Professor Andrew McAfee of Harvard Business School wrote an interesting piece about what young people learn using Web 2.0 'collaboration technologies' and what their expectations are when they enter the workforce. Prof. McAfee supplied a timeline outlining the tools that were introduced on the internet between 2001 and very recent 2006, making the following argument:
This year's college graduates matriculated in 2002, entering environments of higher learning characterized by ample bandwidth, pervasive computers, constant tasks and deadlines, and great desire for socialization. Look back over the list above at the tools that have come on line since they've been in college to help them with their work and/or their play.
When they take jobs, do you think they'll willingly stop using such tools? Will they happily switch over to legacy corporate collaboration technologies that are less freeform and harder to search, make them jump through more hoops, restrict their privileges and access based on their position on the org. chart, and generally have a 'pre-Web 2.0' look and feel?
Many, if not most, knowledge workers sit in front of computers for large portions of the day. The applications they use probably have a large impact not only on their productivity, but also on their mood, and on their affinity for the organization that put the tools in front of them.
Prof. McAfee makes a compelling argument for organizations to get their collective acts together on 'pre-Web 2.0' technologies and move toward more 'socially acceptable' technologies that the kids use in their work and leisure time. Reality (otherwise known as the status quo) , however, rears its head and dictates something else, at least in near-term.
While he has a sound argument on the surface, there are a few flies in this ointment when one attempts to apply his assertions across a broad spectrum of organizations, public and private sector. Let's start with some big ones: regulation/compliance, and security.
Given the political penchant in America to attempt to control behavior and ethics in organizations through law and regulation, particularly when scandals such as Enron and WorldCom emerge, one of the results of laws such as Sarbanes-Oxley is that almost all electronic interactions - e-mail, data creation and transfer, phone calls (true in the case of SEC-regulated entities), etc. are recorded, then backed up and retained indefinitely. It gets even more insidious from there, as oftentimes the size, format, and other parameters of the data are specified in elaborate, numbing detail by the agencies enforcing the laws or the auditors verifying compliance. None of the tools and websites that Prof. McAfee cites in his timeline address these issues at all. They may in the future, but they don't currently.
Next, there's this little issue about data security and privacy. Access restrictions are not driven by status on an organization chart - they're driven by the 'need to know' in order to perform one's job, and must be secure from view or breach by those not authorized to see or manipulate specific data. Think privacy laws here. Think about medical and financial records and data. Want to see all of yours in plain view on some Web 2.0 tool after someone 'forgot' to clear it or some eastern European hacker skims SSNs off of such sites and orders up a bunch of Visa cards in your name? I'd think not. "Gee sorry" isn't going to cut it once the lawyers and politicos pile on - and it will only take one or two incidents of this sort to get that ball rolling. Issues like these make that clunky legacy system look rather appealing from a risk management standpoint, at least in the short-term. Ask CFOs and general counsels about things like this...:)
There are other issues to consider here as well, such as costs and integration with the rest of the organization - like us older folk who have this problem with having to learn new systems every other year or two because they'll help us "be more productive" and "make better decisions," as if we were slacking off and making poor decisions all along.
I don't doubt that Web 2.0 technologies and systems will augment, and eventually replace "quaint" legacy systems in most organizations. It may take more time than some young people are willing to put up with, but unless they have an idea for some start-up that can be sold to Google for a couple of billion dollars in less than two years, they're going to need sufficient professional employment. I'm not seeing where the technology platforms of various workplaces is going to be the deciding influence in where young people choose to work - there are other aspects of employment that are more compelling whether a war for talent is raging at the time or not.
Finally, it's interesting to note from recent news reports that certain staff within large organizations do make use of certain Web 2.0 social networking tools like Facebook and MySpace: the corporate recruiters in HR departments are utilizing them to screen job candidates for character and background. Of course, the resulting hue and cry of candidates spurned after the recruiter views racy photos of the candidate throwing up half-clothed at a boozy fraternity party is a breach of privacy, rather than an indication of the candidate's character and judgment, right?
Comments