Stop! information overload & organisational pathology

A few posts have popped up in my feedreader about information overload recently. Firstly Ross with a reprint of a very sensible article on dealing with information overload (which I would recommend in its entirety).

Then Stanley Bing says:

what [constant use of phone & blackberry] does is that feeds control freaks with a constant, steady stream of stuff that needs to be controlled. That's what's making people more crazy. And what happens is that everybody goes crazy in a different way. In other words, some people get extremely morose. Other people get very paranoid.

And Merlin Mann goes on:

I can envision a world where sweating over your beepy electronic device starts looking about as “executive” and “pro-active” as sucking on a crack pipe in the break room

And continues:

I think one of the emerging leadership skills of the next five years will be learning how to do brilliant filtering

Which ties in with this post by Michael Watkins about pyromaniacs:

These days, pyromaniacs’ favorite incendiary devices are Blackberries and their Windows Mobile cousins. At the same time they have accelerated communications, these devices have dramatically lowered the barriers to lighting fires; now it’s just a few keystrokes away.

What I want to highlight from these various posts is that information overload is not simply a technological issue. It's a behavioural & psychological response to a changed environment. It's not just the proliferation of email/mobile phones/IM/etc - there are other drivers as well:

• Both managers and employees feel under pressure to deliver results and have access to more & more information. However, more information does necessarily yield better decision-making - just more stuff to plough through. The assumption is that better information technology means fewer staff - rather than more.
• Most organisations talk about "work/life balance" but have an unspoken rule that you just need to get it done. And "it" is 40% more than last quarter.
• Most organisations equate productivity with activity. And, my, don't these technologies allow us to be active.
• Specific individuals within organisations can trigger cascades of inefficient activity through their use of ICT (Watkins' pyromaniacs).

At the organisational level, dealing with information overload and its resultant pathological behaviours requires:

• A proper understanding of what productivity means (& how you measure it). If a productive manager is one that makes good decisions, how do you measure how good their decisions are?
• A clearer understanding of the relationship between patterns of ICT use and that worker productivity.

At an individual level, each of us needs to do the same. I have something of an email habit, clicking "refresh" on my inbox like a rat in a Skinner Box - but I don't have a PDA/Blackberry (which is a bit like a meth addict proudly claiming not to touch heroin). I have decided I need to have one email-free day a week. The computer will stay off*.

We also need to examine the relationships that are mediated through these technologies. Are we driving people crazy with our behaviour? How do we manage ourselves to get the best out of our interactions with others? For some of us, this might be too painful. Best get back to hitting them with emails/txts/IMs I guess - that'll learn 'em.

What does all this boil down to? How we learn to say "no" better.

*I may need to find a higher power to call on for that - a tasty chicken korma perhaps.

Saying (& hearing) "no"

danah boyd loses context for herself on facebook.

I'm a "public figure"... at least in the world of social network sites. People
see my name in the press and they friend request me and it's rude of me to say
no.

I don't know danah but I quite like her writing. However, saying "no" to others and accepting these refusals with grace is a critical part of human social interaction. Not every negotiation or transaction ends in "yes". That is something we have to be prepared for when we engage in these activities. Otherwise we may get offended, hurt, etc.

On the other hand, the risk of offending or hurting someone is not sufficient reason to say "yes" to something we think is a bad idea*. People get over refusal and rejection - often quicker than expected.

I am not famous so only people I know want to "friend" me. I have rejected connection offers with people I don't know on linkedin and I'm sure the same thing will arise on facebook (I'm a loose-linker but not an absolute link-slut).

If our world is getting more interconnected then we will face more opportunities for interaction & exchange. And this almost certainly means more acceptances & rejections. I'm not sure that we all need to develop hides as thick as telesales representatives but:

• Remember that any offer can be rejected.
• If you reject someone, say why. "I don't know you well enough" is acceptable.
• If you are rejected (for a job, in love, over a freakin' facebook invite), get over it.

There is plenty to be written about the need for social networking applications to allow us to manage our multiple identities/faces better but that's way too complicated for my mind today.

*This links to the power of Fuggetaboutit. Someone refused your offer of myspace/linkedin/facebook friendship? Get on with it. Let go. Really.