In the last few weeks, I’ve been listening to a really interesting audiobook. Entitled ‘Shoe Dog’, it is the autobiography of Nike’s founder Phil Knight. It’s an interesting story on so many levels, and I was really interested to hear how Nike (or Blue Ribbon as it was then) was reportedly one of the first US shoe companies to partner with a Japanese manufacturer.
This was five or six decades ago, long before e-mail, satellite communication links and it was even before fax machines were commonplace. When working internationally everything took longer—the author describes sending important messages by airmail, or if it was really urgent by telex. Conversations could take weeks, or even months, and sometimes there was no option but to get on a plane to resolve an issue. Looking back, this seems like a completely different world. It is easy to forget that it wasn’t that long ago that the world ran on intra-office (typed) memos, with a typing pool that banged out communications as fast as it could.
This is a massive juxtaposition with the world we live in now. We have moved to quite a different extreme where communication is easy. Communication is ubiquitous. You can’t blink without finding there are 25 new e-mail messages, 7 new WhatsApp messages, 12 Facebook updates and a whole plethora of LinkedIN connection requests. And this connected world provides us with so many opportunities; you wouldn’t be reading this blog if the technology didn’t exist.
Yet, it has a darker side too. Over-communication can become a habit—instant messengers set the expectation of an ‘instant’ response. With easy, cheap communication we are bombarded with interruptions 24 hours a day, and as much as we can switch them off, it is a difficult discipline to do so. But if we spend so much time communicating, so much time fielding and fire-fighting our multiple inboxes, what do we lose? And in particular, what does this mean for the quality of decisions that are made in organisations?