LaSalle University’s Bucks County Center hosted a very well-attended discussion this morning. I was honored to be among the panel members who responded to questions regarding the personal and business applications of social networking/personal marketing. Those in attendance included faculty, staff, and adult students; their questions and comments revealed a deep engagement in the topic. Some comments that may not have been clearly communicated:
- Social networking and personal marketing allow us to gain autonomy and independence in the workplace. Social networking tools allow us to become more responsible for the long-term management of our careers – the “apron strings” to corporate employers are not secure.
- Online networking complements warm networking. Those who successfully develop and nurture their network demonstrate key qualities: team work, cultural awareness, and service orientation.
- Social networking has launched an era of “giving;” a prerequisite for and a simultaneous part of the “receiving” that most people associate with the new verb, “to network.”
- Career management requires a long-term commitment to social networking. While numbers vary, 80 – 95% of all jobs are filled through networking. With that in-mind, tools such as LinkedIn.com allow career managers to conduct a proactive “people search” rather than a reactive “job search.”
- Age is not a predictor of success in the realm of social networking. While members of Gen X and Gen Y may have an advantage in the use of hardware and software, the Boomers and Traditionalists seem to have an advantage in the “social” aspects of networking. Bette J. Walters, Esq., a fellow panel-member, referred to the need for a publication recommending social networking manners; in the meantime, click here for a relevant discussion of such issues.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Interesting blog, but it’s missing an important part of the equation: Generation Jones (between the Boomers and Generation X). Google Generation Jones, and you’ll see it’s gotten lots of media attention, and many top commentators from many top publications and networks (Washington Post, Time magazine, NBC, Newsweek, ABC, etc.) now specifically use this term. In fact, the Associated Press’ annual Trend Report chose the Rise of Generation Jones as the #1 trend of 2009. Here’s a page with a good overview of recent media interest in GenJones: http://generationjones.com/2009latest.html
It is important to distinguish between the post-WWII demographic boom in births vs. the cultural generations born during that era. Generations are a function of the common formative experiences of its members, not the fertility rates of its parents. And most analysts now see generations as getting shorter (usually 10-15 years now), partly because of the acceleration of culture. Many experts now believe it breaks down more or less this way:
DEMOGRAPHIC boom in babies: 1946-1964
Baby Boom GENERATION: 1942-1953
Generation Jones: 1954-1965
Generation X: 1966-1978
Generation Y: 1979-1993
Thank you for your thoughtful response, Jones….
While I am philosophically opposed to “stereotyping,” it is apparent that categorizing people by gender and culture is a useful way to initially approach interpersonal relationships.
Given our “speed-lifestyle,” chunking people into 10-15 year generational segments seems to be somewhat useful.
Of course there is the customary caution re: generalizations. For example, not all Generation X, Y, or Jones are as technologically savvy as one might expect. Many of those who follow the Boomers chronologically have nimble fingers on a keyboard, but lack the interpersonal sophistication to navigate relationships.
I hope you’ll keep reading and sharing your responses, Jones….