Twitter, the micro-blogging service that sounds stupid until you use it, is hitting the mainstream, with all sorts of celebrities and politicians piling on. (See also my big Twitter at Work post.)

The celebrities are amusing but benign. The politicians are more interesting, but already their twittering is causing controversy. They’re being accused of not paying attention.

The Globe & Mail reports:

Edmonton — Alberta’s Speaker of the House Ken Kowalski issued a stern warning to provincial politicians yesterday to stop using their BlackBerrys during Question Period.

“There’s something going on in virtual wonderland called Twitter-ing. And it seems that even as the Question Period goes on, some honourable members have been accessing their BlackBerrys to put some messages in the virtual world before the question is even answered by another person,” he said.

Some notes on this.

• Question Period, for those who aren’t lucky enough to live in a Parliamentary democracy, is the time when politicians are allowed to yell at each other (including the Prime Minister) with tremendous vigor.
• “Virtual wonderland?” Is that connected to the series of tubes?
• How many decades will we have to wait before the majority of our elected leaders across the globe actually understand the most important innovation since the internal combustion engine?

Regardless, there’s some wisdom in the Speaker of the House’s words, at least as it pertains to Question Period — it’s good practice to at least wait until you get an answer before you start flinging crap into the virtual wonderland.

The article continues:

It’s not the first time he’s made the request in an attempt to restore decorum. Mr. Kowalski recently sent letters to MLAs asking them to refrain from using any electronic devices, including laptop computers, in the legislature.

This is where I start getting more annoyed. There’s something inherently backwards about this sort of “no technology” policy¹ that starts to push my Generation Y buttons. Why the anti-technology bias?

A Quick Story

A couple of years ago, I was sitting in an all-day workshop held in an auditorium with theatre-style seating. The content was actually really good. I was into it.

Midway through the afternoon, I was joined by someone who was kind of my boss. I didn’t directly report to him, but he certainly could have gotten me fired if he wanted to. That kind of boss.

We sat for a while and listened to a keynote. Part-way through, I realized I had no idea what time it was. I don’t wear a watch, so I pulled out my cellphone from my pocket to check. My pseudo-boss looked at me with a gigantic look of disapproval, tapped the phone, and literally wagged a finger.

I had a similar experience this past year at another conference, when I brought out my iPhone, opened the “Notes” application, and typed a couple of points I wanted to remember. The lady next to me looked at me like I had just wronged her personally.

That’s the anti-technology bias in a nutshell. It’s the belief that this device in your hand means you’re not paying attention. That you’re being disrespectful. That you’re just a big insensitive jerk.

Why We Twitter

The notion that people in the audience using twitter (or blogging) during presentations is quickly shot down by the amazing benefits that liveblogging or an active ‘backchannel’ brings to conferences, workshops and other events. These kinds of communications bring the content and messages of a small, in-person event to a much larger audience online. Everyone benefits.

Web people, marketers, anyone at Unconference or ‘camp’ suffixed events already understand this: an audience twittering or typing away as you talk is generally a good thing. It means you’re saying something that people want to share. Hopefully it’s something smart.

The anti-tech bias is motivated by two forces. The first is the belief that technology is inherently distracting and there is no way for people to overcome that. The second is the really weird belief that this is one instance where multitasking is impossible. Neither of these things are true.

The benefits to increased real-time communication through twitter and other web-based means are innumerable. There are THOUSANDS of them for business and for government alone. We should not sacrifice these in favour of some outdated notion of proper manners.

Caveat

I have some misgivings about writing all of this, if only because I’ve been annoyed by people using their Blackberries under tables at conferences, checking their email every two minutes. There’s often a look about them that seems disengaged. Despite all I’ve said, I still find that rude.

There is a balance, I believe, that must be struck. We owe it to ourselves to be responsible users of technology, and that includes using common sense. Twittering “In a great presentation on Google Adwords – what’s your ideal CPM?” is great. Composing an email to your mom about the new car you bought is bad.

The biggest worry, I suppose, is that the technology is almost invisible. When someone takes notes, at least you can sort of see that they’re writing. A computer or especially a smart phone gives a kind of anonymity to your activities. There’s no real visual evidence that you’re not just screwing around.

But I really think that’s something we’re just going to have to get past. The anti-tech bias must die.

Photo by Julian Bleecker. Licensed under Creative Commons

1. or attempted policy, to be fair

• Why Gen Y workers bypass IT usage policies
• How Gen Y workers turn CIOs into IT watchdogs
• Gen Y workers: We know all about this IT stuff
• CIOs: Learn the wireless workaholic ways of Gen Y
• One in five choose relaxed IT policies over money

Shane also followed up with a really good blog post about the series. He asks:

Much in the way we try to encourage bookworms to take up sports, and get the jocks singing and dancing in high school musicals, wouldn’t employers prefer a Gen Y that was a little more well-rounded in their approach to work and IT? There could be young employees who tap into social networking services, but who also keep a log of what they’re doing for potential audit purposes. There are those who use mobile computing devices, but who also demonstrate leadership in backing up data and ensuring antivirus software is updated. Imagine a Gen Yer who not only thinks they’re computer-proficient but can identify areas about technology they still need to develop.

To which I responded:

I really like your last point, and I think it’s an important one. Am I, as a 25-year-old guy in the business world, fully developed? As much as it’s tempting to throw to the ego and say ‘Hell yeah; I’m the best at everything there is!’ I’ve been smacked down enough times in my three years on the job that I know that I still have a lot of things left to learn and a lot of skills to acquire.

It’s a bit of a cop-out answer: but the solution here really is a matter of balance. Gen Y will try to convince managers to throw out all their policies and just go with the groove. The other side will just tell Gen Y to shut-up and be thankful they even HAVE a job. There’s a ton of value in the middle: in questioning long-standing probably nonsensical policies, in exploring new technologies and ways of working (’going with the groove’), and, then, synthesizing all of that into something that can work, and make money, and be tracked, and shared vertically.

I’m biased, sure. And I have a strong voice. But I think strong, sensible voices in organizations are always valuable, even when they’re wrong. Or thought wrong.

Lots of interesting stuff here — and much of it very positive. There wasn’t even any real, solid examples of someone saying “Let’s ban all fun websites from work!!! For productivity!!” Granted, I think that might be because IT companies are a few steps ahead of other sectors when it comes to understanding these kinds of things, but it’s good to know that the leaders in the race are running in the right direction.

1. He even spelled my last name in a couple of totally awesome ways — it has too many l’s and t’s as it is.

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.

In the meantime, check out this little article from ZDnet: Businesses Struggle to Serve Gen Y.

It’s a standard article on Generation Y and businesses’ total inability to rationalize how things are changing and what they need to do to meet those changes:

Although 75 percent of respondents said the Gen Yers will impact their organization as consumers in the next three years, 54 percent have yet to establish business or marketing strategies for this generation, despite wide recognition that such steps are needed.

That’s not surprising data, though I do love uncovering stats like this, especially in the face of those who still have trouble admitting anything is changing with Generation Y coming into maturity. The flip side of that, of course, is the crushingly depressing reality that, despite struggling with generational differences, no one has any idea what they are going to do about it.

Even of the 46% that say they have have developed a strategy for Gen Y, I’m not sure many of them are getting it. Take Nokia, who seem to think they have it figured out. From the same article:

Nokia, for example, has added “Gen Y-friendly” features to its products, McCallum said. “Gen Yers want more features like music, imaging, games and Wi-Fi [capability] in their mobile devices, because they may not be able to afford multiple gadgets,” he said. “Acknowledging this, Nokia offers a wide range of convergent devices to suit the different needs and preferences of various Gen Y consumers.”

If that’s all Nokia has, they’ve got nothing. Marketing to my generation is about more than just ‘adding features’. It’s about way more than Wi-Fi capabilities. We do like those things. Hell, we even NEED those things. But they’re not what’s going to push a brand to success with a Gen Y audience.

I’m not arguing that Gen Y is somehow above long lists of features and standard marketing tactics. What sets us apart is that we’re the first generation that is in a position to think about products in a more contextual sense. Instead of simply asking “What does this do?”, we tend to ask “How does this fit into my life and my world?”

We demand more from our products, whether they be mp3 players or t-shirts. Some questions Gen Y might ask about a product they’re buying: how does this work with other products I own? Do too few of my friends have this product? Do too MANY of my friends have this product? Where is this product made? How is this product made? Does it look good? Does it look good next to the other products I own? Can I feel good about buying this? Do I understand this product and everything it does? Is this product artistic? Is the company that produces this product lying to me?

These questions are the difference between brands that I think are working with a younger generation and those that aren’t. It’s why a Nokia cell phone has less appeal than an iPhone. Why a T-shirt from Wal-Mart has less appeal than something from threadless. Why Microsoft keeps losing to google. Why people want to drive the Toyota Prius despite being entirely unable to tell you how a hybrid engine works.

We’re very image-driven as a generation. We’ve been criticized for it a lot, but I’m not sure it’s particularly a bad thing. It’s neither good nor bad — it just is. And it’s new, so it’s taking companies a long time to figure it out.

The thing is that, as we get older and get jobs and start to generate income, we’re very much looking for companies who create products that will fit into our lives.

P.S: Just to hammer home how international this generational shift really is, check out these stats from the aforementioned article:

According to Genesys, the research was designed to help enterprises identify key challenges and enable them to improve the overall customer experience.
Of the 164 executives who took part in the survey, 29 percent were from North America, 31 percent from Europe, 30 percent from the Asia-Pacific region, and 10 percent from the rest of the world. Participants represented 19 industry segments, and one-third of respondents’ organizations had annual revenue greater than US$1 billion.

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:

1. Cultivate an environment of questions — with answers

Current corporate culture often encourages passive learning. New people are expected to attend meetings, stay quiet, take notes, and learn slowly through osmosis. This doesn’t work in the twenty-first century. Without the expectation of a 25 year job with a gold watch at the end, young workers don’t really feel like we have time to just sit quietly and absorb information.

So we tend to ask questions. Often it gets us in trouble. There’s a comment thread on BrazenCareerist wherein Quarter Lifer Amanda notes she’s been fired for asking too many questions.

This is crazy. In the information age, questions are the foundation of learning. Think of google — each search query is a question, and answers are delivered immediately. This is the kind of information environment your new hires grew up with.

Obviously you can’t spend 8-hours a day answering questions, but don’t discourage people from asking. Set up infrastructure — like a twitter account — where employees can ask senior employees questions. That way, everyone will be able to follow along with the answers.

And, no matter what you do, don’t avoid the tough or “insulting” questions. Confront everything head on. If you can’t answer something, then maybe ask your new employee to come up with alternative solutions — you’ll have instantly made them feel valued.

2. Get away from the boring work environment

You don’t need to rip out all your cubicles or put down new carpet, but small things can quickly take an office from “soul-sucking” to “fun”. If your type of business allows, consider setting up a shared music system, where everyone can contribute mp3s or CDs. Instead of those cloying “Motivational” posters, throw up a bulletin board and let people post funny signs or photos (within reason, of course). Don’t use Group Policy to lock everyone to some bland desktop wallpaper — encourage people to individualize their computers.

And, when the situation calls for it, don’t be afraid to use a little bit of profanity around the office. It boosts morale. Really.

3. Embrace — and try — new technology

Too many businesses are still using sales software that’s straight out of the 1980s. Nothing kills morale faster than knowing that you have to deal with cludgy old technology. Especially when the employee knows that they could accomplish the same task in half-the-time if given better software.

This doesn’t have to cost you. A ton of software these days is open-source and free. If someone has a suggestion involving new technology, give them a chance to pitch it to you and, if it makes sense, give it a week-long trial run. What’s the worst that can happen?

4. Be Open

This doesn’t mean you need to hand out your budgets to all employees, but it’s no secret that closed door meetings are divisive. Inclusiveness is a vital part of retaining your Gen Y employees.

So be open. Invite people involved in other projects to sit in on meetings. They’ll feel more plugged in, and you may end up getting some interesting perspective. If something big has happened to the business — whether good or bad — consider letting the whole staff know about it. If you start crafting an ‘inner circle’ of only your senior staff members, those left out can easily become disgruntled.

If you’re worried about the time this might take, leverage technology. CEOs from all sectors are blogging regularly, to great effect. It lets people know what’s going on at the top-level, and also has the bonus side-effect of making people who can easily seem distant more relatable.

5. Don’t try too hard

The last thing I want is for people to take this list and instantly become the boss that wanders around trying to be everybody’s friend. Don’t be that guy. The kinds of changes outlined in this list shouldn’t be forced. Nor should you implement them then act like you’ve given all your employees a great favour.

This works in tandem with the point above — in addition to being open, you need to be honest. Ultimately, when it comes to managing people, if you’re not happy and motivated in YOUR position, none of the people under you will ever give a damn.

This kind of change needs to be made in the spirit of making your business more efficient and your team more effective. Go forward in that light, and your intergenerational team should hum along just fine. Start making changes because you just want those damned young employees to play nice and stop jerking you around, and you’re not likely to get anywhere at all.

Be open. Be honest. Be real. Be cool. It can be that simple.

Photo by Steve Deger. Licensed under Creative Commons

The other big reason is that, with the time I do spend in front of my Macbook, I’d rather be reading insightful posts than trying to craft my own. Reading, I’d say, is about 95% of the reason I use the internet.

Yes, Viriginia, I do enjoy reading on the internet

Which brings me to what I really want to talk about. It’s something I’ve been seeing again and again from so-called ‘business leaders’ (who like to talk about ‘integrated verticals’ which, I think, breaks the record for two words who, together, mean absolutely nothing at all) who fancy themselves exports on the web. They claim that people do not read on the internet.

Not to single anybody out, since I came across this quote as the result of a random search, but take this article from masternewmedia.org titled Online Reading Habits: How much content do web audiences read?:

Though hard to believe for most, a recent research study shows that “on average, users will have time to read 28% of the words if they devote all of their time to reading. More realistically, users will read about 20% of the text on the average page.”

I don’t quibble with the result of the research, but what I do quibble with is the conclusion that’s often reached as a result. It’s the Pro Blogger mantra, calling ‘wordiness’ a sign, and recommending lite content, full of easy-to-digest lists and giant pictures. In essence, it’s calling for an almost-illiterate web.

I’m not an elitist. I like lists. I like pictures. I skim articles when I come across them. But I also, and I am going to bold this, like to read on the internet. I like reading long, interesting articles. I like encountering so-called “walls of text” when I know it’s subject matter written by a talented writer. Never have I encountered a post by Gruber or 37signals and thought “Damn, I wish this content was presented in the form of a Top-10 list.

I like to read on the internet. I like to read paragraphs on the internet. Maybe I’m not a large audience, or even a common audience, but I am an audience, and I hope that the talented writers out there, drowning in a sea of advice calling for short, easily-digestible, content-free writing on the internet, are aware that readers like me exist.

Postscript: What makes a good blog?

Man-about-town Merlin Mann has a post titled What makes a good blog?. It’s really good. The best bit:

Good blog posts are made of paragraphs. Blog posts are written, not defecated. They show some level of craft, thinking, and continuity beyond the word count mandated by the Owner of Your Plantation. If a blog has fixed limits on post minimums and maximums? It’s not a blog: it’s a website that hires writers. Which is fine. But, it’s not really a blog.

Exactly.

As we move through new generations, blogging is going to become a very common tactic for businesses. It works better than the traditional brochure-style website, because a blog creates a strong connection with the reader. It’s more like having a conversation than viewing a commercial. It gives your business personality. And personality on a corporate level is more important than ever. (Look at Apple versus Dell, as an example.)

But if we let blogs descend into a swamp of nothing but links, lists and funny pictures, we’re never going to get anywhere meaningful. To be honest, I’m a little concerned that maybe we’ve already passed that point of no return. But, hell, all I can really think to do that might help is say, proudly and over and over again, that I like to read on the internet.

Photo by rosefirering. Licensed under Creative Commons

Some see the debate as pie in the sky. “The suggestion that Generation Y isn’t just different by degrees, but that this is a disruptive generation, is clearly constructed by someone who doesn’t remember the mods and rockers, the teddy boys, the hippies, the punks and the student revolutions in 1968 Paris,” says Valerie Garrow, associate direct of the Institute for Employment Studies.

I struggle with this idea, because there’s a ring of truth to it. I doubt any young generation in history has conformed easily. What makes Generation Y so different, when every other generation has essentially had to give-in and start playing the same game that’s been going on for years.

The boomers speak loudly about this, because they were quintessentially counter-culture. They were so loud and unwilling to conform that we still make movies about their exploits and adventures in the 60s. But look at them now: they’re Gen Y’s bosses, whining about our lack of ‘work ethic’ and our damned iPods.

Will history, in effect, repeat itself?

I can’t answer that definitively. My time machine is mostly useless. But my gut says it won’t. I think some sectors will see more change than others, but I think overall Gen Y will work as a change effect across the board. Primarily, it’s demographics. We’re in a climate where employees are given little alternative but to look closely at Generation Y when hiring for prime positions. (This goes a long way to explain why we’re so often described as cocky and brash, too.)

More than just demographics, though, I think one of our chief qualitative differences is that we, as a generation, find our nonconformist roots not in anything societal or political but rather (mostly) technological. It’s a little less noble, but more laden with potential.

With the 60s, business didn’t have any real need to change to accommodate younger workers. Because they didn’t really need them. And, well, the changes the then younger generation was asking for seemed so out-of-this-world. The boomers asked for change, but it was not specific — it wasn’t backed up with real, tangible solutions.

Technology is the game changer, because technology is change. For better or for worse, all of business is going through change as a result, and now, as a Generation, younger workers have the opportunity to drive that change.

That’s new. That’s different. That’s powerful.

The complaints against multitasking are the usual; you’re not as focused as you could be if you were just doing one thing at once, switching focus repeatedly actually makes you less productive as each time your brain takes a few moments to reprioritize tasks and so on.

I’m the first to admit that there’s a lot be said for shutting down everything else and focusing on a single task when you just need to power through and get something done, but these days talk of ‘multitasking’ seems to take the form of huffy managers cruising through the office, looking over shoulders and trying to catch a glimpse of someone looking at something “non-work-related”.

This, quite frankly, is a lame thing to do.

Gitlin again:

Employers seek ever-greater productivity from their workers, which means getting more work from them for the same amount of pay. Faced with that situation, it’s hardly surprising the cube-dweller responds by spending 15 minutes an hour looking at LOLCATs. Besides, I’m just old enough to remember the days before you used to be able to multitask; people used to sit at their desks reading the newspaper instead.

Technology has definitely exasperated this issue. It seems entirely acceptable for an employee to spend 10 minutes chatting with co-workers about the movie they saw on the weekend or 5 minutes on a personal phone call, but apparently just a glimpse at Facebook is an instant productivity killer. The message, I guess — and this is coming from those generally clueless about everything online — is that you can’t be working if you’re also on some website.

The real issue I have with this is one of trust. By constantly monitoring your employees’ screens, by installing filters and blocks, by blanket policies forbidding access at work, you’re essentially saying to your employees that you can’t trust them. “Why would you do this stupid work I’ve assigned you when you have fun internet things to look at?”

Could spending a lot of time on Facebook at work cause an employee to miss deadlines or produce sub-quality work? Absolutely. And those employees should face hell because of that. But you’re always smarter to criticize and (if necessary) discipline based on outputs, not process. The process is entirely subjective and unique to each person, whereas the outputs can be objective.

If the work is getting done, does it really matter if the worker is ‘multitasking’ all day, bouncing between windows and tasks like — as Gitlin puts it — a crack-smoking housefly?

Technology has led to a diversification of work styles.¹ There is no ‘right’ way to get things done in the computer age. Trying to establish one-size-fits-all processes, policies or rules — even for something as seemingly frivolous as ‘banning Facebook’ — is a losing battle.

Thanks to Ari Najarian for pointing me to the article.

Photo by Vedlia. Licensed under Creative Commons

1. I’m thinking of things like keyboard users vs. mouse; command line versus GUI; maximized versus juggled windows; open source versus Microsoft, etc etc.

This isn’t a new feature for smart phones. Blackberry has it, as do some of the Windows Mobile models. But with the iPhone and Apple’s focus on entering the business market in a big way, I think we’re posed to see a real explosion of GPS-enabled employee smart phones across large businesses.

This is cool, of course, but it’s also kind of alarming for one big reason. Something that Steve Jobs himself mentioned in his keynote introduction of the GPS abilities: tracking.

Here’s Steve talking GPS:

The Big Brother Effect

Forgive me for getting a bit paranoid here. I’m not railing against the feature itself. It’s definitely not going to keep me from embracing the technology. But given that:

• The iPhone is being heavily marketed to large corporate users
• The iPhone has GPS that can do ‘live tracking’
• Companies can write proprietary applications and ‘push’ them out to their employee’s iPhones
• Those proprietary applications can use the iPhone SDK’s location services to access real-time GPS data

…doesn’t it seem possible that a company could rather easily create something that would allow them to see where all their employees are at any given time, assuming the employee had their phone on and was within satellite range?

Is this necessarily a bad thing?

If I were a person obsessed with privacy, this might bother me. But I tend to take a more open view on privacy matters in this age of facebook and social networking. Still, though, it has to be said that a situation where it would be rather trivial to create a real-time ‘employee’ tracker has far-reaching implications for how we model ‘work’ in the twenty-first century. Suddenly the boss can know if, say, Bob went directly to the meeting or — god forbid! — stopped for a long lunch, or if Joanne, who was supposedly ‘stuck in traffic’, actually just overslept.

Technology brings with it changes, some obvious and some more surprising. The iPhone and other smartphones are likely to bring with them a lot of positives, but there are some potential negatives. After all, how would you feel about your employer literally being able to ‘track’ you during work hours? Is that something you, as an employee, could feel comfortable with?

Listening this time, though, I was struck with something that’s actually been rolling around in my head for a while. Whenever anybody talks about Generation Y these days, they mention technology.¹ According to conventional wisdom, Generation Y loves technology. We love video games and cell phones and the internet and every gizmo, gadget or doowhacky under the sun. It is undoubtedly a very very ironclad part of our overall generational identity.

It’s not hard to find evidence. The Financial Post ran an article about the Ryerson Facebook incident (which I touched upon here) this week, and included a standard technology-is-everything piece in their explanation of Generation Y:

Confident, global -thinking and impatient, this generation of workers — approximately everyone born between 1982 and 1990 –does not know life without computers. It takes technology for granted, turning to e-mail, blogs and social-networking sites 24/7 to gather information and interact with colleagues and friends.

I’m not meaning to appear as contrary to this, because it totally does describe me. I’ve been a lifelong nerd, accessing the internet well before my teens and living a life largely based in three-letter acronyms for over a decade now (ICQ, IRC, AIM, WWW, FTP, HTML, CSS, JPG, BRB, LOL, ETC.) And the connectivity and virtual communication piece seems obvious: look at the explosion of popularity in any kind of online service that connects people with their friends.

But the paradox part of is that, for the last few years, I’ve spent a significant amount of time interviewing, hiring and working with other, younger members of Generation Y and throughout that time my questions to them about computers have yielded a fairly consistent statement:

“I’m not very good with computers”

This kills me, because it just seems so unbelievably wrong. We’re the COMPUTER GENERATION! How can you not be good with them? That’d be like a Gen Xer not being good at wearing flannel! Or a baby boomer not being great at complaining about everything! Or a traditionalist not being great at making babies!²

Plus, generally the same people making the claim that they’re not good with computers are the same people who spend their evening with seventeen instant messenger windows open while downloading tracks from Limewire and working on a term paper: “I’m not very good with computers, but often I use them for ten hours straight to do any number of tasks simultaneously.”

Trying to make sense of all of this

I’ve been trying to figure out why this disconnect exists, and I’ve come up with some potential explanations:

• Pure Semantics: Refer to the idea of a Digital Native and think about cars for a second. I would never describe myself as “good with cars” but that has absolutely nothing to do with my ability actually operate a vehicle. I’ve got no real idea where the fuel lines are or even how to change a tire but I still do pretty good at driving to work a few times a week.
  

  Similarly, I think a lot of Gen Yers see themselves as “not good with computers” because they don’t know how to install RAM or put in a hard drive, but that doesn’t mean they’re not adept at using software and performing creative/administrative/organizational tasks on a computer.

  As so-called “digital natives”, we tend to speak and think differently about computers — more compartmentalized, specific to software, hardware and even individual programs — but Gen Y needs to be aware that, by and large, this isn’t how the older generations (read: the ones hiring you) think.

• Confidence: Gen Y lacks a lot of confidence when it comes to some of their skills, particularly their computer skills. Again, if you think about it in terms of being a digital native, it’s easier to understand why this is.
  

  If you asked a native English speaker if they were “good at English” they’d likely reply that they weren’t, especially if they struggled with Shakespeare and hated James Joyce. On the flip side, though, if you asked a native English speaker if they were “good at Spanish”, they might answer in the affirmative even if all they know is how to ask where the bathroom is or how to get back to the cruise ship.

  One of the more difficult things you need to do when selling yourself to a potential employer is frame your skills in relation to their expectations, not yours. This goes beyond computers, but it is perhaps most important within the technology sphere. Just because you don’t feel like an expert at Photoshop, for example, because you don’t know how to work with Lab colours and multi-layer documents, doesn’t mean your potential employer won’t see you as “Photoshop expert” because you know how to do rudimentary tasks. It’s all context.

• Education: This is a big one — almost too big to go into here — but to sum it up: everything they currently teach about computers and the internet in high schools is terrible and does more harm than good. The track in high schools has been, until very recently, to separate “computers” into its own once (or maybe twice) a week ghetto, where you learn how to type and not much else.
  

  As a result, I think a lot of people come to understand “computer skills” as separate from math skills, writing skills, artistic skills, communication skills, business skills, etc. When, in reality, a computer should be thought of has nothing more than a tool through which you exercise and develop these primary skills.

  As a first step toward providing real, valuable and much-needed education that fits into the ‘digital native’ sphere, schools NEED to start blending computer-use into every class, in a way that makes sense and isn’t just window dressing. (Letting the kids who finish their math problems first play on the computer is not, for example, a good way to handle this.)

But, then, I don’t know

I think there’s even more to this that I fully understand at this point, so I pose the questions back to the readers: have you ever claimed that you’re “not good with computers.” Why? How do you justify that to yourself? And is Generation Y’s much ballyhooed technological expertise a myth?

Photo by practicalowl. Licensed under Creative Commons

1. In fact, I recently attended a session where a presenter summed Generation Y up thusly: Love technology, difficult to manage. Which, you know, I won’t dispute, but there’s a little more to it than that.
2. I’m kidding. Don’t get mad.