…your fully exploited strengths are a far greater value to your organization than your marginally improved weaknesses

If this notion is correct then to have a great organization you need to:

…create space for the leaders in your organization to fully exploit their strengths, help them delegate their weaknesses to people for whom those weaknesses are actually strengths

Can building a great organization really be so simple? While this isn’t the only thing you need to do I think it is a fundamental that cannot be ignored.

I have to thank my colleague Tyler Wall for passing on this pearl.

I initially started writing this post several days ago and decided to give my frustration with this research time to subside. Even though I have giving this a few nights I am still annoyed because these researcher are missing a fundamental point about what media and the Internet really are. The post is actually called “Going 24 Hours Without Media” and if you look at the 15 surprising facts they do make sense in context of highlighting how students feel when they have to give up their “media”. The notion of being addicted to the Internet or to media is also reasonable if you hold that we just use the Internet to consume media.

This is where I vehemently disagree with the researchers and anyone else who posits that the Internet is really just about media consumption. I would argue that this a classic NOOB (newbie) error and while I respect the intent of the International Center for Media & the Public Agenda I think they are either making a NOOB error by positing that the Internet is used for primarily for media consumption or they are very wise marketers who know how to get the biggest response to their work by leveraging the “addicted to the internet/media” angle. To clarify, a newbie is someone who over enthusiastically embraces only parts or limited aspects of a system while missing the power of the whole. Seeing the Internet primarily as media delivery platform extremely limits the power and potential of the Internet and really misses what the Internet really is–a communication platform.

So if you understand the Internet and the media that exists in it as part of our global communication platform/system then asking students to not communicate with each other for 24 wouldn’t even be considered because we are social beings and we know how important communication really is. If we want to be isolated we go backpacking for the weekend and leave our cell phones behind. It is good to get away from the “noise” of the world but that was not the intent of this study. They were really asking students to give up communication so should we really be surprised by the results? I suggest not. How would you feel if you were asked to give up communicating for 24 hours?

In moving from US to the Canada recently I went nearly a week without a cell phone, texting and ubiquitous Internet access that I am normally accustomed to. While I don’t consider myself addicted to media and I do rely heavily on being able to communicate with everyone when I need to and not having that ability was very unsettling. Was it unsettling because I am addicted to the Internet–NO! It was unsettling because I had to function in an uninformed fashion. I was making choices and decisions without having full access to all the information sources that I generally use.

In 20 or may even as few as 15 years from now we will look back at research studies like this and chuckle at the naive questions that were being asked. The Internet and the wide assortment of media and related tools make up our newest form of communication. By our very natures, humans are social beings so the idea of being addicted to communicating or being social is nonsensical.

When you take into account Google’s recent purchase of Motorola and the fact that combined use of Android smartphones exceeds that of the iPhone this is a wise move by MIT. The more competition the is for Apple and the iOS the better it is for everyone.

Ever since Jason Hiner posted his speculations on the convergence of the PC and mobile in Utopian convergence of PC and mobile: How far away is it? I have been thinking about how that applies to my new situation at Concordia. The questions of convergence of the PC and mobile is really only significant to those who have fully committed to using laptops and now mobile devices. For those who are still anchored to a desktop PC and only use a cell phone or even a smart phone as a phone this is a moot point. Let me explain…

In meetings at the Adams Center at Abilene Christian University (ACU) most people brought their laptops to meetings and more recently we started to see tablets replace the laptops. Everyone had a device and at minimum people fell back on their smartphones. During the meeting you would hear the steady tapping of keys and the regular beeping or buzzing of smart phone or iPad signalling incoming emails and text messages. All meetings rooms had either a projector or in the case of the Adams Center a flat screen TV that people would use to show agenda items, videos, and work out task lists, action items and much more.

The meeting were more of a collaborative work session then they were traditional meetings because everyone was able to immediately do something related to what was being discussed. Many action items were immediately taken care of, files were immediately shared and many decisions were made on the spot. It was also not uncommon for people to pull up a google doc and collaboratively generate a plan or other document immediately rather than waiting to go back to their respective offices to do the work that was discussed.

If one was not used to working in this type of setting one could assume these meetings were too unruly and that most people were not paying attention because they were spending more time looking at their laptops or tablets then the one who was chairing the meeting. For the most part you would have a hard time telling who was chairing the meeting because there was so much peripheral activity. The traditional worker would be right–not much traditional work happened in those meetings because we were not working on business processes, we were working on the innovations that we hope could transform education and the world. We were dreaming of building the most effective learning environment.

I am not the only one who is working this way or who is noticing these significant changes. Mark Dean, Chief Technology Officer IBM Middle East and Africa, is one of a dozen IBM engineers who designed the first PC and who is now part of the IBM leadership that is moving IBM toward the Post-PC Era. Not only has Mark moved away from the PC to a Tablet as his primary computing device but he is predicting an even further move away from and emphasis on devices to what people do with devices. He states in his blog post IBM Leads the way in the Post-PC Era:

PCs are being replaced at the center of computing not by another type of device—though there’s plenty of excitement about smart phones and tablets—but by new ideas about the role that computing can play in progress. These days, it’s becoming clear that innovation flourishes best not on devices but in the social spaces between them, where people and ideas meet and interact. It is there that computing can have the most powerful impact on economy, society and people’s lives.

The best technology is the technology that has disappears or that no one even knows is there. It is not the technology that is important it is what you can do with it. Those noisy, rambunctious social interactions at the Adams Center at ACU that most traditional business people or academics would hesitate to call meetings are really just the cutting edge of where we need to go to really start making changes to our systems, our institutions and our society. Innovation will flourish when you bring people together and equip them to scheme and dream. If the technology is good enough that you don’t need to focus on it but you can use it to help you build those dreams then the sky is the limit.

Unfortunately, there is not much dreaming that goes on when people are tethered to their desktop PCs. Not much dreaming goes on when people scurry from their offices or cubicles with steno pads into media-less conference rooms and shuffle paper and check off processes and then scurry back to their offices or cubicles to transpose the meeting notes. Not much dreaming goes on when you only use computing technology to serve the administrative process of an institution.

Fortunately, we can start to change all this because the technology has matured to the point where it can really be used to help fill in those spaces between the social interactions. Our use of technology must also mature to the point where we take advantage of all this potential. This will be the subject of part 2.