This question was brought home to me recently when a colleague and I were discussing his ideal business, one he intends to start someday.  With broad sweeps of his hands, he declared that when he is boss, all employees will be required to be in the office no more than two days a week.  They will otherwise work from home or wherever they want to be so long as they can be connected via email or Skype.  To this I responded by saying that the idea was all well and good, so long as there was an understood time when the remote employees were considered “unreachable.”  There was a long pause and a strange look in my direction: “But why?” he asked.  “He can take a break from dinner to answer the phone, or she can stop playing with her kids some evening for five minutes and reply to an email.”



The always-connected, always available expectation is one that is tempting in a fast-moving, need-answers-now environment, and is easily enabled by numerous technologies, from smart phones to real-time communication software.  But is this a good thing?  After reading a recent blog post on HBR (Stew Friedman, 3/12/2010), my perspective has shifted.  Perhaps the conversation needs to evolve beyond whether or not employees should be connected around the clock; rather, the conversation should be about what technologies and methods of communicating will best align with my objectives and still be mindful of the message’s recipient.

Friedman’s article points to a remarkable idea of matching the mode to the objective.  Everyone has a preference as to the form of communication they use, and often this form differs from one person to the next.  Some enjoy face-to-face or “F2F”, others the “virtual synchronous”, what Friedman describes as the “shifting place but not time, such as a phone or IM”.  A third method is the “virtual asynchronous, or what Friedman states is “shifting both time and place, such as voicemail and email.”  Each form allows for varying levels of interaction, as well as speed in communication.  The goal is to identify your objectives and figure out which form will help you achieve them.  In order to do this, Friedman suggests three questions:

• “What opportunities are there for you to use different forms of communication more effectively?
• Are there stakeholders with whom you should be devoting more time F2F and others less?
• With whom would it be better to use virtual more regularly?”

The answers to these questions will help managers and employees alike become better communicators, no matter where the sides are located or the distance between them.

Do you have experience dealing with the benefits and pitfalls of always being connected?  Or have you developed a compelling strategy for effective communication in an age of constant contact?  Share your ideas below.