 3:40 AM

Madeleine...after reading all of the comments again, it can be said with great assurance that it is indeed "good to talk!" Thank you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at February 18, 2008 4:01 AM

Thanks Judith for your kind comments about the book - I hope the language 'travelled' well over the pond :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at February 18, 2008 5:56 PM

Hmmm

This one certainly seems to have run and run!

Thanks for the great debate, where there have been some prime examples of how tricky it is to convey meaning through this medium.

I am still left feeling thoughtful about how humans will evolve in this digital era. As Business Loans points out, we are historically conditioned to communicate face to face, but when I see my young nieces and nephews interacting with each other in quite a different way to the way I do, I wonder! Maybe the quality of communication is thinner (as Jeff A mentions) but the volume seems massive to me! Who knows where this crazy world of digital communications will eventually take us?

Watch this space;-)

Madeleine

Posted by Madeleine at February 19, 2008 12:07 PM

I like to meet personally and working together with my peers. So, I can also work through the Web as I am on my own with added benefits of some privacy and other conveniences. A mix of both –as I think- is optimal.

generic viagra no prescription

How can one slow down the global economy trends? The more technological elapsed time get us, the more connected and wiki will we all be. Most of the interactions I see/experience on the virtual world with extreme consequences in the real world.

I think it’s nice and productive to exchange ideas over a cappuccino. The personal contact is nice. Though, it gets better where is less frequent. So, when it happens, the person met becomes a splendid occasion.

As things get more automated, so will get we. I, as none of you, invented the world. Automations will get to work more than machines. Sometimes, it of a huge help to get an emotional issue ventilated through calm, discerned e-mails.

Regardless of keeping on embracing connectedness (which I highly like), I would say one must make in-person meetings a must-do. Let's recall that we are en route to Vernor Vinge's "Singularity."

Posted by Andres Agostini at February 29, 2008 4:46 PM