The following table compares the set of values, attitudes, and styles of the net generation and baby boomers as perceived in the literature. Many of the differences highlighted in this table can serve as the genesis for potential issues and tensions as members of the net generation join organizations.

Our study targeted 160 Chief Information Officers (CIOs), Chief Technical Officers (CTOs), and other executives. We used three different methods to collect data on reactions to a scenario highlighting the above differences: interviews, focus groups, and an online survey (see here for more information).

We identified 10 main issues which executives perceived as tensions that occur due to the entrance of net geners to the workforce. The main tension was around the issue of ‘organizational culture’. Additionally, we found that four main clusters of organizational mechanisms were used to address these tensions: project management, technology, human resources and policy. (I am not going to elaborate this part of the research and you can see more about this in the paper we wrote).

I would focus in this post on the types of management strategy applied by the executives to address what they perceived as tensions with net geners. These strategies differ in terms of the net generation’s and executives’ involvement, the decision approach of the executives, the duration and scope of the change, and the implications for resources. The next table shows this range of strategies and the percentage of executives using each. Note that because executives use multiple and mixed strategies in different situations, the sum of their responses totals to more than 100%.  We further found that some executives prefer instead of adopting one of the strategies in the table to “wait and see” and not take any actions until it is necessary.

Types of Strategies and Frequency of Use By Executives

*% refers to percent of executives’ (N=160) responses in the named strategy classification.  Since respondents can use multiple strategies, the total is >100%

The results illuminate the growing awareness of executives on the recurring nature of the tensions with members of the net generation. This growing awareness causes them to address the tensions in a more systematic way. These strategies can be also mapped along an axis corresponding to the degree of organizational structural change.

Degree of Organizational Structural Change

Two phenomena should be discussed here:

1) the priority executives give to top-down strategies as opposed to bottom-up ones.

2) the preference of executives to control either behavior or technology determinants while ignoring values and norms, which we believe form the third apex of an integral triad.

Choosing Top-Down Strategies as a Priority

Top-Down Strategies

In Top-Down strategies, executives dictate the boundaries, goals, and, to a large extent, the outcomes. The above figure illustrates the prevalence of top-down strategies for dealing with the net generation: the Coercive, Cooptation, Responsive and, to some degree, the Negotiative. Here is a quote from an executive that exemplifies the top-down approach:

“Must set very clear goals/expectations. Need to manage and micro-manage more than with previous generation of employees. Need more mentoring by senior people to train new employees on how to produce high-quality outputs.”

Management literature suggests that top-down strategies may be ineffective in dealing with changes in an organizational context especially over the long-term. This could apply to the net generation as well, which may require organizations to perform some changes on their behalf. In the long-term, top-down strategies have the potential to stimulate higher levels of resistance to attempts at control, especially in periods of change.  Conversely, creating and maintaining a cohesive organizational culture in a process that involves all stakeholders has higher chances for long-term success.  In the near term, a top-down strategy can alienate the younger employees, decreasing the chances to build a shared and common vision, mission, and organizational culture and increasing turnover. Finally, addressing challenges in a top-down manner often requires dictating behavior uncommon to the net generation members. This is an example of treating the symptoms and not the underlying cause. The net generation initially might be compliant, but the gaps in behaviors and values remain. Organizational behavior literature agrees that gaps in behavior and values in most cases create a dissonance, that later is translated into the need for change. Leaders are likely to find they need to address the same fundamental challenges again unless they are resolved at a more fundamental level.

Moving with the TVB (Technology-Values-Behavior) Triad

A “generation gap” is not a new phenomenon. The values and behavioral norms of succeeding generations have always differed in some degree from past ones. Also, it is generally accepted that information technology shapes many organizational norms, values and behavior, and the reverse is also true. Additionally, groups take technology and appropriate it to their own needs. None of this is new.

What is new is the extent, timing, speed and the closeness of this recursive relationship between information technology and the net generation’s values and behavior.   We believe that understanding and resolving the tensions arising from perceptions about the net generation can only be achieved if we use a lens that considers technology, values, and behavior as a closely coupled triad of factors affecting the perceived organizational tensions.

One of the things we observed in the data is that executives in many cases seek to control either behavior or technology determinants to resolve tensions. Decomposing this triad into separate components and trying to resolve issues by treating only one component at a time may not be effective due to the close relationship between these concepts. Moreover, in many cases executives ignore the ‘norms and values’ component, which consequently enlarge the perceived gaps between executives and net geners. We posit that this triad should be treated from a holistic point of view. One of the consequences of the information society is that these three components move together and are closely coupled.

Executives’ decomposition of the triangulation of technology, behavior, and norms also helps to explain the failure of top-down strategies, which inherently focus on regulating behavior either through rules and policy or technology. It is not a coincidence that most CIOs chose top-down strategies to address tensions resulting from their entry into the workplace. These strategies require minimum critical structural and political changes to the organization because the compromises to operational processes are typically minimal.

We also observe that executives approach the behavior of members of the net generation (and other behavior associated with use of the newer communications technologies) from the individual level and ignore the norms that emerge from social groups. For example, managers believe that they can train individuals to behave according to the company rules and this will solve the tensions they perceive.

We suggest that the new unit of analysis should be communities rather than individuals.  The technology component provides platforms for communities to be established quickly; these communities establish and reify norms and reinforce behaviors at a pace that has not been observed as prior generations entered the workforce. By choosing strategies that focus only on the individual level, ignoring the complexity of the communal values interwoven with the technology use and behavior, executives will find it difficult to enforce desired behavior for the long run.

Maxine Teller – MiXT Media

Ari Herzog – AriWriter

Steve Radick – Social Media Strategery

Jefferey Levy – Government 2.0 Beta

Mark Drapeau – Cheeky Fresh

Gwynne Kostin – On Dot-Gov

Andrew Kryzmarzick – Generation Shift

Nick Charney – CPSRenewal

Craig Newmark – CNewmark

Marylin Clark – Hello Happy Pitbulls

Gill's motivation to research Twitter is derived from attempt to understand how technology impact society. While  looking at the presentation Twitter in the Classroom she commented that many have Twitter but don't use them. Why? too much noise or they don't care what others do during the day.

This presentation is her introduction to twitter to students: http://wiredpen.com/2009/02/24/intro-to-twitter/

Her insigts from using heavily and teaching Twitter:

1. Twitter is a conversation space not a publication.

2. Disinformation and information can move so rapidly on Twitter, without any easy way to correct it. More problematic the messages ephemeral nature. Since archiving twits is still in its infancy, many of the twits are inaccessible if it is more than two weeks. The case of Iran is interesting - specially the disinformation that came out of Iran and was fed to a large audience according to a specific world view.

3. Twit is not a twit is not a twit - a twit about breakfast is not a twit about a conference or a news item.

4. Twitter has the potential to be a democratizing technology. See her project "The Book" for example. The case of the wineries is a great example to how stakeholders were involved in the discussions.

Politicians: Twitter is a conversation space not a publication

Some of her insights about the elections: in 2008 we came to see politicians who started to use twitter. But there was almost no candidate in 2008 who used twitter as a conversation media, twitted by the politicians. One that she can thing of is Senator Edwards. Once Obama got the nomination, people noticed that twitter exist. But Gill warns that one shouldn't use it like obama. The Obama Twitter was one-side channel with no interaction. His Twitter was all about "he" and "he". Same thing happened with Clinton and McCane. the problem is that John McCanes' twits are all gone now. They deleted all of them. Gill's lesson from that is that therefore we should try to archive it all because the traditional gatekeepers are gone.

I think that when it comes to public figures, we should definitely find mechanisms to be able to archive them. Politicians have to know that when they twit they are not 'off record'. The challenge is what happens ethically when you archive also conversations about people who are not public figures? How can we develop ethical mechanisms to allow eternal transparency and accountability and at the same time maintain privacy of individuals?

ICANN (The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) signed a new affirmation of commitment document with the US government (see the video clip). The document is another milestone in a series of reforms that ICANN started six years ago. The goal of this reform to transform ICANN to a more independent entity (in other words, less dependent on the U.S), more transparent (there were many complaints around this issue), and more egalitarian (i.e., its board will be more global).

The document highlights three major things:

1. An agreement on a long-term relationship with the U.S..

2. The base of ICANN will stay on a U.S. soil.

3. ICANN committed to create suitable accountability mechanisms. The main difference from the past is that now ICANN will have to be accountable to all the members on its board and not only the U.S. government.

In other words, ICANN progressed one step further towards independents. Maybe the U.S does not grab ICANN in a bear hug anymore, but no doubt that it still grabs ICANN with a "bear cub" hug.

For further reading: Milton Mueller wrote a post about the affirmation document.

I couldn't help noticing the main obstacles that accompany the process of setting a policy. Here are some of them:

1. Multiple stakeholders with different interests (yes, we can call it politics!). In this particular committee there are 43 member states that are formal members with voting rights. Obviously each state has different interest. It was interesting for me to see the role that non-state members, organizations (companies, Non-governmental organizations, civil society organizations etc...) play in this process. Not formally of course. Formally, they had the right to bring their voice to the table and also participated actively in panels and keynote talks. Actually the powerful actor in the process that was able to change decisions behind the scenes was not a formal delegate. Additionally the difference between delegates who were politicians (elected positions) vs. experts/scientists (nominated positions) was clear.

2. Non-continuation of same stakeholders as time progresses - 'it does not comply with previous agreements from the past' was one of the strongest arguments made by delegates who followed the process from the beginning. Only one or two were such delegates. Actually most of the participants participated in few events but definitely not in all of them, and therefore had little to say when such an argument was raised. These few 'seniors' delegates not always choose to remind participants about past agreements which causes many concepts to be re-opened for negotiations although there were settled in the past.

3. The power of administrators in drafting resolutions is mainly by setting the boundaries and frames of the discourse. It leaves almost no room to the delegates (the countries) to add meaningful issues to the agenda. Therefore, usually participants concentrate on arguing about words here and there, sometimes even about a letter (see the story of the 's' below). I am not inventing the wheel here. Max Weber talked about the power of bureaucracy and administrators 150 years ago. Administrators stay longer than participants, and consequently are able to impact processes more efficiently.

4. Multiple parallel processes - Not only the number of stakeholders is a challenge, but also the number of forums. The issue of the information society is addressed in so many different forums. For example the UN task force, WSIS (world summit of the information society) I and II, G-8 DOT Force and innumerable meetings. What is achieved in one place does not necessarily hold in the other and vice versa. Confusion is the name of the game in conditions like that where the actors, forums and platforms for discussion are switched all the time.

5. 'fake' stakeholders - some participants are 'shadow actors'. By this I refer to actors that do not appear during the discussions and show up in the end for the debates and voting on the drafts. For example, one delegate (I will keep the name of the state with me not to cause a diplomatic incident) appeared only in the last two days and was mainly situated there not to discuss and come to an agreement, but to make sure that he can say NO to certain issues and to try to take certain issues out of the agenda of future meetings.

6. Non-accurate or up-to-date data - One thing that is not missing in such a process is data. And lots of data. Everyone has data and one can here often statements like 'we found that mobile technology is the only panacea to digital divide', 'telecenters are vanishing', 'Least developed countries comprise less than 1% of users in the world'. By the way, I don't agree with the first and second statements, but this is not the essence of the issue. When not everyone are experts (see item 1 above) influencing through numbers is an easy task.

7.       Focus of issue - a big challenge. Information society is broad topic and one probably wonders who determines the focus - would it be on broadband? Mobile technology? Collaboration? or maybe other things. Some are determined by external events which request attention, and by former processes. But in many cases see no. 3 for the answer. It is really about the administrators, e.g., the secretariat of the commission who decides the frame of the issues. Peter Bachrach wrote in the 70s about the power of agenda setting in policy-making.

8. Problematic interpretation of data - It sounds almost like a tautology - by saying the word interpretation, one can assume that some problematic flavor comes with it since it is rare to have all people agree to a particular interpretation. Here are two for example: 'Access is not an important issue when talking about poverty' or 'the regulator should intervene more'. Discussing only interpretations without understanding the data behind the interpretations does not help reaching a resolution.

9. From mandate to action - The word MDG (Millennium Declaration Goals) was mentioned in the discussions 100 times. I couldn't help wondering - how many people know what is MDG? What real impact does it have on the daily life of you, me and the societies surrounding us? And what does it mean that only 6 more years remain to achieve these goals? (I even imagined a curse falling on universe once we reach the d-day without achieving the MDG goals). How many out of all these crafted policies lead to tangible results? I wouldn't like to sound pessimistic.

10. Changes take time - Time reaches policy makers more slowly. While the discussions are important, some of them were already resolved or discussed in depth in academia and industry. The cross-fertilization among sectors is scarce unfortunately.

11.   Reaching Consensus vs. Majority/Minority Vote- Finally, some resolutions are achieved by consensus, which sounds great unless you have for example a veto person, someone whose role is to say NO in any case and exploit the fact that this is a consensus process (see item 5). Also when the gaps among the stakeholders are large choosing the consensus way is not ideal.

I would like to exemplify some of above obstacles in policy making via a story about a request of mine to add an 's' to the resolution. Yes, it is only about adding one letter, an 's'. I requested to change all the concepts in the resolution from digital divide (without an 's') to digital divides (with an 's'). In academia there is a big resentment and debate for years of whether to use the concept digital divide that implies dichotomous meaning of have and have-not access vs. digital divides which reflects more a continuum of inequalities and not only access. Here is an article as a background about this. Obviously many member-states objected the idea with four main arguments. One said 'only in WSIS 2003 we recognized a gender divide as part of the digital divide, so how can we talk about so many meanings of divides' which makes me wonder if one makes a mistake should he/she continue to make the same mistake only because the mistake occurred in the past and this is what one did since then? Bordieua called it habitus. Another person said 'the concept of digital divides (with an 's') reflects only an international gap. This was a bad interpretation of the data that they had in front of them. A third person just said No, because the request was made by a state that had a political dispute with the state that he/she represented. A fourth person objected the idea because in previous meetings the concept was agreed upon and all the stakeholders should stick to what was agreed upon in the past. And finally the chairman tried to compromise saying no to adding the 's' in this resolution, but will consider it positively in future resolution' (remember item 10 and 11 above - changes take time and consensus may create challenges). The story of the 's' is a story of obstacles that stand in the way of making a change in policy.

The UN

I will end this post by saying that maybe it is time to move from an 'information society' to a 'wisdom age' where information would be used wisely according to individuals and communities needs and not only according to the needs of countries' politicians and administrators.

The first thought that crossed my mind when I prepared myself to the meeting is that being a scholar and representing a country at the same time may pose a challenge. What if the stance I will need to represent is against my opinions? I try convincing myself that this is a commission on a professional subject and therefore the political forces are rather minor. Although, I am a great believer that politics is everywhere (I promise to update in the next posts whether I felt stretched as a scholar or not).

According to the official documents main topics that will be discussed in this meeting are twofold:

1. "To discuss development-oriented policies for socio-economic inclusive information societies, including access, infrastructure and an enabling environment. It will also discuss the building of Indigenous capabilities in science, technology and innovation, which are essential for the achievement of both short- and long-term development goals."

2. The Commission will review the progress made in the implementation of and follow-up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) outcomes at the regional and international levels. "

It makes me excited and disappointed at the same time. I am always happy to know that topics and challenges in the information society are being discussed at high-level of policy-makers forums. But then, how can one possibly cover these two topics in five days? My skeptical inner voice says that basically it is analogous to solve all the problems of the world in five days.

Another question that I ask myself is how much the "rich" countries will be committed to an agenda that is focused on development in developing countries. It is an important question.  Once a venue becomes identified only with 'less-strong politically' countries (and it doesn't matter whether objectively they are or they are not), the discourse and discussion becomes local and silo making it difficult to solve anything.

Here is the link to the agenda of the Commission some documents about the content. I will update daily from there.

Specially, I am interested to understand the latent interests of the different actors coming to that event. For example I already learned that since it is a UN event only representatives of countries vote, putting other bodies like NGOs at a disadvantage in the process. I am not sure that such an exclusive process leaves hope for an inclusive solution. Stay tuned.

Code 2 - Lessig

Lawrence Lessig’s Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace turns 10 this year (see an update version of the book that is interactive with users - Code: Version 2.0). The Cato Institute hosted a debate about the book for this occation. Below you can find Declan McCullagh's article which criticizes Lessig's approach and the response fromJonathan Zittrain, Adam Thierer and Lessig himself.

Lead Essay

• What Larry Didn’t Get by Declan McCullagh

Responses

• How to Get What We All Want by Jonathan Zittrain
• Code, Pessimism, and the Illusion of “Perfect Control” by Adam Thierer
• Continuing the work of Code by Lawrence Lessig

Virality of Networks

One of the hottest topics currently under investigation is in the area of virality and campaigns, or the role of the Internet in political campaigns. Here are several articles from a conference titled "You Tube and the 2008 Election Cycle in the United States" -

Bob Boynton Going Viral

Kevin Wallsten "'Yes We Can': How Online Viewership, Blog Discussion, Campaign Statements and Mainstream Media Coverage Produced a Viral Video Phenomenon

LaChrystal Ricke A New Opportunity for Democratic Engagement: The CNN-YouTube Presidential Candidate Debates

Hillary Savoie YouTube, Community, and Me: The New Media Balance Between Self and Community

You can find the full list of articles and posters here: http://youtubeandthe2008election.jitp2.net/frontpage