Digital behavioural change – are you motivated enough?

At SWOOP Analytics we pride ourselves on identifying evidence on the need to make behavioural changes in the way we interact with each other. But is evidence enough to influence change? 

Apparently not, according to organisational psychologist Adam Grant. We need to look no further than arguments on climate change and vaccinations to appreciate not all “evidence” is equal in the eyes of the beholder. According to Grant, when arguments are preached with passion and conviction we create a “binary bias” of strongly polarised believers and non-believers. While we might not compare digital collaboration habits with issues like vaccination or climate change, the desired outcome is the same; a change in behaviour is needed. 

Have we reached a “peak influencer” point? 

Have you noticed an increase in “binary bias”? Climate change proponents and deniers, COVID-19 vaxxers and anti-vaxxers, Democrats and Republicans etc.. The internet has provided us with a proliferation of arguments and “evidence” for both sides of the arguments. Do you find yourself taking one side and only listening to the evidence that supports your stance? This is called confirmation bias. In order to avoid confirmation bias you need to be able to think like a scientist, applying equal and objective attention to all available evidence. The problem is that when the evidence comes via the internet, with all shades of truthful and fake news, the task quickly becomes overwhelming. It’s easier to go with what you believe and ignore potential counter-evidence.  

Are we getting to the point when even well researched and argued positions, made by highly credentialed individuals are presented, there will still be a significant proportion of the audience that will remained unconvinced? This is certainly what it appears like in the case of both climate change and COVID-19 vaccinations. Better arguments, more evidence, more credentialed proponents no longer appear the answer. Perhaps we have gone past the point where rational augments and evidence can hold sway? 

The power of “grey” 

The field of behavioural economics was founded on the premise that economics is not really rational. Herbert Simon’s concepts of “Bounded Rationality”, Kahneman and Tversky’s Prospect Theory of human biases and the Thaler and Sunstein Nudge theory all point to humans not acting in rational ways. We should, therefore, not be surprised when our carefully crafted and evidenced cases for change are less successful than we’d hoped for. But inevitably we are surprised and often disappointed. How could it be that global warming can be doubted? How can it be that so many smart people refuse to get vaccinated against COVID-19? 

Adam Grant.

In Grant’s latest book “Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don’t Know”, Grant urges us to act like a scientist, when presenting a case for change. Scientists will create hypotheses, collect evidence to test these hypotheses, and importantly, be transparent about the limitations of their studies, identifying caveats to the tentative conclusions made. Grant suggests that when a claim is made that does not align with your own beliefs, we are inclined to ignore it. However, if the claim is made along with the “shades of grey” that exist, we are more inclined to be less polarised in our judgments and open to further discussion. This openness is the signal for a potential for real behavioural change. 

Grant is both an academic and consultant, and openly admits to regretting the way he’s written for public forums, without adequately exposing his studies’ limitations and/or caveats. With good reason though, it risks confusing his audience. Grant is not alone. It’s fair to say that virtually anyone who has written for a business publication, blog or website is guilty of the same. If you take the time to research your favourite academic contributors to the Harvard Business Review, MIT Sloan Review, Forbes etc. and then look for the academic publications behind them, you will find a much more humble and cautionary tone. This is the power of academia. Promote an argument without sufficient evidence, method or logic; be prepared to be shot down. The downside is such papers are generally unintelligible to the general public. Grant, however, perseveres, citing research that science reports included caveats succeeded in capturing the readers’ interest, and keeping their minds open. In other words, invoking “the power of grey”. 

Well, here it goes – adding grey to the black & white 

I’m a self-confessed researcher that suffers from confirmation bias. I have worked in commercial research laboratories and spent many years as a management consultant. My current role at SWOOP Analytics blends the two. Other than for the time I spent completing my PhD, I haven’t spent a lot of time or energy trying to prove my hypotheses wrong. So it’s a big thing for me to take arguments I have recently made on a blog post on the (bad)  digital working habits, I called the “7 deadly sins”,  and actively look for strong arguments and evidence to the contrary. The arguments are presented here without judgment. 

Digital Work Habit	My Proposition	Contrary Argument/Evidence
1. Working in Chat	Work in Channels not Chat	For the most part the literature spoke to the benefits of chat. This study found that less extroverted young adults achieved higher levels of self-esteem and showed less depressive symptoms from chatting online with peers. A number of articles pointed to the value of chatting to learning English as a language. Chatting online even resulted in improved oral proficiencies.
2. Working in Email	Don’t use Email for internal communication	The literature around email use and social networking tends to argue the benefits of email over social media, like Facebook, which is externally focused. The main argument for email is its universality and interchange standards. This article argues that; “Not only is email the biggest, best and most advanced social network, it’s also the best and least-distracting interface to the lesser social networks.” The authors point out there are 3.8 billion email users estimated by market research firm Radicati Group. And email users send hundreds of billions of emails every day.
3. Meetings	Reserve for qualitative time only, no status updates	There is a rich literature on the value of meetings. Essentially it is argued that meetings uniquely provide for; “when there is a need for the expression of emotions, when tasks require coordination and timing among members’ activities, when one is attempting to persuade others, or when tasks require consensus on issues that are affected by attitudes or values of the group members”. It is also argued that meetings are critical to human wellbeing and mental health;“individuals need personal contact with others to satisfy deep primitive psychological needs”.
4. Work Files	Minimise private stores	In researching this, two elements came up. One was about “oversharing” and the other a more generic “working out loud” practice. The oversharing specifically relates to the increased security risks that oversharing exposes organisations to. Security firm Semantic report that 93% of security officers are concerned with the amount of company files being shared in the cloud and suggest 35% of all files are overshared. They specifically refer to M365 in this comment: “with cloud platforms such as Office 365 organisations are in fact putting unmanaged cloud file-sharing options into employees’ hands”. IDM Reports that “organizations average 439,000 files at-risk due to oversharing”. It was harder to find specific criticisms to the Working Out Loud practice. The main critiques were related to how difficult it can be to do in practice. Finding time to meet was one barrier mentioned. Another, was that there are a number of people that just aren’t interested in sharing what they know.
5. Camera in Meetings	Turn it on	In truth there are many people who are uncomfortable turning their cameras on in video meetings. This author suggests having the camera on is personally draining and can detract from creating meaningful outcomes. He also points out that in a face-to-face meeting people are not always eye-to-eye with the speakers; often taking notes etc.. Studies have shown that staring at a screen can actually cause stress in general, which is one cause for video fatigue. Additionally, your visual senses account for about 30% of your brain power, compared to only about 3% for hearing. Your brain is working overtime when you stare at people on camera. Another theme relates to the added energy used by going video and subsequent environmental effects. Just one hour of videoconferencing or streaming, for example, emits 150-1,000 grams of carbon dioxide.
6. Screen Sharing in Meetings	Use more	This point relates to video meeting features like whiteboarding as well. The environmental impacts that relate to video also apply here. Other criticisms relate to the negative effects from not doing it properly. Issues like the need to being prepared, messy desktops, notification distractions, too small to read and getting into “show me” mode, rather than truly engaging.
7. Enterprise Social Networks (ESN)	Use more	Enterprise social platforms like Yammer suffered many criticisms in their early days, some which likely still persist. The main criticism relates to wasting time on potentially non-work related discussions. A more nuanced criticism is the impact ESNs can have on middle managers and established business processes. ESNs can work outside an organisation’s formal processes for collaboration. Because of this they can undermine such processes and make life difficult for the managers charged with managing compliance to them.

A new “complexified” view of the 7 deadly sins for digital work habits 

I have to admit to learning about potential barriers to change that I wasn’t even aware of. This has allowed me to provide this more nuanced view of the 7 deadly sins of digital working: 

Digital "Sin"	New Nuanced Recommendations
1. Over using one-on-one chat	There is a place for one-on-one chat. For those new or less confident with digital work, one-on-one chat with a trusted colleague is an excellent, low risk way to learn. It is also useful for discussing immature work related ideas. Be mindful though that as soon as these ‘chats’ evolve to the point that others might need to know, you should move them to threaded discussions.
2. Over-use of email	Email is still the primary channel for engaging externally. You might also take advantage of its universality by allowing notifications for all your other channels to be also emailed to you. In this way all your notifications are at least in one place. You should, however, still avoid sending internal emails. They are at risk of getting missed among everything else email is used for.
3. Over use of meetings	Need to organise something quickly? Navigate a tricky negotiation? Gain a consensus from your team on a decision? Brainstorm to start a new initiative? These are all valid situations that demand meetings. There are, however, many situations that can be catered for asynchronously. According to one of our SWOOP consulting partners, meeting time can be reduced up to 80% by judiciously choosing what to meet about.
4. Not sharing files	Movements like ‘Working Out Loud’ encourage us to work in our shared spaces as much as possible. Be selective though. Do not over-share by placing files in places where colleagues with little or no interest in the content will be notified eg large online teams. When you start to interact with your colleagues around content you are creating, it is time to shift the content to a shared space, where the latest versions are available to all. Also be mindful of the higher risks inherently involved in sharing files in the Cloud (eg M365). For the majority of what we work on, falling into unintended hands is likely not a big issue. Take the time to secure those files that fall into the sensitive category though.
5. Camera off in meetings	I’m sure you will have had some animated discussions with your colleagues about this one! On the balance though, the evidence suggests it is better to have your camera on in video calls. If indeed you are suffering from video fatigue, just turn your camera on at the start of the meeting and announce that you will be turning your camera off for this reason. Other reasons could be issues with your internet bandwidth. Your colleagues will understand. You might also choose to turn it on at specific times e.g. when you are speaking, or looking to speak. It can also be the case in teams that video conference regularly, and the team members know each other well; not turning the camera on may not be an issue. Take the opportunity to do your bit for the environment.
6. Only talking, not screen sharing, in meetings	There are times where screen sharing or whiteboarding is not important. For example, a leader’s meeting to share and discuss opinions on an issue, does not require anything other than a video or audio link. Again, do your bit for the environment. Think about when you would have shared a PowerPoint or drawn on a whiteboard in your face-to-face meetings. Don’t stop doing this, just because you are now virtual. Take the time and learn to prepare for and use the full functionality of the toolsets you have available.
7. Not using the Enterprise Social Network (ESN) enough	Your ESN is your ticket to broader engagement with others in your organisation, especially when working remotely. If you are a manager, it is easy to feel left out or by-passed if your staff can freely converse with leaders in other lines of business, via the ESN. After all, this is part of your role, connecting your staff more broadly across the organisation. You may also see short cuts being taken. For example, you might have an established help desk to help people with IT problems. But the ESN is also providing this support, though in a much more ad hoc way. Isn’t this double work? Be aware that digital transformational tools like an ESN are designed to change the way we work for the better. Outcomes trump process every time. It is important to not see the means as the end. If you are a manager responsible for an established business process, look to the ESN as a way of improving the outcomes from your business processes. Rather than fight the ESN, look at where it is succeeding and encourage your staff to participate to produce that better outcome.

Well there it is; a more complexified and nuanced response to the 7 deadly digital working sins. How did I go?