GigaOM » Psychology

Study science and math to get ahead in the future of work, right?

Jessica Stillman — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:04:14 +0000

When you read accounts of the fierce competition for science and engineering grads, if you are a humanities or social science type (like me) you could be forgiven for slapping yourself on the forehead for forgoing the chance to earn six-figure salaries and be provided with ping-pong tables and free food for your entire career. But is getting that degree in science, tech, engineering or math (the so-called STEM subjects) really the best bet for long-term career success?

If you look at trends in the future of work, then maybe not, argued Daniel Jelski, a professor of chemistry at SUNY New Paltz, on New Geography recently. Despite being a science guy himself, Jelski looks at the ways work is changing and comes to an iconoclastic conclusion. He begins by laying out the basic forces he sees shaping the career landscape in the next decades:

Let’s start with the three Laws of Future Employment. Law #1: People will get jobs doing things that computers can’t do.

Law #2: A global market place will result in lower pay and fewer opportunities for many careers. (But also in cheaper and better products and a higher standard of living for American consumers.)

Law #3: Professional people will more likely be freelancers and less likely to have a steady job.

But instead of looking at these laws and suggesting students study the math and science needed to be one of those running the machines many fear are taking our jobs, Jelski comes to a different conclusion. He acknowledges that the number of science and math grads in the U.S. has been flat over several decades, but he disagrees that this means more students should be encouraged into those fields. Pointing out that competition in these areas is increasingly global, he notes that the amount of American tech and science geeks isn’t relevant. But the global number is, and by this measure competition will be fierce, especially as many technical tasks are now done by computers:

Laws #1 & 2 predict that there will likely be fewer STEM jobs in the future – they are both easily computerized and tradable. People will always be employed in STEM disciplines, many of them highly paid, but they’ll be paid for smarts rather than education. The disciplines will be much more competitive, with older and less talented workers left on the sidelines. Tom Friedman and Alex Tabarrok, reflecting conventional wisdom, are mistaken in maintaining that increasing STEM education is a key to future economic competitiveness.

“So if computerized, tradable skills won’t create much new employment, if any, what will?” he asks. The answer is “non-tradable skills that can’t be computerized. . . . these jobs depend on human-human interaction — empathy.” Counseling, teaching and management are examples. So who is best prepared for them?

Jelski tells of a student he had in a chemistry class, an English major who was busy writing a novel about cowboys while learning about chemical reactions on the side. “Conventional wisdom says this guy is all wet,” writes Jelski, but he feels this kid’s odd combo of interests in cowboys and chemistry might actually be a career winner. Not because anyone needs many cowboys these days, obviously, but because

the skill set needed to write a novel, of which writing may be the least of it. He has to have something to write about, which means nurturing a general curiosity about the world — not just cowboys, but apparently also chemistry. He learns to be a keen observer of people: their appearance, what they wear, their character, mannerisms, and language. He develops the self-discipline and self-confidence to finish a project because it is intrinsically important, not because people say “Wow, that’s wonderful. You’re writing a novel!” Because of his novel my student becomes expert in many skills that can translate into a wonderful career.

The conclusion of the post (which is well worth a read in full) is that skills rather than education count, and writing and empathy are among the skills least likely to be mastered by computers. Counseling might beat computer science in the future of work, according to Jelski, but critics could point out that clinical psychology majors currently have the highest rate of unemployment of any college degree and that being an empathetic, sociable engineer might be the best bet of all.

Would you push your kid toward engineering or empathy for a more future-proof career?

Image courtesy of Flickr user UC Davis College of Engineering

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

Infographic: Are mobile devices destroying your body?

Kevin C. Tofel — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 20:58:15 +0000

Connected mobile devices make life easier, but are our bodies paying too high a price? Eyewear retailer Mezzmer culled a number of datapoints in an infographic that gives a glimpse into the health complications brought by small screens, speakers and the ergonomics of using handheld computers. Posture, vision issues, hearing and sleep deprivation are just a few of the challenges illustrated.

Related to these, and possibly the most harmful, is texting and driving. The smartest thing I’ve done recently is to avoid using the phone while driving at nearly all costs, although I don’t think we need the NTSB to legislate that choice. There has to be a better technical solution.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

Startup entrepreneurs are ‘arrogant and psychopathic’

Bobbie Johnson — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 13:56:51 +0000

The startup economy is well-known for lauding the most successful young entrepreneurs, those twenty-somethings who are turned into millionaires — or even billionaires — through their exploits. Yet there are also plenty of stories about the bad behavior and kill-or-be-killed attitudes that often emerge inside startups.

That’s no coincidence, say a pair of German academics.

In an interview in Germany’s Der Spiegel, Dominik Schwarzinger and Matthias Kramer, who are researching the entrepreneurial personality, say that borderline personality disorders can actually be crucial elements behind startup success.

As part of a study that has been underway since 2009, the duo suggest that there are several traits that may be highly unpleasant in ordinary life but can help startups succeed.

Among successful entrepreneurs, for example, they see higher incidences of three particular traits: self-regard and narcissism, manipulation and trickery (known as Machiavellianism) and — perhaps most disturbingly — what they refer to as “subclinical psychopathy”. This trio is what psychologists call the “dark triad”.

Schwarzinger: “Our studies show that these features, which other people perceive as negative, can actually help their businesses.”

Kramer: “Our results show those with narcissistic personalities have a higher propensity to start businesses. Having a strong belief in yourself can have a positive impact when dealing with risks — founders are always plagued by uncertainty of how well their idea will work once it hits the market.”

In many ways, this is no revelation. After all, it is not exactly news that those who are prepared to clamber over everybody else to get what they want often manage to do so. Just read Walter Isaacson’s biography of Steve Jobs, or watch The Social Network, or talk to anyone who’s ever worked alongside startups, and there will plenty of examples of bad behavior on the road to success.

And it’s not confined to the technology industry either: stories of industrial douchebaggery abound throughout history, and management theorists have long researched the impact of certain personalities on business.

The duo admit that in most cases, these are not full blown personality disorders (hence the “sub-clinical”) and merely trends. And Kramer admits that there is a “bit of narcissism in everyone… the desire for status or money, as well as ambition and certain kinds of aggression.”

But still, while we often talk about the anti-social tendencies of some business gurus, their psychological states are rarely acknowledged in such a straightforward way. Will that change? Unlikely: I certainly don’t see many startup founders admitting that they are narcissistic, Machiavellian psychopaths — even if that’s what makes them who they are.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

Overcoming the Isolation of Remote Work

Georgina Laidlaw — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:00:15 +0000

We’ve all read the news stories that identify social implications of a world increasingly conducted electronically, rather than in person. It seems that in an environment where individuals and organizations can manufacture themselves new personas, and nothing’s real until we broadcast it across a network of contacts, many web workers are feeling increasingly isolated.

It’s definitely true that it can be difficult to be heard among the clamor of communication online. The volume of information, insights and self-expression can be overwhelming, but those who work remotely also face the added challenge of physical isolation. Sometimes, it can be difficult to believe that you can have much of an impact when you operate remotely. Within this context, those who thrive in a remote web work environment have a strong sense of self, of perspective and of contribution.

The Opposite of Isolation

The antidote to isolation is participation. Participating provides an opportunity to develop self-awareness and respect, perspective, and of course, a sense of contribution. It’s also fun. But it seems that many of us forget the importance of participation from a personal standpoint. With deadlines, busy lives, exciting goals and work or family commitments, we can unconsciously replace willing participation with obligation. And that’s often a lot less fun.

Whether you choose to participate online — in a social network, work-related committee or team, community, interest or activist group — or offline through a club, charity, class or community group, you’re making a willing choice, which for some of us is a bit of a luxury. And the benefits of that participation can be considerable.

When I first moved to a new country town, and was working remotely, I felt pretty isolated. My colleagues were 100km away, and when I looked out the window, it was at a foreign landscape, apparently devoid of human life. So I became a volunteer for the local firefighting group. Bingo! I met a load of new people, made one or two close, lasting friendships, developed skills I never knew I’d have, and felt a whole lot more involved and less isolated.

Participation is Not a Life Sentence

Not all participation takes great commitment, so you can suit your level of involvement to your changing interests, time commitments, and desires. Joining your work social committee, organizational sustainability team, or taking part in corporate sports are just a few ideas for participating more within your work sphere. The key is to give something a try. No single friendship, workplace, or hobby club could hope to meet the needs of one individual, so diversify, and experiment with your interests in a range of different arenas.

A writer friend of mine who was unable to work had a growing interest in literature and books. He took a course in literature, had some of his work published on a few sites, and was then offered the position of managing editor on one of these. He grew the site, then decided to use social networks and online community tools to create a dialogue around the site, which would enable authors and readers to communicate with each other. By pursuing his interest, he’s made a lot of new friends, valuable contacts and deepened his passion and sense of contribution.

Perhaps over time you’ll find, as my friend did, that you prefer online participation. Alternatively, perhaps you’ll get so involved with your local sports club that you decide to stand for a position on the club committee. You never know where your involvement in a group or community may lead — and if you’re not happy with where it’s going, you can always take a break to try something new.

Have you ever felt isolated as a remote worker? What have you done to change things?

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

Apple Netbook Rumors Gain Momentum Once Again

Darrell Etherington — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:00:22 +0000

If sheer consumer will alone could ever put a piece of hardware into production, then the Apple netbook would’ve been made a hundred times over by now, and in some ways it has, thanks to DIY hackintosh machines. Rumors of the real thing are gaining steam once again, and at this point I’m beginning to wonder if Apple can afford to break the hearts of their loyal following without sending even more of them into the loving embrace of the Dell Mini 9.

The latest rumors come from the Chinese-language tech and business blog the Commercial Times (as translated by DigiTimes), which is reporting that Foxconn Electronics (also known as Hon Hai Precision Industry) has already signed a deal with Apple to put their upcoming netbook into production. Foxconn is already responsible for making the iPhone 3G and potentially components for the upcoming iPhone 3.0 as well, so it makes sense that Apple would go back to them for this type of device if one is indeed in the pipeline.

Added to earlier rumors of a 10-inch touchscreen being manufactured for Apple, the picture that emerges is of a device that might prove a little more expensive than most were hoping for, though at this point Apple has teased desire for a tablet/small form factor device to such an extreme level that people will probably overlook a $200 premium just to get their hands on the thing. I still don’t see them confusing customers by pricing it too closely to the MacBook line, so look for something between $599 and $799, depending on options and upgrades. That would put it close to the Mac mini, but the products differ enough that they could avoid cannibalizing sales.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

Psycuity: Using Psychometric Measurement To Build Teams

Imran Ali — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 18:00:37 +0000

As web workers are generally spread across countries, timezones, cultures and organizations, creating and applying coherent management to distributed teams is challenging.

Late last year, Celine shared some tips on avoiding conflicts within a teleworking team. Around the same time I came across UK-based “business psychology” consultants, Psycuity, a company that asserts that it can help design better teams through understanding the underlying psychology of individual team members. Could this type of understanding be useful in figuring out how distributed web workers could work together more effectively?

Using psychometric testing and a long pedigree in psychology, Psycuity has codified a lot of the personality types, compatibilities and behaviors we might ordinarily find difficult to measure. Using these measurements, we can make helping more informed decisions about our teams.

After completing a short online questionnaire — it took about 20 minutes — I was called by one of Psycuity’s cofounders, Ian Hudson, who talked me through my test results. Ian had no prior knowledge or understanding of my work or personality, but spent half an hour or so breaking down his analysis of my interpersonal style, thinking style, coping strategies, leadership qualities, influencing styles and where in teams I would best fit. Frankly, I was astonished at Ian’s insights, which he later provided to me as a printed report. They accurately reflected probably around 90-95 percent of my self-image.

Psychometric testing is by no means a new tool for those managing and recruiting personnel, but the Psycuity guys have managed to package and streamline the experience to require minimal input from the test subject, while still providing a rich and very detailed analysis of their capabilities and qualities.

Circling back to Celine’s original thoughts on avoiding conflicts within teams, I wonder if it’s possible to use a company such as Psycuity to predict how well a group of untethered workers will work together. There are some interesting questions to consider:

Could Psycuity-style tests help prepare guidelines on how best to coalesce a diverse group of people into an effective team?
How would this type of screening be applicable to assess the “fitness” of a coworking community?
Can it only really work for people that work together in the same organization — or would it also be useful for a group of collaborating freelancers.

Individually, I found a great deal of insight into my own behavior, but I’m curious to hear what others think. Can business psychology be used to enhance team spirit between disconnected, untethered, web workers?

Do leave your thoughts in the comments below — I’d love to hear everyone’s views on this.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.