It has been said that youth is overrated. That’s probably because, in the eyes of their elders, younger people seem always to attach themselves to the latest technology as though they had discovered the ultimate, and all previous iterations become instant antiques.
While there may be some truth to that youthful view, think back to a particular technology that, at the time, was written about in every news medium, talked about every where you went. Where is that technology today and how is it affecting our ability to communicate and do our jobs better?
Sometimes, it’s a false start. Apple’s Newton, while innovative for its time, was ultimately a failure. Yet it hinted at a technological breakthrough. Future approaches – in the form of PDAs like the Palm Pilot and, later, smartphones like the iPhone – fixed its shortcomings and realized the full benefits that Newton’s developers had hoped for.
Reminiscing recently with a friend I used to work with, I recalled a shared experience that still gives me pause regarding our attitudes toward modern communications tools and the judgment of our elders.
Some 24 years ago – a generation ago – I was an account supervisor for a small public relations agency in New York. Mind you, this was 1986 when office computers were not yet common in the office. Sure, they were making in-roads, particularly in larger organizations. The IBM PC was well on its way to displacing the established Wang systems.
A hugely successful company of the same name made the “Wang,” the first common office automation system. Wang would soon cease to exist because it failed to take PCs seriously and adapt. At the time, my firm used a mix of IBM Selectric and Smith Corona typewriters. (Yes, I know. I’m really dating myself here – straight out of Mad Men.)
Two co-workers and I thought it was time to bring computers into our operation. The three (considerably older) partners who owned the firm were skeptical. But they agreed to let us do our homework and develop a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis – which we did after much legwork and number crunching.
The day we presented our findings, the three partners gathered in the agency conference room, each bearing dubious looks, as we walked them through our findings and recommendations, detailing the efficiency improvements computers would allow us.
After thanking us for our after-hours work and acknowledging the persuasiveness of our arguments, they decided against modernizing. It wasn’t for lack of funds. It was their deep-seated skepticism of new technology. I will never forget the dismissive response of the senior partner as he paused from puffing on his pipe. (That’s back when people smoked in offices.)
“Will these computers help the account executives write any better? I doubt it.”
…which, frankly, was completely beside the point. But never mind. The discussion was over.
About a year later, I left that firm for another in Boston (which, by the way, used Honeywell computers – again, I date myself). At the time of my departure, my former firm still hadn’t computerized. In fact, the senior partner was still writing out everything in long-hand on a legal pad, which his secretary duly typed for him.
I remind myself of those long-ago words sometimes when I’m skeptical of a new technology, particularly one that might favorably impact communications and our ability to do business more efficiently. I’m wary of becoming like my old boss.
The first cell phone I ever used (rented for a trade show) was about the size of a large shoe, though it weighed considerably more. At the time, I didn’t regard it as a business tool, even though it proved helpful at the trade show. It seemed more like an attention-getting novelty – which if you’ll remember, most early cell phone users got a lot of: attention.
But as the cell phone shrunk in size and weight, as its cost came down and the quality of the connection improved, and as more people had them, the role of the cell phone as a business tool was set. Today, we can’t imagine being without them. The list goes on: PDAs, laptops, smartphones, etc.
As you know, with each new technology, there is an adaptation curve, where the early adapters pay a premium price for an okay version with limited capabilities so that we late adapters can climb aboard when it is more ubiquitous and mass production has brought the price down.
Ubiquity also means the availability of more capabilities, more users with whom to share the common platforms, etc. So late adapters get more use from the devices because there are more people out there with whom we can communicate via ever more modes.
So let’s come back to today and consider the iPhone 4 with its “FaceTime” video calling feature. While it’s a nice feature and the advertising promoting it is compelling, before video calling on smartphones becomes a common means of communication, there needs to be a lot more capable devices on the market and in the hands of a lot more consumers. According to an October 12 report on Yahoo News:
“Jupiter Research on Tuesday said that Apple's latest generation iPhone will spur adoption of video calls but the trend is stymied because different devices don't talk to one another. Juniper predicted that … the percentage of smartphone users making video calls will remain below 10 percent by the year 2015.”
As we contemplate new means of communications like video calling and other ways that improve the ability to connect with people round the clock, round the world, are we better off for it? To rephrase the question my former boss asked, will these things make us better communicators?
Tools like these are terrific and provide us a wider range of options to connect to more people in more places and times. They increase our availability to the people with whom we need to communicate.
But in the end, the importance of our willingness and ability to listen, to digest what we hear, and to respond appropriately doesn’t change. That is the heart of effective communications, not the latest and greatest technology, whether it’s an IBM Selectric, email, Twitter, Skype, a smartphone – or just an old-fashioned face-to-face meeting over a cup of coffee.
No comments:
Post a Comment