How can you communicate effectively in hybrid, flexible & remote work?
Hybrid working is a new term, but it’s far from a new concept. It’s actually been around for decades, if not centuries. There are organisations operating globally that have achieved mastery in maintaining effective communication regardless of environment by leveraging technology and simple protocols.
For example, the military concurrently operates in every environment: Land, Sea and Air, from Urban to Jungle and Arctic to Desert, maintaining effective communications between everyone from entire brigades to teams of 4 operating in the most hostile conditions imaginable.
If it’s possible to achieve effective communication under such circumstances, then why does the business world find this so mindbogglingly difficult to achieve when working from the comfort of their own home or coffee shop with access to the latest tech?
Let’s explore this now.
Communication
The model below is a representation of the Allen Curve, first discovered by Thomas Allen, Professor of Management at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), in 1977. The graph demonstrates the exponential drop in frequency of communication between people as their physical distance increases. The study found the cut off-point for ensuring meaningful communication once a week is 50m.
The correlation was tested again in 1986, 1989 and 2007 to measure the effects of new communication technologies, such as email and instant messaging. The original correlation stood up to scrutiny with every study demonstrating a decay in communication regardless of the available technology. However, a significant finding was identifying the key role of information gatekeepers. More often than not the gatekeepers were largely unrecognised by management, yet their role was at the core of relaying information from just the right people to just the right other people in the organisation, which kept everything moving.
So what does this mean for hybrid, flexible or remote working environments?
Dr Allens research, which spans 40+ years, demonstrates this behaviour isn’t changing, so we know it’s not technology or distance thats the problem for flexible or hybrid working environments.
I think its’ self evident the issue is knowledge and discipline related. It takes conscious effort to develop the skills and habit of effective communication when people are spread out, and leaders in the business world just don’t train for it. The business world suffers with inefficiencies and ineffectiveness on an ongoing basis born out of old habits that continue to measure productivity through time sat at desk, regardless if output is produced or outcomes are achieved.
What I find particularly interesting is the starting point for any debate against flexible, hybrid or remote working is the framing of the problem, more often than not perceived as a system that doesn’t or can’t work, which is demonstrably untrue as any framework is nothing more than a tool, and like any tool it requires competence to operate. Such behaviour is evidence there are many leaders unaware of the need to update their skills, as they attempt to continually operate with a skillset no longer fit for purpose, i.e. They do not know how to manage people by objectives (MBO’s). The knock on effect is they cannot create a communication strategy. A strategy that manifests as a daily/weekly/monthly/annual communication calendar that supports their team to connect meaningfully with the relevant frequency to deliver agreed objectives. Put another way: These leaders are contextually unconsciously incompetent.
As I mentioned previously the military has been operating a hybrid culture for decades, if not centuries, so through my lens as a ex-Paratrooper let’s compare the two.
The leadership skills in this context are measurably worlds apart. The NCO’s and Officers routinely check-in with those in their charge to pass on mission critical information, receive & share real-time tactical feedback known as situation reports (SITREP’s) and take the temperature of morale, regardless of environment. In fact we have an incredibly well-oiled system to ensure every soldier understands the objective, their role in achieving it and how to maintain effective communication throughout, no matter where we are or who we work for. It’s baked in to our DNA with training. This is part of a larger system that allows us to deploy hundreds of Paratroopers anywhere in the world with precision in 24 to 48hrs. So we know it can be done well under extreme duress.
To better understand the psychology of this do read: Culture: Why Is It So Difficult To Transform An Organisation?
Centralisation vs Decentralisation
The model below is based on a decision matrix the US Navy SEALs use for leadership selection. For the purpose of this article I have swapped Low Trust for Centralised, defined as: Concentration of control of activity or an organisation under a single authority, and High Trust with Decentralised, defined as: Transfer of control of activity or an organisation to local authorities. In the interest of remaining fact based, both definitions have been taken from the Oxford English Dictionary. With them we can demonstrate their relationship with Performance, defined as: A demonstration of technical skills. Four cultural archetypes emerge to offer a sense of what might manifest in each area:
These four cultures correlate with specific behaviours that can be measured in any team or organisation:
Directed: Under developed strategic thinking, some resilience, likely have problems solved for them.
Dependent: Absence of strategic thinking, learned helplessness, expect problems to be solved for them.
Assuaged: Overly supported, likely to think they are performing well, absence of objective metrics.
Autonomous: Pro-active, experimental, personally responsible, accountable, resilient and tenacious.
We can now correlate what we’ve learned about human communication habits and training with organisational culture, specifically how an organisation is encouraged to communicate relative to how empowered those in it are in terms of making decisions on behalf of the organisation, i.e. Do leaders and managers need to get approval for everything and anything before dealing with a problem and solving it OR can those closest to the problem simply act and solve the problem?
The more centralised an organisation, the more likely someone will actively avoid taking the initiative, the slower they will act and achieve resolution. The more decentralised an organisation, the more likely someone will actively seize the initiative, the faster they will act and achieve resolution.
If we go back to our first model we can reasonably assume that someone from a centralised organisation is less likely to develop the strategic thinking skills required to lead a team effectively as they have been trained to wait for someone else to make all the decisions for them. No ability to think for themselves, therefore no critical thinking around creating objectives and communication protocols to achieve them. Communication decay becomes inevitable.
We can also reasonably assume that someone from a decentralised organisation is more likely to develop strategic thinking skills as they have been trained to think for themselves, therefore possess a level of critical thinking around creating objectives and communication protocols to achieve them. Sustainable effective communication becomes ever more likely.
Let me give you a personal example of decentralised: I specifically remember preparing to go on an eight-man patrol to carry out Close Target Reconnaissance (CTR) in the middle of the night, essentially get as close to an enemy position as possible, observe & record their activity then return without them ever knowing we were there.
This particular event is memorable for me as our Patrol Commander, a Corporal, after receiving his orders, gathered us in a circle and clearly stated the what, why, how and when of our mission. He then asked us to poke holes in the action plan he’d come up with to catch any blind spots, he then asked us for ideas on how best to plug any gaps and the good ones were adopted. This created buy-in for each paratrooper, built confidence in our ability to operate as a team, trust in our Patrol Commander and indirectly challenged and prepared each of us to think and operate at his level. Should anything happen to him or his second in command (2i/c) the rest of us can adapt quickly to the changing situation and complete the mission. This is my frame of reference for grassroots leadership at the lowest ranks of the military hierarchy.
How many teams do you know that can, or are even allowed to, operate remotely with this level of skill and autonomy at the coal face in a business environment?
To learn more about the impact of leadership styles do read: Leadership: Styles, Cause and Effect.
Impact on Organisation
The model below is based on a matrix created by Professor of Psychology, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi who was first to formally investigate the traits associated with high performance, which he collectively called Flow. I have modified it for a business context to correlate a leadership style with its organisational impact by looking at the relationship between Challenge, defined as: Degree of difficulty to be overcome, and Support, defined as: Available resources. Four organisational states emerge:
These organisational states correlate with specific measurable behaviours in any population:
Anxiety: Missed deadlines, avoidance of interaction, negatively impacts employee sickness absence.
Apathy: Absence of enthusiasm or presence of indifference, negatively impacts employee retention.
Comfort: Lack of activity and accountability, negatively impacts employee productivity.
Flow: Pro-active, self-directed, emphasis on personal responsibility, positively impacts all of the above
Your skills and style as a leader determine which of these four quadrants you, your team or organisation will predominantly operate in, regardless of whether you’re working environment is flexible, hybrid or remote. In fact, if you can’t demonstrate the leadership skills of leading by MBO’s combined with effective communication in a traditional 9-5 office, when everyone is within arms reach and always available. You have no chance in these modern business environments. You will only magnify your incompetence. As demonstrated by the armed forces, the problem isn’t the system, the problem is you and the culture you create.
Conclusion
The key leadership skills of Thinking Strategically, Influencing Stakeholders, Concise Communication, Giving Meaningful Feedback and Dealing with difficult people are the same regardless of context, it doesn’t matter if you are in a traditional 9-5 office, Hybrid, Flexible or Remote working environments. If your skills are poor you will struggle regardless, all that happens is your existing lack of leadership capability becomes ever more transparent as business environments modernise.
And if you appear to perform well in a traditional 9-5 office and less so in a Hybrid, Flexible or Remote environments, you have either been unwittingly winging it or you are failing to successfully adapt and transfer your skills to a new context, most likely the former. Either way it still comes down to your skillset.
As I wrote in a previous case study about flexible working: The typical skills gap that creates barriers to success with flexible working, that I’ve found, is in line manager capability. If your culture rewards line managers that measure productivity by monitoring time spent at a desk, as opposed to output and outcomes, that are specific, measurable and time bound then you will have an uphill battle with changes to your ways of working.
I strongly believe this is one of the reasons we are witnessing the return to office debate. The necessary and rapid adoption of digital over the last couple of years simply shone light into cracks that were always there. Any leader that states “I don’t trust my people to work remotely” is publicly and unwittingly advertising their incompetence at organising and leading people. This behaviour is the evidence they do not possess the leadership skills required to adapt to market changes or an organisational overhaul. It is amazing how many people I’ve met in leadership roles that can grasp enough concepts to talk a good game with industry jargon, but are unable to actually plan and execute anything.
To learn more about successful flexible working strategies as part of a business strategy then do read: High Performance: Flexible Working & Business Outcomes.
If you would benefit from support to develop a successful hybrid, flexible or remote working environments for you organisation, ensuring you take a strategic approach, then please do schedule a call with me by putting a 60mins in my diary at a time that suits you. We can discuss your situation and options over an eCoffee.
Best Wishes
Kenny
