麻豆果冻传媒

Collaboration

鈥淭here were times I was averaging 90 hours a week at the office, but 60 hours of actual working. Work would come in waves at totally random times. So it could be midnight. You鈥檇 think you were finishing up, and something gets fired off that somebody needs you to do. So you stay all night. Go home and shower, take a two or three-hour nap. Come back. My longest work day was 41 hours. I was delirious by the end.鈥 – Patrick Curtis, former Wall Street investment banker, now CEO of start-up, wallstreetoasis.com, California

The Challenge

Work has become increasingly complex. In the past two decades, the amount of collaboration between managers and employees has ballooned by 50 percent, leading to what researchers call 鈥渃ollaborative overload.鈥 In a typical week, as much as 80 percent of workers鈥 time is spent on meetings, phone calls, and responding to e-mails, leaving little time for actual work.1 The typical knowledge worker is interrupted every three minutes, and can take as much as 23 minutes to get back on track.2 These frequent disruptions and task-juggling tax cognitive bandwidth and force workers work faster, increasing time pressure, frustration, and stress.3

The Science

  • Egocentrism: Humans have a hard time seeing the world accurately from another鈥檚 perspective.4 We often overestimate how vital we are at work and don't see how our actions affect others, so send e-mails to get ideas off our plates, without recognizing we鈥檙e loading others鈥. We also have a 鈥渇ear of missing out,鈥 so we鈥檙e inclined to go to all meetings and be part of all conversations.
  • Asymmetric cost structures: When we send an e-mail, we may just want to get an idea or thought out quickly before we forget, especially if we work at different times and in different places from coworkers. Our inbox may be clear, but we鈥檝e just added to the workload and cognitive load of others. When that e-mail comes from the boss, research shows we鈥檙e driven to answer, regardless of time of day or night.5
  • Risk aversion: Technology makes it easy to overcollaborate鈥攖o CC colleagues on e-mail, to send a host of calendar invites for meetings. Because humans are driven to seek safety, the safe choice for the sender is often to include more people than necessary. The safe choice for the recipient, particularly when the sender is in a position of power, is to respond to e-mail and attend meetings. This leads to a culture of inefficient collaboration that bogs down individual attention.6

Designing Solutions

Promising New Ideas

  • Reduce meeting time by making the agenda divisible. Dividing up meetings by time and topic reduces risk aversion and encourages advance thinking and intentional scheduling. The idea is to create a norm that respects other people鈥檚 time.
  • Make invisible individual work visible. Schedule time for concentrated work, and make it as important as meeting time.7
  • Be clear about trade-offs. When scheduling meetings or asking to collaborate, make it a practice to acknowledge that other work will have to be done at another time.

Best Practice

A multi-year study at the Boston Consulting Group of giving workers predictable time off, with no expectation of work or e-mail checking, wound up not only improving personal satisfaction, but also project performance, with a 35 percent increase in teamwork and collaboration, a 35 percent increase in value to clients, and a 100 percent increase in team effectiveness.8

鈥淚 talk to 100,000 people a year. I ask them what they spend their day doing. They all answer: 鈥榚-mails and meetings.鈥 No matter the country or the culture. This is what drowns us every day. You can鈥檛 innovate and change if there鈥檚 no space for it.鈥 – Lisa Boddell, CEO and founder, futurethink, New York

Citations
  1. Rob Cross, Reb Rebele, Adam Grant, 鈥淐ollaborative Overload,鈥 Harvard Business Review, January-February 2016,
  2. Jennifer Robison, 鈥淭oo Many Interruptions at Work?鈥 Gallup, June 8, 2006,
  3. Gloria Mark, Daniela Gudith, Ulrich Klocke, 鈥淭he Cost of Interrupted Work: More Speed and Stress,鈥 University of California, Irvine,
  4. Kruger, J., Epley, N., Parker, J., & Ng, Z. W. (2005). 鈥淓gocentrism Over E-Mail: Can We Communicate as Well as We Think?鈥. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 925-936.
  5. Stephen R. Barley, Debra E. Meyerson, Stine Grodal, 鈥淓mail as Source and Symbol of Stress,鈥 Ford Foundation, National Science Foundation, Stanford/GM Collaborative Research Laboratory,
  6. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). 鈥淧rospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk鈥. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
  7. Wenzel, M. (2005). Misperceptions of social norms about tax compliance: From theory to intervention. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26(6), 862-883.
  8. 鈥淎 Better Way to Work,鈥 Boston Consulting Group,

Table of Contents

Close