Information overload in the workplace

I found an article through the Texas A&M library databases called “Coping with information overload in email communication: Evaluation of a training intervention” that was written by Roman Soucek and Klaus Moser. I determined that it was scholarly for multiple reasons; the library database noted that it was an academic/scholarly article, and was peer reviewed. I also noted that there was a long list of references at the end of the article, and it has a primary author, Roman Soucek.

The article first introduced three different facets of information overload in the workplace: a large amount of incoming information, inefficient workflow, and deficient communication quality. It then addresses information overload, and introduces a training intervention meant to help people in the workplace cope with email overload. The training intervention is expected to improve media competencies, improve personal workflow, and enhance email literacy. Soucek and Moser conducted 16 different training sessions in six different companies. Their results show that the training caused an increase in knowledge and media competencies. Issues related to strain, media usage, and work impairment all declined.

Overall, the article conveys a successful rhetorical message. It discusses the idea that, with proper training and knowledge, information overload (especially email overload) can be combated in the workplace. Email can cause a stressful work environment only if one lets it.

Party lines to home phones to cell phones

Recently, my parents cancelled our home phone number. It was the end of an era; this is the number that I had recognized as my own for my entire life. Why did they cancel it? Because we no longer needed it. No one ever called it anymore, and we never used it to call others. We just used our cell phones. It was merely an extra payment.

In the 1950s, the party line was a common concept. Your phone was connected to all of your close neighbors’ telephones on one line. Imagine picking up your phone and hearing a conversation between your neighbor from across the street and your next door neighbor. Since they were talking, you could not place a call because they were using the line. Of course, if it was an emergency you could ask to use the line. This system had a very low level of instant gratification.

Technology advanced, and we had the home phone (on our own line, so we could use it whenever we pleased). It was, however, common courtesy to not call someone’s home phone after 8:30 or 9 P.M. You also had to share the phone with the rest of your family. Imagine trying to call your best friend to ask to hang out and your older sister is hanging on the line with her boyfriend. This is hardly instantly gratifying.

And then there were cell phones. People lost a lot of respect for the personal time and space of others. You can get calls on your cell phone 24 hours a day. Text messaging made this phenomenon even worse. This is all because people expect instant gratification. Why should they have to wait to get in contact with someone? With the advent of cellular devices, people came to expect to constantly be connected.

Over only 60 years, we’ve transformed from hardly expecting any kind of instant gratification to expecting it all the time. What could be next?

Netflix

Today I’m going to focus on the application of instant gratification to movies, television shows, and primarily, Netflix.

As a child I remember the sheer excitement of going to Blockbuster to pick out a movie. It was always so difficult to decide which movie to rent; Did I want a funny one or a scary one? A light-hearted one or a serious one? I could only choose one, and I just did not know which one to choose.

With the advent of companies like Netflix, people now had a huge assortment of movies and shows at their fingertips. Long gone were the days of having to rewind a VHS tape that someone had forgotten to rewind before returning to the store, and having to clean the fingerprints off DVDs. At the click of a button, one can watch essentially whatever they please whenever they please.

Although Netflix has a wonderful business model, I wonder…isn’t this mode of entertainment just fueling our need for instant gratification? Even the movies that aren’t available to be streamed are difficult to wait for. How dare they make us wait a whole TWO days?! And this doesn’t even begin to discuss the monster they are creating for younger children. Children don’t understand how to wait for their entertainment anymore because they have it right on the computer or streaming through the Xbox. Seeing a new movie has lost a lot of its excitement.

Instead of being able to choose only one movie, now children have hundreds upon thousands of movies and shows right at their fingertips. Do you think this will pose problems for them in terms of patience and appreciation in the long run?

Don't Text and Drive!

I found this public service announcement on a woman’s blog. The post was titled “for oprah” and had a brief description of Oprah’s “don’t text and drive” campaign. Oprah Winfrey declared April 30^th, 2010 “National No Phone Zone Day” in order to get people to stop using their phone while driving.

The major claim in the argument is that you’re four times more likely to have a road accident when you’re on a mobile phone. The warrant that supports this claim is that it is hard to concentrate on two things at one time. This is evidenced in the layout of the public service announcement. When reading, the eye tends to want to read each line in sequence. This is impossible, however, because every other line is part of a different sentence. The usage of different colors for each sentence has two separate purposes. One is to throw off the reader when trying to read line by line. The other is to allow the reader to differentiate between the two thoughts after discovering that they are not all one thought.

Overall, the argument is successful. It presents a statistical claim about the dangers of cell phone usage while driving, supports it with a reasonable warrant, and then evidences the warrant through the layout of the announcement.

Anonymity

The birth of the Internet caused many things. Among these, the formation of the idea of anonymity was quite prevalent. Today, people say whatever they want to whoever they choose. I have noticed that some people are quite forward when it comes to forming friendships and relationships over the Internet. This all goes back to the idea of instant gratification.

Before the Internet, forming a romantic relationship with a person was quite difficult for the guy. First, he had to personally know the girl. Next, he had to muster up the courage to ask the girl on a date. Finally, he had to actually carry through with the process and ask her. Today, a lot of guys will hide behind the wall of anonymity when it comes to dating. They may only have the bravery to talk to the girl on Facebook and hardly talk to her in person.

Nowadays, you might talk to a guy once, and then become friends on Facebook. I have received a few startlingly forward messages from guys I have maybe talked to maybe once or twice. The scary part of this phenomenon is that the messages aren’t warranted. Before the Internet, in order to appropriately contact someone, you needed to know them pretty well first. Now, one can go on their Facebook account and talk to any person that interests them…instantly. The same story goes for text messages. Without any personal contact, people feel that it is okay to be so forward.

Why did the wall of anonymity cause this phenomenon to occur? Our morals haven’t changed. Why have we changed the way we act?

Social Media Overload

In this post I will be rhetorically analyzing Danah Boyd’s blog and Sarah Zhang’s blog. Danah’s blog focuses on taking an email sabbatical whereas the Digital Natives blog talks about social media overload.

Danah uses both logos and pathos in her blog post regarding why and when she will be taking her email sabbatical. She appeals to logos by explaining the lengthy process of preparing for and carrying out the sabbatical. She also appeals to logos by expressing the exact purpose of leaving her email for a certain period of time. Danah appeals to pathos by conveying the importance of having a break from constant communication for her own psychological and emotional health. Her basic idea is that she needs a complete and total break from being connected…not just a partial one.

Sarah Zhang’s blog primarily uses the appeal of logos. It explains how we are just always connected, whether it is in the form of emails, Facebook messages, Twitter, etc. Sarah’s blog definitely focuses more on moderation than Danah’s blog. Danah plans to entirely cut herself off from the internet whereas Sarah talks more about ways to avoid being overly connected, such as owning a smart phone.

The rhetorical messages conveyed in both posts are successful: I understand completely why Danah wants a break and has planned this email sabbatical for herself. I also agree with Sarah about being too connected within social media.

When is too much? What can we do to alleviate the anxieties posed by being submerged in the digital age?