Information overload: What to do?

Though the negative effects of information overload are of fairly recent origin, the article suggested that Clay Shirky of New York University¹ may be correct in saying that ‘filter failure’ lies at the root of the problem.

Because of financial considerations, ‘filters’ in the form of publishing houses, printers, newspaper editors, etc. were formerly built into information distribution channels at their points of origin.

The Internet and other modern communication technologies have changed all that by eroding the role of those earlier guardians of the quality of information. Now every Tom, Dick and Harry can produce, print and distribute information – often of dubious quality – through the Internet at minimal cost.

Consequently, the traditional point-of-origin filters that served us so well for centuries are breaking down and end users must construct their own, tailor-made filters at the point of consumption.

And, according to Shirky, this is not yet being done effectively. Hence ‘information overload’ and its paralysing effects.

What is the nature of new end-user filters which will allow managers to harness the power of information without leaving them flailing hopelessly in an ocean of irrelevant information?

If this question had been easy to answer, the problems associated with information overload would long ago have been solved. But that is not the case.

As Shirky observes, if a problem persists despite best efforts to solve it, perhaps it is not a problem – perhaps it is a reality.

(subhead) A shortening cycle

In searching for the answer on how to mitigate the effects of information overload, a few things should be borne in mind.

Firstly, the growth in information will not ease off until mankind destroys itself. With RSS feeds, Reuters and Google instant alerts, a plethora of channels on cable and satellite television and other communication technologies, there will be no respite in the amount of information trying to impinge on a manager’s time and attention.

But not only has the amount of information vying for a consumer’s time increased precipitously; also the speed with which it is being delivered and the number of distribution platforms has shown marked changes over the last few decades.

A recent article in Vanity Fair² shows that CNN has reduced the 48-hours news cycle of traditional newspapers (from next-day publication to day-after reaction) and the 24-hour news cycle of general cable television (from evening news to evening news) to half a day.

In fact, the article argues that websites such as Politico³ (where the Internet meets Twitter meets YouTube) have reduced the news cycle even further to a mere “15 or 20 minutes”, perhaps signalling the beginning of the end of the traditional and comparatively sluggish hardcopy newspaper.

Against this background, Pink Floyd’s lament in the 1980s⁴ that there are “thirteen channels of s*** on the TV to choose from now sounds distinctly old-fashioned and somewhat quaint. (Only 13?)

Secondly, no manager will be able to mitigate the effects of information overload by working harder or longer hours. For managers to try to get a handle on information about their industry by expending even more of their own time and energy on the problem, will only leave them frustrated, red-eyed and – should the dreaded monster of information overload get a firm grip on them – comatose.

(subhead) How to manage overload

In scanning literature on how to avoid stress caused by having to wade through too much irrelevant information, one is struck by the fact that advice focuses mainly on how to manage information overload and its effects.

There is undoubtedly merit in business leaders’ attempts to limit unwanted inbound information from reaching their corporate environment by introducing restrictive policies and procedures.

They should, for instance, insist on good spam filters from their Internet service provider or IT department; remove unwanted feeds to their mobile devices; use news aggregators to give them their daily news fix; only access, read and respond to their e-mail messages at specific predetermined times during the working day; consider switching off cellular devices, blocking incoming phone calls and following a closed-door policy during agreed upon ‘high productivity hours’ each day; block employees’ access to time-consuming and bandwidth-gobbling Internet websites such as MySpace, Facebook and WarCraft that contribute little, if anything at all, to productivity, and so forth.

But such measures all seem to fall within the ambit of what Shirky considers to be a failing paradigm – trying to shore up existing filters that are destined to become clogged and eventually fall short of providing permanent solutions to the effects of information overload.

Measures that today succeed in keeping the in-boxes of management relatively clear – thereby affording them the time to do something rather than simply becoming better informed – will inevitably fail tomorrow.

The war against unwanted inbound information is an ongoing one in which the enemy has the advantage of surprise. In the never-ending onslaught of information, managers will lose some skirmishes, again leaving them bleeding on the battlefield of a war they never wished to enter in the first place.

A kindly person with a deep concern for the inadequate dimensions of the male population’s manhood, or the grieving widow of a former Nigerian oil minister who only needs to be sent a small administrative fee in order for some lucky soul to lay claim to 20% of millions of dollars that would otherwise remain frozen in a Swiss bank account, will find a way to circumvent any spam filter sooner rather than later.

Measures such as those mentioned above do provide some respite from information overload – and thus also its consequences – but will in due course be overwhelmed by the relentless increase in information and the ingenuity of those who wish to be heard.

Shirky seems to suggest that the belief that existing filters situated between producers of information and management could be strengthened sufficiently to permanently protect them from the barrage of useless information, is wishful thinking.

However, he refrains (conveniently, perhaps?) from suggesting alternative and more durable end-user gatekeepers of information in response to filter failure.

(subhead) A solution?

If filters at the point of origin of the information cycle are failing because of the ubiquitous Internet, and the existing filters between point of origin and consumer provide no permanent solution to the problem of information overload, the only remaining recourse is for consumers to act as their own gatekeepers of information.

Within the corporate environment, the question then becomes how to marry a managerial mindset in which the consumption of information is deliberately limited with the demands of an economy that cherishes ‘intellectual capital’. This clearly requires a change in the mindset of managers, which fundamentally alters the nature of their engagement with information.

The debate about how this is to be done, and what the nature of leaders’ engagement with information should be, has only just begun. However, one thing is certain: At the centre of the new filter that successfully counters information overload and its consequences is not technology but an attitude.

The title of the publication you are now reading is Leadership Intelligence Bulletin. This may provide a starting point for a discussion on a new way of thinking about the demands of the present-day knowledge era in which businesses have to compete.

Deliberately scale down on information and ratchet up the consumption of intelligence; go hunting with a large bore rifle for the exact information required to inform a strategic decision instead of blindly firing off a shotgun in the hope of one day hitting something useful.

At a Defence Department briefing in February 2002⁵, former US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld pointed to a particular problem as regards formulating national intelligence requirements. “As we know,” he said, “there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say, we know there are some things we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know”.

This remark is equally true in the business environment where it often happens that management does not know what intelligence it needs before actually needing it.

However, the ability to foresee and accurately formulate intelligence requirements that best serve the strategic interests of a company may just be the foundation of a new end-user filter that counters the effects of information overload while simultaneously protecting and building proprietary intellectual capital.

1 Clay Shirky, Presentation at the Web 2.0 Expo in New York, September 2008.

2 “Politico’s Washington Coup”, Vanity Fair, August 2009.

3 See http://www.politico.com

4 Line taken from the song “Nobody Home”, The Wall, Pink Floyd, 1987.

5 Rumsfeld, Donald. US Defense Department briefing, 12 February 2002.