Weird editorial in the Financial Times UK today from Michael Skapinker, which is a neat name. He titles it A dose of austerity for a pampered generation, and is sort of all over the map.

Look, he starts here:

This recession has already hurt people such as over-mortgaged home owners and bank staff. But employers and headhunters predict a real shock for one group: those in their 20s and early 30s who have never experienced an economic downturn before.

Then hits us with this old chestnut:

For the baby boomers’ children, mass unemployment will be something new. The shock will be all the greater because the best educated of them have had it their own way ever since they entered the workplace.

Doom! Gloom! We’re so screwed. If only Generation Y hadn’t been so pampered and demanding. If only we were more like the boomers.

But wait — maybe we’re actually okay? Skapinker continues:

In one sense, today’s younger generation are better prepared for economic hard times than their parents or grandparents: they were not expecting jobs for life.

Nor did they ever think they would have defined benefit pensions, calculated as a proportion of salary at retirement. (One young worker was astonished when I explained the idea to her.)

However pampered Generation Y may have been, switching jobs and reconsidering careers are second nature to them.

It’s always nice when an author refutes his own headline. It just sort of wraps everything up nicely, doesn’t it?

I’ve written about this already. It’s still way too early to really speculate on how the economic downturn will affect Gen Y’s employment prospects. My personal feeling is that if it does hurt them, it’ll be a very short-term period of pain, and then it will end. But regardless: I think claims that Gen Y needs to adjust their attitudes in light of the recession are completely insane.

Here’s why: Generation Y hasn’t demanded greater work/life balance and so-called perks (Skapinker makes reference to Gen Y getting time off work to “train for the triathlon”) solely because they can. We’re not holding jobs ransom, hoping to get a sweet flex-time schedule out of the deal. We ask for these things because we feel that they’re important. They’re not frivolous or expendable and, most importantly at all, they don’t actually affect the quality or amount of work we get done.

Seriously, if your employee can do great work, get things done on time, and also takes two extra hours every morning to train for the triathlon, what does it matter?

Am I missing some logic here? Have I just not taken my dose of austerity yet? Should I really take austerity on an empty stomach?

Photo by Pulpolux !!!. Licensed under Creative Commons.

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about twitter because, well… that’s what twitter users inevitably end up doing. Twitter is almost infuriatingly great. Infuriating because it doesn’t make sense to anybody when they first discover it. Great because, once you take the leap and start using twitter, it fits into your life so damn well.

Trying to explain what twitter is to a non-techie person is damn near impossible. You end up sounding stupid: “It’s like a weird hybrid Blog/IM/Facebook/Chat program with an arbitrary character limit for every post. You should try it!” They probably won’t. But the thing about twitter is that, once you do start using it, it’s remarkably easy to become utterly obsessed with it.

It happens organically. You sign up for an account. Start following some people. Maybe it’s only something you check a couple of times a day. But, soon enough, it takes hold. And you can’t get away.

I think Tim Bray pretty well nailed twitter earlier this year, when he wrote this:

I think that with Twitter, something important is happening. But I’m having trouble figuring out what.

So here’s twitter: a web application that doesn’t sound very appealing, but whose users are often obsessive about it. An internet milestone that no one can really define.

Does it have a legitimate business use?

This is the question that I’ve been turning around in my head. There are a few places where twitter has already had a sizable impact at the business world. In tech and design circles, it’s become an inseparable part of the conference/trade show experience. Having a dedicated backchannel is incredibly useful, and makes networking a snap.

Further, I’ve seen some stories of people using twitter as a successful marketing tool. (Here’s a good rundown of one example.) It’s a way to directly interact with potential consumers, and join the conversation. If twitter does nothing else, that’s valuable in itself.

Still, though, I can’t help but feel like twitter is still mostly untapped potential for business users. In terms of marketing, communication, promotion and brand, twitter offers something that no other social networking app has been able to before.

Twitter versus Facebook

Brief digression time: A lot of markets are focused on Facebook right now. And Facebook is a huge resource, especially considering its market penetration. But I’d argue that twitter is far more potential-laden. The differences between twitter and facebook are pronounced, especially when it comes to features. (Facebook has a lot of features; twitter has none). But the important differences may seem minor: Facebook is a closed system, twitter is open. Facebook is still very passive (You don’t need to contribute a lot to enjoy it), twitter is active, and requires you to be outspoken. Facebook users are generally either netural or wary of the service, twitter users are passionate.

Small differences, but incredibly important.

What to do with twitter in your business today

If I could tell you exactly how to use twitter as a business tool right now, I’d be in an incredible position. I could make tons of money if I had those answers. But I don’t, unfortunately. The exciting thing about twitter is that it’s all still kind of uncharted territory for business.

I can tell you what NOT to do, though, if you want to experiment with twitter. First, DON’T create an account that is just a feed for your blog. (The only case where it’s okay to do this is if you’re very clear that this is all your twitter feed is. You probably need to have an enormously popular blog to do this.) DON’T go out and follow 1,000 top users you don’t have an interest in, then get mad when they don’t follow you in return. DON’T send messages from the guise of some disembodied ‘company’ — be a real person. And, finally, DON’T expect success overnight.

The last one is key. The thing about twitter is that it’s virtually no risk. It costs nothing to join. It’s very easy to use with no learning curve. And, unlike a blog, you really can’t spend a whole day working on a post. Just dive in. And have fun.

Photo by Carrot Creative. Licensed Under Creative Commons.

ITWorldCanada.com has the scoop on a survey of 27,000 Canadian university students, the results of which are pretty interesting:

The study found that two of the top five places to work were tech companies: Google and Apple. According to DECODE partner Eric Meerkamper, “The brands that were chosen are considered to be authentic and innovate; part of some new and important values emerging in the workplace. All of these organizations are places that resonate as being stable and secure. This is an important variable considering the substantial debt load many students will carry upon graduation given rising tuition costs.”

You could essentially distill this down to “people want to work somewhere cool.” And a lot of what’s cool is admittedly perception more than it is reality. Is that fair? Not particularly. But I’d argue that’s almost unavoidable. Think about this question, and answer honestly — would you rather work at Exxon Mobil or Google? Deloitte or Apple? Ernst & Young or Nintendo?

People tend to gravitate towards the younger, hipper companies, even if there’s really not a huge difference in individual experience at the entry-level. And what makes these companies seem “young” and “hip” are actually small things, which don’t have to impact your bottom line. In fact, employers can make their businesses instantly more Y-friendly through just a few small changes to their corporate culture.

Here’s five to get you started:

Read more »

Drawing on our commuting theme from yesterday, the latest issue of Wired has a great article on telecommuting, a favourite topic of mine.

I thought these stats were interesting:

Last year, researchers from Penn State analyzed 46 studies of telecommuting conducted over two decades and covering almost 13,000 employees. Their sweeping inquiry concluded that working from home has “favorable effects on perceived autonomy, work-family conflict, job satisfaction, performance, turnover intent, and stress.”

The article also notes that managers are taking notice, or at least they’re SAYING that they are:

Earlier this year, an IDC report from Asia found that 81 percent of managers believe telecommuting improves productivity, up from 61 percent in 2005.

Interesting stuff. Read the whole thing. Maybe we ARE looking at a turning of the tides on this issue.

I’m only just now getting back into the groove on this blog. I’ve been neglectful over the last few weeks as summer’s ended and things have ramped back up at my day job. That’s not good, and it’s probably cost me readers. Nobody likes an unreliable blogger.

But hear me out — I have an excuse. Of sorts.

The reason I haven’t updated this blog is that I have been, since the beginning of the month, completely and totally overwhelmed by work. It’s crashed over me like a tidal wave and knocked me off of my metaphorical surfboard and into an ocean of deadlines and high expectations.

I knew it was coming. I had all of August to prepare for this rush. But I didn’t. Instead, I took some personal time. Had a nice vacation in the city. Went out for lunch a lot. Worked on the back porch in the sun. I knew the freight train was coming, but I took my time getting off the tracks.

But I’ve realized during the chaos of this week that I don’t need to feel ashamed or wrong about the way I work. Some people do live in a world of precisely ordered schedules and timetables. They plan for blocks of work, making sure everything is in its place well ahead of deadlines. But I don’t. I’ve tried, in the past, to operate like that, but inevitably, in the face of actually getting things done I neglect to make a schedule.

I don’t live in a world of printed schedules, tacked up on the wall. Though the past couple of weeks have been absolutely crazy for me in terms of always being busy, I’m not feeling bad. In fact, it’s the opposite — I’m feeling more determined and energized about everything. In the face of a looming deadline, I get lost in the rush of working: of facing challenges, of problem solving, and flying through the creative process. I love to work in bursts — to knock out eight or nine tasks in a morning, bouncing from program to program on my computer.

This is where I thrive.

I’m not disparaging or promoting any style of work. What I am saying, though, is that it doesn’t really MATTER how anybody works provided the end result is delivered on time, and that the final product is good.

I think a big part of the generational shift these days is recognizing that the final product — the destination — is more important than the journey there. And that by simply accepting different working styles we can actually, as intergenerational workspaces, increase output. I know a lot of people would call the way I’ve worked “inefficient”, but where are the drawbacks? I work best in bursts, and shouldn’t any employer want their employee to be at their best?

Photo by moomim_lens. Licensed under Creative Commons