Graduates will own the new business world because of comfort in Texting, IM'ing, and virtual jobs
I'm very passionate about this topic, and even recently completed a book on it. I find it very frustrating that many people whom I interact with, particularly those over 40, do not see the same world as I do.
Our kids are entering the work force expecting a completely different "style of work" and will own the new business world.
They are 100% emerged in text messaging and instant messaging and working with peers around the world. Sure, you believe you are too. We all have computers and use e-mail and we all believe we are connected. The vast majority of us, however, are not. Not the extent that our kids are.
I work for IBM and I will say that IBM has mastered the virtual work place and it will define their continuance into the age. When I tell people I have had two bosses within a calendar year and never physically met either of them, their eyes spin. Similarly, I have staff members that cross 4 different countries (and many time zones) that work on a single project. Nearly 50% of the company no longer has an office, and walk around any of the remaining buildings and it's like a ghost town. Yet, everyone I know at IBM works more hours than they ever imagined, all hours of the day and weekends, and everyone loves their job and their immersion.
Now watch your teen children. Watch how they never lay down their cell phone. All during classes, on the beach, in restaurants...always texting (and not talking nearly as much). They are 100% "in touch", continuously. They truly understand rapid attention and progress. And their new forms of games (e.g. MMPORG) are perfect incubators for their future virtually-collaborative workforce.
I see a generational revolution, just entering the work force now, and I see resistence among a slightly older group...wishing/pretending that this new level of connectivity isn't needed to get their job done. But it is.
Generational?
I am always uncomfortable with assumptions that younger people always have less resistance to new innovations than old. It implies that younger people don't have a cultural resistance to innovation. It would seem like common sense but I keep running into instances were it doesn't hold.
For example, it may be true that younger (under 40?) use more text messaging and cell phones but they still have huge gaps in other sorts of technical knowledge. Part of this is certainly due to the shear volume and complexity of the tech and the rate of change. I mention an example where I found a couple of my staff (20 something) hand writing labels because they couldn't use a help menu in access.
Perhaps this is an isolated case but where there is a reason to use tech and support I don't know if age matters as much.
*Mostly* (but not solely) Generational
I know what you're saying, and it is indeed a generalization that
I'm making. But I'm actually saying more (although it didn't come out
well). I'm only partly saying that they adopt the technology faster
and more freely...and...
The other key part is they are using many tools today that are
purely recreational (in intent anyway) that turn out to be life-critical in the new work world. The best example is MMORPG
(massively multiplayer on-line role playing games).
MMORPGs are intense games of virtual teams of people. The method
with which these members communicate and exchange information and
strategy is very appropriate for the new work models forthcoming.
Imagine knowing French your whole childlife, but living in American,
then one day we decide to make French the national language; you're
all set.
I know very few adults who rely on text-messaging (via cell) or
instant messaging. Sure, they've all used it occasionally. But
I know of no teen that doesn't rely on both of those tools to
exist and get through the day. It may seem like fun and games that
they are coordinating movie dates and who was wearing what at
the pizza place last night, but they have mastered real-time
communication and peer-networking and life with non-stop
connectivity.
You talk to any adult, and they'll say "oh, there is a time to
turn that thing off and detach", right? Not kids. And they'll
blur that comittment and connectivity into their work lives.
Chris Stakutis
http://www.SurvivingTechnologyBook.com
Makes Sense
I think the difference is not so much about age as in culture. I talk a lot about "digital organizational culture" and the values that are attached to it. For example, a hierarchy might value privacy and a another organizational model might value transparency, exact opposites. Your orientation determines whether you see privacy or transparency as a good or evil. I think younger people (younger than me anyway) value frequent contact with their friends (constantly text messaging someone to say "I'm bored") the same way I value less frequent but longer face-to-face contacts with mine. It's neither better or worse but different. However, their values are more in tune with the new technologies than mine are and their adoption rate will be faster because of it.
It's funny you mention multiplayer games since the subject came up in a labor tech conference I just came back from in England. Someone spoke about "secondlife" as an example of a virtual game (site?) that could model strategies for off-line situations. The idea is that you do problem solving working through various scenerios modeled after experiences you'd encounter in your work. Since I've never played such a game it's all a bit mysterious but I plan to check it out to see what's up.
let's get down to details
Well I have to admit I don't do texting nor IM'ing. One reason is
1. not having that kind of cell phone and not having that service with the cell plan (as in not wanting to pay for it), and 2. concern over the malware threat of IM which I think is considerable. But anyway, let's say we all wish to do texting and IM. I am under the impression that in the case of text messages, that one has to know the cell phone number of the textee or some piece of info like that. correct? RE IM I am under the impression that one would need to know both the product, and some kind of address for the IM-ee, is that not correct?
(Because is it not the case that if the IM recipient uses yahoo messenger that the sender has to use yahoo messenger to send a message to that person and not some other IM product?) I don't know how feasible it is for a person to have ALL well-known messengers installed and active at the same time, and if it would be possible to have the same ids and passwords on all of them. (I should really doubt it). Is there a gateway that can mediate between all these various
messenger species?
I think that these requirements, if I am correct about them, are responsible for the fact that we don't see everyone using these technologies, more than any technophobia or something like that.
Particularly in the case of some technology where someone could get
charged for *receiving* a message as well as sending, we are going to
find people not leaping to let out cell phone numbers, besides the
fact that they only want to get certain messages from certain people and definitely don't want to get sales or donation solicitations or
requests from someone that they should do some particular thing :-).
When I see teens using cell phones all the time the question is *my* mind is "how do they afford that?" not *how* do they do that? :-) I think employers looking at teens cell phone usage are thinking "how can I keep them from doing that at work?".
So personally I don't think that it is the case that SMS technologies alone are going to do any more to keep people from getting jobs than the factors we already know about which are doing a great job keeping people out of work as it is. It is the case though that there continues to be tremendous age discrimination in technology-related jobs so we run the risk that people will infer that people were hired because they were proficient in using some technology rather than the real cause which might be that they were hired because of a bias for
young applicants.
Joan Collins
Joan Collins Lambert
"everyone I know at IBM works more hours than they ever imagined, all hours of the day and weekends, and everyone loves their job and their immersion." Working all hours of the day and weekends- this is a good thing? Not for family or civic life. Remember when we were told that technology would eventually lead to more leisure time to be with family and friends, and give us time to become better citizens?
Yeah, we're back to working too much...
Yeah, I agree...we are working too much. But maybe not historically.
I think we'll look back on work-life and see the post WW-II first few
decades as a departure from normal. In the 50's/60's/70's, we created
"corporate" jobs and people (mostly men) went to work at 8am and came
home at 5pm. Do you remember those times? But prior to that, for
centuraries, people worked enormous hours under incredibly painful
conditions, often 6+ days a week. We may be back to that now, due to
incredible pressure for corporate profitability. The benefit of
technology is that at least we're able to mix "life" in with our
work more often.
You couldn't do that in a textile mill, or automobile plant, or
in the fields of a farm. So, yeah, now we take our PDA on vacation
and to the beach and to little Ellie's school play. Good or bad?
I'm not even sure if that is the question anymore...
Chris Stakutis
http://www.SurvivingTechnologyBook.com
virtual means you pay for it not the employer
My employer crafted a new policy for "telecommuting" in which management
claimed a huge amount of discretion over such things as who would purchase and maintain equipment (computers,printers,modems..), who would
pay for dsl/cable or phone costs, and whether the employee could use any of these items for any personal use. They went so far as to suggest the
employee pay for insurance for the equipment and for liability should
the job entail persons coming to the employee's home office. They went so far as to require the employee to dedicate a room solely for the home office, to not be used for anything else. So in the worst case telecommuting job offer, the employee is going to be providing everything to do with the job including purchasing paper for the printer! And because management isn't able to see the employee at work
it is often possible to introduce piece work compensation rather than hourly compensation into telecommuting agreements.
Can it get worse than that? Yes of course; the next step is
to have the telecommuter be in another country where wages are much lower. Once the employer establishes that a job can be done without being on site then the job will quickly disappear totally. This has happened with jobs such as medical transcription and insurance claims processing; once it was proven it could be done by persons at home, it could be done out of the country. This trend is moving into medical test/radiology evaluation.
meebo
BTW after I questioned the usability of SMS given the many different
client software packages as one of the big issues, I heard of the meebo
solution. It's some kind of web front end to various messenger products.
Haven't tried it (www.meebo.com) but anyway it sounds like an enhancement. As discussed in the blog, A person would really want to think about the encryption issue, encryption of passwords and the messages themselves. Otherwise SMS could be more a benefit to the opposition.
http://sunbeltblog.blogspot.com/
I've used meebo
Works great!
You are probably right, the
You are probably right, the information is power, the sooner you learn to handle the information the better you handle success. Young generations are on the right track here, but they also need to be guided in order to obtain constructive results. I think the educational system plays a major role here.
Nouveau Riche University