The bad, and the ugly: The other side of teams in the digital age

As mentioned in part one of this series, several things stand out for me as I reflect on my observations and the experiences of my graduate students: this reflection helps me understand the influence of technology on teams in the digital first-hand.

In a graduate course I recently taught, students spent time studying, designing, planning, and eventually implementing a workshop on emotional intelligence to an outside organization. They were a very bright group of professionals, skilled in their field, experienced in working on project teams and task groups, and knew their data. These graduate students are busy professionals who work hard in their personal, professional, and academic lives. They take their studies seriously and are interested in what they do. They have worked hard during the six weeks with a deep desire to do well and deliver. However, in spite of their clear talent and hard work, the group’s productivity (and consequently the project’s productivity) dropped considerably because of the limitations that the group was under.

Semi-virtual teams virtually break down

During the first six weeks following the residential lab experience the team has usually been on the task. The digital village is abuzz. E-mails fly back and forth, ideas abound, and suggestions are exchanged. The pace is quick and enthusiasm is high. As the work becomes more complex, different individuals push for decisions, others push to keep things open, and still others push for more time to do research. Misunderstandings begin to appear, blame begins to spread, and feedback, although sought after, is resisted, ignored, or rejected unless it subscribes to the person's perspective. Conference calls diminish in frequency and when they do take place are often perfunctory, with the usual check –ins eliminated in the service of time.

With the continued absence of maintenance, work levels begin to drop, interest levels begin to wane, and the collective begins to fragment, with the interdependence initially experienced and sought after breaking down. Teams begin to work independently, often at odds with each other with subgroups within teams isolating themselves even further.

The lowering of trust has been a chronic problem in teams in the digital age that are composed of individuals, subgroups, and/or volunteer teams who are mandated to work on an aspect of a project. The cycle is familiar. A subgroup (person) volunteers to work on a piece of a larger project. Pitfall number one: the mandate is unclear. Pitfall number two: the mandate does not get clarified and the subgroup (person) proceeds to work on the task. They send in their work, e-mails are exchanged, discussion or disagreements ensue, the task is re-assigned or taken over by another subgroup or person, and the work gets redone. There is an atmosphere of discontent and the seeds of resentment begin to grow. Everyone is upset.

The cycle can take on another variation. A subgroup (person) volunteers or is assigned a piece of a larger project. The mandate is clear and the subgroup (person) proceeds to work on the task. They send in their work, they are thanked, and, without their knowing, the task is re-assigned or taken over by another subgroup or person, and the work gets redone. Discontent, resentment, and misunderstandings follow. Everyone is unhappy. When this cycle repeats itself, a state of mistrust gets fostered, involvement lowers, resistance grows; and when volunteers are needed for another task, they are either not forthcoming, or the task gets picked up with reluctance and/or noncompliance. This mistrust—fear cycle constrains and is self-fulfilling. There is preoccupation with boundary-setting and protecting one's turf and the development of protective pairing; collusion and subgrouping begins to emerge. Work gets undertaken with a sense of duty and with little interest or investment.

I have seen this painful cycle in many teams. However, the extent to which this occurs in teams in the digital age is much more frequent. I might add alarmingly so. Once again, I have puzzled about this. As I listen to the power issues experienced, the misunderstandings, and the hostilities that emerge under such circumstances, I am left with the impression that it is easier to dismiss another person's work (in this case a peer) when the encounter and decision taken is not face-to-face.

Pitfalls and concerns: the bad and ugly of teams in the Digital Age

More and more groups seem disconnected with their group's process and lost in the emotional dynamics that surface. In some cases, there is self-awareness and poor self- regulation; in others, there is no group self-awareness and no self-regulation; and in most groups, there seems to be a lack of structure that allows effective task processes to emerge. Groups who are unwilling (or unable) to examine their own emotional intelligence disable their capacity to establish norms of supportive behavior. They choose to wear blinders, resulting in groupthink with no proactive engagement in problem solving when confronted with critical issues and with no appreciation of the necessity for collaborative decision-making.

Below are common concerns, pitfalls and difficulties that can derail teams in the digital age:

1. Support fades when most needed.
2. Teleconferencing creates an unnatural flow of conversation and becomes a disconnected experience.
3. Difficulty negotiating phone calls with different geographic time zones.
4. Focus on big picture lost as teams work on parts.
5. Subgroupings emerge with those working side-by- side.
6. E-mail experience riddled with misunderstandings and emotionality.
7. Trust lowers as technology is allowed to take over.
8. Decision-making structure unclear and not agreed upon.
9. Skills and expertise not used maximally, and in some cases not at all.
10. Mandates are ambiguous and/or unrealistic.
11. Peers not held accountable for deliverables.
12. Technological capacity allows knowing each other only through task.

Setting norms that encourage standards of accountability within a team is challenging at the best of times. Instilling accountability as a primary mechanism within teams in the digital age is even more challenging for non- face-to-face interactions. The person is not in front of you, only the person's work. For many, the easier path is to avoid being transparent and write a perfunctory note of thanks and then stew. Avoidance or absence of accountability creates resentment among team members who have different standards of performance. Missing deadlines and key deliverables, distributing incomplete work, and/or being unavailable foster deterioration of relationships, encourage mediocrity, and lower commitment. Both the product and the relationship deteriorate.

There is much irony in this vicious cycle. Often team members do not want to call their peers on performance or behaviors for fear this might hurt the individual or jeopardize the relationship. The very thing they want to avoid invariably occurs. The relationship does deteriorate. As lower standards prevail, dysfunctional team behavior appears and the team begins to stagnate and fails to grow.

How can a group navigate the pitfalls of teams working in the digital age? What concrete actions steps can a group put into place to navigate the territory of working in the digital age? Next week’s blog post will outline the good (or how to get to the good) of teams in the digital age.

About the author