Messaging Groups: The new 24x7 call bridge
One upon a time, the top echelon of the organization used to have access to a prized possession called a ‘conference bridge’. This was like a virtual meeting room that would be used by everyone who is invited for some very important discussion that cannot happen in person either due to the urgency or at times due to logistics. Few years down the line, this became more common and multiple layers of leadership had access to this. Later, this started trickling down to online platforms which easily integrated into the most popular mailing apps. It became increasingly convenient to schedule ‘bridge calls’ or ‘web meetings’ for lower priority discussions too. As time progressed, desktop apps started getting into mobiles, mobile internet became faster and the boundaries between devices started blurring. This is when newer mechanisms of collaboration started emerging. There were one-to-one messengers, there were many-to-many messengers, there were group audio and video conferencing apps via mobile and what not. And, somewhere in between all this, even the boundaries between the people and their priorities blurred.
Teams Channels, WhatsApp Groups, Slack Channels — all became a common alternative to conferencing. These mechanisms are asynchronous, can have designated members added almost-permanently, can have administrative controls and are usable 24x7. While on one side, this has given an enormous advantage for people to asynchronously collaborate and quickly have short conversations, on the other side it has equally started intruding into your available time. You could be part of several groups or channels with a different set of people and all of them may be demanding attention in a very short span of time. Since there is no set time-limit for a conversation, some of these discussions can span across few days or even weeks and it does not meet the objective of ‘having a discussion to reach a conclusion’ because someone keeps typing and inputs keep flowing without much regulation or at times even without direction. Another advantage is that there is no need to check for someone’s availability for these conversations, by nature they are expected to be asynchronous. What’s the flip side — well, people take others personal time for granted, if you are on a group — you are expected to respond and can’t shut off the group after 6 pm or during weekends.
Where does all this take us? It is for us to decide — we can consume it as a tool or get consumed by it. There should be a clear agenda, lifetime and expectation of outcome specified for such a group. Whatever discipline we used to have in conference calls earlier should be maintained here too, just that people have the liberty to respond asynchronously. Care has to be taken that even if the tool allows you to access people 24x7, people should not be expected to respond 24x7. There are much better ways to manage crisis than ping 50 people at 1 am while the response is solicited only from one.
(All opinions expressed are based on personal views of the author, the content is in no way related to or endorsed by his employers / partners / customers)
