Throwing Down the Learning and Development Gauntlet

Throwing Down the Learning and Development Gauntlet

Throwing Down the Learning and Development Gauntlet

So here it is, 2021. We’ve all suffered from the pandemic and disruption of work as usual. Perhaps no field of specialization has been more affected—in a good way—than that of learning and development. Finally, amid a global crisis pushing employers to the brink and employees to new and unfamiliar strategies, organizations are beginning to see the tremendous value we bring to the table.

Unlike past circumstances, the pandemic highlighted the value uniquely provided by our elearning solutions. They’re agnostic to our customers’ location, offering the convenience of time and place to all who eagerly seek the knowledge we’ve packaged for them. They may complain about the Next button, but they’ve come to appreciate it, too. It’s their clear next step along the pathway we carefully programmed for them to learn. We know best, and they’re finally showing us some long-overdue respect.

What’s Changed

As practitioners of our craft, we’ve indeed suffered long enough. Some people call us order-takers. Others say we inflate our importance to make our jobs seem more challenging than they are. They’ve even said we’re out of touch with our employers’ business, complaining too much about unimportant things and insisting on taking people away from jobs.

We know that people learn in many different ways and address most of these learning styles in a single solution. It’s one of the reasons we insist on a training intervention in the form of elearning rather than pointing out alternate approaches, like eliminating the need for training through better design or improving hiring practices to find the best fit for job openings. Our motto is, “There is no process too complex to train people on.”

Finally, with increased respect comes increased importance and unwelcome responsibility. Ultimately, our employees should reward us for our tremendous wisdom. Business leaders will invite us to the boardroom with a seat at the table because, well, we deserve it. They will finally follow our lead and increase budgets to make the positive impact we expect from our exceptional solutions.

Of course, at this point, pigs will fly, and the flat Earth’s gravity will pull satellites down from what once were orbits. In the end, the respect we crave is not rising like the Phoenix from the ashes of the pandemic but from an odd tradition of fooling ourselves on one day each year in April. Until this extends by another 364 days of the year, we instead need to listen to business needs to monitor and anticipate skill or knowledge gaps that arise. We will need to aggressively challenge ourselves to think beyond our’ click next to continue’ box and address these gaps in the context of everything that is the modern workplace. The pandemic and evolving hybrid workplace certainly provide us an excellent place to start

Image by Andy JARRIGE from Pixabay

Will Reduced Overlap in the Hybrid Workplace Prevent Success?

Will Reduced Overlap in the Hybrid Workplace Prevent Success?

Will Reduced Overlap in the Hybrid Workplace Prevent Success?

People talk a lot about the hybrid workplace these days. A term not widely used until recently, it blends people working from home with those who work in an office on any given workday. It’ll be the norm for many employers soon, some more so than others.

What people aren’t talking about is what I call overlap between coworkers. Overlap reflects the percentage of time any two people work onsite on the same day. In a way, it’s a measure of opportunity to do things that require people to work together in person.

I find it helpful to think about this overlap as an average across an organization or single office location. Although many organizations operate in multiple locations, we can ignore it to explore the hybrid approach’s effects.

In a traditional workplace where everyone works together in the office, the overlap is close to 100%. As employees work more days from home, their overlap falls. For the case of a fully teleworking organization, where every employee works from home every day, the overlap is zero.

Hybrid work blends these two extremes, so the overlap between employees will be greater than zero and less than 100%. If every employee in a workplace begins working half of their time from home and office days are randomized, the mean overlap is around 25%. One way to think about this is the probability of finding any two employees in the office on any given day.

How Does Overlap Affect Work?

Human communication is simply most efficient in face-to-face situations. In-person meetings are an immersive experience complete with body language and the sound of voices. In most cases, people can express disagreement or interrupt without even speaking. We pick up subliminal cues from voices and expressions without consciously doing so.

Despite being efficient, in-person meetings are also rife with challenges and pitfalls. Speaking skills are essential, but so are skills related to listening and observing. Barriers stand between us and our goals in every communication situation. Sensing and overcoming them are critical skills that high-performing employees refine over time.

Technology, including the tools that enable telework in the hybrid workplace, introduces new communication barriers. Text-based conversations prevent us from seeing body language and hearing voices. Audio meetings deny reading body language. Video meetings allow us to see facial and other expressions, but certainly not from all participants at any given time.

Technology can add another barrier in the form of anxiety. I’ve seen many excellent communicators fumble with the tools they need to succeed working remotely. Their challenges compound other frustrations with meetings that many of us know well: poor audio, people talking simultaneously, difficulty hearing anyone, noises from any participant that disrupt the meeting, and more.

Faster, better, and cheaper?

It’s tempting to think that hybrid work combines only the best of both office work and telework. We almost expect the hybrid approach to solve the riddle of faster, better, and cheaper workplaces. As the axiom goes, you can have one or two but never all three.

Conventional meetings are effective but trade away the efficiency of telecommunications. Audio and video meetings fit more readily into work schedules and minimize the time spent getting to and from meeting locations, but time in rooms before and after meetings also presented networking and relationship-building opportunities. Productivity is reportedly higher for those who telework, possibly at the expense of serendipitous encounters that happen naturally in traditional work. The impact of innovative ideas from such meetings isn’t easily measured, but chance meetings are less frequent when the overlap between employees is low.

However, hybrid work isn’t just a mix of office work and telework. Instead, both are used simultaneously on any given day. Teleworkers don’t exclusively use technology to connect with individuals. They also join meetings where they’re effectively invisible and where others have the advantage of speaking face-to-face. Those working in offices aren’t only meeting and collaborating with others in person. They’re also now engaging with technology specifically to accommodate their coworkers or customers working from home any given day.

A hybrid workplace may combine the best of both worlds, but it also brings along the worst. To me, this includes the many barriers created by introducing technology into interpersonal communications. Meetings won’t be purely online, nor will they be predominantly in-person. Instead, most meetings will be hybrid.

The Hybrid Challenge

I’d hate to understate this challenge presented by hybrid work. Imagine we’re meeting in-person to brainstorm solutions to a complex problem. In a traditional workplace where overlap between employees is close to 100%, coworkers toss out ideas around the table. A facilitator writes each of them on an oversized notepad. As the conversation progresses, the group narrows the solutions down to one or a few. Someone remembers something that others have forgotten, and the tide shifts toward a different family of solutions. Ultimately, everyone has their say, and the group agrees they’ve surfaced an optimum solution and considered most obstacles to success.

The same scenario in a workplace with an overlap of around 25%, where half of the participants attend by audio or video, plays out differently. People attending meetings from other locations are mainly invisible to those in the room, even if connected by video. Drawing out their ideas takes deliberate effort by a skilled facilitator. The facilitator must also manage notes using a collaboration platform and project them for the room, adding an unwelcome sense of formality. Conversations around the table get interrupted by the invisible participants. Every transition between speaking in the room to speaking from another location is awkward, with false starts and stops as people try to avoid talking over one another.

Hardly a stretch for the hybrid workplace, many of its meetings will involve some critical participants in a room while others attend by audio or video. Those in the room need to manage the technology and assure equity for participants while not disrupting the meeting. This challenge likely falls to one person, possibly the meeting organizer. In other cases, particularly for meetings called by upper-level managers and leaders, there may be one person identified as the facilitator.

Using Overlap as a Measure

The significant decline in the overlap between employee schedules in the hybrid workplace presents new communication barriers and challenges to work. The situation is upon us now. We aren’t debating if workplaces will be hybrid. We’re discussing how hybrid they are or will become. Using the overlap between employees may be an indicator, with 0 representing a fully teleworking organization and 100 describing the traditional workplace. As overlap falls between these extremes, workers will need to develop new skills to succeed. Organizations must prepare with appropriate training, management, and other approaches to develop the necessary people skills. 

Featured photo by Marc Sendra Martorell on Unsplash

Five Questions to Ask About Working From Home Now

Five Questions to Ask About Working From Home Now

Five Questions to Ask About Working From Home Now

Working from home sounds great until you do it full-time. Occasional teleworking provides flexibility and avoids driving into an office. Teleworking full-time presents different challenges, and the pandemic gave many of us a chance to try it out.

After test-driving telework for a year, employees have mixed feelings. Some can’t wait to return to the office. Others want to work from home permanently. The rest of us fall somewhere between.

Despite bold policy announcements by a few high-profile technology companies, most employers plan a conservative return-to-work. If we want to telework, we should understand how, and not if, it might affect our careers. Teleworking is not a right, nor is it a protected job category. Anyone who teleworks is simply more out-of-mind than anyone in the office with their manager most days. Subconscious discrimination seems inevitable.

Unfortunately, most employers aren’t ready to provide strong assurances. We’ll need to look for guidance through their actions, behaviors, and policies.

Below are some questions to think about or ask employers, managers, and coworkers. They’ll also serve us well as we watch for warning signs that working from home may not be going as well as expected.

1. What are the requirements for telework?

In large organizations, the employer usually sets top-level requirements for working from home. Knowing these requirements gets at several issues we’re evaluating. If an employer thoroughly documents policies, it might indicate a strong commitment to the practice. Among many considerations are eligibility criteria, spelling out what type of job qualify, and which do not. Others include a range of options from full-time teleworking to using the practice only on occasion.

Most policies address technology requirements, such as high-speed Internet and a personal or dedicated telephone, and attributes of the home office environment. Most employers will also spell out restrictions. These may include not caring for a parent or child during work or working uninterrupted in a dedicated home office space.

Employers are under no obligation to offer a work-from-home option. We might need to sign a written agreement, which our employer can rescind at any time. If we commit to the practice of teleworking, we should ensure we meet or exceed all requirements and expectations while doing so.

2. How will I (and my work) be managed?

Managers often create unique processes to manage teleworkers since many haven’t done it before. Most enact day-to-day tasking, time accounting, time management, and other practices. They may require check-ins throughout the day, joining online meetings, being available on messaging systems, taking phone calls, making weekly reports, and more.

Individual managers also bring a range of attitudes as they interpret company policies. Many find comfort in seeing employees at their desks and dislike when employees work from home. Others are biased from past experiences, even if they don’t apply now. The resulting management practices may be too demanding for many would-be teleworkers. Many people decline telework after learning their managers’ expectations.

Most people agree that knowledge work should be managed by goals, objectives, and outcomes rather than hours worked. That remains idealistic, however. Many managers continue to monitor work by measuring time spent at desks. A few even implement electronic monitoring systems. Until managers develop better and more effective practices, employees will continue to complain about management oversight and feel they’re not trusted.

3. Who else will be teleworking?

Knowing who else teleworks in an organization is essential to understand how we fit in. The issue isn’t about blending in or giving in to peer pressure. Instead, we don’t stand out as unique or privileged if we are among many who also telework. We might expect fair treatment and consideration for job growth and advancement.

I always suggest starting with our managers’ choices. Managers who choose to telework might be more likely to accept the practice than those who don’t. Managers who insist on working in the office most days amid widespread telework might not embrace the approach despite the organization’s policies.

If we choose to telework, we will fit into some blend of three scenarios that raise different concerns. The most common situation is where most of our colleagues work in offices. A second involves most employees teleworking part of their time. The third is when our coworkers also work from home most of the time.

The devil is in the details. Employees might be on equal footing in the full-time teleworking organization. Hybrid organizations that support half-time teleworking also seem equitable if most employees and managers participate. In both situations, take note if some employees and their decision-making managers coordinate working days in the office. My eyebrows raise when workgroups split shifts to provide office coverage, leaving poor overlap between some employees and managers.

Choosing to telework while others report to offices will raise questions about job and career growth. Others may envy our work arrangements or feel we aren’t working as hard. At the same time, we may be disadvantaged if managers see others more often. We will need to develop a personal strategy to address workplace visibility issues.

4. How will my performance be managed?

Anyone wanting to grow in their job or career should understand how organizations manage employee performance. Positive reviews may lead to professional growth opportunities, promotions, and salary increases.

The human resource processes for performance management are often well-established. Most involve setting personal objectives that connect with higher-level organizational goals. They also likely include a formal evaluation where managers rate our performance against objectives and other criteria and possibly rank us among our coworkers.

We must understand how these processes apply differently to teleworkers before making irreversible commitments. The comments we made about how common teleworking is among employees and managers apply.

5. Will my compensation or other benefits be affected?

We need to address compensation for teleworkers. Informal surveys I’ve seen suggest that most employees believe an employer must pay teleworkers the same as those who work in offices. Nonetheless, what employers do is a different matter.

Among the benefits of teleworking that experts tout to employers is widespread, if not global, recruiting. Employers in areas with high living costs have historically paid employees more than those in less expensive regions. It stands to reason that teleworking might result in negative salary pressures that don’t manifest for years. There’s no way of knowing this in advance, but we can still ask our employers their plans and look for guidance in documented policies. Looking at new telework job openings posted by our employers and advertised salary ranges may give us some clue of what the future holds.

Finding Answers

Answers to these five questions won’t provide us with all the information we need before committing to telework, but they’re a good start. The answers may trigger concerns that we choose to accept. Ultimately, we’ll have to make our decisions based on a wide range of facts that include our own short and long-term plans. Keeping our eyes and options open can help assure a long and successful teleworking career.

Thanks for reading!

~ @tomspiglanin

Looking Back at The Year of Telework: Now What?

Looking Back at The Year of Telework: Now What?

Looking Back at The Year of Telework: Now What?

Throughout the world, the COVID-19 pandemic presented a crisis unlike any we’ve seen. In response, regulations and social distancing safety measures went into effect. Intended to keep people safe, they also prevented vast numbers of people from going to work. Many businesses closed their doors.

Employers that could enable employees to work remotely did so. For them, decades of planning for continuity of business operations through emergencies paid off. Workers around the world started reporting to work online, many for the first time. 2020 became the year of telework.

The transition to telework may not have been smooth, but employers resolved most issues long ago. Many employees discovered they could work from home as effectively as from the office. Communicating and collaborating with others, sharing files, and managing calendars are part of the modern digital workplace. Desktop conferencing and meetings, both audio and video, have become routine.

If we can work remotely using online technologies, the physical office looks a bit contrived.

Today’s workplace encompasses all the capabilities and tools that enable telework and has for some time. Despite this, only 3.6% of workers in the United States worked from home half-time or more in 2018. Most people continued to commute into offices right up until the pandemic changed the rules.

If we can work remotely using online technologies, the physical office looks a bit contrived. Maintaining offices and buildings is a significant expense to employers. Productivity, employee satisfaction, unscheduled absences, and attrition rates can all improve with telework. Why would 96.4% of workers doing digital work commute nearly an hour a day (U.S. Census Bureau) to do work they could do from home? Why would their employers expect or even want them to commute?

Work is Inherently Social

At its core, work is a social activity. Since at least the 1700s, the office was where employees did work alongside other employees. It remained the center for work throughout the telecommunications boom that distinguished the twentieth century.

The personal computer began decentralizing computing in the 1980s. Even as work became more digital and moved to people at their desks, organizations remained unchanged. Critical workplace processes that require collaboration and innovation are simply more effective in person than using digital technology. Aside from noteworthy experiments and companies without a physical location, working from home remained sparsely used.

The pandemic of 2020 was a flood that washed out the bridge to the workplace. Employers had little choice but to find alternate routes to work. Around the world, there were two common choices: enable work from home or shut down. People who could do their job at a distance were doing so, using teleworking and cloud technologies. Some estimates put the mid-pandemic rate of working from home as high as 71% of those who could do their work remotely. I call it a forced experiment. It proved that telework, proposed by Jack Nilles nearly a half-century earlier, was viable.

Communicating using technology, even video, remains a poor replacement for face-to-face meetings. Facial expressions are masked. Speaking up and interrupting violates online meeting etiquette far too often. Serendipitous encounters, those unexpected but stimulating exchanges that lead to innovation and creative problem-solving, are much less frequent.

After a year, however, people are more adept at being creative in the online space. They’re developing business rhythms that mitigate some deficiencies of remote work. Just as businesses adapted to the pandemic, workers are adapting to new ways of doing business.

Return to “Normal”

Still, most everyone looks forward to the end of the pandemic. Vaccinations are on the rise, and real-world data look encouraging. Whatever the future normal state will be, it’s coming soon. The big question is, how will that look?

Simply put, work may look a lot different than it did before the pandemic.

Many employees learned that they’re capable of working well from home. With the kids back in school, many want the flexibility and environment that telework offers, at least part of the time. Indeed, competent projections suggest that 25% or more employees will use telework in the post-pandemic workplace.

Three Scenarios

The real world is complex. While it’s a simple way of looking at the future workplace, I see three distinct versions of the coming hybrid workplace. Most workplaces will blend these scenarios, but each presents different challenges for both employees and managers.

Teleworking Like It’s 2019. Many workplaces will likely return to operations similar to before the pandemic, with most employees physically present in the workplace. Employers know what to expect. If an employee teleworks, they may now be in the minority, leading to challenges that many employers and managers have never faced before.

Everyone Teleworks. Some notable companies, including Twitter, Square, Shopify, and others say they’ll support full-time telework indefinitely. Some of their employees have even relocated, despite the risk of their employer reversing direction in the future.

Everyone Teleworks Part-Time. Still others, including giants like Microsoft and Siemens, will allow many employees to work from home about half of their working time. Simple math suggests that any two workers will overlap in the office only 25% of the time on average. Coordinating schedules will increase overlap for some employees but decrease it for others. How this scheduling overlap works in the long-term remains to be seen.

Many employers haven’t announced specific plans, which makes sense. These are uncertain times that require caution from leaders to avoid all manner of problems. This kind of planning represents consequential policymaking. There simply isn’t enough data to make these decisions confidently. Employees might make significant personal decisions in their wake, including relocations farther from office locations.

What’s Next?

The array of return-to-work options creates a global tapestry of work modalities for the digital workplace. Employees have new opportunities for enhanced work-life balance and overall satisfaction. Employers can attract talent with little regard for geographic location and reduce overhead costs. On the surface, it sounds like a win-win situation.

Of course, this situation is no panacea for employers or their employees. Like any significant change in the workplace, there will be issues to resolve. There will be resistance and conflict, pitting managers against employees for all kinds of reasons. Everyone will look to leaders for answers, even if when there are none.

Employers will need to create equitable policies for this next phase of work, whatever position they adopt. They’ll have to communicate these policies clearly throughout management chains and to employees. Transparency will be essential for this to succeed since trust has already eroded since the early days of pandemic telework.

Unfortunately, the real enemy of transparency is the illusion of it. We think we’re communicating positions, policies, and practices, but any uncertainty will bias our efforts. Uncertainty is inherent to the current situation for most employers. It’s not a stretch to conclude that trust will further erode without significant action to overcommunicate.

The question is, what do we need to communicate? Employee perspectives can be our guide.

What Leaders Need to Communicate to Employees

The pandemic disrupted business as usual. Employers, both large and small, have faced unprecedented challenges. Companies may be affected for years to come. Employees may not feel secure in their jobs, especially as government-subsidized programs end. These workers may be far more concerned about whether they will have work in the future than where they do it.

Other employers may project far greater stability to their employees. This luxury also presents different challenges as workers focus on how the workplace’s changing nature affects job and career growth. When it comes to performance reviews, promotions, and succession planning, those who are visible might well have a real advantage over those who telework.

Employers must seriously consider equity for teleworkers. Offering teleworking arrangements to attract the best talent regardless of location, employers must walk their talk. Employees who work primarily out of sight need to know that they’re valued and have the same opportunities as those working in offices. If this is not the case in any workplace, teleworking will likely fail, and valued teleworking employees may seek more equitable employment.

With inevitable changes in culture, management practices, and even organizational structure, employers will need to minimize their employees’ uncertainty.

The Bottom Line

Telework is growing, setting the stage for a new workplace divide. Those who are more frequently seen in the office by managers will have perceived—if not actual—advantages over those who are not. Creating effective telework management practices, performance evaluation, task and project assignments, and promotions will be essential. Those practices will need to be communicated clearly and emphatically throughout organizations, even while overarching telework policies remain uncertain. Successful employers will likely be those that demonstrate their policies are more than just talk or words on paper.

Thanks for reading!

~ @tomspiglanin

Featured Image by Chris Montgomery on Unsplash

How to Overcome the Illusion of Communication

How to Overcome the Illusion of Communication

How to Overcome the Illusion of Communication

I’ve seen numerous examples of miscommunication over my forty-year career. Teaching others to communicate more effectively, I’ve heard of many more. Sadly, miscommunication happens all the time. We know what we want to say and what we mean. Then we open our mouths or sit at the keyboard and try to be precise. Typing out words or moving thoughts from our mind to our mouth is just more challenging than it seems. With large or diverse audiences, the situation becomes even more difficult.

Too often, we think we’ve succeeded when we’ve failed. William H. Whyte, Jr. summarized it well:

“The great enemy of communication, we find, is the illusion of it.”
Is Anybody Listening?, Fortune, September 1950

Of course, communication requires a sender and a receiver. Both have a role in ensuring any message’s success, and both share the blame when it fails. In some cases, the sender has more to lose with failure, such as selling an idea. In others, receivers want to understand correctly, like when a physician explains a diagnosis. Regardless of who cares more, we can’t change what others do, only how we speak or listen.

When we meet in person in small groups, issues become apparent. We see a furrowed brow and know we’re not making our point. Instinctively, we shake our head or nod in agreement to give active feedback while listening to whoever is speaking. Body language can be a huge part of successful communication.

Much of this is second nature to us. Only when we lack real-time feedback do we genuinely miss it, including speaking to large audiences and every time we hit the email send button.

See no evil, hear no evil

None of this is new, of course. Albert Mehrabian, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at UCLA, studies nonverbal communication and body language. His book Silent Messages: Implicit Communication of Emotions (1971) draws on research that bears the importance of nonverbal communication. He found that body language represented a whopping 55% of interpersonal communication. Tone-of-voice was also quite significant at 38%. A speaker’s choice of words falls a very distant third at just 7%.

Mehrabian’s work focuses on feelings and attitudes, so the specific results may not reflect communication in the average workplace. Still, feelings and attitudes don’t check themselves at the door when we go to work. I find the relative importance of body language, tone of voice, and word choice quite helpful. It matches well with what I see almost every day.

Although not the only example, one form of speech helps make my point: sarcasm. It often involves saying the exact opposite of the intent. Sometimes we only understand the true meaning of a phrase through a sarcastic tone or sly facial expression, especially when we have no prior experience with the sender.

Most experts warn against using sarcasm in email. Email is notoriously misunderstood in the first place, seemingly more so as the audience grows. Denying receivers the ability to see and hear, which is inherent to email, makes miscommunication likely. Audio or video meetings might improve the situation, but in-person encounters with immediate feedback remain the most efficient way to ensure communication.

Why it Matters for Teleworkers

Technology facilitates virtually all our communication when we telework. I focus on three distinct forms of telework communication in my work: video meetings, audio meetings, and written communication of many types. Rounded out by collaborative technologies, these are the predominant means for interacting when we work from home. They also neatly align with Mehrabian’s work: video meetings offer some ability to see body language; audio conveys tone-of-voice; email and other typed media (including text and instant messaging) support only word choice.

When work meetings use video, we can at least see some of the participants. Unfortunately, it’s still awkward to observe body language in most video meetings. Some technology allows switching between windows to see the reactions of one or a few people. Unfortunately, that comes at the expense of seeing many others. Then there are the many stories of the weird things people do on camera, forgetting they’re broadcasting. There’s simply no workplace counterpart for this behavior, which reminds me of students making faces behind the teacher’s back in class.

As much as we could discuss how video meetings are a poor substitute for in-person meetings, they’re also among the least used work-from-home option. Audio meetings are far more common in my experience, including phone calls. However, in general, both audio and video meetings are still well-behind the frontrunner among workplace communication technologies today.

Most teleworkers use email and instant messaging more than either audio or video meetings. Offering only words, punctuation, and the occasional emoticon, they deny body language and tone of voice. Based on Mehrabian’s work, we shouldn’t be surprised when massive miscommunication results.

What Can We Do To Improve?

As teleworkers, we’re already at a disadvantage compared to those working in the office. We don’t hear or see coworkers, managers, and key decision-makers as often. Perhaps worse, they can’t see us. As the adage goes, out of sight, out of mind.

I recommend developing or enhancing personal attributes that our employers value. These including network-building, focusing on organizational needs, exercising leadership, building influence, and working well with others. All require excellent communication skills. The illusion of communication is not an option for us to excel in our jobs as teleworkers. The illusion will not be enough to keep our jobs. We need to become the best communicators we can, given the media’s limitations that stand between us and success.

Addressing the illusion of communication won’t be easy. We can’t wave our magic wands and become exemplary employees. We can, however, become better speakers and writers, and we can get better at listening and reading. Because there are communication barriers inherent to each of the media we use often, we can also learn to mitigate and minimize them. We need to improve our performance across each incrementally and every medium: email, instant messaging, audio meetings, and video meetings. I’ll write more on each of these in the coming months, so stay tuned.

Communication is an extraordinarily complex phenomenon that’s more complex when facilitated by technology. We may have taken communication for granted while working in the office, but, as teleworkers, we no longer can.

Thanks for reading!

~ @tomspiglanin