Social Isolation in the Virtual Community

When Frederick Taylor in the early twentieth century introduced scientific management, humans were seen more as physical components in organizational machines than emotional and spiritual individuals. Today, the corporation is viewed as a social community and becomes an arena not only for work but also for identification, self-realization, and friendship. As the new century progresses, “on-line communities” are taking the place of traditional labor environments and many Americans are transitioning to virtual work. By recent estimates, nearly 18 million U.S. workers spend at least a portion of their work week in virtual mode. Although virtual work has many benefits, there is ample data to support the premise that those who work at home full-time experience social isolation. Social isolation is the absence of work-based social support associated with organizational identification. For many, virtual environments inhibit the social interaction that builds community and identification within the workplace.

Although sociologists differ on what community means, there are two concepts universally agreed upon to constitute its existence. They refer to a commonality of location and a commonality of interest. Considering virtual employees work at least part of the time in separate locations, this definition indicates that building a virtual community brings unique challenges. Without daily interaction, a common workplace, and a sense of identity, virtual personnel can feel disconnected and isolated. These workers repeatedly report concerns about being “out of sight, and out of mind” from their organization.

As virtual employees are isolated from their colleagues, they lose opportunities to benefit from other people’s ideas and experiences. The synergy that teams experience as they interact within community is lost when community is not established in cyberspace. This can easily discourage employees from participating in virtual programs and hinder the progression of any telework program.

Consequently, virtual organizations can also lose social cohesion, which refers to situations in which individuals are “bound to one another by common social and cultural commitments”. This results in a loss of individual loyalty to common norms, values, and interdependence that arise from shared interests and individual identification within the group. An employee’s identification to the organization provides a psychological link referred to as “strength of members.” This indicates the degree to which employees are motivated to fulfill organizational needs and goals, their willingness to display organizational citizenship, and their tendency to remain in the organization.

The costs of social isolation are too great to be ignored. The entire virtual work program is weakened as personnel fear losing their identity and distinction. Some feel their contributions may end up in a company’s database to never be associated with its contributor. Other’s have asked themselves, “If my hard earned experience, knowledge, and wisdom can no longer be traced directly back to myself, what future will I have in a Knowledge Economy?” Ultimately, employees may decide to terminate their participation within a virtual environment.

Similar to the days of the Industrial Revolution, today’s managers must learn how to lead within the context of newly established communities. Isolation and potential loss of identity among colleagues inhibit many people from taking advantage of telecommuting and virtual teams. Social isolation requires managers to rethink their methods of leading within today’s on-line community.

So how do leaders ensure that social relationships and commitments are maintained, and that social isolation does not occur within the virtual environment? One way is to understand the personalities, gifts, and styles of virtual employees and their leaders. Another way is through organizational design of a socio-technical system. To accomplish this:

1. Set boundaries to define the overall limits of permissible action by a follower, but use these boundaries to give team members freedom to work, rather than directives from management.

2. Manage the boundary between the system and the environment.

3. Communicate with followers on a continuous basis by email, conference calls, and instant messaging. Instead of relying on unplanned contact in physical third places, members of communities must seek out companions in personal spaces created through the use of new communications technologies. Many tools are available for this, including Blackberry™ devices, free conference call websites and Skype.

4. Hold face-to-face meetings in order to build higher levels of trust and communication. People who fail to communicate cannot compose a common culture and are not, therefore, a community. If meaning is lost in transition from speaker to addressee, then community is lost. In addition, conducting meetings, at least annually, enables leaders to facilitate teambuilding activities with their constituents.

Using these methods within a socio-technical design context will mitigate or eliminate many problems related to feelings of isolation brought on by virtual environments. As communication and change are inevitable and move at an accelerated pace, leaders within virtual communities must work toward acquiring the competencies needed to maintain a sense of cohesiveness despite location.