A 2005 study, funded by Hewlett-Packard, and conducted by the Institute of Psychiatry at the University of London, discovered that "Workers distracted by e-mails and phone calls suffer a fall in IQ more than twice that found in marijuana smokers."
This is one of the statistics that seems to stick with my audience when I present the impact of our modern addiction to electronic multi-tasking. So fast forward four years...and throw in Blackberry messaging, Facebook news feeds and snowball requests, Tweets, and Diggs (to name just a few social networking applications).
If we were really stoned 4 years ago, where are we today? And what impact is it having on a generation of professionals that spend more time in front of their laptops than they do in front of actual people? I hear stories of job seekers emailing out a hundred copies of their resumes every week with no response. I have interviewed countless candidates who cannot maintain focus on what is being asked perhaps because they are so conditioned to being interrupted every minute via email or instant message.
I had lunch the other day with an account executive at one of the largest staffing firms in the country and he is seeing the same problems. A lot of younger candidates and employees lack the skills and experience to build relationships face to face.
There is hope...Professionals like Collins Denny of the Greater Richmond Career Network are using MeetUp to get job seekers off the internet and in person every week to help find jobs. Blackberrys are checked at the door.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The following response was posted to my same question in LinkedIn:
ReplyDeleteInteresting. I'd say it could hurt, for the obvious reason - a drop in measurable intelligence might affect your work performance. But there's another possible reason I can think of. You may think you're being effective at work, or in a job search, by using technology when you really aren't.
For instance, you may blast out 100 resumes by email, but that doesn't do much for employers who don't want them by email. Or you may work so fast you make silly mistakes or don't do your homework. But you feel like you've accomplished something so you don't stop to think about quantify vs. quality.
And if it slows your mind, like the study claims, that could be a problem. On the other hand, IQ and job performance/job search are two different things.
The following response was posted to my same question in LinkedIn:
ReplyDeleteHow many jobs really test your IQ or EQ before you get hired. I think there is probably a 50-50 case here where technology addiction is probably pertinent. ie. someone who has to keep up with security updates, new threats, and creating less silos in his workplace.
Technology addiction may be critical within that environment and a loss of non-critical information is probably not important. In addition, email, voicemail, and social networking tends to be a new and creative way to gain new business development opportunities, so pertinent and possibly critical depending on your go to market strategy.(ie. what are we doing now)
Now for your average order taker, customer service rep., or office worker where filing or crunching numbers is critical... it is probably a detriment to their job function and may decrease their IQ. Though I will have to google the study, because I am not aware of the sample size or what type of worker they actually studied. Just my opinion though. Interesting question.....
The following response was posted to my same question in LinkedIn:
ReplyDeleteThis is a bit longer than I had intended but here goes...IMHO the world is usualy about "and" rather than "or". Like most study questions, or at least their outcomes briefly explained in the popular press, this is presented as an "or".
It might be interesting to sort this study data not just by the task(s) being carried out by the users. Sorting for age and socio-economics, including the depth of technology penetration into the users background might present the information in more interesting and useful ways. [The last response] is right that the original study is likely worth a look (if nothing else to see what is the baseline definition for "marijuana smokers").
In a reasonably serious vein, the key to Brent's question may be the often lightly used term "addiction". By definition, addiction overrides preferable actions (smokers on the loadig dock in ten degree weather or gamblers betting the rent money). If one is "addicted" to technology, using it in inappropriate ways at inappropriate times to the detriment of your organization and your own self interest, there is a problem.
In cliched UVa terms, there are those who can have a drink and those who do not do so. In the gettig hired scenario, watching your blackberry mid-interview is not likely to help your chances. As another example, the chief of staff for a Senator was quoted in the Post last year saying that having your cellphone on anything but vibrate on the Hill marks you as a "rube".
I might suggest that the evaluation of the behaviour will depend on whether it is percieved as courteous at the individual level and respectful at organizational one. That will of course depends, importantly on culture and circumstance.
And, finally, we ought to be careful to differentiate a difference between a focus oraddiction relative to "technology" versus one to "information".