|
|
Notes on the intersection of demographics and technology
-
"I suffer from attention surplus disorder, Fraa Orolo liked to say, as if it were funny."
This line really stood out to me when I heard author Neal Stephenson read from his new book, Anathem, last Monday. Stephenson, along with William Gibson, Bruce Sterling and others, is part of the generation of "cyberpunk" authors whose vision of a wired, accelerated culture both predicted and helped shape the Internet age. Lately, however, Stephenson has turned his attention to the long view.
Anathem, which I have not yet read, involves a cloistered community of monks that only interacts with the outside world every hundred years, and thus sees the progress of civilization in a kind of exaggerated, time-lapse view that makes the fickle nature of contemporary culture seem even more ridiculous. This work follows on the heels of Stephenson's titanic Baroque Trilogy, which examined the origins of the modern age, including the rise of empirical science and the birth of banking.
It was a propos of that last point that someone asked Stephenson his thoughts on the potential end of the global finance system, given that he had written so voluminously on its beginnings. This was Monday night, after the liquidation of Lehman Brothers, the fire-sale of Merill Lynch, and a 500-point drop in the Dow Jones average, so no one laughed at the question - or at Stephenson's answer.
"It's a symptom of our collective attention deficit disorder," he said. "I mean, what does it say when banks lend out money, but then can't be bothered to figure out if the borrower can pay it back?"
Stephenson, who says he writes his fiction in longhand to give his brain a chance to participate in the editing process, has apparently become a velocity skeptic. Events give weight to his words. The downside of the immediacy, connectivity, and perpetual access to practically everything afforded by the Internet is the loss of a certain strategic perspective that only comes from patience.
The banking crisis is an illuminating example. For most of their 350 year history, global financial institutions thrived by operating at a glacial pace, based on deliberation, precedent, centralized decision-making, and painstaking processes. To keep up with the accelerated requirements and escalating expectations of their customers, financial services firms began dealing in transactions that would never have met their historical standards of prudence and transparency. I guess bankers felt that exercising caution, under the circumstances, would have been too risky.
The result today resembles a pile-up of 18-wheelers that were drag-racing on a curved road. As food for thought from a future-of-technology perspective, all the benefits promised by pervasive connectivity and the Internet have arguably made the crisis worse. Knowledge-sharing, information access and collaboration facilitated the rapid spread of bad practices, not best practices. The network effect, rather than providing resiliency to fragile systems, exposed institutions at the edge of the crisis to the risky dealings of those at the center, as even more conservative investment firms such as Vanguard, PIMCO and Franklin Advisors may be left holding the bag for Lehman's bad debts. The lack of attention paid by bankers and regulators in the age of velocity and technology-induced ADD has injected dangerous uncertainty into the global economy.
So perhaps it is time to reassess the virtues of attention surplus disorder. After all, attention may be the only commodity available in surplus in the coming months.
|
-
The generation gap was once again on full display in John McCain's response to the economic bailout negotiations this week. McCain yesterday announced that he was "suspending" his campaign and potentially skipping Friday's Presidential Debate so he could give his full attention to the policy issues being hammered out on Capitol Hill. This is a very characteristic Silent Generation approach: drop everything to focus on a linear task, a linear process. Obama's GenX and Millennial-friendly response? Why can't McCain engage in the negotiations and attend the debate? Shouldn't a President be able to multitask?
|
-
A new TV spot for Barack Obama takes on John McCain on the issue of technology literacy. Seems like dangerous territory, given that a lot of older people vote, and many are self-conscious about being behind the times with their tech skills. Personally, I would have liked to see Obama declare his support for digital literacy and programs designed to close the various digital divides, including the age gap, then welcome John McCain to join in on the program, since it looks like he might need a refresher course.
 Format: ???
Duration: --:--
|
-
Recently someone named H.J. van der Klis was kind enough to write a (generally positive) review of Generation Blend on Amazon.com. However, the review is in Dutch. For anyone who might be interested, here is what it says (translation by Willem Heesbeen): Salkowitz
geeft in het boek antwoorden op de vraag hoe technologie van invloed is op de
verschillende nu levende generaties (leeftijdscohorten) en in hoeverre the best
of breed van zowel de technologie als mensen te combineren zijn in
aandachtsgebieden als werving, retentie, training, management, en dergelijke.
In his book, Salkowitz provides answers to the broader question; how is
technology influencing the different currently living generations. Further
more, he presents ways to find beneficial combinations of technology and people
in areas such as recruiting, training, management, retention, etc.
De kloof tussen de extremen digibeet en NetGen is het resultaat van een
conflict tussen mensen en technologie waar het gaat om verwachtingen,
prioriteiten, begrip van werk en wereld. Hoe lastig kan het zijn een
vertegenwoordiger van een generatie boven je te vertellen wat er nu zo zinvol
is aan blogs, online sociale netwerken, enzo? En wat snap ik van tieners die
huiswerk, Last.fm, MSN en online games pijnloos kunnen combineren?
The devide between veterans and newcomers [NetGen] is the result of a
conflict between people and technology where expectations, priorities and views
on work and life in general show hardly any similarities. How difficult can it
be to explain to a member of an earlier generation what in the world makes
blogging, social networking, etc. so important? Vise-versa, what is my grasp on
teenagers who can effortlessly combine homework, online radio,games and MSN?
Wil je er in een zakelijke setting wat mee, roept Salkowitz je op serieus naar
vijf vragen te kijken:
Bridging the gap in a professional setting, Salkowitz suggests thoroughly
assessing the topic by answering 5 questions:
1. leg je helder de voordelen van technologie uit?
Are the benefits of technology clear and clearly communicated?
2. stel je technologie ten dienste van de bedrijfsvoering?
Is technology aligned to business operations?
3. is technologie toegankelijk voor verschillende stijlen van werken?
Is technology adaptable to different work styles and habits?
4. ondersteunt je bedrijfscultuur je strategische keuzes op het vlak van
technologie?
Does your company culture support your technology strategies and choices?
5. bouw je bruggen of werp je muren op?
Are you building bridges or walls?
Toegespitst op kennismanagement is het succes van web 2.0 technologieën
afhankelijk van het gemak dat oudere kennisdragers ervaren in zowel de
technische als culturele context. Specifieke training en direct adresseren van
zorgpunten die leven bij de betreffende generatiegenoten helpt dit te
vergroten. Babyboomers en Generatie X-genoten kunnen het tempo en intensiteit
van productiviteit, innovatie en reactiesnelheid vergroten. Ze hebben
allerhande (technologische) mogelijkheden daarvoor. Hun dagelijkse handel en
wandel, culturele aanpassingen kan generaties verbinden, mits ze hun waarden en
prioriteiten inbrengen op de werkvloer en laten doorwerken in technologiekeuzes
en strategie. Anders wordt technologie een centrifuge, die jongeren van ouderen
scheidt. Overigens, zo stelt de schrijver, is deze scheiding een tijdelijk
fenomeen. Immers, over een generatie kun je niet meer spreken van een groep
vóór en na de sterke opkomst van automatisering. Ongetwijfeld zullen dan nieuwe
technologische doorbraken ditto uitdagingen met zich meebrengen. Kennis en het
willen leren helpt mensen verder. Oude ideeën worden vervangen door nieuwe en
de praktijk past zich aan aan de gewijzigde inzichten. Op generationblend.com
kun je met de schrijver verder interactie hebben over zijn en jouw standpunten
over dit onderwerp.
Applied to knowledge management, the success of Web 2.0 technologies depends
largely on the ease, older knowledge workers experience in both the technical
and the cultural aspect within the organizational context. Specific training
and directly addressing key concerns, felt and articulated within certain
generational cohorts, help to facilitate successful adaptation.
Baby boomers and Generation Xers, can push the speed and intensity at work,
increase productivity, innovation and competitive agility. To do this, they
have a multitude of [technological] tools and traits.
In daily interactions and routines, cultural adaptation can bring together and
bond generations – provided, their values and priorities are applied to choices
made in strategy and technology. If disregarded, technology will remain [or
become] a centrifuge – distancing veterans and newcomers. On a side note,
according to the author, this divide is a temporary phenomenon. Keep in mind,
in a generation or two, there will no longer be a group earmarked, ‘before’ or
‘after’ the rise of technology. Old ideas are replaced by new ones and
processes as well as daily routines will accommodate the newly acquired
insights.
On generationblend.com you can interact with the author, further discussing his
and your point of view in these matters.
Indeed you can. Thank you Mr. Van Der Klis.
|
-
The nomination of Sarah Palin to round out
the GOP ticket is truly a remarkable development - not because she's a woman,
or from Alaska, or whatever else you might think of her. The pick of Palin, age
44, means that neither major American political party is running a Baby Boomer
for either President or Vice President this year (Obama, born in 1961, is
borderline in terms of birth-year but solidly GenX in historical experience; Biden, age 66, is solidly
Silent, as is the elderly Senator
McCain).
Think about that. Boomers are a solid plurality of the
voting age population, and have been the decisive influence in the American
electorate since the late 1960s. For the past 16 years, they have dominated the
executive and legislative branches. Their values have defined political
discourse and political tactics in the modern age. And yet here, in what should
be the prime years of their leadership arc, they will go unrepresented in the
Presidency for the next four years, regardless of which party wins or whether
the Vice President is called upon to ascend to the Oval Office.
Sarah Palin, the neophyte governor of Alaska, is an
interesting case study in early GenX leadership. While the hoary 1990s-era
media stereotype of GenX focused on the ironic, alt-rock hipster - a very urban
perspective -the reality of the 53-million strong GenX cohort in America is
actually far more diverse. For one thing, we tend to be considerably more
conservative politically than either Boomers or Millennials. We came of age
during the Reagan era, when liberalism was in deep eclipse and the failures of
the Democratic era were in greater evidence than its successes.
Self-identification of young people with the GOP peaked in the early 90s, when
GenXers were in their 20s, and party ID has remained relatively stable as we approach
middle age.
Many GenX conservatives style themselves more as
libertarians than hard-line right wingers, befitting the streak of
self-reliance and independence that characterizes GenX across the political
spectrum. Palin, from the rugged northlands of Alaska, combines this with a strident
fundamentalist religiosity that some GenXers have embraced as an antidote
to the feel-good spiritualism of our Boomer elders. Her approach to governance
tends toward the pragmatic and transactional, as far as we can tell from the
limited record. She is happy to embrace slogans of reform and fiscal
discipline, and just
as happy to cut deals in the interests of her state and city when the
opportunities present themselves. Her prime-time debut as a major political figure
last night also indicates that she relishes the GenX style of blunt,
often abrasive communication and biting sarcasm.
Palin's hardcore, unvarnished GenX traits pose an
interesting contrast to the more polished Obama, who packages his basically pragmatic,
let's-solve-the-problem approach in more Boomer-friendly idealistic rhetoric.
He offers an antidote to the rigidly-ideological and authoritarian excesses of
recent Boomer leadership without calling undue attention to his own X-ish
attributes, and makes a virtue of the diversity and adversity of his upbringing,
which in fact fits a fairly recognizable generational experience for many
fellow Xers.
This contrast has some interesting implications. Obama
characteristically finesses his differences with the Boomer majority, while
Palin goes for the full-on, in-your-face GenX experience. However, I wonder if
it has occurred to McCain and his handlers that Boomers (and Millennials for
that matter) have never shown much affection for the GenX attitude and
approach. Boomer women in particular have issues with their self-styled "post-feminist"
GenX counterparts, whom I have heard many older women claim, take the
sacrifices of their elders for granted and threaten hard-won progress by
embracing self-limiting and oppressive ideology in exchange for social and
economic advancement.
The impact of all this remains to be seen. Boomers may not
have a place on the stage in this year's Presidential election, but they remain
the key voting bloc. How they decide between the various Xers and Silents
offered up for their consideration will determine which style of leadership
will predominate in post-Boomer America, at least for the next few years.
|
-
As a close watcher of generational trends in the workplace,
I noted with interest that Randstad
came out with its latest World of Work 2008 report,
detailing changes in workplace attitudes among different demographic groups.
This is one of the first good data points that we have to test whether
Millennials (b.1981-2000) are as fundamentally different from previous
generations in the workplace as many people (including myself) believe, or
whether their well-publicized expectations around work experience and
technology are simply a byproduct of a relatively strong job market, and
subject to change in the event of an economic downturn. Since we are now
teetering on the brink of a recession, this is a good time to see if attitudes
have changed.
According to the Randstat report, 57% of Millennials in the
survey say now is a good time to look for a job that pays more, down from 60%
last year and 65% in 2005. A whopping 73% of Millennials now think it is a good
idea to take on extra work, up from 57% in 2007. Several measures of job
satisfaction are up, indicating that Millennial expectations are starting to
align more closely to workplace realities.
Randstad concludes that Millennials are starting to behave
more like older workers as economic pressures start to squeeze “Generation
Debt,” but that conclusion is not entirely supported by their data. For
example, 45% of Millennials still see this as a good time to change careers, up
from last year, and the number saying that now is a good time to look for more
interesting and fulfilling work is at 58%, down only slightly from 60% in 2007.
Across several metrics, Millennials are tops among all cohorts surveyed in their
willingness to change jobs, and the most optimistic about the prospects for
getting hired elsewhere if they move on.
Personally, I am not inclined to believe that anything but a
severe and extended economic downturn will impact the structural sellers market
for skills and young talent that employers will face over the next decade and a
half. Here’s why:
·
Recessions come and go; demographics are long
term. Everyone single member of the job market of 2020 has already been
born. There are no more to come. So projections about the long-term labor
market are fixed from the supply side (give or take changes in workforce
participation rates), whereas demand is uncertain. Organizations still have to
think long-term about retention, loyalty, the costs of turnover, and
development of management talent, which will become especially scarce given the
relatively small number of GenXers moving up to replace Boomers in higher-level
responsibilities. Bottom line: there will still be competition for talented
Millennials, even in a slow labor market.
·
The demand is for skills, not people. Businesses
that derive their competitive advantage from knowledge creation can tighten
their belts only so far, because their ability to execute and innovate depends
on having the right people in the right roles. Savvy
Millennials offer the job market skills, not just labor.
·
Millennials have already factored in
expectations of turmoil. Strategically-educated Millennials have prepared
for this kind of job market from birth; indeed, many of the eldest were born in
the midst of the last severe recession in the US in the early 1980s. Even if
finding a well-paying job becomes relatively more difficult, they may still
prioritize the better job experience, recognizing that this is more critical to
their long-term career growth.
·
Young labor is cheap labor. Recent studies
have shown organizations are paying more and more to older and older
workers, perhaps as a last-ditch knowledge retention effort to stave
off a crippling wave of retirements. If I'm a bottom-line-focused company
looking to trim short term expenses, the large salaries and benefits of
senior workers present a more tempting target for cuts than relatively
low-paid junior-level workers eager to be fast-tracked into higher levels
of responsibility.
Debt-ridden and inexperienced Millennials may face a recession
with some anxiety and feel pressure to compromise their expectations in the
short-term. However, they have many more assets to withstand a down labor
market relative to most others in the economy, including the ability to move
back in with parents. It may not be long before economic conditions actually
sharpen demand for the skills, attitudes and productivity that young workers
bring to the workplace, even at the expense of more experienced workers. The
minute that scenario materializes, Millennials will integrate it into their
mindset. Will that make them less picky or less demanding? I doubt it.
|
-
Sunday evening, 8-9pm Pacific, I'll be a guest on the Brad Brooks Show on CKNW 880, Vancouver, BC.This has been on my calendar for a while and I have to say I have really been looking forward to it. In other news, I was just signed up as a blogger on the Internet Evolution site, one of the great destinations on the web for discussion of the social implications of new technology. First post should be appearing Tuesday.
|
-
Sorry for the recent low levels of blog activity. In addition to the usual summer doldrums, I've been wrapping up a bunch of projects and tooling up for a busy fall season of writing and speaking. For the past couple of weeks, I have been focused on revising and extending the text of Listening to the Future: Insights from the New World of Work, a collection of white papers that I co-wrote with Dan Rasmus at Microsoft, previously issued as a special-order edition from Wiley. Now Wiley plans to issue a trade edition with about 50% new content, including a series of new papers on the "new world of business" that are only just going through final review and approval. The retail edition is scheduled to ship around November 1, which is right around the corner, publishing-wise, so Dan and I are scrambling to whip the manuscript into shape. Here's a quick preview from my draft of the introduction (likely to undergo substantial alteration as Dan and I hash through it), which gives a flavor of the theme and direction of the rest of the book.
People Make the FutureEarlier stages of the information age saw the implementation
of large-scale enterprise systems to gather system data and automate business
processes. While these kinds of systems still deliver value, we believe that
the majority of benefits have already been realized and further refinements of
their capabilities will provide only marginal gains. The real action in
enterprise computing is now happening at the micro level, in the routine tasks
that information workers perform dozens of times per day, which have never been
cost-effective to automate through the development of “big IT” solutions.
Today, the most powerful dynamics driving the transformation of work and
business are at the intersection of people and technology: the systems that
connect people to information, processes and one another. These are areas where
end-user demand, grass-roots adoption and the wide availability of
consumer-grade applications of unproven quality and business value collide with
the imperatives of business and IT to provide consistent, secure processes and
high levels of measurable productivity. This is also where new work-related
technologies and practices rub up against the established workstyles and values
of workers and managers, or challenge the prevailing organizational culture. The influence of social computing and mass collaboration is
already making its way into enterprise from the consumer marketplace. This is having
a turbulent effect on work practices and culture as work becomes more
collaborative and transparent, and the expectations of sophisticated “digital
natives” clash with more traditional approaches to work. Blogs, wikis, instant
messaging, interactive multimedia, subscription-based content, remote and
mobile computing, social networks, content filtering, mashups, and all the
other accoutrements of the Web 2.0/Enterprise 2.0 toolset are redistributing
power from centralized hierarchies to the network, changing the way decisions
are made, and affecting every process in the workplace. These types of technologies are fundamentally different from
previous waves of ICT in that they depend intimately on human knowledge and
human participation. Introducing a user-created content repository or a
collaborative extranet for partners is not like re-tooling an assembly line. To
get the most out of the next wave of ICT investments, organizations need to
look much more closely at the relationship between people, process and
information and make sure they have all the bases covered – not just the
application capabilities or the infrastructure. Unless you surround the
introduction of the technology with a whole variety of adaptations to the
management structure and culture, the technology alone is unlikely to generate
the expected benefits for the organization. Because people are at the center of the next wave of
technologies, the attitudes and values that people bring with them into the
workforce from their outside lives, their national backgrounds, their
generational experience, the consumer culture, and all the other complexities
of the modern world have the potential to deeply affect their performance as
workers and managers. The complexities of the new world of work and business
therefore encompass all the complexities of the world at large. Our holistic
approach to mapping out a set of futures and a set of questions for
organizations may seem unusual, but we feel it is the only way to get a clear
picture of the challenges ahead.
|
-
|
|