Exploring The Workplace Communication EcologyThea Turner, Pernilla Qvarfordt, Jake Biehl,

Gene Golovchinsky, Maribeth BackFX Palo Alto Laboratory

Workplace Communication

Modern workplace is inherently collaborative

Collaboration relies on effective communication

Build common ground

Foster new ideas

Resolve conflict

Examined use of communication methods over 15 months

Results understood holistically within Communication Ecology

2

Why Communication Ecology?

Ecology

interactions of people with environment

networks of relationships among entities

In communication ecologies:

communication methods: face-to-face, email, IM, SNS, ...

methods are channels through which we communicate

these resources are selected differentially

people inhabit different niches within environment

3

Previous Work

Often focused on single communication method

show value of method

rarely examined impact on overall practice

Rarely provide understanding of long-term use

Often done in experimental setting

Frequently at universities or very large companies

4

Communication Ecology Study

Examined communication practice in small company

Two surveys on communication practices a year apart

method use, frequency of use, clients, features

Analyzed only those taking both surveys

27 people representative of organization’s diversity

Interviewed subset of participants 2 months later

5

Communication Method Usage•We!-established methods continued to be used

6

Communication Method Usage•We!-established methods continued to be used •IM, Social Networks and Blogs saw significant adoption

7

•No decrease in we!-established methods (face to face increased)

Less than Monthly

Monthly

Weekly

Daily

Not in Last Year

Never

Frequency of Use for Participants Who Reported Using Method

N: 27 NA 27 27 23 23 25 19 22 11

8

•No decrease in we!-established methods (face to face increased)•Instant Messaging, Social Networking, Writing Blogs, and

Virtual Worlds increased in &equency of use

Less than Monthly

Monthly

Weekly

Daily

Not in Last Year

Never

Frequency of Use for Participants Who Reported Using Method

N: 27 NA 27 27 23 23 25 19 22 11

9

•No decrease in we!-established methods (face to face increased)•Instant Messaging, Social Networking, Writing Blogs, and

Virtual Worlds increased in &equency of use•Many newer methods had large increases over the year

Less than Monthly

Monthly

Weekly

Daily

Not in Last Year

Never

Frequency of Use for Participants Who Reported Using Method

N: 27 NA 27 27 23 23 25 19 22 11

10

Changes Over Year

Between two surveys

Continued use of face-to-face, phone, email and notes

More people using IM, Social Networking, and blogs

Increased use of IM, Social Networking, and blogs

Some work-related increase in use of virtual worlds

No increase in use of Wikis

Are there patterns in the increased adoption and use?

11

Looking for Patterns of Use

Used hierarchical clustering analysis

used data common to both surveys

treated participant by year as individual cases

variables included frequency of use for

methods

features: text chat, voice chat, video chat, IM file sharing

clients: AIM, GoogleTalk, Skype, LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, Second Life, World of Warcraft

12

Communication Patterns

Analysis produced 4 groups

Basic: primarily F2F and email, telephone less often than other groups

Chat: Basic methods plus IM (text), some voice chat and IM file sharing

Social: Basic methods plus SNS (LinkedIn, Facebook)

Communicator: heaviest user of all methods

13

Transitions Over Year

Remember analysis treated participants in each year as separate cases

Therefore can examine how people changed over course of year

14

Initial State In 2008

Most in Basic, Social or Chat

15

Transitions From Basic

Basic group went from 8 people to 1 over year

Half migrated to Social

One quarter became Communicators

16

Transitions From Chat

Chatters most likely to stay with same set of methods

But 40% moved on to Social or Communicator

17

Transitions From Social

Group size remained at 8, but with significant turnover in membership

Social most likely to migrate to Communicator

Several did not add new methods

18

Transitions From Communicator

Only one person in 2008

Continued to use range of methods in 2009

19

Pattern In 2009

Number of people

Basic: 8 → 1

Chat: 10 → 8Social: 8 → 8Comm: 1 → 10

People adopted new methods moving from Basic toward Communicator

Adoption of methods does not appear related to role

20

Added new methods without reducing previous ones

Why do people adopt new communication methods?

How do people select which method to use?

Survey in 2009: strengths & weaknesses of methods

Interviews: why adopted? when to use?

Adoption of New Methods

21

Nature of Conversation

Nature strongly influences selection:

Face-to-face: ideation, problem solving, sensitive issues

Email: asynchronous, persistent record, nitty gritty details

Phone: immediacy at distance

IM: quick exchanges

Social Networking: lightweight, social, personal updates

22

Separation of Conversations

Different clients for different purposes / partners

IM (internal, Skype, Yahoo, GTalk, MSN Live)

Email (work, home, etc.)

Social Networking (LinkedIn, Facebook)

23

Immediacy vs. Interruptions

Balancing user needs against partner’s

State and availability of partner if known

Urgency of communication

Cost of gauging availability

24

Groups: Adoption and Selection

People within a group talked about methods differently

examples

weaknesses of face-to-face communication

many in Basic, Chat, Social mentioned that you had to be in same place and that it may take more time

Communicators never mentioned colocation, some brought up time

Instead they mentioned scheduling problems, lack of records, effects of social skills or lack of them on conversation

Selection rules were somewhat different by group

Communicators had more fine-tuned applicability conditions

25

Conclusions

No single method meets all user needs

When new methods adopted, older ones not replaced

Many implementations coexist with differentiation

Users adopt a subset of tools according to their particular communication style and needs, which may change over time

Design and study communication methods within Communication Ecology rather than in isolation

26

Questions?Exploring The Workplace Communication EcologyThea Turner, Pernilla Qvarfordt, Jake Biehl,

Gene Golovchinsky, Maribeth BackFX Palo Alto Laboratory

turner@fxpal.com