A serious point about levity.

A friend of mine recently posted a new mail address to a large-ish list of his friends and acquaintances. In his post he wrote something which a number of us found funny and to which we "replied all" in the spirit of a little light hearted humour not doing anyone any real harm.

This then provoked a number of grumpy responses from people telling us how not to use "reply all" and asking to be removed from the list. The tone of these responses was that these people were somehow grown-ups who those of behaving childishly were distracting them from important things and that they held some sort of moral upper hand.

This is an attitude I encounter all of the time in talking to businesses. There are those who even react badly to the "social" in Social Computing. Mucking around is frowned upon and there is an assumption that "business like" behaviour is the most appropriate and the most effective.

However, in direct contrast, I am more convinced that this is one of the more insidious mindsets in the workplace and one that is significantly curtailing the effectiveness of business.

The collusion behind "we don't do things like that around here" or "that is not the sort of thing we should be talking about in a work context" can be intimidatingly strong. And although it appears on the face of it to be a reasonable position to take when you think about it what are their motivations in saying these things? Is it really effective to curtail your conversations in the workplace to a very limited and closely controlled range of topics with which you are already familiar and comfortable? If you don't get to find about people through their whimsicality, their passions and even their prejudices then how are you going to be able to establish enough trust to be able to work with them effectively? What are they so afraid of? Chaos? Anarchy?

In so many ways this coercive attempt to control others' behaviour is more about maintaining power and control than it is to do with organisational effectiveness.

If the nutters with daft ideas, those who are prepared to banter and exchange their views and to "think different" get their way and make the status quo messy then maybe we would have to change and to change we would have to think and we don't like doing that too much because we have been trained not to do that at work .....

If you get an e-mail from me that is pointless, unfunny or plain daft then rather than waste the time and energy it would take to try to change me why not just delete it and move on to the really, really important things I am sure you have to do!

Comments

[Jon Husband]

hehe .. good stuff. Spot on, imo .. and I love the scaling up the Ladder of Inference, as it were (in the sense of takingthe vignette and moving it into the context of adult life and work. Well done.

Would have been interesting to watch it unfold ;-)

[Matt O'Neill]

some people are dicks who need to get a life!

you have to ask yourself if it's even worth the energy to do a 'reply all', then complain about something...

[Simon Dickson]

I don't think it's about levity in the workplace; I think it's more about the specific medium of email.

Email means work. A document to read, a question to answer, a meeting to attend, a job to do. Need to know, or need to do. When a 'you've got mail' notification interrupts what I'm doing, there had better be a good reason. Mildly amusing (if you're lucky) replies from people I don't know... sorry, not good enough. Yes, I can delete it, but only once I've stopped what I was doing, and put my work head on.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for levity in its place, especially when I've actively opted into it. Responses to a forum thread, maybe, or comments on a blog post. When I'm using things like those, my mindset is completely different... and so is my response.

God, I'm far too young to be doing the grumpy old man thing!

[Euan]

Wonderful Simon - I couldn't have asked for a better example of the attitude I was having a go at.

[Ton Zijlstra]

Hi Euan,

good observations, and reflective of what went through my mind when I watched the e-mail exchanges unfurl after our mutual friend sent out the first mail.

As per Simon Dickson's comments....I find that to me e-mail never has been work in the way you describe. I first started using e-mail in '89 and back then it was all fun. I had to convince my earlier employers to provide me with e-mail in the workplace.

The company I work for now, uses e-mail both for business and banter (also with clients). We don't have any offices, e-mail is our coffee machine/water cooler replacement. The loose e-mail culture (but strict with respect to answering all mails) makes it a lot easier to actually cope with the flood of e-mail that comes in every day, because you know part of it will make you smile and feel connected to your colleagues, clients and peers. Also I filter my e-mail socially, in a way SNARF does for your Outlook inbox. (I found SNARF didn't help me: I already did naturally what it helps you do). So e-mail isn't work to me, it's people connecting, in part about work. And I love connecting to people.

But in other aspects I can be doing the grumpy old man thing very well as well :)

best,

Ton

[Simon Dickson]

Hey, maybe I've just been unlucky; I've tended to work in mega-sized organisations where email gets used as a weapon. (So, any jobs going, Ton??)

But I definitely find myself using different channels for different purposes. Example - I've deliberately unsubscribed from virtually every email alert I used to receive; and moved it all over to RSS. Email is my one-to-one medium; the one-to-many stuff happens elsewhere.

[Euan]

Simon I wrote the post based on my experience in a "mega-sized organisation". E-mail gets used by all sorts of people for all sorts of things both good and bad.

The point I was trying to make was not one about a specific technology so much as about an attitude that assumes that one group has the right to decide what are or are not appropriate behaviors and to then expect to impose them on others.

In my experience, as I guess in Ton's, it was the less serious e-mails that helped form relationships and spark creativity while the "proper" ones were boring and almost always a waste of bandwidth!

[Alex Bellinger]

I used to have the dubious pleasure of working in the press office of a large UK bank - certainly somewhere where you needed a good sense of humour!

In fact there was a good group of people there and there was lots of great banter and silliness and surreal humour. It was a great place to work. Because of the people and because they were mostly allowed to express themselves.

Incidentally, I love the (deliberate?) typo in the second word of this post!

[Euan]

:-)

Sorted the typo - ta.

[Matt Moore]

Get back to work, Semple, we are serious business and do not tolerate levity. Don't you know the money for my wife's new SUV is at stake here?

Some people do take life very seriously. Unfortunately, many of these people get made managers & inflict their personalities on everybody else. A sense of the ridiculous implies a sense of proportion and that might mean admitting to yourself that the job you do really isn't that important and you are not the centre of the universe. That step is too much for some people.

The Thais have a word "sanuk". It means fun and everything you do should have an element of sanuk - otherwise it's really not worth it. I like that idea.

On the other hand, management edicts to have "fun" are not the way to go either.

(I also cringe when I hear businesspeople talking about a "sexy" product or project - unless it's actually something like lingerie).

[LSF]

It sounds like the complainers simply didn't want to have to delete multiple emails, not just one, and sent an email to ask potential emailers not to. Sounds reasonable to me.

[dave rogers]

Nicely done, Euan.

Since you've already established my "true colours" through the divining power of the internet as a cantankerous curmudgeon, I'm not much inclined to be sympathetic to your efforts to curtail my conversations.

But let's have a look at what you've done here, eh?

You haven't shared the e-mails in question, so we've only your characterizations of what the humor was, and what the nature of the negative responses were. In effect, you've created a straw man.

You then go on to infer a rather extreme position or attitude on the part of those who didn't welcome the e-mails. Positions and attitudes which are very much consistent with what one might reasonably infer to be your own prejudices.

You then generalize that across a rather wide swath of business people and attribute those positions and attitudes to "fear" and a desire to maintain "power and control," which nicely positions you as the underdog in the morally superior position.

You've taken what is little more than your subjective impression of an event that no one else has any information about it at all, treated as though it were an established, incontrovertible fact, and used that as a basis to validate and reinforce your prejudices and those of most of your readers.

So one is left to wonder just where the virtue is in any of this? You are little more than the mirror image of what you rail against.

It's amazing to me that when you can be bothered to write something beyond a few words of ringing endorsement of one or another internet luminary, or where your next speaking engagement will be, they are these sort of vague complaints where you're never too troubled to be very specific, yet invariably at pains to cast yourself, and those who agree with you, in the morally superior position.

As one grumpy, cantankerous curmudgeon to one who doesn't believe that he is, may I suggest that you spend less time peering into the LCD or the CRT divining the "true colours" of others, and perhaps spend a little time peering into the mirror?

That is, if you can take a little advice and criticism from someone in a morally inferior position.

[Euan]

Who was trying to curtail your conversations Dave?

What is wrong with abstraction from the particular to the general?

Why would I have shared names and details of e-mails in what was not a public conversation?

You wrote "when you can be bothered to write something beyond a few words of ringing endorsement of one or another internet luminary, or where your next speaking engagement will be," - if you don't like what I write in my blog Dave you can always stop reading it - as I have done with yours.

As to being a grumpy, cantankerous curmudgeon you are right - that is something I ought to be wary of and I realise that a number of my recent posts have been complaining about one thing or another. I used to only write positive, otpimistic things on my blog as there is enough nastiness around on the web without me adding to it. I will try to remember this in future.

[dave rogers]

"Who was trying to curtail your conversations Dave?"

Quoting yourself:

"The collusion behind "we don't do things like that around here" or "that is not the sort of thing we should be talking about in a work context" can be intimidatingly strong. And although it appears on the face of it to be a reasonable position to take when you think about it what are their motivations in saying these things? Is it really effective to curtail your conversations in the workplace to a very limited and closely controlled range of topics with which you are already familiar and comfortable? If you don't get to find about people through their whimsicality, their passions and even their prejudices then how are you going to be able to establish enough trust to be able to work with them effectively? What are they so afraid of? Chaos? Anarchy?"

When I criticized Doc, apparently that was "something we don't do around here." What was your point in the whole "True Colours" post? Just to manifest again the hubris in your faith in the internet? Perhaps to shame me into not criticizing one of the beloved, and just as fallible as anyone else, figures of the internet? Maybe just to use what little influence you have to discredit me, while cozying up a bit to Doc? Just what business of it was yours, Euan? Did you have some specific objection to my post? The content? The tone? Or did you just want to call me an asshole and couldn't find a polite way to do it?

"What is wrong with abstraction from the particular to the general?"

Give us a "particular" we can all measure, and then we can evaluate if there's anything wrong with the abstraction. Again, see: Strawman.

You could share unattributed quotations from the e-mails, the number of e-mails and the times. If a handful (say, less than ten) of e-mails appeared in everyone's inboxes over a day or so, your case might be more reasonable. If 20 e-mails appeared in an inbox over a matter of an hour or so, your case is less reasonable. We don't know, but then it's evidently not that important, is it? Not as long as we can validate our own prejudices and congratulate ourselves on how much more enlightened we are than those "others."

If you think you've hurt my feelings by telling me you don't read Groundhog Day, you haven't. Too bad you hadn't stopped before you read that post about Doc and his commercial vision of the interent! But thanks for sharing.

I am planning on commenting on Ben Hammersley's talk at Les Blogs you so ringingly endorsed the other day. It's not clear to me you actually listened to it. But then it would appear that most of your critical faculties are suspended when you're listening to "a very limited and closely controlled range of topics with which you are already familiar and comfortable." Sorry to hear you'll miss it. Well, not really.

Thanks for helping to make the world a better place today. You prove my point that technology changes _how_ people do things, not _what_ they do.

Cheers.

[Euan]

Dave I see no need to apologise for making a general point about human behaviour which has in fact also been made by Ton in the comments to this post, Alec Saunders in his blog and a number of others in e-mail conversations - all of whom were part of the original e-mail thread.

This is a very different thing from what I took exception to in your own writing about Doc which was a direct attack on an individual who I know well, respect and like.

I have not endorsed Ben's Les Blogs speech as I was not there and have not seen or heard it on the web. I also don't always agree with Ben so I am not quite clear where you get the idea that I fawn on well know people on the web. I happen to know a lot of them and some of them are now friends. Should I stop writing about them just so as not to annoy you?

I did not set out to hurt you by saying that I didn't read Groundhog Day any more. I was simply pointing out the obvious fact that you too have the choice not to read people like me who clearly annoy you.

[Jon Husband]

Good points, Simon ... and you sound like a serious, concentrated guy .. the "there had better be a good reason" gives it away. Don't know you, but it makes me wonder whether I dare pop my head around the edge of your office door or knock on the cubicle. I'd better have a good reason, or I'm outta there.

i recently had an experience similar to what euan describes (oh, what the heck .. I'm the "friend" in question). 3 people out of abut 150 objected, and I apologized sincerely for my sloppiness / insensitivity ... but there were also 4 good conversations that emerged, and one good solid connection between two people who live 3,000 kilometres from me who agreed to meet on serious business / work issues.

Go figure ... it's perhaps the difference between highly structured, everyone-knows-his-or-her-place-and-tasks, for good reasons versus some of the ad hocery that leads to connection, opportunities, innovation, and learning.

One might argue that deleting the email in question is similar (not a perfect analogy, I know) for saying "I'd like to chat or explore the issue with you, but I am busy focusing on something right now ... maybe later ?"

I appreciate both ... but grumpy guses get weeded out of many lively, engaged and interesting communities of connection (as do sloppy. insensitive boors like I almost was ;-)

[Jon Husband]

You could share unattributed quotations from the e-mails, the number of e-mails and the times. If a handful (say, less than ten) of e-mails appeared in everyone's inboxes over a day or so, your case might be more reasonable.

Dave, I was the instigator of the wee email firestorm. I fucked up by not using bcc ... after she got 3 or 4 emails from people replying to me with a little "hideyho" or a semi-sarcastic response to the fact that I used the phrase "I REPEAT", in my short email .. she wrote me saying she was getting hundreds of unwanted emails from my "idiot" friends. This started a two or three email exchange between me and her, in which I 1) accepted fault, 2) apologized, suggested it wasn't too too much of an imposition to hit delete with what had now become 5 unwanted "reply alls" (while admitting again my insensitivity / inattentiveness. It also confirmed for me that she is a grumpy person (her private exchanges with me) and that she has what is for her a stressful life .. so of course I said I understood that this was a completely unwanted and undeserved imposition, and I removed her from the list.

As noted above, the whole brouhaha-flurry also led to a couple of new connections, a re-connection, and now two meetings between two of my friends/acquaintances to explore some possibilities.

I believe it's clear that people carry and present their core character with them onto and into the Web .. so no doubt someone structured, or grumpy, or wide open, or exuberant, will demonstrate some of that in online social behaviour.

I don't see how this conversation proves that technology changes how people do but not what they do. People interact .. the conditions under which they interact change and this may have some impact on whatever evolution eventuates. The point has always been that the interaction is not so much structured (or may not be) as it used to be, or is (or can be) multi-directional. Previously people knew their place, and their role, in pecking orders, and families, and groups and communities, and authority and accountabilty (two of the topics you have explored extensively and well) were much clearer .. sometimes due to structure and sometimes due to the talent, dedication or other attributes of a given human.

Evolution of social behaviour does not happen in a vacuum (at least in my opinion) but depends on environment and context as well as other factors. First we shape our structures .. then, our structures shape us usually attributed to W. Churchill).

Perhaps what you have been saying / meaning all along is that there will not be any evolution of social behaviour. I would find that to bve debatable.

[Alec Saunders]

Oi vé!

Ladies and germs, this is frankly speaking a surreal conversation.

If you don't want to be disturbed by a co-worker because you're working on a deadline, then close your door or put a sign outside your cube.

If "you've got mail" is too much of a disturbance, then turn the notification off.

Very simple solutions. Otherwise, lighten up, tell a few jokes, engage in some lively entertaining banter, and live a little. Conversation is what makes the world go round!

Getting grumpy about grumpy guses...

[dave rogers]

"I have not endorsed Ben's Les Blogs speech as I was not there and have not seen or heard it on the web. I also don't always agree with Ben so I am not quite clear where you get the idea that I fawn on well know people on the web. I happen to know a lot of them and some of them are now friends. Should I stop writing about them just so as not to annoy you?"

Whoops! My bad. Hugh MacLeod at Gaping Void was the post I was thinking of. I often go from The Obvious to Gaping Void.

Write about anything you want. Just don't get pissed off at me when I criticize one of your friends, and then call me names and try to justify it up by saying how the internet can give one an insight into someone's "true colours."

On some days I affect being a cantankerous curmudgeon. It's partly to offset the irrational cheer-leading of the likes of you and Doc and others. It's one thing to be positive, it's another thing to be uncritical. And it's a third thing to just get pissed off and call someone names. And it's another thing entirely to try to veil it in some reference to the power of the internet to divine someone's "true colours."

What is a "direct attack?" Anything less than begging the indulgence of the person with whom I disagree? Especially when I believe their ideas directly attack what remains of social spaces?

If you want to say you think I'm an asshole, then just say it. Anything less is a deception, not a kindness,and it doesn't become you.

As for reading you, I feel I have an obligation to do so because you and Doc are contributing to an environment where we're less able to think critically about important ideas, and as much as I'd like to ignore that, I feel as though I can't. Should I infer that you only want readers who agree with you or aren't occasionally annoyed by you?

Are all your posts pearls of wisdom the descend from heaven itself, beyond criticism? The post at the head of this discussion is some penetrating insight the illuminates the problems of the "old world" with enlightened vision of those who truly "get it?" It's no surprise that some of us get a little grumpy, as if that itself is some kind of sin.

Should I infer that you only read people that don't annoy you? How challenging is that?

Sorry about the Les Blogs cock-up. At least now you know you won't be missing anything.

[Euan]

I don't think you are an asshole Dave and even if I did, saying so becomes me less than trying to engage in a conversation with you.

Unlike you I do believe that the web makes us more likely to try to be the best we can because it is very public and the connections it affords can make us more accountable. I call it being enthusiastic about something that has the potential to make the world a better place you call it irrational cheer-leading.

I do read people I disgree with and make sure that I don't just read the people in my own echo chamber. I also relish difference and discussion and am never happier than when debate emerges in the comments to one of my posts.

[jeneane]

I felt compelled to testify before the committee.

http://allied.blogspot.com/2006/07/rapid-withdrawl-and-case-for-shutting.html

As for this dave: "As for reading you, I feel I have an obligation to do so because you and Doc are contributing to an environment where we're less able to think critically about important ideas..."

Euan didn't call you an asshole, but I just did.

-j.

[Shelley]

A little hard to read this story -- feel like half the pages are gone.

But it is a little rude to write about someone, even without mentioning their name, when you've been involved in a group exchange related to them. Sure I may not know who the 'she' was..but the other 99 people on Jon's email list does.

I'm not going to come between you and Dave Rogers, I have absolutely no interest in a personal bitch session between the two of you.

But after some recent discussions at Flickr and at Techcrunch, as well as the so-called 'core values' talk at Bloggercon, I am sensitive to certain nuances I'm seeing glimmers of here.

Euan, aren't you kind of using someone else's emotional response in a personal setting as a way to, well, market yourself? The seque into the company discussion, which seems so out in left field?

I don't know. Just seems like another variation of RocketBoom banter, and that wasn't a highlight of weblogging.

(This comment brought to you via Jeneane's, who can write a post that makes to hear the rest of the story.)

[Shelley Powers]

...other 99 people on Jon's email list _do_

Sigh

[Euan]

Firstly it wasn't just one person whose behavior I was commenting on Shelley and other people on the list were already talking about the situation before I wrote my post. Until Jon revealed that it was his mailing list that started this there was no reason to suspect that anyone could be identified other than by those who already knew what had happened.

Which btw looking back on the furore was in itself trivial!!

I am not sure how this could have been construed as marketing myself Shelley. I don't see why I shouldn't comment on the ways of the world any less than you do in your own blog and if I now make a living out of something that fascinates me does that mean that I should stop writing about it?

[Kathy Sierra]

I heard Paul Graham do an entire speech at Amazon titled, "Dignity is Deadly" and describes how this "professional-and-businesslike-means-deadly-serious" attitude is why the not-yet-dignified start-ups can kick an established, mature company's butt. His point was about how a big company can still behave like a start-up, and being a little less "grown-up" is one of the first places to look : )
Thanks for this post.

dave: "where we're less able to think critically about important ideas..."

Yet another judgemental and morally superior view...
Is it possible that what you define as "critical thinking" is simply thinking like YOU? I continue to be amazed by how many people equate "optimism" with "irrationality" and who believe that a more hopeful or positive view is somehow *less* logical than a negative/cynical view.