Employment in the Internet Age

Everyone knows how the internet is changing the way business is being done. But one very important change that too often goes unnoticed is what goes on within business. In chapter 8 of Socialnomics, Qualmann writes about what it is like to hire employees from the "internet generation." This part especially stood out to me more than other part of his book because I found some relevance within my own job experiences. In the past, it seemed like the company held the majority of the cards, whereas the employee was bound to whatever whim the employer had. Loyalty to the company was expected. But today, the marketplace has become more competitive and loyalty to the employee has become crucial. I definitely relate to how people from my grandparents' generation look down on people from my generation as being lazy and having a strong sense of entitlement. I myself have often had to defend myself and my peers against assults from the aging. The good news is that the baby boomers are starting to retire, so there is now a shift occurring in the workforce.

Traditionally, profits have been paramount to all else. This is not to say that making money is no longer important. But I firmly believe, based on some of my recent job experiences, that there are still many companies who are not focusing enough on employee retention. Unfortunately, many people still feel as though they are expendable commodities, which really reduces their overall efficacy and as a result, costs the company a lot of money in lost produuctivity. Taking full advantage of the internet and the social media applications it brings will possibly be a make-or-break sort of deal in the near future. The possibilities are virtually limitless. Qualmann notes how it is possible for former employees to retain contact with their former employers through social media outlets like Facebook, which ultimately can lead to re-hiring. A personal example: I still "like" one of my former employers on Facebook because they regularly post job openings, many of which I've been interested in. Qualmann writes that re-hiring former employees saves money. This should be a no-brainer for any organization.

On a "lighter" note, I'd like to send my resume to this company:

Continued Thoughts on What It Means to Be Social in a Technological Society

In a blog post two weeks ago, I reflected upon the ways in which social networks are re-defining what it means to be "social." I talked about how I, myself a somewhat anti-social individual, has found an easy and fun way to be "social" without leaving home, essentially. But are social networks, and indeed technology in general, making more and more people anti social, or at least less social? Let's consider cell phones, which are now used far less for actual phone calls. Technology has advanced to an extent where phones can do just about anything the user wishes, especially when considering the cornucopia of web applications available for instant use. Recently I was people-watching at the local shopping mall on my lunch hour. At one moment, I observed four individuals using smart phones, but only one of them was actually using it as a phone. The others were texting or surfing the web. Caller ID came about years ago, enabling people to screen calls, mostly to avoid telemarketers. Now it seems that we are using this feature to ignore calls from close friends, even if we're available to talk. Why? This is a very good question, one for which I do not have a succinct answer. But it is a very curious phenomenon nonetheless.
The larger implication here seems to be that technology is allowing us to (very easily) avoid any sort of confrontation, both good and bad. This would be especially useful when conflict is involved. Discussing the popularity of text messaging, Kenichi Ishii, in "Implications of Mobility: The Uses of Personal Communication Media in Everyday Life" (2006), states "Japanese youth increasingly seek to avoid conflict and friendships with deep involvement." Also, these same youth display anxiety toward direct communication which prompts them to prefer text messaging over calling on the phone. "The asynchronous communication of text messaging means that both parties are not required to be present for contact to occur" (p. 349).
In addition to these phones (the term mobile device may be more appropriate today) reshaping our definition of social in a virtual sense, they are also at the center of reshaping social norms in a physical sense as well. I think just about everybody has, at one time or another, experienced someone using their mobile device to have a very personal discussion in a very public forum. Are these folks oblivious to their making others feel like boundaries are being crossed, or are they simply redefining social  norms? In the United States, it almost seems commonplace to see this sort of behavior, and indeed, many of us think little of it. But then again maybe this is because everyone today is more focused on their own lives and think little of what strangers are doing. Naomi Baron in her book "Always On" (2008) mentions how the Japanese have all but banned cell phones (keitai) on their public transportation (Ishii also addresses this same issue) because they felt that their use constituted a violation of personal space. Ishii notes that this is not a recent phenomenon: "[t]he widespread use of Walkman portable cassette players in trains also attracted strong criticism in Japan" (p. 348). Now I have the image in my head of a teenager bopping down the sidewalk with a loud boombox affixed to his shoulder!
So is technology inducing a sort of social avoidance within our society? Just by considering one's own observations and personal behavior, one could certainly argue that this is the case. I often wonder why I let certain calls go to voicemail when I have no reason not to talk to them. I even know someone who is trying to get a friend to join Facebook so they can keep in touch this way instead of over the phone. As technology continues to advance, it will be very interesting to see how this trend develops.

The Spy Who Snubbed Me

I suppose it's fairly well known by now that a lot of employers are checking out job applicants online to see what type of material they may have posted, blogs they may be maintaining, or political candidates they may be supporting. So I am sure that there have been many a qualified candidate that have been rejected because of a provocative profile picture or an inebriated entry on their blog. I can't really comment on whether this practice is right or wrong, but it does seem to be happening more and more these days. This brings up the topic of online privacy and trust. One could argue that 'online privacy' is somewhat of a contradiction in terms, but it is nonetheless a growing concern given the wildly popular social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace. Even with customizable privacy settings, there is still room for the photo of that frathouse frolic to become public. Just make sure you have your mom blocked from seeing your profile!

In their article, "Privacy, Trust, and Disclosure Online," Carina B. Paine Schofield and Adam N. Joinson distinguish between actual privacy and perceived privacy. "For example, a person's perceived privacy may be high when they have control over disclosing their personal information to an online store. However, their actual privacy may be low due to the unobtrusive (automatic) collection of their online behavior" (p. 15). The authors go on to make the point out the fact that most people attach a high level of importance to privacy, even though there may not be a standard definition of the concept. Still, though, most of us tend to get careless with this issue as it is easy to take it for granted. Many people feel comfortable shopping online and giving out personal information (including credit card numbers) because most sites have a padlock logo near the bottom or at the top of the screen ensuring that all information is secure. This is a privacy measure that most people (including myself) take for granted by assuming it is legit.

But personal information security issues do not stop with online shopping. Since sites like Facebook have had very public disputes over their privacy policies, it really makes one wonder how much of our personal information is actually within our control. Personal information such as credit card and social security numbers are big targets online, but this growing trend of companies lurking in the proverbial shadows, ready to find the slightest bit of incriminating evidence is a genuine threat to the millions of folks currently out of work, desperately trying to find employment. Even though they may be the most qualified candidate, one errant beer bong photo could take you out of the running for that job. (And just for the record, I am NOT referring to myself in this example!) And even if your privacy settings are secure or you have deleted embarassing posts or pics, they are never actually deleted, thanks to the cavernous morass that somehow keeps a record of everything.

In the Albrechtslund article "Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance," a correlation between actual space and cyberspace is made with regard to the fact that information online is in effect floating in a sort of space, which is perhaps why data never seems to completely go away. It is interesting how words like "desktop" and "windows" are used as analagous to their internet counterparts.

Social Networking: Changing the Definition of "Social" One Poke at a Time

I don't particularly consider myself to be a "social" person. Throughout my youth, I was always the one picked last for kickball at recess, or sometimes I just played on my own. I was however, picked first by the bullies at school who somehow saw me as someone who had boatloads of lunch money. I must have exuded the sort of aura which many found weird, standoffish, or even intimidating (I tend to prefer the latter) because I never actively sought out the type of social acceptance that seemed to be the norm, especially in junior and senior high school. I extra-curricular activities a chose (and still choose to some extent) were those that placed me in front of a crowd, rather than in the middle of one, which is where I prefer to be to this day, though to a somewhat lesser extent most likely. So how does someone like me, who grew up having very few close friends, end up with having (at last tally) 657 "friends" on Facebook? Now, this is not to say that those bullies from junior high are in my social network (I actually think they're in the slammer, actually), but it would seem like an awful lot of these "friends" are people with whom I have a very tenuous connection. Indeed, there are even a few I have never actually met face-to-face!
In chapter 5 of her book Always On: Language in an  Online and Mobile World, Naomi Baron addresses the online "friend" phenomenon, specifically on Facebook. Her study of this online experience discovered that many users are in fact quite "casual" in the way they accept friends, and this in no way is correlative with the number of "real" friends they have and even goes as far as identifying this trend as comparable to a sort of online sport (p. 89). I will readily admit that I have fallen victim to this very trend on numerous occasions since Facebook has an element of excitement and intrigue that is downright addictive. So, it is easy to get wrapped up in this and forget that the person you just confirmed as a "friend" is actually someone you met once for ten minutes almost a decade ago. It seems to me that Facebook, as well as other social network sites, are attracting generations of shy and anti-social folks and allowing them to make connections that they normally would have never made. Baron also analyzes the IM applications and how people use their "away messages" to give the appearance of being out and about with a group of friends, when in actuality, their sitting in their room alone doing nothing. It would seem then, that these social network sites allow everybody, regardless of social status, to have a presence everywhere without leaving home.
Erik Qualman, in his book Socialnomics, discusses the overall efficacy of social networks. One point that he brings up is how blogging is an indispensible tool for recording your thoughts and opinions, and also for sharing news. Nowadays, people expect the news to come to them and are often put off by having to have subscriptions to online newspapers in order to get the latest scoop. Blogging is a way for regular, everyday people to become recognized experts in their areas of interest because they are right there experiencing the news, whereas a reporter for a newspaper is simply reporting second-hand information. It took me quite a while (relatively speaking) to get into blogging. I'm still trying to make my blog posts as personalized as possible rather than making them sound like a formal essay. But through my recent experiences with blogging, I am able to see why it is so popular and why it is gaining acceptance not only a valuable research tool, but also for the purposes of social networking and getting my ideas into the public sphere.
I used to lament the fact that I was a little anti-social, mostly because I realized that I came off as being a little rude when I chose to keep to myself in social situations. Even though I am still somewhat ill at ease in social situations, I have found solace in my ability to network with a large number of people and to promote my own projects without having to put myself into those uncomfortable environments where I am expected to be talkative and outgoing. Now I have a sort of shield which is helping me express myself in a manner which works for me.

New Technologies

Advances in communication technologies are certainly nothing new, and neither are the controversies that surround them. Alexander Graham Bell is widely credited as the inventor of the telephone, but many believe he stole the idea from Elisha Gray. Guglielmo Marconi is known by many as inventor of the radio, though this too is disputed by those who claim that Nikola Tesla had the idea first. Regardless of what actually happened in these instances, there were great thinkers who became household names and indelibly linked to a new gadget or technology. This does not seem be the case today. Though the thinkers are no less great, their names are unknown to most. Unless you are a tech-savvy consumer who follows all of the latest developments, you probably don't know the name(s) of the person (or people) who actually invented the gadget. Does the name Tim Berners-Lee ring a bell to anyone? The MIT professor credited for inventing the World Wide Web is probably not a household name.
In their book, Technological Visions: Hopes And Fears That Shape New Technologies, Marita Sturken and Douglas Thomas write in their introduction that technology is a "force unto itself and beyond human control" (p. 4). This idea lends credence to the notion that it is an autonomous entity that not only "transcends history" as Sturken and Thomas suggest, but also transcends the individual mind or minds. Perhaps this is one reason why the thinkers behind these advancements are either unknown, or disputed at best. This theory is perhaps a little abstract and off-topic, but again it ties in with the notion that technologies, specifically those linked to communication, seem to pop out of nowhere, all on their own, as if waiting to be discovered. Also noted in this introduction is the idea that the history of any technology can only be fully understood when looked at in context with other technologies when they first came out. In this way, one can see how closely linked they are with the cultural and socio-political dynamics of their time and how they only could have arisen at that exact time.
So, does technology's ostensible transcendency have any ties to how a great number of people conciously drag their feet when it comes to adopting the latest and greatest thing? Or do these folks simply have difficulty keeping up with the frenetic pace at which technology advances? Or could it be a combination of the two? Does technology advance at such a pace that it can't keep up with itself? I have a friend that refused to embrace the internet phenmomenon until around 2003 or so. He kept telling me that he was waiting for it to get "good enough." To this day I still have no idea what his definition of "good enough" was (I suppose I could just ask him), but even then it made me wonder if the internet had come around so quickly that it predated itself, or that it had come around so quickly that it took civilization that long to catch up to it. Again, it's probably a combination of all of these possibilities. From my perspective, I think about how long it seems to take for me to embrace the latest wonders of modern technology and realize that there is probably more out there than anyone knows.

Becoming Literate in the Information Age

The Hawisher and Hawke article was extremely interesting. It was more than just a simple discussion on the evolution of technology; it gave us the ability to take a peek inside the lives of two women a generation apart and examine how technology has changed the meaning of literacy. In their introductory remarks, the authors opine that "if students cannot write on the screen - if they cannot design, author, analyze, and interpret material on the Web and in other digital environments - they may be incapable of functioning effectively as literate citizens in a growing number of social spheres" (p. 642). So is this the end of the world for those who may choose to be old-school in their views of literacy and not bother with becoming tech-savvy? I realize that this is not the point of the article, but I could not help but be drawn to this statement because of the number of people I deal with on a weekly basis from all age groups who have no interest at all in computers. I personally believe that it is important for everyone to embrace the progression of technology and become savvy in all areas of basic literacy. But at the same time, I can understand why some folks choose to be a simplistic as possible when it comes to this.

The stories of Melissa and Brittany were very compelling, mostly because I learned a great deal about how individuals from different generations have absorbed technology and made it a central tenet of the personal and professional lives. I was born in between these two ladies and saw similarities in how they've assimilated technology into their lives with my own experiences, but also have noted some differences. For example, computers had become pretty well mainstream by the time I started elementary school so I cannot recall not using computers. This is a key difference between myself and Melissa, who had grown up before this time. On the other hand, I remember the days before the internet, like Melissa, but unlike Brittany, who grew up using e-mail and online chat as a regular part of daily life. So it was really intriguing for me to read about how different these two individuals are, but also how much they really have in common. One of the conclusions the authors drew from their study is that literacies have lifespans: "they overlap and compete with pre-existing forms; they accumulate, especially, perhaps, in periods of transition; they also eventually fade away" (p. 665). This idea certainly seems very likely as it pertains to technology, but will print forms (such as books) ever really fade away? My personal belief is no, but their relative importance seems to be rivaled by the internet and other digital resources.

Another idea that popped into my head while reading the article is this: Even though two individuals grow up and become educated in different generations, I believe it is possible for them to gain the same amount of knowledge on a particular subject. For instance, I believe that Melissa and Brittany can ultimately be equally as knowledgable about technology and literacy, but can they have the same level of understanding? It would seem to me that Melissa, who grew up seeing the evolution of technology first hand, could possibly have a greater understanding of it because of this; whereas Brittany was born into it and doesn't know a world without technology. Does this fact actually give Melissa the upper hand from an historical perspective? History does seem to be a strong underlying factor in this study, even though the main focus was elsewhere.

Preparing for the Next Generation

My apologies in advance for the shorter-than-usual blog post this week. Today was my thirtieth birthday, so I've had a rather busy weekend. Perhaps not surprisingly, the article from this week's lineup that interested me the most was "Preparing for the Next Generation" by Alan J. Porter. This article was not interesting so much because of its convenient brevity (though this was very nice!), but because it discusses an issue which is very topical. On page 20, Porter relates a story of observing his daughter conduct research on Pearl Harbor. He describes how she uses the internet and sites like Wikipedia to find information, as well as online chat applications and other social media to gather the needed information. This part in particular jumped out at me because I've been thinking more and more lately how technology today is almost eliminating the concept of linear thinking. Because books seem to be taking a backseat (in a lot of areas) to more technological means of obtaining knowledge, the need to see the information in a linear fashion (i.e. reading each line of text) seems to be becoming obsolete. By comparison, the internet (including sites like Wikipedia) arrange text in such a way as to facilitate a quicker mode of "reading." I'm not sure that most people looking for information on Wikipedia read the entire article(s), but rather skim, or even jump to the section that contains the needed information. Many sites are set up in this way.

So the question I pose is this: Is technology inadvertently making it more difficult for people to read books?

(Sorry for the lack of comment on the "Wired Bodies in the Wireless Classroom" article. I read it twice over the past few days and still am trying to wrap my mind around it!)