Posts tagged generations
friends, feedback, influencing & a new economy
Feb 7th
So.
My thoughts on this topic were inspired by a trendwatching’s briefing called “The F-Factor.”
Their briefing (another excellent one by the way) discusses focuses how the impact of influencers’ on purchasing has increased because of the web (and the dynamics associated with the web).
By the way. Trendwatching has another excellent briefing called Crowd Clout from about 2007 or so which makes essentially the same point.
I am going to try and put my spin on their insights by talking a little about the past (the evolution of this whole influencer explosion) and the future (how it is creating a new economic model).
Let me begin by saying despite the advent of “social media & social marketing” that consumer decision-making has always been personal and social.
The truth is that consumer decision-making has always been about seeking feedback, leaning on what friends say and seeking ‘influencers’ thoughts … all of which influence the ultimate purpose.
This was true even before the media (or people seeking to create some ‘buzz’) added the word “social” to the marketing world. Yes. Even the marketing dinosaurs knew decision making ultimately had a significant social aspect.
What do I mean?
People talked amongst themselves.
People talked to their neighbors about home services.
People talked to relatives or friends about more personal decisions.
People reached out to trusted advisers (doctors for medical, veterinarians for pet stuff, dermatologists for skin stuff … well … you get the picture).
People talked and discussed.
In fact The Economist just did a great article on how Martin Luther built the entire Protestant faith off of ‘buzz.’
(boy … that is social media working at levels they could typically only dream of these days)
The difficulty we face in the current “what is buzzworthy” world we live in today is that it wasn’t called social back then therefore we seem to struggle in finding ‘successful past case studies’ (or at least ones that someone will pay attention to). In the “old” days … people simply sought out ‘experts’ (I use the term loosely … let’s assume the definition here is “someone who probably knows more than I do and can inform my decision making process”) to make a better decision.
Before social media you could always count on the following two factoids with regard to who influenced a purchase the most.
“Who do you speak with about making a purchase?”
1. Family. 1a. Friends. (you could flipflop or call it a tie pretty much all the time)
But something HAS changed.
The internet has changed our worldview on friends (and influencers).
“Our definition of friends has changed because of Facebook, and Twitter, where quantity as opposed to quality is now almost a mantra”.
Rick Murray, President, Digital Edelman Digitas
Well.
I don’t know that I totally agree with Rick from Digitas.
Oddly while social networks do increase quantity research has shown three key things (to indicate that quality is tagging along with the quantity characteristic):
1. A Pew Internet research study shows that internet has actually strengthened and expanded existing social roles of churches and fraternal organizations. Therefore the quantity has simply strengthened existing quality.
2. the same research showed that more frequent communications via text actually ENCOURAGES the desire to spend more face-to face time
3. the research also shows that texting requires more careful crafting than a telephone or face-to-face communications and 3 out of 10 teens say “that they are more honest with friends when they talk online” therefore quality is the underlying foundation among all this “random quantity” discussion.
Next.
And while we often talk about how internet is influencing people we need to be careful with the ‘influencing’ word.
Research shows that the web can assist in education but ultimately the final influencer remains one and the same as the past.
The most tangible example I have at my fingertips of this notion is the most recent 2011 NPD Group Aftermarket Consumer Outlook Study:
Q: “Where would you go to learn how to do repairs on your vehicle?”
- Friend/Family 57%
- Vehicle Repair Manual 46%
- Mechanic 42%
- Internet 42%
- Store Personnel 16% (yikes)
Basically a Mechanic is AS influential as the Internet in this decision.
One word thought here. Wow.
So.
The main point here is that a consumer now has access and is aware of more people (true friends as well as web based friends) and can have more frequent communication due to the digital revolution. Yet. Social media is simply the fact that the traditional benefits of an acquaintance network (personal or professional) and friendships can be more expansively realized than before.
The other truth is that products today are at the mercy of crowds of friends. Crowds providing unsolicited feedback and influencing hordes of consumers making decisions on a daily basis.
Yes.
This is the “F-Factor:”
It is the expanding scenario of consumers increasingly tapping into their networks of friends, fans, and followers to discover, discuss and purchase goods and services, in ever-more sophisticated ways. (source: trendwatching.com)
The F-Factor is a real part of people’s lives because it provides real value. Value in that it offers a purchase decision making opportunity that is more efficient, more relevant, and more interesting and provides more “depth/breadth” than before. In the past consumers either had to spend endless time and effort on trying to discover the best of the best, or had to rely on sources that were distant, unknown or untrusted, and therefore potentially unreliable or irrelevant.
Now the six degrees of separation (at least in the influencer world) has shrunk significantly to a “no degree of separation” influencer world (this entire phenomena is inherently changing the trust value equation).
So.
Trendwatching does a nice job of identifying five ways that the F-FACTOR can influence consumer-buying behavior:
1. F-DISCOVERY: How consumers discover new products and services by relying on their social networks (Friends).
2. F-RATED: How consumers will increasingly (and automatically) receive targeted ratings, recommendations and reviews from their social networks. (by the way … this is creating an entirely new industry of something called ‘curated consumption’ where non-experts become distributors of expert like information).
3. F-FEEDBACK: How consumers can ask their friends and followers to improve and validate their buying decisions.
4. F-TOGETHER: How shopping is becoming increasingly social, even when consumers and their peers are not physically together. (in other words, the web permits consumers to share real time information and feedback and opportunities … and this is like a pebble in a pond syndrome where relevance & interest creates ripples difficult to quantify when it works).
5. F-ME: How consumers’ social networks are literally turned into products and services (curated consumption at its best).
This is one of those situations where the internet has unequivocally changed the dimensions of existing attitudes & behaviors. Simplistically the web has put the old F-Factor on steroids. I say it that way to point out that the web has not created anything new (attitude wise) but rather has encouraged a desired behavior to new boundaries.
The internet has also expanded an interesting existing consumer aspect to this entire “influencer” situation.
It is expanding the entire trend of putting consumers to work (whether they recognize it or not).
Think about his for a second.
This trend existed before the web. The easiest early example of this was in the fast food industry. For example the consumer of the fast food restaurant is also to some degree an actual producer of the meal.
- Among other things, diners are expected to serve as their own waiters carrying their meals to their tables or back to their cars, sandwich makers (by adding fixings like tomatoes, lettuce, and onions in some chains), salad makers (by creating their own salads at the salad bar), and bus persons (by disposing of their own debris after the meal is finished).
This trend has existed for some time.
Putting consumers to work gained momentum with companies/brands after the birth of the fast food restaurant and has expanded to other industries:
- Being a gas attendant by pumping your own gas
- Serving as a bank teller at the ATM machine
- Working as the checkout cashier at the supermarket by scanning one’s own food, bagging it, and paying for it by credit card
- Being a ticketing agent by using electronic kiosks to check in at the airport
- Serving as an entertainment guide by co-creating a variety of experiences such as moving oneself through Disney World and its attractions
- Performing traditional medical professional services by using do-it-yourself medical technologies (e.g., blood pressure monitors, blood glucose monitors, pregnancy tests) that allow patients to perform their own medical tasks
- Being a caller on a call-in radio show
- Being part of a Reality TV show
And now the web has enabled brands (or is it consumer empowerment like everyone suggests) to put consumers to work in a wide range of sometimes subtle and less material ways (this is where the F Factor truly comes into play).
Once again.
Think about that.
Much of what happens (and is created) online is generated by the user. Today’s web experience is often being defined by users producing content (individually as well as collaboratively). It wasn’t that way in the beginning when most of what existed on the original web was provider-generated but lately there has been an explosion of “consumers doing the work.”
Some examples of how the internet is putting consumers to work:
- Wikipedia – where users generate articles and continually edit, update, and comment on them
- Facebook, MySpace, and other social networking websites – where users create profiles composed of videos, photos, and text, interact with one another, and build communities
- Second Life – where users create the characters, communities, and the entire virtual environment
- Blogs – where the commentary is produced by the consumer
- eBay – where users are their own selling agent & shipper
- YouTube and Flickr – where mostly amateurs upload and download videos and photographs
- Craigslist – where consumers (mostly) create the market
- Amazon – where consumers do all the work involved in ordering products and write the reviews. (in addition users’ buying habits and site navigation are documented to recommend products)
- Yelp! – where users create an online city guide by ranking, reviewing and discussing various locations and activities in their area
- The GeoWeb, which consists of online maps where, increasingly, users are creating and augmenting content with Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo tools. In fact. Google Maps users can fix errors; add the locations of businesses; upload photos; link Wikipedia articles to, and blog about their experiences with, or reviews of, places on the map.
And that’s not all.
Start thinking about the new “location awareness” tools, often used in conjunction with ‘smart’ cell phones with GPS technology, which allow users to track where they are at any given moment and upload this information to websites such as Facebook, Twitter or one’s blog (Google Latitude, Yahoo’s Fire Eagle and Loopt mobile phone application).
Sure.
This type of consumer involvement in consumption was certainly not invented by the internet, but given the massive involvement in popular online sites, it can be argued that it is currently both the most prevalent location of this new type of consumption (consumer) purchase model … and it is certainly the most important facilitator as a means of consumption.
Bottom line.
It can be argued that the web is influencing an entirely new consumption model.
A new economic model (as I so succinctly suggested upfront).
This leads me to my big finish.
Friends, feedback and influencers is bigger than simply the web or how brands can compete in this transparent world (where putting consumers to work doesn’t mean they are an employee).
The F Factor is impacting America & capitalism (forget about the whole brand and branding discussion … this is much bigger than that).
Capitalism itself will be transformed, perhaps radically, in this F-Factor world we live in. Several thoughts lead me to this conclusion.
First. The inability of companies (brands) to control consumers in the way, and to the extent, that they have been able to control consumers in the past. Due to increased transparency there is a greater resistance to the incursions of obvious capitalism (e.g. efforts to gain greater control and greater profits).
This does not bode well for the companies dabbling in Facebook & twitter & social marketing who are doing so with the intent to “influence or guide purchase behavior.”
Second. It is difficult to think of today’s consumer, mentally & attitudinally, as being exploited in the same ways as before. The whole idea of exploitation is contradicted by, among other things, the fact that today’s consumers seem to enjoy, even love, their involvement and what they are doing and are willing to devote long hours to it … for no pay.
Third. The emergence of a whole new economic model to conduct business because of the internet. Traditional capitalism is dependent on the notion of the exchange of money for goods and services and profits are made in those exchanges. However, little or no money changes hands between the users and the owners of many websites (for instance, users do not pay Facebook or Twitter to use the services).
For one thing there is the unwillingness of corporations and other organizations to pay for work done by these new web based influencers. This is compounded by the fact the new consumer increasingly prefer, and are able, to pay little or nothing for that which they consume on the internet (news, blogs, social networking sites, and so on).
Think about this as part of a new economic model.
Friends … family … influencers … or extended employees?
Yikes.
That will raise some hackles.
Yeah. Think about it.
What I have outlined is contrary to what Humphreys & Grayson (2009) argued that when corporations are involved this type of consumerism is simply the creation of “temporary employees” and thus does not indicate a fundamental change in capitalism.
However I contend that entire business models based around these new consumer types (the so called “temporary employees”) who are unpaid and given the product for free indicates the possibility of a new form of capitalism.
Now.
If you are a business and you are reading this, think about the implications.
All these “friends” providing feedback (unasked for or asked for) and influencing gazillions of attitudes (which generate some type of behavior) are your employees (paid or not).
They are your associates.
They are an extension of all those people who come in every morning, drink your own bad coffee and use the internet inappropriately during business hours in your office.
When you look at them that way would you choose to treat them differently?
Do things differently?
Think about your “social media” plans differently?
Even sit down with strategic planning and think about your business model differently?
I will help out here.
The answer to all of those questions should be “yes.”
The web is a powerful powerful facilitator of influence & business.
You may elect to call it “friends & feedback quantity” architecture but I suggest if you want to be successful you think about it as a “quality” mechanism which can impact a new economic model.
Intimidating? Possibly.
But if you don’t think of it that way you will probably influence no one and end up on the slippery slope of irrelevance (with no friends).
survival
Feb 6th
“it is not the strongest of the species that survive, not the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.” – Charles Darwin
I love this quote.
Mostly because those with ‘brawn’ scoff at those with ‘brains’, and vice versa, when survival (and that doesn’t have to mean life & death but rather success or failure) is being played out.
Regardless of the side someone is on … both believe they have the advantage regardless of the situation.
But.
Chuck (as Darwin was called to his closest friends) suggests you don’t have to be the sharpest knife in the drawer nor do you have to be the strongest tool in the drawer to survive.
You just have to be flexible. Responsive to what is happening. Have a willingness to adapt to the situation.
Flexibility is certainly an advantage if you have the desire to succeed at anything you do (ask any coach). We all face times when we have to deal with situations that do not “fit in” to our routine or our ‘comfort zone.’
I say “tough noogies” (not sure exactly what that means but I bet you get the point).
Adapt or die.
Sure.
One of the most frustrating things in life is when you have done your best and yet things still go wrong. Or maybe you didn’t get to where you wanted to get to (what you were ultimately aiming for).
You have to be flexible.
You have to adapt.
You have to have the ability to fit in a changed situation or to modify your behavior & actions accordingly.
If instead you stubbornly hold on to some things that don’t work … and repeat mistakes … this inflexible will cause failure (or simply not reaching what it is you were aiming for … which is a derivative of some type of failure).
By the way … in other words … continuous behavior along those lines means you will not survive.
Ultimately you have to decide to do things differently to experience different results.
Easy? Nope.
It can be uncomfortable. It can be emotionally draining.
We know that when we are asked to change again and again, the physical and psychological reaction, which is actually excessive stimulation to the system, puts our ability to adapt under massive strain. All the change produces stress and carries with it a physical and emotional price tag. The more radical the change … the bigger the price tag.
Excessive stimulation has at least three levels — sensory, cognitive and decisional. To help us function, each of us has developed strategies or destimulation tactics to lower the level of stimulation when we feel uncomfortably close to the limits of our adaptive range. We use these tactics every day, often unconsciously. By becoming conscious of them we can increase their effectiveness. By examining our own responses to overstimulation we can learn ways of consciously influencing change. We can begin by influencing small events, then expand our influence to larger patterns of experience.
At this but you need to detach and rise above all that you are today so that you can be tomorrow.
You need to not only be prepared to recognize when change needs to occur (typically there is a threshold on where you need to stop fighting the change or risk falling so far behind you cannot catch up or just be ‘eliminated’ at that time … oh … that survival thing) but you also need to be ready to change.
Look.
Everyone has the capability to change.
In fact I have a nifty chart which shows how most people accept & accommodate change:
Its pretty simple but shows that we need to work through the different levels of response to effect change. I would imagine there are several points to be made but here are the two from me:
- you learn as you move through each phase at each point actually changing how you think about future problems/challenges to further change
- you can get stuck anywhere in any phase at any time (the nifty chart actually helps show how easy it is to NOT change because you get stuck somewhere).
So. As change is introduced to you & your life you are forced through all four levels. I would imagine the last conclusion would be to attain the fourth level as quickly as possible.
Anyway.
Survival, and change, pretty much always depends on the most basic first step – believe that you are able to make the changes. And take the first step.
Without that? You have the thought …. but no action.
And the result of no action? Lack of survival again.
All that said …
I tend to believe a lot of people will read the Darwin quote and seek to find meaning within ‘survival of the fittest’ bigger picture.
Think small my friends.
Think day-to-day.
Think “me.”
Think that survival is about adapting to the environment around you.
And adapting means “initiating a new order of <personal> things ….”
”It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only luke-warm defenders in all those who profit by the new order. This luke-warmness arises partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the laws in their favor, and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had an actual experience of it”. – Machiavelli
Bottom line.
Always think about how can you adapt.
By the way … I am not suggesting (and I believe Chuck Darwin wasn’t either) 100% change to adapt … successful change typically begins by pinpointing anchors of stability (one you either have or can develop) which help to make the transition change not only viable but more likely successful for you..
Regardless.
Make change your constant companion and friend.
the more things change the more they stay the same
Dec 27th
First.
Because of the business I am in (marketing advertising business consulting) I am constantly inundated with the buzzwords associated with the “new and unique” … and all the pontificators who spout them … and how people are constantly suggesting the world is changing – like it has never changed before.
Second.
Because of the age I am at …. I am constantly inundated with how people of my generation suggest <state> how today is more difficult for people than ever before.
I admit.
I kind of chuckle when I hear all this.
I often seem to create a maelstrom of conversational misery when I state things like “change is the constant companion of every generation” … or say something like “it isn’t any more difficult for this generation it is just different.”
Frankly. Most people my age think I am nuts when I say it. Shit. Most people any age.
Or think I am out of touch with what is happening around us.
Ok.
If I were sensitive, I would care.
Or more likely I would care if I didn’t find quotes like this.
“… my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age in which we live. No nation can now shut itself from the surrounding world and trot around the same old path of its fathers. A change has come over the affairs of mankind. … intelligence is penetrating the darkest corners of the globe.”
This sure sounds like something you may have heard on CNN or BBC from someone talking about what is happening in the Middle East or Russia.
Or maybe on CSPAN talking about the shifting global economy.
But.
Think 1850 (or abouts).
Think Frederick Douglas in a speech in NYC.
Think about the fact that each generation has faced some radical change and thought process and attitude.
Yup.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
what also stays the same?
Each generation gets “left behind” as another races toward what will be.
And there is friction between generations. It is friction created because the generation always being left behind is the older one.
The one that is supposed to be smarter.
The one that is supposed to know the best.
Well. Is this a generalization? Sure. But the truth? Mostly.
Pieces or parts smarter and know the best? Yes. Sure.
On the whole? Nope.
Ok.
To be fair. A minority of those being left behind actually enjoy the ride. They empower the youth. Fuel it. Guide it. Not restrict it. Those few get to enjoy a longer thrill ride.
But they are few.
On the whole the majority of the older generation holds on for dear life to what they know and makes them comfortable. And it would possibly be okay of they did that and remained silent … but instead they complain about what is lost within the following generations and try and slow change.
It is too bad.
For by focusing on what is lost they neglect to have the amazing opportunity to see what is gained.
But.
Regardless.
In the end.
Change comes upon us whether we want it or not. As Frederick Douglas said in 1850 … ‘you cannot ignore the intellect of the world.’
True in 1850.
True in 2011.
True in 2172.
Ok. Moving on to business.
Yup. A comment on the business aspect of this thought (older generations holding on to older thoughts).
This is the craziest aspect.
Big business is always (ALWAYS) slow to change. It is part of their personal survival-thinking DNA.
But its actually death-thinking DNA.
Creative Destruction is all about the small (entrepreneurs) disrupting and destroying the status quo and that of ‘the big’ and through the destruction they begin recreating what is right and good for the economy.
So.
After reading that you may think “old” entrepreneurs would be part of the minority “happy few change agents.” (the few who recognize that the more things change the more they stay the same)
Well. Nope.
Most typically they are actually the worst ‘non-change’ offenders.
Yes. All generations exhibit more conservative less risky behavior as they age.
But. Successful entrepreneurs, turned successful independent business owners, seem to most often exhibit this conservative (on steroids) behavior. My guess it is driven mostly by fear of losing what they gained (by the way … thinking this way isn’t exactly a stupendous growth strategy nor a healthy business environment if you want to have millennials as employees). But I also believe there is an aspect of refusal to let go of things that brought them that success.
That which made them successful they now disregard, and have discarded, under the guise of “maturity” or ‘mature businesses need to be managed differently than growth businesses’.
Oh.
And it is all compounded by their belief that past failed attempts should be avoided (even if someone has a thought on how that “failed” scenario could be viewed differently and therefore maybe the learning from that experience may have been flawed).
Now. I am not suggesting all past experience should be ignored. Or that successful entrepreneurs need to completely relive their aggressive risk (but smart) behavior that carved out their success.
But older business owners need to let go of some ‘beliefs.’ Not because they are wrong but rather because they are wrong ‘now.’
In addition sometimes new people provide new perspective on their growth (success & failures) experience. The new people possibly have just seen “from the other side” and discern different learnings.
It is fresh perspective.
And most independent business people lose perspective as time goes on …. because they have cocooned themselves within their successful behavior.
Regardless. This rant post all comes down to several overarching thoughts.
Each generation faces radical adversity.
Each generation facilitates extraordinary change (beneficial as a whole).
Each older generation is extraordinarily reluctant to release that which is comfortable to them (and what they “know” … or believe to know).
And, lastly.
We older folk, manager types, should reflect upon this.
Why?
Because we are managers. And we are managers of those who will beget what will be better than what we have done or created. That doesn’t diminish what we have done. And we should embrace the fact we have created an environment for others to go farther than we were able to go.
We wonder why managing young people (call them millennials if you would like) is so difficult?
Well. It is because we are holding them back (in general). It’s like trying to tame mustangs in the Wild West. Except we, unlike the savvy old cowboys, don’t reflect on the beauty of the wildness of the mustang as we try and tame them. We simply see the wild untamedness and believe it is a shame they are so wild.
Older managers, to be successful, need to admire the beauty of the untamed. And not seek to break the mustangs but rather guide their energy to enable them to take the herd to the heights it deserves.
A poetic metaphor (bad one)? Maybe.
But certainly something worth thinking about.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
travels of reading part 1
Sep 7th
So.
This is part a rant about people who don’t take advantage of reading and part simply a plea for people to read as often as they can.
Let me begin with the traveling ‘thing’ I mention upfront.
I have been extremely fortunate in my life to have had the opportunity to travel the globe. And experience lots of things. And see a lot of different things.
But even with that.
I tend to believe books and reading have offered the best travels I have ever experienced. Yeah. I do love reading and I believe reading books really is like traveling.
Traveling to places. To thoughts. To others minds. To other types of thinking. To fresh ideas.
It is an absolute fact that everyone has the opportunity to see so many things through reading.
And imagine things with limitless boundaries.
And experience thinking and ideas and combinations of words that energize the mind and the heart and the soul.
Reading just gets you … well … thinking. Just thinking about things.
We all have found those moments in books when reading.
There are those moments when you actually traveled through a slice of someone ‘else’s life living it word by word.
As I typed that I remember I was fortunate to be given a proofers copy of The Horse Whisperer and asked my opinion. I know I gave it a great review.
And I believe it made me cry in the first 50 pages (which may be one of the most heart wrenching tangled emotional ‘stepping into a moment’ sections of a book I have ever encountered).
That is an example of traveling through someone else’s life experience.
You travel through their experience and feel it. In your gut. You live it. You get so close to the moment through the words you feel like you have traveled there.
I find the same (but different) feeling when I read The Economist.
Anyway.
Anyone who reads knows about the moments when you come across a thought, a feeling, a way of looking at things that you’d thought and it was lurking in your own mind and it appears on a page articulated by by someone else, someone you’ve never met, maybe even someone long passed.
It’s as if someone has heard your thought and knew you couldn’t figure out a way to put it in words and has traveled to say “here it is, worry no more, for now you know what it is.”
And, of course, (because I am consistent on this issue and I am who I am) reading an easy path to knowledge.
Of course you can gain knowledge through experience, or discussion, or other paths … but reading is so freely available and simple that it can only be deemed a great failure to anyone who doesn’t encourage it as a core activity … if not privilege.
I do know I would like to see America become a place that’s proud of intellectual curiosity. But I fear too often intellectual curiosity is belittled by people whose idea of culture is determined by television or People-type magazines or internet blogs.
You would like to think that knowledge should be a lifelong goal and not something satisfied by high school mandatory reading lists or four years of college … but rather a lifetime of reading.
Here is the issue (ok. some issues).
Okay. Some statistics.
From bookstatistics.com:
- 58% of the US adult population never reads another book after high school.
- 42% of college graduates never read another book.
- 80% of US families did not buy or read a book last year.
- 70% of US adults have not been in a bookstore in the last five years.
Ok.
Did you know that there are approximately 30 million adults in the U.S. who can’t read?
Yikes.
THAT last one sends a shiver down my spine.
While I would like to think most people would like to read (like I do) but I guess I also assume they can actually read.
But.
Look at number 2 on the list. 80% of families did not buy or read a book. 80 frickin’ percent.
Whew.
What happens to us (from childhood where we seem to have endless supplies of books to read)?
I do know that one of my favorite childhood memories is “reading” The Hobbit.
Ok. I didn’t read it. Our teacher read it to us in installments in elementary school in ‘reading time.’
Afterwards? I couldn’t wait to get my own hands on it.
Since then I have read it and the entire Lord of the Rings maybe 10 times. I have no idea at what age was my first time but it has to be very young. I remember being fascinated, excited and impatient waiting for the next chapter to unfold. I created pictures in my mind at each reading and the next day another picture would be drawn.
So.
I am not suggesting everyone love reading as much as I do.
But understanding what reading has to offer is important.
Not everyone can physically travel and books not only give someone an opportunity to travel anywhere in the ‘now’ but they give you an opportunity to travel through time … and see ideas past, present and future.
Look. I know reading books certainly doesn’t have a monopoly on becoming “smart.”
I’ve read some amazing stuff online, and I’ve read amazingly thought provoking newspaper articles (not in local papers but the NY Times or The Guardian). And I do think staying open to new media is a key sign of intellectual curiosity.
I don’t know.
In any case, I don’t know if people who don’t read lack intellectual curiosity. I think there can be other ways to satisfy intellectual curiosity (particularly in today’s web crazy world).
But I do think if you don’t read you can find yourself with a lack of ability to think in the abstract and the potential.
You may have heard the term “lifelong learning.”
Though learning begins when we are children education is truly a never ending process (and reading can play an important part of learning for everyone). Reading not only keeps us informed about the world around us but also provides intellectual stimulation and helps keep us mentally sharp.
Reading offers benefits not found in more “passive” media.
It gives the brain a much better workout than does watching television. When we watch TV, we take in the information in a passive way. But reading allows the mind to:
- pause, reflect, think
- operate more actively
- use intellect and emotion together
- develop a longer attention span.
Oh.
And on that last bullet point. To those of you who may say “I don’t have the attention span to read.” Well. There ain’t anyone out there who has a shorter attention span than I do. I have the attention span of a gnat. And still a book can suck me in to a place where it doesn’t become about ‘attention’ any more but rather ‘involvement.’
Ok.
Regardless of all my own personal ramblings on the greatness of reading there are some actual studies (if you doubt that this whole reading is traveling thing is really for you).
- Carnegie Mellon scientists discovered that the volume of brain white matter in the language area of the brain increased after study participants followed a six-month daily reading program. The Carnegie Mellon study proved that the brain structure can be improved by training poor readers to become better readers.
- In 2009, Mayo Clinic conducted a Study of Aging that offered some good news for middle-aged and senior adults. Reading a book and other cognitive activities could decrease the risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI). MCI is associated with Alzheimer’s disease.
This says we should assume the brain is like a muscle. Studies prove that exercising it and stimulating it makes it stronger. Reading stimulates brain activity. Reading a variety of “things” (blogs, books, newspapers, etc.) challenges the brain to think in new directions and absorb new concepts and information.
And children?
Children benefit from reading on many levels. Parents actively stimulate their child’s brain by sharing a reading time with them. Interactive reading time creates a shared bond between parent and child along with provoking a child’s natural curiosity about the world and environment.
Giving a child a chance to ask questions, express an interest in a particular topic, and hear new vocabulary and ideas forms a positive impression on a child that lasts a lifetime. Children with poor reading skills have a tendency to feel more anxious and sad (that comes from a study but I lost the source).
Reading also means we are in more control of how we learn and absorb different ideas. We can skim over portions that interest us less, move backwards and forwards, reread and, as in my case, make notes or write spectacularly articulated things down.
Reading helps keep us oriented and engaged.
Science, history, biographies, self help, religion, philosophy … the list is really endless … all make our ‘world’ a little more ‘full’ (but it is a glass that can never actually be completely filled) with each book we read.
I left this to the end because people who haven’t really figured out how to enjoy reading don’t “get” this. But there is an amazing pleasure to sitting down with a good book. It’s kind of like traveling to anywhere in the world (imagined or real) without leaving the comfort of our own chair. We can visit a fantasy realm with JRR Tolkien, or the American West with Louis L’Amour, or solve a mystery with Sherlock Holmes or see the intricacies of war with Tom Clancy. (that list could truly go on and on)
So.
In the end.
Some people will never ever be interested in learning unless dragged, kicking and screaming.
My biggest hope is that we adults (the ones who don’t like reading) don’t hinder our kids natural curiosity about the world and still encourage them to read (it is unfortunate that kids typically do as they see … so … if you don’t read they don’t feel compelled to do so).
I do know that I will never quit trying to give everyone the opportunity to love reading and knowledge and encouraging curiosity.
Why?
Because not all of us have the privilege to travel.
And books give everyone the privilege to travel.
Doesn’t get much simpler than that.
travels of reading part 2
Sep 7th
“You get a little moody sometimes but I think that’s because you like to read. People that like to read
are always a little fucked up.” Pat Conroy
This is a follow up to my reading part 1 (which was serious about the importance of reading).
This is more a rant (and a warning) on how people who love to read abuse their joy of reading.
This possibly provides a counterbalance to my disdain for people who waste the opportunity to permit their minds to travel through reading … which is a luxury everyone can afford and has access to regardless of budget.
So.
Readers can take things to absurd levels (simply because they read).
Pretentious.
Pompous.
Treating people who don’t read (or are not “well read”) as lesser beings (and they can do it overtly or in sneaky but still pompous ways).
Oh.
And the perpetual idiotic rephrasing or quoting of literature (rather than seek their own words).
Using quotes can be lazy.
Just as using any words of others can be lazy.
For reading is only good if you are using it to increase your own intellectual thinking.
And to come up with your own ideas.
And to express your own thoughts and ideas better,
Reading is traveling.
Traveling through other people’s thoughts and ideas.
And, sure, it is okay to show pictures of your trips and travels but you don’t want to read from the guidebooks as you tell everyone about the trip … they want to hear your thoughts and experience it through your eyes and words.
Yeah.
I am certainly a lover of a well crafted written thought. That poetic turn of phrase. Even that full chapter of prose that when it ends you finally exhale. And then only to turn back upon on some pages and reread something because the way the words have been put together it stirs something inside you … it could be your soul … it could be your mind … it could just be ‘something’ but those words have created an imprint upon you.
But.
The imprint is often best used in your own words when shared.
Do I use quotes or literary references? Sure. You bet I do.
Do I use them to replace my own words? Rarely.
I use someone else’s words to either emphasize my own thoughts or introduce my thoughts or (in a business environment) to honestly “steal a moment.”
(note: ‘stealing a moment definition: that would be when the meeting is spinning in a direction and you cannot seem to stem the stream of unfocused idiocy spewing forth and you grab an appropriate quote out of your memory banks – because frankly your own words haven’t done shit to steer everyone away from whatever the hell it is they are saying – and you grandly toss someone else’s words out into the air. That, my friends, is the art of stealing a moment with a quote.).
Anyway.
Reading is useful only when … well .. you make it useful.
Reading and learning and saying nothing is a waste.
Reading so you don’t have to do your own thinking is a waste.
Reading to solely use other people words is a waste.
Reading to simply say things to show you are better and smarter (well, maybe more ‘well read’) is a waste.
Oh.
And not reading is the worst waste.
Beyond my quote/using others words rant.
If you are a reader and love books?
Don’t abuse your love for reading. Don’t just talk but listen.
And share after listening.
Your attitude with what you have gained from reading can either encourage someone to pick up a book or discourage some from reading.
If you love to read, you are an ambassador for reading and need to think of yourself as such.
Think of yourself as a curiosity fulfillment teacher. Think of it as your own personal “no person left behind” program.
Advocate reading don’t belittle someone who doesn’t.
And if you struggle to figure out how to encourage someone to read?
Maybe steal someone else’s words … Charles Schultz (Peanuts author):
“This is my report on the importance of knowing how to read. If you can’t read and you get a love letter, you won’t know what it says. That would be very sad. Although in the long run, it also could save you a lot of trouble.”
- Charles Schultz
Answering Dress Code Questions
Aug 1st
When you get into top management slots in businesses you start having to discuss some of the most random things which you would assume would be just common sense. But. I will tell you that the discussion you have with employees is absolutely nothing compared to those same discussions in the Executive meeting. All these senior executive types start talking about serious crap like “did you see what Evelyn wore to the office the other day” and getting their proverbial panties in a wad.
And then, of course, you have the head honchos who look around and sagely say “well, I worked my way through the business and it was because I wore “x” all the time and people took me seriously and that was the secret to my success.” (not that maybe there may have been something smart said or done on occasion). It is typically at this stage of the executive meeting where things start spiraling completely out of control. While no one had anything constructive to suggest when the discussion was about, say, the strategic direction of the company, everyone has an opinion on dress code. And then there are the brown nosers who line up behind the leader and shout “yeah, we wore that too and that’s why we got promoted and clients loved us.”
It was in meetings like this I was torn between becoming a human bobble head and becoming sea sick or simply falling into a coma as all useable oxygen was sucked out of the room.
So. Below is a typical management outline of company Dress Code doublespeak non clear direction and my interpretation.
Q. What does “business appropriate” mean?
A. We have chosen “business appropriate” as the preferred way of describing our dress standard. This acknowledges that the work you do should guide your choice of dress rather than having a formal dress code. Some individuals have incorrectly interpreted business appropriate as casual dress. (For example, wearing weekend attire to work.)
- WTF. I believe they are saying formal wear (black tie) is preferred versus formal sandal wear. If I were creative (and wanted to get fired) I could argue business appropriate means appropriate for business I work on … for example … if I work on Chiquita I am permitted to wear a fruit headdress any time I want .. Valvoline I can wear a cool mechanic shirt with my name sewn on the front … accountants are permitted to wear their formal green visor. Lastly. “Incorrectly interpreted business appropriate as casual dress.” Awesome. Basically while oddly crafted they are trying to tell you “don’t ever be casual at work.”
Q. How do I know what is appropriate dress if there are no specific guidelines?
A. We have not created an all inclusive list of appropriate attire. Instead, we rely on employees to use common sense to wear what is appropriate for the type of work that they do. While jeans, shorts, mini-skirts, clothes that expose mid-sections, sweat suits, spandex (or other tight fitting clothing), flip flops, and tennis shoes are certainly acceptable weekend casual wear, they do not convey a professional business image and would not be appropriate to wear in business situations.
If there are important business reasons for an employee to dress formally, such as attending meetings with outside clients who dress in more business formal attire, then formal business attire would be appropriate on those occasions.
- Ok. To be clear. I didn’t make this crap up. This is actual company policy. So. We trust you as long as it isn’t jeans, shorts, sweatsuits, spandex (I wonder if spandex underwear is okay?), tennis shoes, etc. once again. We won’t list appropriate attire but given this list wear a suit or something formal.
Q. Who decides whether my dress is appropriate? How is it reinforced?
A. We expect each employee to dress in a way that reflects the company’s professional creative and trendy image, shows respect for others and is appropriate for the business they will do that day. So, as long as those principles are met, each individual will decide what appropriately meets those criteria. And, most employees have a good sense of what is and isn’t appropriate for the work they do.
In the rare situations when the principles are not adhered to or are in question, each employee’s manager is expected to address the inappropriate attire, just as they would any other type of inappropriate conduct in their departments. Since dress always involves a subjective element, managers should use common sense in handling dress standard issues and talk things out in a professional, constructive way.
- Lots of references to common sense but basically you are at the mercy of your manager. And it pays to remember that shit rolls down hill so your manager’s manager is actually the one you are watching for “attire guidance.” Oh. And while I do love a contradiction how the hell do I maintain a ‘creative & trendy image’ but I cannot wear jeans, sandals or bare my mid riff (which is unfortunate because I have a sweet beer belly button tattoo)? Does this mean I have to wear some goofy tie with Marvin the Martian on it or worse a bow tie?
Q. Will it be seen as a performance issue if I wear clothes that are too casual (something I thought was appropriate, but my manager does not)?
A. Use your best judgment on what to wear to convey a professional image. If there is an issue, your manager should deal with it quickly, honestly and openly to help clarify what business appropriate attire might look like for the work you do. This should not be seen as a long-term performance issue unless it happens repeatedly despite getting advice and counsel.
- So. After reading the answer the real answer to the question is “yes. Casual clothes will be seen as a performance issue.” As in “you will no longer be performing here if you wear those fucking jeans (or loin cloth) one more time.”
Q. Can my manager dictate that my department wears only formal business attire?
A. This will need to be discussed between the manager and his/her department. If there are important business reasons for a department to dress formally every day, such as they meet daily with outside clients who dress more business formal, then this may be appropriate.
- Yes. The manager can dictate it. But. Once again don’t worry about your manager. If he/she has their shit together they will be slyly suggesting that they believe everyone should be able to dress however they want. Don’t be fooled by listening to them. Look to the corner office. Unfortunately no matter how cool they say they want the office culture to be if they wear suits every day and wear argyle vests or knitted sweaters with cats on them on “casual Fridays” … well … that is the “common sense” attire direction.
Let me be clear on this. Dress codes bring out the worst in senior management. It is an Office episode. Sadly so.
Okay. One last thought. THIS I am clear on. Do not appear on casual Fridays like this. Even wearing a suit won’t keep you from getting fired. 
email protocol: avoiding screwups
Jul 13th
So. On the list of requested topics I have received was emails and emailing. Basically it was asking how an old guy like me (or let’s say “my generation of workers”) could effectively manage younger people in the world of emailing.
Well. Emails are tricky in business. Mostly because those of us already in business learned writing rules of the road in written correspondence and the generation most comfortable using email learned it as a social tool (not business communication). But in my eyes it comes down to something borrowed and something new. Some things my generation learned (and were kind of steeped in with regard to written communications) are valuable to apply and some things new compatible with email and technology should be applied.
I found a nice site that reviewed the positives and negatives (or shortcomings) of email communication as well as just simply outlined how to define email communication.
- Email is a virtual dialogue which is not in real time; it lacks face to face cues such as expression and emotion. Often to compensate for the lack of non verbal cues we use “please” and “thank you” to aid the expression of collegiality. Another way to aid in the expression of emotion is the use of emoticons; or . The speed of response with emails makes them almost an instantaneous form of communication; although this is great for quick turnaround time a writer of emails must take into consideration the readers needs and preferences. If an emails tone is blunt and to the point a reader may interpret this as insensitive and/or the meaning maybe lost. Therefore, tone must be created through careful word/sentence structures.
I find it interesting to note that email communication now exceeds telephone traffic. Emailing has become the dominant form of business communication. Recent research indicates that employees will spend half their day reading and responding to email communication. This is most interesting because it should affect (I say “should” because I still see managers in my generation trying to force feed phone calls into the younger generation’s work habits) the way managers manage the younger generation. You will see in my thoughts on email protocol how I (and it may not be the best way but it always worked for me) attempted to weave telephone activity into an email driven communication generation.
So. With all that said here are some thoughts for email protocol I typically share with my teams/companies to help avoid some of the issues we often see pop up:
The Basics.
A Subject line:
- Client name or company name so people can identify who it is about
- Topic following the company identifier (what is the subject? A point of view, update, etc.)
The subject line (the re: ) is probably the most misused portion of email and yet offers the largest opportunity similar to the old subject line in written communication.
Forwarding and email “strings”:
- General rule. NEVER forward an internal email externally.
- And certainly eliminate “strings” of emails (particularly externally although internally is nice etiquette). No one wants to scan down to put together the logic or “what happened.”
- Summarize. Summarize. Summarize. I don’t care if you cut & paste (although there are risks involved in doing so and you need to be very careful with regard to tenses and such) but every email should be able to be printed out and stand alone like a letter would have in the “old” days.
Replying, reply all, replying to new people:
- General rule. Assume if someone sent you, and only you, a message they most likely elected to NOT include anyone else. Therefore, your reply to their email should only be to them. If you elect to copy new people on your response your tendency should be to build a new email from scratch. Always assume the original email sender would have worded things differently if they knew it was going to be seen by someone else.
- Reply to all. Tricky one with a variety of aspects. Rule #1. If it is a mass email most likely “reply all” with your response is not necessary. Rule #2. Email is not a chat room (in the business world), therefore, send your response to sender. Rule #3. No humor in a “reply all” message. I can guarantee you someone will not find it funny.
- The 3 time rule. If you have replied to the same email topic 3 times … something is wrong … pick up the phone. Anything more than 3 responses to the original request becomes a “string” and string emails spell trouble (they end up in some bosses email box at some point most likely with something in the subject line that starts with “help” … oh … and that is “bad.”)
Avoid exclamation marks and such:
- Assume your email WILL be forwarded once it leaves the company.
- No CEO or President of any company wants to see some smiley face or exclamation point… they want to know that business is being taken care of… in addition… it may be the only exposure you get to senior management and it creates an impression about you so that when you do meet them you want an underlying respect even before you step through the door. Call it the “pre-sell” if you will but keep in mind what you write to your day to day contact will most likely end up in some senior person’s inbox at some point.
- Question. Have you ever seen a CEO or President end a message with Thanks! … point made.
Some Overall Guidelines.
Call to action:
The number one thing that separates a memo, report, or PowerPoint from The DaVinci Code is a call to action. A novel is to be enjoyed. Business writing is intended to get the audience to do something – invest in a gummi bear innovation, fill out a kidney donor form, or flee the building in an orderly manner.
Questions to ask: Does my email ask the reader to do anything? If not, why am I sending it?
Oh. Call to action point 2. So you purposefully send an email where no action is required and it is for information only, tell everyone that. “No action required. For information only.” That is as good a call to action as asking someone to actually do something.
Assume nothing:
You have to assume nothing. So let the reader know what thinking has gone on behind the scenes.
Does the reader need to know that the project won’t succeed if the Postal Service strikes or that everything depends on a tsunami not happening in the next 100 years or that if Greece declares bankruptcy the entire firm will implode?
Oh. In addition. When following up, don’t assume everyone remembers everything you’ve said up to this point (nor expect them to scan all the thread to catch up). If you’ve got any worries that an acronym, term, or reference is going to elicit a confused moment, just explain it.
Make sure you ask yourself:
Am I relying on what the audience knows or what I think they ought to know?
Am I omitting anything from the reader unintentionally?
If so, why do I want to surprise them later on?
Emails are not like birthday gifts. Surprises are not good. Avoid them.
Do the thinking:
How many times have you gotten an email that says, “What are your thoughts?” followed by a forwarded chain of messages. That’s the writer saying, “I can’t be bothered to explain my reasoning or what I want you to focus on.” When you write explain what you’re thinking and what you want the reader spending their time on.
Make sure the email gives your opinion and options (calls to action?) for the reader to respond to.
Remember. People are not only NOT mind readers but nowadays no one has time to guess.
Simply state why you are sending this document in the body of the email:
Say it up front. Francis Ford Coppola is paid to surprise folks. We are paid to not surprise our boss. Whatever the purpose of your missive, say it in the first line. Mystery and stories are great ways to entertain and teach so unless you’re looking for a job doing that spit out why you’re writing up front.
This is basic business writing. Can the reader tell from the subject line and first sentence what I’m writing about without going further?
Don’t make the reader guess or have to work too hard to figure things out.
(dating myself on this one)
In the old days when you crafted a letter you gave the person the opportunity to read the first paragraph and make a decision whether they agreed (and did not read any further) or read on to see the rationale and steps taken to get to the action item. That logic appears to be consistent with what should take place in an email. Not suggesting everything has to be a novelette, but, think about how often you need to send follow-up emails to explain additional things and how often that would be eliminated if you had taken the time upfront to clearly outline everything necessary for someone to “read and act.
The power of “the call” (when emailing is not right):
I am going to give a couple of examples when it is time to pick up the phone (beyond the 3 email give-an-take example I gave above):
A well liked employee is leaving the company. Call.
(email doesn’t show enough respect or importance to someone they respected and thought was an important employee)
You, or the company, made a mistake (even a small one). Call.
(no reason to trust your written communication skills to effective communication. Plus. You may learn something that can end up in written document)
You want to debate a decision someone made. Call.
(this eliminates any possible misunderstanding of tone. Plus. You owe it to a person to talk with them in a debate. And NEVER debate with one person thru email if others are copied)
Something happens that could generate rumors if not explained. Call.
(never hide from communication. Rumors are worse.)
There you go. Just some suggestions.
Despite the fact we are writing less and less “formal” documents I would still teach business writing. Regardless of its full relevance (or lack thereof) the basics are the basics. Timeless communication tactics.
Grab a Strunk & White. Avoid the punctuation crap and focus on effective communication tips.
Oops. Got to go send an email. Maybe tweet. Or do a ‘shout out.’
enlightened conflict update
Jul 11th
So. After about a month of high tech fanoodling I believe we have worked out all the kinks on the site. If anyone runs into any issues as they delve into my unenlightened ramblings please drop me a note and we will address. Thanks for your patience.
Some updates (because some people have asked and I have received some great suggestions):
1. Music. No. We have not posted any music thoughts for awhile. I have over 20 written (some may be outdated by now) but the guy who was awesome at posting all those posts with the links and videos and stuff has been on a sabbatical. When he gets back we will discuss what we are going to do from here on out with the music posts. I have received a bunch of notes asking about them and how much you enjoy laughing at my musical tastes and we will see what we can do. Plus. With lala.com shutting down we lost a great easy source for sound clips so people could actually hear what I was writing about (assuming you had never heard of whatever wackjob band I had found that day to write about).
2. Business or Advertising posts. Well. We should be starting more of those back up soon. My video link skills are not particularly good (but improving) which coincided with the guy who is really good at video linking going on sabbatical as well as then we had some technical site difficulties. But I have improved my skills and the site seems fixed so more of those type posts will appear.
3. Requests. I have received some topic requests and those posts should start appearing soon. While I cannot guarantee I can write to a requested topic I do like to receive request. at minimum they make me think.
4. We are going to be building a new companion site called ProjectGlobalGeneration.
Actually www.projectglobalgeneration.com.
I will post something when we launch it. That site will be solely focused on my wacky global generation children’s education initiative idea. Several people have expressed inters in the idea (and they don’t seem that wacky). I wanted to make it easier to see the idea an all the information as well as a place to house all future writings.
Thanks to everyone. hope you enjoy and keep on enjoying. I am having a blast (if that matters).
Bruce.
generation jones part 2: debating with the joneses
Jun 29th
This whole generation Jones thing has got me in a tizzy. Mostly because I am having an interesting off-site debate/discussion/conversation with a couple of generation joneser “advocates” (who are quite passionate in their desire to make Generation Jones a household discussion item).
The bottom line issue is I am a skeptical joneser. Maybe because I am an advocate of Strauss & Howe (S&H) 4th Turning Generations but possibly because I am always a little skeptical when people want to take a big well thought out thought/concept and try to break it down into pieces and disassemble the greater thought (with little end value).
So. Here’s the deal (with my thoughts on thinking about generations and attitudes and generation Jones in particular).
Depending on what you want to do with generational nomenclatures (GenXers, GenJonesers, Boomers, Echo Boomers, etc.) they can serve great cultural and umbrella sociological dimensional type thinking but rarely can dig down into shopper or actional behavior. So. Depending on what you want to do with these nomenclatures you can end up investing a lot of energy trying to tear apart the fabric of what we have named a generation and gained not a lot of actionable ‘stuff’ at the end of the day (and I know I don’t have a lot of energy to waste myself).
What I like (and agree with S&H 4th Turnings): Their basic premise is causal.
In other words, generations respond to events created through cyclical reoccurrence due to lack of relevant experience to what they are facing at the moment. What this means is that a generation affected by a specific event will take actions to avoid a reoccurrence of that event but each ensuing generation starts evolving back into behavior patterns that will reinitiate that type of event (S&H refer to that main critical event as a Crisis). The following is a brief overview of S&H in case you aren’t familiar:
- According to Howe and Strauss, the marks between each generation are very clear and are based on their surveys of people born in these years. Each generation has a specific character called an archetype. The concept is that, for the most part, each generation is around 20 years and they follow each other in a specific pattern (Hero, Artist, Prophet, Nomad). This pattern has held true for the last 500 years of history with some year length variances. And the archetypes are overlaying the actual historical turnings: Crisis, High, Awakening, Unraveling. Once again these turnings have historically fit a pattern over the past 500 year of their study. If you accept their theory it allows you to extrapolate into the future based on the ages and attitudes of the generations.
Now. That may sound like a bunch of sociological gobbledygook but it is actionable.
While their extensive study suggests we are doomed to cyclical behavior it does permit us to understand why we do things we do (and as a marketer if you really invested energy in studying could be way ahead of the curve in new product innovations).
Most importantly it assists in understanding the overarching direction of our society. Their work also provides understanding what is happening in our society based on where we have been. Anyway. The following chart developed by a blogger (genXnation I think) does a nice job of showing S&H thinking:
Realistically it is this concept of the ‘turnings’ of Crisis, High, Awakening and Unraveling and the fact each of the turnings have overarching personalities (although that is not their word … I believe they call the collective persona as an Archetype) of Prophet, Nomad, Hero and Artist which represents the most important thinking.
So. While even Strauss & Howe (S&H) use generational nomenclatures (like Boomers, Silents, etc.) to assist them in the discussion the actual nomenclature is significantly less important than the underlying thinking.
Next. What I like about things like GenJones type generations: their basic premise is attitudinal.
While it would be a lot simpler to call each of the S&H archetype personalities a specific generation type (and we have attempted to do that in the past but everyone wants to try and slice and dice them to make some attitudinal adjustments based on birth date groupings) the reality is the early Artist archetype is going to assume some of the characteristics of the late birth Hero archetype (and so on) because it’s not like a light switch gets flipped on a specific date.
Therefore something like the GenJones generation which is firmly in an Unraveling turning (I am not sure anyone in the whole generational discussion is debating this) they are assuming some of the characteristics of Boomers and genXers (in fact the nice graph the GenJonesers provided me, and I included in the Generation jones Part 1, on the comparison of incoming freshman at UCLA, makes that point nicely).
In fact, if my memory serves me correctly one of these transition age groups was also identified with a nomenclature (I think they may have been called the Interbellum Generation – the group of people of the GI generation too young to fight in WWI but too old to fight in WWII … my grandfather was one of these).
Anyway. I guess the true point here is that there is a gradual shift from one generation to the next and not a specific point in time where everyone stops feeling one way and starts thinking another way. There is a period of time where the shift in generational attitude occurs. This certainly explains the “Generation Jones” people’s desire to call themselves a ‘generation’ (the following link shows to what extent you can actually take this “splitting the S&H generations” idea to with other theories that break the generations down even further).
Regardless. Another nifty chart from that GenX blogger shows the periods of transition between larger generations very well:
So this whole idea that there is a group of people between The Boomers (1943-1960) and Generation X (1961-1981) that has traits of both generations, but doesn’t feel it belongs to either, is certainly a viable idea. I just wouldn’t call it a “generation.” And I question whether there is any true value in trying to create a “generation” around this group. As noted earlier on the value of S&H generations study the opposite seems to be the fact here – I am unclear this new generation designation helps us understand the direction of our society. Breaking down the system into smaller parts may make some people feel they can identify with what is happening and how they act more clearly, but I am not sure if it helps predictive ability. I believe we could get to the exact same place without having to wade thru an additional generation.
Look. I do not doubt the idea resonates with people born during this time (like me). Shit. Why wouldn’t it? I get to be in my own club. How fun is that.
Ok. Before I leave this topic for the day I have seen a couple of things written about Generation Jones and Strauss & Howe that I wanted to address specifically:
(comment): while Strauss and Howe’s work has certainly added to our overall knowledge, their work over time has become less relevant. The main reason why their work has lost a lot of credibility among experts is their insistence on sticking with static generational length, rather than evolving with other experts who c
ontinually point out that generations are getting shorter.
- Sometimes these types of comments kind of drive me nuts. S&H didn’t add to overall knowledge they actually defined the overall concept. Therefore everyone is trying to edit the original idea. My good friend Luke Sullivan once suggested editing in this fashion as running the risk of building a Frankenstein. If people want to slice & dice the original great concept they should feel free to do so without disparaging the solid foundational concept. Experts can debate dates and names and stuff like that but that doesn’t mean the original experts lose credibility. Their overall turnings & archetypes (regardless of what nomenclature anyone wants to put on as labels) study is solid and credible.
(comment): when asked, people born 1954-1965 identify much more with this generation in-between, rather than with the surrounding generations –Boom & X –which are supposedly correct.
Generation Jones is catching on in such a big way because it’s true, and Jonesers clearly relate to it. It seems clear to me that within a short time from now, that Generation Jones will be clearly established. It already almost is, more or less. It has that feel of inevitability.
- Somebody shoot me now. Of course people relate to the idea. It gives them an opportunity to say they are different. Or unique. Or whatever word you want to attach to it. it will catch on because it is “buzzworthy.” And, unfortunately, in today’s world if it has a buzz factor it is certainly inevitable.
Anyway. With all the serious thoughtful stuff out of the way.
I like to claim to be part of the GenJones club. It makes me feel good. And it makes it easier for me to write about shit I did growing up as part of that generation. So. On with generation Jones (just don’t ask me to consider it a “real” generation … unless you want to debate it … THAT I would do in a second).
summarizing the global generation idea
Jun 23rd
It occurred to me after posting an introduction and 8 (maybe 9) posts and some ancillary relevant posts on the Global Generation and the Global Generation children’s program (which probably constitutes maybe 30 word document pages not including graphs and whiz bang images) that I should possibly attempt an executive summary type thing (or a recap). Ok. I would like to think I arrived at this brilliant summary thought myself but really someone read my stuff and said “hey. It would help me if you had a summary).
So. A brief recap.
I identified the window of opportunity by triangulating Generational attitudes and characteristics (citing Strauss and Howe cyclical generation sociological studies) and global interaction enabling innovations (the advent of internet based clustering trends and smartphones citing an Economist study among others) and “people” behavioral trends (Mass Mingling and “glocal” – citing trendwatching.com).
By triangulating I found the space (or window of opportunity) for the idea.
A reasonable question is “won’t people naturally gravitate to what you are suggesting naturally?”
Well. Beyond the fact people globally have shown no inclination in the past to develop this type of behavioral pattern I would also suggest this is a “window of opportunity” scenario. And I do not believe this window will remain open for the following reasons:
- The enabler will move on to another iteration and the idea will have to shift with it.
- If you believe in cyclical generational attitudes the next generation(s) will attitudinally not be receptive to the overall intent of the program.
- Consumer trends (behaviors) will match generational attitudes therefore trends, which wouldn’t inherently support a global education program like this idea, will take on the characteristics of the generation attitudes.
I do believe there is a window of opportunity in this convergence of attitude, behavior and technological enablement.
Here’s the thing. No one has identified and labeled the generation after the Millennials yet. This ideas feeds into the gestalt of that following generation. Therein lays the success of the program and idea.
The benefits of this program or what would we hope the program achieves.
In my “measuring results” post I suggested two things that I believe are the most important:
- 1. “If 30 to 40 years from now we are in the midst of the greatest innovation revolution since the industrial revolution as cross culturally an entire generation will debate and ideate.”
- 2. Lessen ignorance global = lower levels of poverty globally, lower levels of genocidal conflict, higher levels of personal success, and higher levels of overall happiness.
In general, the overall plan should lead to less ignorance. Less ignorance leads to several things – less extreme types of human conflict and more positive friction type conflict (ideation & innovation).
If implemented correctly all income levels and cultures of children will “rise to a higher level” in adulthood.
So. In looking at these benefits one could debate ‘is this really an education initiative?”’
Maybe not in a traditional sense. It certainly has components of traditional “abc’s” and mathematical but in order to ‘fit’ the Global Generation attitudes it incorporates a higher level of importance on:
- Critical thinking
- Understanding of different cultures (and the choices they make)
It is a more expansive education platform then a traditional education intuitive.
What that also means is that there is nothing like this idea currently in the market.
Aspects of it? Yes.
If one were able to get possibly 9 existing web based children’s education organizations in one room with a 10th who knew how to fill in the missing information and tie-in thinking this idea could happen next month (although I doubt it would be possible to get all 10 in alignment).
I guess my bottom line is that, no; there is no existing web program, like this already I place.
This is my summary of the idea in less than 600 words.
