UberNoggin

When I was 15 I got a job as a cashier at the local IGA. We got a spiffy smock to wear over a polo shirt and “dark pants.” On about my third day I went to work with black jeans on. Nice, new black jeans. Now remember, I stood behind a counter where no one could see my legs anyway, but my manager scolded me for my “unprofessional dress.” I think I quit two days later without even returning the smock.

I just don’t see the point of dress codes for work. Now I understand dressing appropriately. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think that PJs are ok for the office and I woulnd’t put on an old prom dress to give a talk (hmm, maybe I should try that sometime). I know that some clothes are more appropriate for certain situations. But if you work in an office where you only interface with other employees why the heck should you have to dress up?! Who are you trying to impress? Do employers really think that a tie will make you a better colleague? One look at Washington proves that a tie doesn’t make you honest, helpful, or even hard working.

Wouldn’t it be better to let people wear what makes them feel most creative? Productive? Comfortable? I vow to never again work in an environment where I’m told what to wear. I also vow to never be the kind of employer who treats his/her employees like children and tells them what to wear.

So ditch the tie! Ditch the shoes that make your feet hurt! Be yourself and make them all deal with it!

Unless, of course, you like the tie…then, well… wear it!

I.A. Richards claimed that rhetoric is really the study and avoidance of miscommunication. How many times have you argued with someone only to learn that you were using different definitions for the same terms? Or found out that the idea that offended you so much was really something completely different in the other person’s mind?

We all use words as shorthand for larger more complex ideas, then we layer on our experiences (or as Burke called them, our “terministic screens”) and before you know it we’re practically speaking different languages.

So, take it from a rhetorician, the next time you feel the need to argue with someone step back and compare definitions. You may find that you’re coming from different positions, not in ideas, but in terms.

Last week I spent time with two very different groups: Next Generation Consulting and Western Governors University. NGC consults with cities, corporations and other groups who want to improve their life/work balance and better suit the needs and talents of their employees.

WGU is an online university with over 12,000 students and employees who all work and live away from their Salt Lake City offices.

However different these two groups seem to be they have one powerful thing in common: they boht successfully manage virtual teams. Both WGU and NGC rely on distance communication to keep moving. THey have developed systems to trust and rely on people they seldom get to sit down with…a skill that so many companies and schools desperately need to figure out in today’s economy and technological workplace.

When I asked them how they do it folks from both WGU and NGC answered: “we trust people.” Sounds simple but its not. Trust is complicated. It’s based on experience and information but ultimately, at some point, we take a leap of faith or, as Communication scholars put it, “suspension.” At some point what we feel that what we know outweighs the risk of what we don’t know and crossing tht divide leads to trust. Of course, if we experience something tht contradicts what we thought we know and it causes the gap of suspension to be uncomfortably wide, we move from suspension to suspicion rather than trust.

So how does this process work in a virtual team environment?

For WGU, the faculty rely on very clear student expectations (Ie establishing a solid base of shared information) and then they communicate constantly to reaffirm that knowledge base and keep the need for suspension low. They trust that the person who completes the online assignment is the student of record because they communicate enough to narrow the need for suspension. They use phone calls, email, chat etc to reduce the unknown, to know their students perhaps better than brick and mortar faculty do.

For NGC, with employees is many locations, Rebecca and Marti (the founders of the company) trust their instincts about employees until “they give us a reason not to.” They build clear channels of communication and communicate as often as they can to keep their knowledge base stable. Meanwhile, their employees provide enough information to prevent their employers to have to widen their suspension gap.

So we get down to two questions: 1) how much information do we require to be comfortable enough with our suspension gap? and 2) What part does the trustee play in maintaining the knowledge base so it doesn’t come into question?

I would suggest that managers who can’t manage virtual teams probably have such a narrow suspension gap that they feel that they can never have enough info about what the distance employee is up to. Perhaps just being able to quantify how much information is enough could improve the relationship between manager and employee. Just being able to say “If you work at home I need ten status updates a day because I have a narrow suspension gap” might help both parties.

What do you think? How do you establish trust with people online? How do you manage virtual workers or how are you managed as one?

Yeah it may not be techy but it is smart if healthy = smart!

Skinny Chicken Parm

Makes about 4 servings

• One package thinly sliced boneless, skinless chicken breasts
• italian seasoned breadcrumbs
• fat free milk
• thinly sliced provolone
• shredded asiago or Parmesan
• cooking spray
• lo-sugar spaghetti sauce

1. Preheat oven to 350F
2. Spray casserole pan with cooking spray
3. Dip each chicken breast in milk then press lightly into breadcrumbs
4. Place in a single layer in casserole dish, spray lightly with cooking spray, and bake for about 10 min.
5. Put 2 Tbs sauce, 1/2 slice provolone and 1 tsp of shredded cheese on each breast.
6. Bake for about 5 min or until cheese is melty.

Enjoy! Each chicken breast with topping is under 300 calories. We have them with steamed broccoli. Yum!

Most folks who know me know that I disagree with the idea of Natives and Immigrants in terms of technology (ala Prensky). Today’s high schoolers and undergrads are not natives to technology. They don’t have some magical innate ability to understand new technologies. What they usually have is a clear lack of fear when encountering a new technology. They aren’t afraid to try to figure it out and it makes them look more “native.”

As is typical, though, it’s easier to criticize someone’s idea and much harder to suggest a replacement so I’ve been thinking hard about better terms to describe the almost palpable difference between “us” and “them,”  looking for a metaphor that helps us understand rather than label, empower rather than excuse. So here’s the idea I’ve been playing with recently. It may not be the right one so I welcome feedback.

Revolutionaries and Beneficiaries

Revolutionaries: Those who have been and are involved in the development, application, and implications of technology accessible to the masses. Regardless of age or education, these are the folks who develop new technologies or ways of thinking about technologies that pave the way for mass adoption. This also includes those who think about the application and effects of these technologies (educators, philosophers, futurists, early adopters etc)

Beneficiaries: Those who benefit from the actions of the Revolutionaries via mass accessible technologies and their application. For example, my students don’t have to wrestle with whether using a word processing program is beneficial to their work because others (educators, technologists, researchers, previous users) have already done the footwork to prove that the convenience and ease that word processing possesses over a typewriter, for example, are worth learning the software.

These are not closed categories. A Beneficiary could easily become a Revolutionary if he/she begins to think about technology in new ways rather than just benefiting from advances and adopting them. Revolutionaries may become Beneficiaries if they settle into a technology they are comfortable with and stop comparing it to other options or stop thinking about the implications of that technology’s use.

I would suggest that most of us are both Beneficiaries and Revolutionaries. When I drive my car or use my microwave I typically don’t think about the way they’ve changed my life. I press the buttons and my popcorn pops. If my microwave breaks and I have to learn to pop popcorn on the stove I may start thinking more like a Revolutionary: “Wow! That microwave really changes the way I live.”

Neither way of thinking is superior to the other. Both have their place. If I allowed myself to get bogged down in Revolutionary thinking every time I switched on a light I’d not get much done. If I blindly adopt every new technology that comes along my quality of life would, no doubt, drop as I tried to use everything in the course of my day without judging them for their usefulness.

So? What do you think? Do these terms ring truer to you than the Native and Immigrant? Are there better terms to describe these ways of thinking and adoption?