Now that the world economy is fueled primarily by people using their brains to add value — by creating and reshaping knowledge — collective efforts are clearly advantageous. And problems are so complex, affecting highly diverse consumer needs, organizations have no choice but to leverage the best thinking of people across the whole enterprise.

In the last five years or so, with the explosion of social networking and web 2.0 technology, everyone seems to get it. It’s strange to think about all the efforts to help people work together better, it was technology that really got us engaged — humans connecting, communicating, and collaborating — on a massive scale. That/s the difference — the scale. I think people have always turned to the collective resources of the whole in times of difficulty, We now have some incredible tools to match the scale of today’s challenges and organizations.

I have 3 examples. One, was an organization spread across the country that wanted me to facilitate a contentious retreat in Denver. Lots of complicated information involved. Many changes dictated in the information. Lots of negative feelings. We set up a wiki, chunked up info around key issues. People could ask clarifying questions or add factual data. But were to leave the interaction to be done in person.

Turned out great. Several difficult issues fell away because after everyone had read the same accurate information, some people realized they’d been wrong about those items and there was no problem. In terms of big issues people had time to digest and comprehend, and consider some options. On items that caused upheaval, people had time to process their emotions, and again look to constructive responses. The wiki was extremely helpful in getting everyone full understanding and able to jump into the meeting with everyone on the same page. No distracting questions, confusion about the right answer, need to repeat explanations. They got right into productive problem solving as they knew all the parameters.

Second example. A multinational team with members from diverse cultures of China, Hong Kong, Australia, Sweden, and the US. They would be meeting in Denver, again they expected conflict and had been experiencing communication problems they attributed to cultural differences. I developed a questionnaire with guarantee of anonymity. They responded by email directly to me with very rich responses about their experiences with the team and company. Analyzing their responses I designed a meeting with questions that would prompt them to answer candidly, but constructively, about the problems.

The meeting went very well. Although I’d never met them, I felt I knew them from their open communication with me (a level of openness I’m not sure they would reveal in person). I felt they trusted me to not put them on the spot. They indeed, voiced their concerns, constructively, and we identified some key issues. One of which was the difficulty of telephone and email communication that left lots of room for negative interpretations and a downward spiral of relations. They decided they needed to add webcams and more frequent in person meetings.

This is too long for the 3rd example. but it was similar in that it combined preliminary electronic communications with in person interactions and meetings. We need both. We have to figure out ways to deal with the missing nonverbal communication channel in digital exchanges (yes, there are emoticons, but smiley faces don’t add a lot on the credibility front).