Interesting — if slightly familiar-sounding — article from The Guardian this past week: Generation Game. It’s all kind of a cliché at this point (”They are nicknamed the diva generation - high maintenance, out for themselves, lacking in loyalty, thinking only in the short-term and their own place in it.”) but they do touch on a theme I’ve been seeing a lot lately:

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.

I don’t really know much about author Mark Bauerlein or his book The Dumbest Generation: How The Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future but my initial impression is not a good one.

Bauerlein recently contributed a Boston Globe piece on 8 reasons why this is the dumbest generation that achieves the rare double-feat of being both incredibly out-of-touch and remarkably ironic — it’s a piece that hopes to demonstrate how dumb, vacant and empty-headed Generation Y (and Gen Z, or Generation TBD, or whatever) is made up entirely of stock photos and three-sentence descriptors.

In any case, I think it’s supposed to be pithy and somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but even allowing for that it’s mostly stupid. So, in response, here are eight reasons why this is the smartest generation, presented without stock-photos and not split up across nine different pages.

They’re more politically & socially involved than ever before

Bauerlein writes that this generation is “encased in more immediate realities that shut out conditions beyond — friends, work, clothes, cars, pop music, sitcoms, Facebook.” This immediately brings to light the biggest problem with his arguments: while he claims to be criticizing this generation, he’s really just criticizing teenagers. Do teenagers tend to be egotistical and caught up in the goings-on of their own lives to the point of melodrama? They sure do. Is this a new phenomenon? Not at all.

Hell, the fact that Bauerlein thinks this generation is preoccupied by sitcoms shows how out-of-touch he is.

The big point is this, though: our generation is more politically involved and socially-conscious than ever before. Check out these stats from a USA Today article:

61% of 13- to 25-year-olds feel personally responsible for making a difference in the world, suggests a survey of 1,800 young people to be released today. It says 81% have volunteered in the past year; 69% consider a company’s social and environmental commitment when deciding where to shop, and 83% will trust a company more if it is socially/environmentally responsible. The online study — by two Boston-based companies, Cone Inc. and AMP Insights — suggests these millennials are “the most socially conscious consumers to date.”

They spend way less time watching TV and more time reading

Bauerlein trots out the old “Kids don’t READ any more!” argument, referring specifically to books. And, sure, books don’t sell great — they’re on the decline. But that doesn’t mean Gen Y doesn’t read. In fact, whereas the boomers and Gen X tended to employ television as their major source of media, Gen Y is turning to the internet. And even with advances in video & audio online, you know how the vast majority of the internet is experienced? By reading.

From an article in World News Australia:

The survey, commissioned by social networking website MySpace and conducted by UK-based analyst The Future Laboratory, found a quarter of 18 to 24-year-olds had reduced their television watching in favour of social networking on the web.

They have massive networks to call upon

Bauerlein brings up the abundance of typos, abbreviations and misspellings in IM and Texting communication as a point to prove this is a ‘dumb generation’. I don’t much like that kind of typing either, but it’s hardly a sign of ‘dumbness’. In fact, most of these short-forms emerge because Gen Y is trying to cultivate an absolutely astronomical number of friendships and relationships.

The networking we’re seeing with young people today is unprecedented and of incredible value to business. Whereas in the past people didn’t start building their networks until they were in their late teens or early twenties, this generation is establishing these connections at 12 years old.

They have a worldwide platform for expressing themselves creatively

Bauerlein makes the ridiculous argument that “On MySpace, if you write clearly and compose coherent paragraphs with informed observations on history and current events, ‘buddies’ will make fun of you.” I’m really not sure where he’s getting this, unless he’s hanging out in some really stupid corners of the internet.

One of the benefits to social networks, blogs and other online platforms is that young people can and do share their thoughts and ideas on everything from TV to video games to politics. The opportunity to make yourself visible at a young age leads to career and portfolio opportunities that were roadblocked before. Just look at the legion of bloggers who have found book deals.

They seek entertainment that’s active, not passive

Bauerlein points to the blockbuster sales of Grand Theft Auto 4 as a reason for this generation’s ‘dumbness’, but he doesn’t offer much in the way of argument. I’d make the argument that Gen Y’s appetite for video games as opposed to television or movies is a sign of intelligence, not anti-intellectualism.

Gen Y demands interactivity with their media. TV shows like Lost have derived popularity from the fact that fans love to come online and talk about them — develop theories and look for clues. Even American Idol, a show that takes a lot of crap for lacking substance, succeeds with youth because they feel like they can be a part of it.

Involvement, in a lot of respects, IS intelligence. There’s a lot more to be derived from playing Grand Theft Auto 4 than, say, watching an episode of Miami Vice.

They have quick access to an astounding amount of information

Bauerlein, again, makes a confusing argument: “Digital natives, however, go to the Internet not to store knowledge in their minds, but to retrieve material and pass it along. The Internet is just a delivery system.”

I don’t really know what he’s getting at, but that may be because I’m not storing enough knowledge in my mind. I just keep giving all my knowledge away to my online buddies!

One of my favourite archetypical Gen Y traits is their ability to quickly settle an argument. A group of people will be sitting around a table wondering, say, who Bob Dole’s Vice Presidential candidate was and suddenly, within seconds, someone will have pulled the answer from their laptop or cellphone. This tends to mystify the hell out of a lot of baby boomers.

If Gen Y memorizes less information, it’s because we know how to wield the enormous repository of information that is the internet.

They’re forcing huge changes in education

Education is a topic I’m passionate about, and there’s no doubt that a lot needs to change in the way teachers approach their Gen Y, and younger, students, but Bauerlein’s argument that we’re in an “era of child-centered classrooms and self-esteem grading” is just tired. Especially since nobody is really able to prove that today’s students are really lacking in the smarts department globally:

According to Reena Nadler, program director of LifeCourse Associates, a marketing and human resources consultancy in Great Falls, Virginia, founded by generational experts Neil Howe and William Strauss, the millennial generation is turning the clichés on their heads. “Student achievement is rising,” says Nadler, a millennial herself. Today’s youth dedicate more hours to their studies and extracurricular activities than previous generations did.

I think there’s very real issues that arise when the students are digital natives and the teachers barely know how to turn a computer on, and we’re seeing the fruits of that, but that doesn’t imply there’s anything inherently wrong with this generation. That they’re forcing change in the way education happens is actually a testament to their abilities.

Because we’re young

It looks like Bauerlein just plain runs out of arguments with his eighth point. He probably should have just gone with seven reasons. Seven is lucky. His eighth argument is simply “because they’re young.” And young people are… stupid.

He’s sort of right, actually. Young people lack experience and, indeed, tend to be egocentric and melodramatic and prone to screwing up (all part of learning). But youth also brings with it, by its very nature, an incredibly wellspring of potential, which is what a lot of companies are just starting to realize:

“We have the best qualified generation since history,” says Patricia Vendramin, a sociologist at the Work & Technology Research Centre of the Fondation Travail-Université in Namur, Belgium. Millennials get work experience early, they’re flexible, they’re willing to relocate, and they’re open-minded, she adds. Also, “they are very skilled at using technology” and they’re true team players, Redmond says.

So much left to say

It’s unfortunate that authors like Bauerlein are able to draw booksales by treading on the same old “kids are stupid” ground so many others have walked for decades. I bet when he was younger there were older people saying he was dumb, too. You would think that experience would have taught him better than trotting out this the-kids-aren’t-alright nonsense. But, then, maybe those calling him dumb back then just happened to be right.

Thanks to the Brazeen Careerist Forum for the link to this article.

John Gruber linked to this interview with David Allen a while back. I’m just getting to reading it now. Allen is the mind behind GTD (or “Getting Things Done”), which is something I don’t know much about. (I’m interested, though. I plan to pick up the book.)

Anyway, in the interview Allen says this:

One of the problems that’s endemic with the younger generation people who have grown up with computers and with email they make the assumption that email is a fine medium for communicating anything and everything.

Which, for some reason, provoked a really strong emotional reaction in me as I read it. “He’s wrong!” I thought, imaginary daggers in my eyes. “He’s wrong wrong wrong.”

Thankfully, commenter Joost laid it down before I had to:

Please. One of the problems that’s endemic with the older generation is that they make the assumption that email is only appropriate for communicating a small narrowly defined subset of human communication.

Why do we have e-mail?

When I first started work, I’d write long, detail-heavy e-mails to my co-workers. My rationale was that it was better to cover all the bases all at once than risk the finer points being missed. My e-mails were (at least in my opinion) well-written, friendly and easy to understand.

Unfortunately, nobody read them.

A lot of my issue was just that I overestimated the amount of time people have for reading e-mail. A lot of older people regard it primarily as a nuisance, and like to spend as little time reading (skimming, really) e-mail as possible. And that’s okay. That much makes sense to me.

What NEVER made sense to me was the people who picked up the phone or waited until they saw me to communicate a message. Or, instead of sending a response, booked a meeting to discuss what I had e-mailed. If that’s how work is going to get done, I thought, why even HAVE e-mail?

Trusting technology

One of the really impressive things Generation Y does is communicate widespread messages effortlessly. If you’ve ever watched an event come together on facebook (or through another evite app) you know what I’m talking about. It’s simple: five minutes of work and a few clicks can result in a packed house the next night.

We trust that the app — the technology — is going to work. It’s going to effectively communicate the message.

The older generation seems to have trouble with this.

Image by m-c. Licensed under Creative Commons

Last week’s Entertainment Weekly has a big article on the ratings for this year’s Oscars ceremony, which were the lowest they’ve ever been. I can’t find the exact article on EW’s website, but here’s one that covers roughly the same ground.

There’s a lot of stupid conclusions people are making about why less people are watching the Oscars. For example:

Some of these movies are just too difficult for a mass audience, frankly. And if we have moved into an era where there’s this dichotomy between big popular studio movies and smaller pictures for more specialized audiences, we may just have to get used to smaller audiences [for the Oscar telecast.]

I don’t buy it. Most people have never tuned into the Oscars to watch their favourite movies win awards, rooting for the ones they feel close to like they would their favourite football team. Instead, they’ve traditionally tuned in because it’s a spectacle: a long, star-studded, gala event with jokes, dancing, montages, shadow puppets, etc.

And the reason the ratings are declining is, I’d argue, due to a very Gen Y shift from passive viewing to active on-demand acquisition of content.

The thing about this year’s Oscar’s ceremony is that, even if I missed the entire show, I can still easy view all the best moments. As early as the next morning, youtube was full of them. I can spend a half hour, see all the best stuff, and not feel like I wasted four hours of a Sunday night sitting through the award for Sound Editing.

It’s a smarter way of accessing entertainment, and the Y generation is doing it in incredible numbers. From downloading a show via iTunes to skip commercials, to using Tivo to record events and allow us to skip around, the motivation is to be entertained on our terms.

This is an attitude that will extend to your workplace, too. Your Gen Y employees will be likely to grumble about that all-day meeting you have planned: why can’t you just e-mail out some notes that they can view on their own time? Why sit in a room together and create that proposal document when it can be broken up and tackled in smaller, more valuable pieces?

Asking Generation Y to sit in one place for a long time will always be a challenge, and it doesn’t have (that much) to do with shorter attention spans and trumped up ADD diagnoses. Instead, it’s more a quest of defiance of tradition, always asking this question: why do it that way when we can do it this way, faster, and get the same result?

Photo by NMCIL ortiz domney. Licensed under Creative Commons

The above (taken from the absolutely awesome web comic xkcd — visit or you’re a fool) pretty well sums up my feelings toward wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. It’s both an amazing resource and a fabulous time waster, and has become my quick go-to source for quick information about any subject, from actors and actresses to vacation destinations.

Yes, there’s the very real possibility of information being incorrect or (much more commonly) badly written, but the mountains of information more than make up for it.

Education has struggled with wikipedia since it hit the scene. Almost immediately after hearing wikipedia described to them, educators decided it was a menace — the academic equivalent of speculative hearsay. The rules fell into place very quickly: never cite wikipedia in a formal essay. You might as well source the National Enquirer.

Hearing their teachers continuously hammer home the message that wikpedia is unreliable has apparently had an effect on students, as evidenced by this report from a Generation Y workshop.

Interesting discussion during Dave Brown’s Generation Y workshop at LIFT08. It seems asking a few teenagers how they use the Internet is always going to produce a few findings like these:

Wikipedia is not seen as a very good/valuable source in school when it comes to usage in school work.

(emphasis mine)

And, sure, wikipedia probably shouldn’t become an automatically accepted authoritative source for academic essays. But you know what? Neither should anything else. The underlying message to all this “wikipedia is so unreliable!” chest-besting (which isn’t even really true) is that sources should be judged based on the medium in which they appear, and not on the quality of the source itself. For the most part, kids aren’t being told to look at their sources carefully before they quote them in an academic paper — they’re being told that the internet is bad, and print is good.

There is a way to make wikipedia a part of education, and it starts with teaching students the difference between a well-researched article on wikipedia versus a poorly-researched one. It could include instruction on examining footnotes, looking at the history and discussion pages and the way the article is presented. In short, teaching kids how to research instead of just blindly hunting for sources that their teacher has deemed as ‘acceptable’.

Wikipedia does have a place in academia. To argue otherwise is to ignore the massive growth and mindshare the site as claimed over the last few years. And there’s a way to make wikipedia fit with good, qualified research — it just requires a different approach to teaching.

I love e-mail. It’s undoubtedly my primary means of communication at work, to the point where I feel as if I could give up my phone tomorrow and not really be impacted. Honestly, I think being able to communicate effectively via e-mail is an absolute must in pretty much ANY industry these days, including unlikely ones like carpentry and stock car racing.

And while I love to rail on business for being backwards technologically, I’d be really hard-pressed to argue that e-mail wasn’t adopted quickly enough. Because it exploded onto the scene and became incredibly pervasive very quickly.

That said, there’s a whole lot about e-mail — and, more accurately, the way people use e-mail — that drives me crazy. Having spent many of my years in the office in a mostly unofficial ‘tech support’ role (something I’m sure a lot of Gen Y workers can relate to), I’ve seen absolutely mind-bending practices from co-workers when it comes to their e-mail programs.

I think a lot of the odd behaviour stems from the fact that e-mail did come into offices so quickly. If you think about it, nobody was ever really trained on e-mail, at least not like they were trained on how to use the copier (or whatever). Habits that may have made sense for composing, sending or filing ‘real’ mail were transferred over to the electronic Inbox, despite the fact that those habits make almost no sense when dealing with electronic media.

In that light, I don’t blame anyone for adopting these bizzare practices. But I’m still going to make fun of them.

What follows is five non-sensical things people do with e-mail.

Read more »