With the surge in remote and hybrid working since the pandemic, we could be forgiven for thinking that challenges such as communicating with colleagues over digital systems were a new phenomenon. Of course, that’s not the case, and most technologies have changed how, and where, we work in various ways.
For instance, in research from the Kellogg School, the authors highlight how the IBM System/360 mainframe had a fundamental impact not only on the working of companies that bought it, but also on IBM itself.
New ways of working
In IBM’s case, this precipitated a shift to more modular ways of working, with teams each designing specific components for the computers. This shift required a change in how those teams communicated, as each was essentially working separately on projects that nonetheless needed to be coordinated.
The researchers examined how companies like IBM communicate effectively when teams all build products separately. They found that the best approach would involve a so-called “core-periphery” structure. This is when there’s a central group of teams (the core), who share information thoroughly with one another. Then a peripheral group of teams that rarely share information with each other.
It’s an approach that is common throughout regular social networks. For instance, in our social circles, we have a core group of friends we talk to often, and then peripheral acquaintances that we talk to much more irregularly. What’s more, our close circle are more likely to know one another, whereas those on the periphery are more likely to only have a relationship with you.
A widespread approach
Beyond computing, companies in many industries—from home construction to phone design to airplane manufacturing—build their products by piecing together interchangeable, separately produced parts. This approach, called modular production, lets companies tailor products to customer needs, outsource manufacturing, and ramp up production efficiently.
Researchers built a model to study how communication works in these environments. The model looked at several communication styles. In one familiar style, a “tree” hierarchy, people report information up a chain of command, with each level passing insights upward until they reach top management. Another popular setup is a “matrix” structure, where people share information within their division and across related teams.
In modular production setups, where separate teams handle different parts of a product, a common approach is for each team to use “modular communication”—contacting other teams only when necessary.
However, the model suggests that this modular, or siloed, communication style may create problems, not least in terms of coordinating activity across teams.
Maintaining effective communication
The researchers found that the best approach to ensure that communication remained adequate was to divide teams into one of two types. The core teams share pretty much all the information they have with one another. By contrast, those in the periphery team only tend to communicate internally within their team and with the core when the information is of critical importance.
This approach ensures that those in the core have all of the information they need to do their work, while those on the periphery aren’t burdened with unnecessary information and can get on with their primary work in peace.
Before managers start fleshing out such a model in their workplace, however, the researchers are at pains to point out that their findings are largely theoretical at this stage and not designed as a practical solution to an organization’s communication challenges. The researchers do nonetheless hope it provides managers with some food for thought as they manage a hybrid world.
