What is a good balance between Channel discussions and Chat in Microsoft Teams?
What is a good balance between Channel discussions and Chat in Microsoft Teams? This is precisely the question we asked ourselves as we prepare our new SWOOP for M365 product to nudge people toward an appropriate balance as to when they should be posting in channels versus chat. We have previously written about the importance of not “working in chat”, where we suggested; “working in the threads and playing in chat” as a simple behavioural rule to operate by.
In reality, there will be many people who would still like to work, at least some of the time, in Chat. Perhaps you have a quick question for a colleague which doesn’t really require sharing with a broader group. Chat is good for that short, sharp interaction with a single colleague; something we have become familiar with when messaging friends and family. While our expectations for a chat message might be close to an instant response, channels messages could go for a few hours without an expectation of a response.
Chat, along with calls and meetings, falls into what we refer to as “synchronous” communication. It demands your attention. Channel messages, like Yammer discussions and email are referred to as “asynchronous” communications, where the response time is very much at the discretion of the receiver. The balance between synchronous and asynchronous communication effectiveness has been the subject of significant research, in particular, in the area of education. This has been heightened during the COVID-19 pandemic, where most education courses went virtual. What is the right balance between students interacting in asynchronous discussion groups, and synchronous video lectures?
The balance between asynchronous and synchronous communication, when applied to learning, can be likened to how we as individuals balance our decision-making. For some decisions we are happy to make quick, even impulsive, decisions. Others we want to spend more time on and be more considered. Typically, these are for more important decisions. Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman identifies this balance well in his book on “Thinking, Fast and Slow”, which suggests that we have too much confidence in our faster judgments. In the case of Chat, perhaps we are too confident that Chat (collaborating fast) is meeting the majority of our collaboration needs where, alternatively, a more considered practice of channel discussions (collaborating slowly), should be given more prominence.
The answer is synchronous AND asynchronous
My search through the academic literature predictably did not find a suggestion that one mode should be used over the other. Disappointingly, there wasn’t even any suggestion of what a good balance might be. One study on “Exploring effectiveness of team communication: Balancing synchronous and asynchronous communication in design teams” summarised their findings as:
“A collective framework for team communication and collaboration using electronic tools was missing. There was also evidence of a lack of understanding by the users of the proper use of the tools, a lack of training, poor management competences to stimulate proper use. There was also evidence that the rivalry of tools tended to hinder, rather than improve, effectiveness of team communication.”
In short, no framework, no understanding, no training, no competence and when left to personal preferences, things got worse.
I think this is pretty much the state of play with Microsoft Teams usage. We could safely say that when the pre-COVID-19 usage of 32 million daily users went to 75 million in a matter of weeks, that usage was mostly former Skype for Business functions of call, chat and meetings i.e. synchronous communication. As of April 2021, that number has jumped to 145 million daily users. How much of that do we think is asynchronous Channel discussions?
Here are some numbers to consider
We took a sample of more than 4,000 staff from four organisations and analysed their Channel message and Chat message balance over a 30-day period. They had to have sent at least one Chat or Channel message to be included. We calculated the balance as a ratio of Chat messages sent to Channel messages sent. If an individual had sent no Channel messages we set the ratio to the number of Chat messages they sent.
These four organisations were using SWOOP for both Yammer and Microsoft Teams and therefore were likely comfortable with the asynchronous communications of Yammer and Teams Channel discussions.
Firstly, we found 60% of the staff analysed had not sent a Channel message over the month analysed. It does require a little more knowledge to participate in a Channel discussion than a Chat. Firstly, you have to be a member of a digital team. But 60% appears high given that the organisations have been operating in Teams for well over a year, and usually much longer, by the time this sample was taken. And our 2021 Microsoft Teams Benchmarking Report indicated thousands of teams were being formed.
When we look at the Chat/Channel ratio, around 1% sent the same or more Channel messages than Chat messages. 8% had sent up to 10 Chat messages for every Channel message sent. Does this balance sound about right to you?
The next category is between 10 and 100 Chat messages for every Channel message sent. I think most of us would accept that maybe 100:1 is biased toward Chat too much. 65% even exceed this number (which would include a good proportion of those that sent no Channel messages).
This is the dilemma we are faced with in setting targets for balancing Chat and Channel messages. Our normal practice, in the absence of anything better, is to assume Pareto’s 80/20 rule and suggest that the top 20% are responsible for the most effective communications practices. Our sample places this cut-off at 33 Chat messages for every Channel message sent. Still sound a bit high? We thought so; we set the peak point at the 10% level or around 11 Chat messages for every Channel message sent. More than this you are moving toward favouring Chat too much; less and you are moving toward favouring Channels too much. In fact, while choosing the 10% level as the peak behaviour, we are setting the 20% (ratio of 33) and 30% (ratio of 70) levels as progressive targets.
With no real definitive research guidance on this quantitative balance, you can see that we are simply looking for a reasonable starting point.
Treating Teams Channels use as an adoption challenge
Another way of viewing the Chat/Channels balance dilemma is to accept that Chat is the status quo and people have to be influenced into using Channels more. The diffusion of innovation curve posed by Everett Rogers has been used extensively to explain adoption behaviours for new innovations. In our case, our innovators are doing up to two Chat messages for very Channel message. The early adopters are doing at most 17 Chat messages for every Channel message. Perhaps it is this group of early adopters that we need to talk to for amplifying their stories. Rather than simply preaching the need to “do Channels more”, they will be able to articulate how they are pragmatically achieving a good balance between Chat and Channels.
The movement from early adopter to early majority is often described as “the chasm”. Once crossed, we can say the battle is being won. We may never convince the laggards who want to live in Chat, but getting to 50% and then 84% of staff operating at the early adopter performance levels may be good enough. Certainly a lot better than where we are now!
We expect to be beta testing our SWOOP for M365 product from December 2021. One of the habits we will be monitoring is your “Inclusive Collaboration Behaviour”, which is how you balance Chat and Channel interactions. Why not register your interest in a free trial to see how you, your team and your organisation compare?
