For the first time in history we have a connected society where people can work together from the edges of the world, in real time. This powerful way to cooperate comes with a lot of caveats, gray areas and necessary adjustments in our best practices for "getting things done".
Collaboration is a means to an end, not an activity. Through it we aim to achieve a goal and be more productive by combining our efforts. Collaboration without a goal is just play. That statement can also be a guide how good collaboration can function, as we perceive play to be executed effortlessly and with highly positive success rates. When the logistics are in the background and on the surface there is the sense of play still alive, collaboration just works. That's the subject of gamification and other similar trends.
Beneath the surface there should be of course process; and if the process is cumbersome or even offensive, no superficial adjustments will help. It makes sense to dig down and see what the guidelines can be for our collaboration process, using the new tools we have in our possession.
A constant stream of updates is not only possible, it's essential. Between repository logs, issue trackers and instant messengers, there's no reason why information shouldn't spread continuously with no friction. If everyone is on the same page there's less confusion and potentially less delays.
Decision-making used to require frequent meetings in person. Such meetings may still be needed for big decisions or when a face-to-face dialogue is meaningful, but in general meetings are becoming obsolete. We've seen the younger generation often respond with expressions like this:
"A meeting that should've been an email"
This attitude is not new. Young people have always been reluctant to attend meetings. But what would be attributed to "immaturity" a few years ago is now being considered likely to embed some truth. Why take the time to join a meeting when online communication will resolve things faster? Especially group meetings are a proven hazard of inefficiency. The general atmosphere in those has everyone be the first to voice concerns but last to take initiatives. Full-time employees that are aiming to fill their working hours "looking busy" will openly defend these antiquated practices...
The administrative crowd may feel the rug pulled from under their feet in an era where less talking and more doing is possible in a definite way. Simply adjusting their routine to enable the swift delegation of tasks and be open to receive constant updates can make a huge difference. In this case their role becomes more assisting than authoritative, yet still very much essential.
By definition, there's a certain sense of pride attached to accountability, although most people relate it to public shaming, possibly projecting images from their childhood. Here's an old classic:
"Finger pointing gets us nowhere"
Monitoring performance is a better, more accurate way of evaluating than finger pointing, which always comes with certain bias towards self-preservation. With modern tools, this can be done remotely and doesn't have to happen in person. It can be an asynchronous, scheduled, always running process that evaluates performance, without attaching stigma to the person. Like trainers train their athletes...
Accurate performance tracking can level the playing field, where bias or sere discrimination is preventing people that are reaching their milestones from getting any sort of recognition for their efforts. Our tools now allow us to be both more transparent on the business side and more responsible on the development side; and that can only improve our overall efficiency.
It's easy to procrastinate when there's no one over your shoulder. That's the main argument for corporate requiring everyone in the same building. Truth of the matter is that if you are distracted, stressed or bored, that's nature's way of telling you you're doing something wrong.
People need to feel their work is worthy. Purpose can inspire a sense of responsibility and when that happens everyone will willingly contribute their time. We've seen examples where a dedicated group will try effortlessly towards their goal because they feel inspired by the cause. Working remotely under that feeling is almost inconsequential, plus productivity is much greater when people put in more hours working instead of commuting and casually talking.
Maybe more difficult than creating that initial spark of excitement is maintaining a high spirit, especially when circumstances are not ideal. Leadership is an invaluable talent in such cases, and that's where good managers get to shine. Our contemporary communication tools are useful for delivering messages that will empower the group and keep everyone in line.
With those few guides our collaboration can be meaningful, achieving goals in this new era of networking. All that matters is what happens. It doesn't matter how it happens; or what the debate is before, after and around what happens. If we can be pragmatic like that, and only focus on what's important, collaboration can work in a more abstracted way than we may be used to.
The teachings of previous generations are useful but considering the new tools we have in our hands the collaboration practices can and will be adjusted. Constant communication and empowerment are now possible like never before. And once a task is complete it is available for evaluation and statistical analysis, to improve our future planning. After all, actions speak louder than words, as we've always known it to be so.