{"id":79764,"date":"2022-09-21T15:30:00","date_gmt":"2022-09-21T19:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/?p=79764"},"modified":"2022-09-30T11:31:28","modified_gmt":"2022-09-30T15:31:28","slug":"hyperactive-hive-mind","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/hyperactive-hive-mind\/","title":{"rendered":"What Is the Hyperactive Hive Mind & What Feeds It?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

What is the hyperactive hive mind? What causes this mindset?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cal Newport’s book A World Without Email<\/em> describes the term “hyperactive hive mind workflow” (HHMW). This is where all members of an organization are in constant, frantic, and often unnecessary communication.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let’s look at the four factors that create and drive the hyperactive hive mind workflow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Factor #1: Fear of Alienation From Your Group<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Because social connection is evolutionarily critical to human survival, failing to maintain it\u2014even via email\u2014feels terrible. This sense that you\u2019re neglecting someone keeps you glued to your inbox to not alienate yourself from others<\/strong>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

(Shortform note: In Digital Minimalism<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>Newport further argues that digital communication\u2014which we feel to be so critical to our social connectivity\u2014not only feeds the hyperactive hive mind workflow, but isn\u2019t even a rich form of social interaction in the first place. This is because, while in-person interactions require you to be empathetic and allow you to feel understood in return, digital conversations imply none of this<\/a>. Thus, when you compulsively check your inbox in an effort to be connected, you\u2019re only building superficial connections\u2014you\u2019re not reinforcing meaningful relationships<\/a>.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Factor #2: The Misconception That Asynchronous Communication Is Easier<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Additionally, Newport writes that most workers think<\/em> asynchronous communication (communication that doesn\u2019t require both parties to respond at the moment) is easier and more efficient than synchronous (talking in person, for instance), but it\u2019s not: Asynchronous communication extends the time a conversation takes because it requires many more messages to be exchanged<\/strong>. For instance, setting up a meeting verbally might take two minutes, while setting up a meeting via email could require a dozen emails. This reliance on asynchronous communication makes the HHMW almost unavoidable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(Shortform note: While asynchronous communication can indeed be less efficient than synchronous, others argue that asynchronous communication has the benefit of letting workers set boundaries<\/a> on communication more easily than synchronous communication. This is because a worker can decide when to respond to an email or message<\/a>, but it\u2019s harder for them to decide not to answer a call or a visit from a colleague.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Factor #3: Pressure to Be Increasingly Responsive<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

When time-saving technology becomes available, there\u2019s increased pressure for you to use it to respond more quickly and at all hours of the day<\/strong>, thus perpetuating the HHMW, writes Newport. Harvard Business School professor Leslie Perlow calls this phenomenon the cycle of responsiveness: When the technology to deliver more is available, clients and co-workers expect more of you, and you work more to meet those expectations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

(Shortform note: In an article on the cycle of responsiveness, Perlow adds that once you enter this cycle, you become so entrenched in it\u2014so busy responding to faster-arriving requests\u2014that you don\u2019t have the mental energy to consider better ways to do your work<\/a>. What\u2019s more, this cycle of responsiveness often causes you to work outside of working hours, thus not only decreasing the quality of your work output, but also the quality of your leisure time.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Factor #4: Our Conception of the Knowledge Worker<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

According to Newport, the final catalyst of the hyperactive hive mind workflow is the way we view today\u2019s knowledge worker\u2014a view shaped by famed management consultant Peter Drucker, who coined the term in 1959. He believed that knowledge workers must be left to their own devices to complete the work in which they specialized and which they likely knew how to do better than their superiors. This means companies give knowledge workers free rein over how to structure their days, thinking this to be most efficient. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, this freedom also means there are no guidelines for how much time knowledge workers must spend performing ancillary tasks<\/strong>, like responding to emails and messages. Because knowledge workers are usually part of a team that relies on their input and, as discussed above, feel an evolutionary need to support that team, they spend a disproportionate amount of time responding to their team\u2019s messages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Peter Drucker on Managing Your Time as a Knowledge Worker<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

It seems that we\u2019ve taken only half of Drucker\u2019s advice about knowledge workers\u2014to our detriment. While Drucker does advocate that knowledge workers be autonomous<\/a> (the advice the business world seems to have heeded), he also<\/em> advocates that knowledge workers manage their time carefully, analyzing it, eliminating unproductive work, and setting up blocks of time for knowledge work<\/a>. This is advice companies and knowledge workers haven\u2019t heeded. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Drucker\u2019s advice can help keep workers from slipping into the hyperactive hive mind workflow, but its effectiveness will be limited if those workers don\u2019t also have support from their organizations in their efforts. Let\u2019s look at how organizations can support workers in their personal quest to manage their time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n