Step Away From the Smart Phone

I'm just doing my part here by sharing an article that recently came my way.


Why People Check their Tech at the Wrong Times (and the Simple Trick to Stop It)


By Nir Eyal


Chances are you’ve experienced the following: You’re with a small group of friends at a nice restaurant. Everyone is enjoying the food and conversation when someone decides to take out his phone — not for an urgent call, but to check email, Instagram, and Facebook.
Maybe you’ve witnessed this behavior and found it unsettling. So what do you do? Do you sit idly by, thinking disparaging thoughts? Or do you call out the offender?
For years, I accepted ill-timed tech use as a sign of the times. Sherry Turkle, an author and professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, diagnosed the situation succinctly: these days, “We expect more from technology and less from each other.”
I used to do nothing in the face of indiscriminate gadget use. Now, I’ve come to believe that doing nothing is no longer O.K. Staying silent about bad technology habits is making things worse for all of us.

Social Antibodies

Paul Graham, the famed Silicon Valley investor, has observed that societies tend to develop “social antibodies” — defenses against new harmful behaviors. He uses the example of cigarette smoking: smoking in public became taboo over the span of just one generation after social conventions changed. Legal restrictions played a part, but a shift in the perception of smokers — from cultured to crude — laid the groundwork for public support of smoking bans. Similarly, the remedy to screen indiscretion may be developing new norms that make it socially undesirable to check one’s phone in the company of others.
Like cigarettes, our personal technology use can become a bad habit. People enter a zone when they use their gadgets. Checking email or scrolling through Facebook can be intoxicating and disorienting. Tech makers design these products using the same psychology that makes slot machines addictive. The variable rewards built into apps make time pass quickly, and can make people oblivious to what’s happening around them.
“Most people I know have problems with Internet addiction,” Graham wrote in 2010. “We’re all trying to figure out our own customs for getting free of it.” Ironically, despite his awareness, Graham has poured millions of dollars into addictive sites and apps, including Reddit and the gaming companies Machine Zone and OMGPop.
To be clear, I’m not pointing fingers. Like Graham, I am conflicted. My book, “Hooked,” is a how-to guide for building habit-forming products. I wrote the book in hopes that more companies could utilize the techniques used by Facebook, Twitter, and the like to make their products more engaging. However, the byproduct of making technology better is that sometimes it’s so good people can’t seem to put it down.
The trouble, as Graham points out, is that “unless the rate at which social antibodies evolve can increase to match the accelerating rate at which technological progress throws off new addictions, we’ll be increasingly unable to rely on customs to protect us.” In other words, if we don’t build social antibodies, the disease of distraction will become the new normal. But how do we develop and spread social antibodies to inoculate ourselves against bad mobile manners?

At Work

One solution is to take an explicit approach. At almost every corporate meeting I attend, someone (typically the highest-paid person in the room) starts using his or her personal technology. The behavior is toxic in many ways: it sends a message to everyone in the room that gadget time is more important than their time; it distracts people who assume the boss is sending work their way; and, perhaps worst of all, it prevents the person using the device from participating in the discussion, which means the meeting wasn’t worth having in the first place.
The best way to prevent this waste of time is for someone senior to mandate a “no-screen meeting.” In my experience conducting hundreds of workshops, the discussions declared device-free are by far more productive. Setting expectations up front is equivalent to administering a distraction vaccine.

Among Friends

In other situations, being explicit isn’t as easy. Take the dinner-party scene described earlier. Unlike in a corporate setting, no one at a dinner is the boss, so no one has the inherent right to enforce a device-free fiat. For a while, “phone stacking” — in which people tossed their phones in the center of the table, and the person who first reached for his phone during the meal had to pay for everyone — was sort of a thing, but it never took off, because the whole exercise felt punitive and patronizing. Most people already understand that using their gadgets in an intimate social setting is rude. But there’s always that one person who doesn’t.
So what’s the best way to get the transgressor off the phone? Embarrassing him in front of others isn’t a good idea, assuming you want to stay friends. A more subtle tactic is required. The goal is to snap the offender out of the phone zone, and to give him two options: either excuse himself to attend to whatever crisis is happening, or put away the tech. Over time, I’ve hit on one way to effectively call someone out while keeping things cordial: Ask a question.
Posing a direct question does the person a favor by pulling him back while sending a clear message. The technique works like a charm. For one, the unexpected question elicits an entertaining reaction — sort of like what happens when you hold someone’s nose when he’s dozing off. He gasps and sputters, but in this case it’s not your fault, because you, as questioner, can play dumb. “Oh, sorry, were you on your phone? Is everything O.K.?” If there really is an emergency, the person can excuse himself, but more often than not, he’ll tuck it back into his pocket and start enjoying the night.

Let’s do Something

Asking a direct question and declaring device-free meetings are simple tactics that spread social antibodies. Though personal technology clearly isn’t tobacco, it’s important we know that our devices are also designed to keep us hooked. By better understanding the psychology behind our technology, we can put it in its place.
Now is the time to take a stand. Fight fire with fire by sharing articles like this one on social media. Set limits, and don’t resign yourself to being ignored. The idea is not to disavow technology completely, but to encourage people to appreciate its power, and to be aware when its power over them is becoming a problem. In the end, technology should serve us — we should not serve it.

Nir’s Note: What do you think? How do you make sure you, your colleagues, and your friends don’t get distracted by technology. Let me know your thoughts in the comments below and *please share this essay if you found it interesting.*

Nir Eyal is the author of Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products and blogs about the psychology of products at NirAndFar.com. For more insights on changing behavior, join his free newsletter and receive a free workbook.

A Not So Super Tuesday

So I plan on voting this Tuesday. I’ll be voting in the Republican primary, of course. Although I was raised a Democrat and even in my adult life have, on occasion, voted Democrat; I tend to lean more toward the conservative side on fiscal issues and international policy, less so on domestic /social. In fact, I recently took one of those on-line “who should you vote for” surveys and Hillary Clinton came in just ahead of John Kasich. Well, I’m not voting for Hillary and I don’t think Kasich can win, although I sort of like the guy. I just cannot check the box for Trump or Cruz in this primary. So I guess, I’ll vote for Rubio even though Trump is not far off when he calls Rubio a “lightweight”. Marco is sort of the Republican’s version of Obama…shows well but isn’t really qualified for a CEO position.

The political process is broken. When one looks at the candidates, not just Republican, but in both parties; it’s shocking that we do not have better options. I suppose anyone who is qualified and capable of doing the job is too smart to take it. Come November, if Trump is the Republican candidate, I may just stay home. It won’t matter. Texas will go Republican no matter who’s running. God help us if either Trump or Clinton lands in the White House. But, we the people are survivors. We made it through two terms of Obama and let’s be honest, Gee Dubya wasn’t great either. Maybe we don’t need greatness in a President. About now I’d settle for honesty and competence.

Who Are These People and How Will They Get Their Stuff?

“Our generation doesn’t knock on doors. We will call or text to let you know we’re outside” -unknown

About this time last year Goldman Sachs published a report on how Milleniels are likely to change the economy (http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/pages/millennials/). If you have not read this “info-graphic”, I strongly suggest that you take a few minutes and do so. It’s well-done and to the point. And there are significant implications for transportation and logistics service providers. Milleniels are consuming differently and that means the supply chain will look different. For decades most of our thinking about the supply chain revolved around how to get materials and supplies into production and then how to get the finished product to the point of purchase which was for most part at the seller’s store. Now that purchasing event has moved. Increasingly, the point of purchase has nothing to do with the seller’s store. It’s all about the product and the purchaser. What is purchased, when it’s purchased, how it’s purchased and finally how much is purchased…these will determine how it’s delivered. And while purchasing habits are changing across all demographics, those of the Milleniels are likely to have the most impact.

So what are they buying? The bigger question may be what are they not buying? They are not “buying” into marriage, starting a family, driving around in a big SUV or owning a house. Those are big “nots” which have big impacts on “freight markets”. Think of all the shipments that are generated by household formation. Now we have the largest generation in the history of this country saying…Nah…not sure we want all of that; and very sure we don’t want it right now. Certainly they will spend their money on certain products as noted in the Goldman Sachs report. But when you consider what they are buying, it doesn’t move the needle much in terms of freight volumes.

When are they buying? Certainly not in the seasonal patterns we’ve grown accustomed to seeing. I think the marketplace is still trying to figure this out. But, it’s fair to say that they are buying less often and in ways that are unpredictable. And when they do buy, they want it now and with minimal hassle. Again, behaviors and expectations which significantly impact the supply chain.

How are they buying? Like many of us, only more so…they are buying on-line. The point of purchase is now an iPhone. It’s where research, shopping and purchasing takes place. This means that brick and mortar stores which traditionally served as supply points where products could be viewed, touched, tried-on and purchased are of less importance. While the stores are not going away entirely, they are likely to get smaller and carry a lot less inventory. The freight business that moves product in volume from distribution centers or manufacturing facilities to retail stores is going to get a lot smaller. The freight business that moves individual orders from large inventory locations to the final buyer is going to get a lot bigger. Amazon isn’t going to take over the world, but “Amazon-like” models will become the primary way many products are delivered to buyers in the future. And it’s a model that requires scale, so there aren’t likely to be very many of them around. It is a model that was bound to come as technology enables us to see, know and buy more stuff, more efficiently.

And lastly, how much are Milleniels buying? Less. Less seems to be more for this generation. It may well change over time, but at this point we have a generation of young people who came of age in the time of 9/11, the War in Iraq, Katrina and the Great Recession. Many of them have massive student loan debt and uncertain job prospects. The world is a scary place. So they go back home to live with their parents. Or they share an apartment with friends and/or lovers. They worry about global warming and what the world will look like for their children if they ever get around to having any. Taking on a big mortgage to live in a big house doesn’t make much sense to them. It’s a major shift in attitude from those who grew up in the 80’s and 90’s. What happens before your 10th birthday has a lot to do with how you look at yourself. But what happens between the ages of 10 and 20 has a lot to do with how you look at the world. And those kids who were 10 years old in 2000 see the world much differently than those who were 10 years old in 1984.

The Same Questions

“Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve”- George Bernard Shaw

With the race for the 2016 Presidential nominations now in full swing, it seems that we’ve never had a bigger spread between the Right and the Left. Ultra Conservative vs. Progressive Socialist. But at the end of the day, the arguments are always the same because the questions never change. On foreign policy it comes down to who do we fight, when do we fight and how do we fight? And on domestic policy the questions are what are people entitled to, how do we manage our entitlement programs and how do we pay for them?

My sense is that the country leans to the right on foreign policy and to the left on domestic, which should make for a very interesting election year. For when we drill down on those core questions, we end up with vastly different answers. The Left will agree with the Right that we must protect our “national interest” and defend ourselves. But, then it comes down to who, when and how; and they see the world much differently. The Right will agree with the Left that our citizens are entitled to health, education and welfare. But the answers to what that looks like, how it’s managed and how it’s paid for are very different.

What really bothers me is that both sides tend to take very simplistic positions. These are sound bites that draw applause from their supporters, but have little or no chance of happening in the real world. And if a candidate does put forth an idea that actually makes sense, it probably includes some compromises with the other side. Which means that candidate has little or no chance of being nominated.

In a country divided, one must ask how do we move forward? Can anyone do the job? Who would even want to try?

Help Wanted

This article is pretty much spot on. For quite some time, I've been saying that we are reaching a point where companies are going to have a very difficult time finding qualified people. We are there, even in a soft economy. As stated in this article, the talent shortage may even be contributing to the slowing economy.

Talent Shortage Making Positions Harder to Fill

January 28, 2016 -

The U.S. leads 12 major markets in unfilled jobs, with more than 25 percent of jobs left open after 60 days, according to ‘Labor Market Outlook 2016: Uncovering the Causes of Global Jobs Mismatch,’ released by Indeed. Germany and Canada followed at roughly 20 percent each.

Many positions aren’t seeing high enough wages to lure workers, and in-demand positions lack qualified applicants, the report found. In most developed economies, wages have remained flat in recent years, an unsettling finding in the current global economic climate.

“The mismatch between employers and job seekers is weighing on productivity, partially explaining a missing spark from the global recovery thus far,” said Indeed chief economist Tara Sinclair. “There is still time for these markets to hire workers and boost growth, but it will take increased wages along with skilled workers taking in-demand roles — two areas that have underperformed throughout the recovery.”

The percent of jobs open on Indeed after 60 days by country is revealing:

1. United States: 25.8 percent
2. Germany: 20 percent
3. Canada: 18.7 percent
4. France: 16 percent
5. United Kingdom: 13 percent
6. Australia: 11.6 percent
7. Japan: 11.1 percent
8. India: 10.2 percent
9. Italy: 9.2 percent
10. Brazil: 7.2 percent
11. Russia: 1.8 percent
12. China: 1.4 percent

Talent shortages can take much of the blame for these positions remaining unfilled. The latest ‘Recruiter Nation Survey’ released by Jobvite found that 56 percent of recruiters cite the lack of available skilled talent as a key stumbling block in hiring. The report also found that 95 percent of recruiters anticipate equal or increased competition for talent over the next year.

ManpowerGroup’s recent ‘Talent Shortage Survey’ found similar results with 32 percent of U.S. employers reporting difficulties filling job vacancies due to talent shortages. Globally, the study found that the percentage of employers experiencing difficulties continues to rise, increasing from 36 percent in 2014 to 38 percent in 2015.

“Talent shortages are real and are not going away,” said Kip Wright, senior vice president for Manpower North America. “Despite impacts to competitiveness and productivity, our research shows fewer employers are trying to solve the problem through better talent strategies.”

As the struggle to find the right talent continues, and candidates with in-demand skills get the upper hand, employers will be under pressure to position themselves as ‘talent destinations’ to attract the best workers that will drive their business forward, said Mr. Wright.

The Manpower report asked why companies are struggling to fill certain jobs. Employers said it was due to lack of applicants (33 percent), lack of experience (19 percent), and lack of technical competencies or hard skills (17 percent). Technical competencies employers seek include industry-specific professional qualifications (seven percent) and trade certifications (seven percent).

From a global prospective, Manpower’s report found that hiring managers say the most severe talent shortage is in Japan (83 percent). Around two in three employers report difficulty filling jobs in both Peru (68 percent) and Hong Kong (65 percent), while talent shortages are an issue for 61 percent of employers in both Brazil and Romania.

Hiring times in the U.S., Canada, and in many major European markets and Australia are mushrooming, according to several new research reports. Adding time to the hiring clock is putting hiring plans in disarray, setting talent acquisition professionals off to conduct more of their own search work in an effort to reduce hiring cycle times. Hence the extraordinary growth in-house recruiting programs now underway around the globe, according to reports from Hunt Scanlon Media.

Glassdoor Economic Research, found that the time required for a candidate to progress through the hiring process has increased dramatically. For those candidates in the U.S. and Canada about to embark on a search, the average interview process, now takes about 23 days, up from 13 days in 2010. French job candidates report the longest duration at 32 days, followed by Germany at 29 days, the U.K. at 28 days, and Australia at 27 days. Glassdoor’s research reveals that hiring times in the U.S., Canada, and in many major European markets and Australia are growing as employer screening methods — including background checks, drug tests, and skills & personality assessments — are rising.

Contributed by Scott A. Scanlon, Editor-in-Chief, Hunt Scanlon Media

The End Is Near

In recent years there has been a lot of talk about the “wussification” of the American male. Frankly, I haven’t thought much about it because I don’t want to think much about it. When I do think about it, I have to admit that we guys aren’t what we used to be. Some of that is probably a good thing. It’s okay to express your feelings. If guys want to dress better and pay more attention to their appearance that doesn’t necessarily make them “soft”. And if a man wants to stay home and raise the kids while the wife goes off to work, good for him. Gary Cooper, John Wayne and Clint Eastwood are ancient history.

But, now we have Dude Wipes. I had no clue about Dude Wipes until this week when my wife, with a straight face, announced that she had received an email coupon for Dude Wipes and inquired as to if I might want to give them a try. I had been talking about the need to replace the windshield wipers on my pick-up, so I thought she was referring to some newfangled windshield wiper. Then she showed me the email. It became immediately clear that Dude Wipes are not designed to wipe a Dude’s windshield.

As it turns out, Dude Wipes have been on the market for a couple of years and even got money on Shark Tank. I seldom watch Shark Tank, so I missed it there. I haven’t been shopping for wipes of any sort and have been perfectly happy with the toilet paper we buy in bulk at Sam’s. So Dude Wipes have not been on my radar. And apparently none of my web-surfing activities identified me as a target for a Dude Wipes e-coupon or other marketing messages . (Which I find quite encouraging but it does make me wonder what my wife has been Googling lately.)

Bottom-line (pun intended) is that Dude Wipes are probably a good idea and a product whose time has come, at least for some people. My wife has younger women friends who tell her that they don’t even use the same bathroom as their husbands. So I’m guessing that when it comes time to do the laundry their husband’s underwear are untouchables. If a dude wants the wife to wash those tighty-whities, I guess he better keep them as white as possible. And if an old dude’s wife ask him if he might want to give Dude Wipes a try, maybe she’s trying to tell him something.

Remembering Cosby

I remember listening to his comedy albums when I was a kid. I remember when he was a very cool secret agent in the mid 60’s television series “I Spy”. I remember that he was black, but white folks didn’t care. He was a hip, cool, funny, good-looking guy. I remember how different he was from Redd Foxx and Richard Pryor; both of whom were much funnier but , man oh man, they could get dirty. He was always above it. I remember his long-running show where a black family lived like an upper-class, professional white family and made it seem possible. I remember as he got older, he became a voice of reason speaking out against the “rap”/gang culture that was attracting so many young blacks. He preached responsibility and accountability to black parents, institutions and communities.

I remember “that” Bill Cosby and I don’t want to think about “the other “ Bill Cosby. That good and evil can work so well in the same person is a great mystery and the most frightening.

“Goodness is, so to speak, itself: badness is only spoiled goodness. And there must be something good first before it can be spoiled.” – C.S. Lewis