Texting Thanx? R U Kidn Me?

By Jacqueline Kolek, PepperDigital

Today's Wall Street Journal reports that young job seekers are running into trouble when they use text messaging, social networks and text speak during the job interview process.  In fact, according to KPMG, emoticons, those little hearts, smiley faces and other icons appear in one out of every 10 thank-you emails sent to hiring managers.  Many of the hiring managers interviewed in the piece found the use of "text speak" offensive and indicative of someone who would likely take shortcuts and be too casual in the workplace.  Admittedly, I am a bit of a traditionalist when it comes to this issue.  I had a hard time when people stopped sending formal thank you letters and started sending hand-written notes, then switched to email notes altogether.

As a new generation of digital natives start their careers, there will likely be a fallout over which forms of social media gain adoption and acceptance in the workplace.  And it's not just us traditionalists who have an issue with it.  I was recently speaking with a junior level contact at one our client's offices.  She told me that she was troubled over the fact that some of the senior people in the office had tried to friend her on Facebook.  Her concern was that her Facebook page was personal and designed for communicating with her friends.  She wouldn't exactly want a senior VP hearing about what she and her friends did over the weekend.  At the same time, she was worried about offending the VP if she declined to befriend her.

The challenge I see is that these digital natives want to have their cake and eat it too.  A young job seeker doesn't see anything wrong with using Facebook to send a thank you note after an interview. But at the same time, he doesn't want that hiring manager seeing the photos of him doing a keg stand last weekend.  The proliferation of social media has changed the dynamics of what's considered personal information.  As these lines continue to blur, those of us in the workplace will struggle to find the right mix between what's considered personal and professional.  My suggestion, always err on the side of being formal and you can never go wrong.

Comments

[Michael Blankenship]

Even more appalling is when interviewees talk in text. I interviewed a series of applicants last year for an entry-level position,and two of them repeatedly used "OMG" during the interviews. I presented them with hypothetical situations and asked them to offer their solutions. Both candidates' initial reactions were to reply with, "O-M-G, I think I would..." and then go on to explain their response to the situation. The interviews were essentially over for me at that point.

[Sam Ford]

First off, Jackie, I agree completely with your idea to err on the side of formality in most cases. No matter how friendly a professor is, the trick of college life is always to start with "professor" or "doctor," and then let the other person correct you, if they wish. In my case, especially since I had no Ph.D., I would insist people call me "Sam," rather than "Professor Ford."

Under few circumstances can I imagine text messages, Facebook friending, or any of these similar issues to be a good idea for a cold call job interview.

However, there are a couple of nuances here as well that doesn't make this as easily cut-and-dried:

1.) The way the world works. When it comes to professional jobs, especially outside of that first entry-level position, the way companies find and talk with candidates takes on a more casual tone. Considering many use social networks as a way to keep up with professional contacts and networking, the correct way to handle these situations can be confusing for employer and prospective employee alike.

2.) One person's informality... As you point out, Jackie, there's not a great generational difference between formal letter and e-mail thank you notes. Likewise, those immersed in online culture since being teenagers (or even before for the last few rounds of college graduates), have picked up certain turns of phrase in this new communication era that might not even feel informal to them. I think Michael's example would fall squarely into this category. I imagine the person who said "OMG" was probably like "WTF" when he/she didn't get the job.

3.) We Can't Conflate the Group. Any term like Millennials or "digital natives" is a segmentation we've constructed to understand some broad cultural assertions. It's a mistake to start applying that broad grouping to understanding an individual, though. What I mean is that there are varying degrees of concern about privacy and formality among young people, and those that don't want work relationships spilling over into their personal network are not likely the same people wanting to be "bff" with prospective employees. This aspect of the question is more about personal beliefs about communication patterns and privacy that transcends age categories.

4.) No Easy Way to Demonstrate Tone. There's no doubting that formal communication has become less so in our culture, especially because of the instant connectivity doing business allows us today. The article talks about how professional discourse is handled once you start in an industry profession. I'd say that frequent use of various emoticons is probably not going to be read well by clients and colleagues, but there's a problem that must be addressed as well: e-mail correspondence invites less formality, yet there's no easy way to demonstrate tone in written form. Since the use of sarcasm in our culture is quite high, especially self-deprecation, the smiley-face has crept into all sorts of formal communication as a way to ensure that humorous lines aren't read "straight." I've seen plenty of miscommunication along the way in professional settings when a line intended to break the ice or crack a joke came out on the other side as an insult.

[Alicia]

I can come at this from two different perspectives- first, being only two years out of college and a "digital native" (though that's the first time I've heard that term), and second, from my experience as Peppercom's internship coordinator and the hundreds of intern candidates I've interacted with. While I have received thank you emails from candidates with emoticons, too many exclamation points, and shortened words, I can't say that that always rules them out for me. It's certainly a turn-off, but if I thought the candidate was really strong, I'm still going to consider them. I'm typically only a couple of years older than the candidates I'm interviewing, so that may play a role in the level of informality they decide to take with me. However, when I get a well-written, formal thank you email, I definitely take them more seriously (bonus points for those who still send thank you cards through snail mail- which happens more often than you'd expect).

So basically, my advice is the same (to err on the side of formality). But as my generation gets older and we start becoming the interviewers rather than interviewees, I have a feeling that informality is going to become more common. I'm not saying that's a good thing- I just think it will be harder to keep fighting it.

[McKenna Lowry]

I personally don't understand anyone's difficulty with Facebook. There are a number of privacy settings allowing you to customize your profile for multiple audiences. The first time a colleague tried to add me as a friend I added them to my limited profile list. If they were insulted they didn't show it and why would they?

The purpose of the site is communication. I don't want to communicate how much fun I had on my last vacation to my boss and I can tell my friends myself. I'd rather demonstrate my professionalism and thought leadership by maximizing Facebook as a social networking tool. As a soon to be college graduate in a shaky economy it feels like too much of a risk to misrepresent myself on Facebook or a similar site.

Don't get me wrong. I'm also an avid fan of the Bumper Sticker application.

[Zach]

On the other side of the coin, I've interviewed with people who have sent me subsequent (business-related) emails that included emoticons and the like. Beyond being a bit shocked, I indeed found it to be a turn off. If you didn't clearly communicate a positive sentiment in a sentence and feel the need to add a ":)" at the end, you need to rewrite the sentence.

[Sam Ford]

Well, Zach, I'm not as sure as you regarding a smile in an e-mail. Oftentimes, it's not used as reinforcement but rather to mark a line as being sarcastic, self-deprecating, etc., since tone of voice can't be communicated online, and other possibilities (such as italics) either don't come through universally to all e-mail readers or have multiple connotations (italics as sarcasm vs. italics as stern emphasis).

I agree with what you're saying to a degree, though, about rewriting the sentence. The best way to make a word stick out boldly is not to boldface it but to write the sentence in a way that emphasizes the word. Irony, on the other hand, is tougher in plain text, because the spoken word masters tone in a way that written text just can't.

[Zach]

I hear you Sam, but the written word is becoming a lost art. Words, when stirred around and lined up appropriately, can communicate any emotion or tone. Imagine reading a classic novel riddled with :) :( :-O >.< ;-)

I would argue that the overuse of emoticons is dumbing down the digital generation - a generation that consumes more information on a daily basis than any two of its predecessors combined. It is also a generation that communicates with the written word more so than any other. Where we may have grown up speaking with our friends on the phone in our parents' kitchen, this generation uses IMs, SMS, emails, etc. They are literally teaching themselves a new language through repetition.

Repetition is the surest way to develop habits and these new habits are becoming commonplace on and offline. If I had a dollar for every time I heard my fiance's niece say "OMG","IDK" or "BRB"... Well, I would use that money to hire her a speech coach.

[Sam Ford]

On the one hand, I agree with you, Zach. I believe that we should hold up the best of the written word and realize that, even as the language changes (as any dynamic language should), there are still some tenets of great writing that remain universally true.

But I don't know that we can blame it on the poor emoticons. :'{ After all, as you point out, a lot of communication that was previously verbal is now being written out. Daily exchanges and conversations, whether they're online or offline, have never purported to be classic novels, so "good writing" and everyday communication are not the same modes of communication. It isn't as if the most promising of young writers today are infusing their portfolios with short stories written in shorthand.

But more importantly than that, I'd argue that those who can't write outside of no caps, abbreviations, and other shortcut methods wouldn't have been novelists in a previous generation, either.

[Zach]

I wholeheartedly agree that language should and does evolve over time. I also agree that emoticons are not to blame - entirely. Emoticons are merely one of the many crutches used by a generation losing touch with the essence of structured and effective communication, both written and verbal.

I also agree that typical daily communication should not have to be formal. Using formal speech in some instances borders on being ridiculous. The problem, as I touched on above, is in our evolution. By nature, repetition (practice) is one of the core mechanisms through which we learn. Constant use of shorthand, emoticons, abbreviations and the like becomes ingrained in our minds. "Practice makes perfect" and this informal communication becomes commonplace. As illustrated by the Journal article that prompted this post, eventually people can no longer identify the appropriate time and place for informal web speak.

It would be hard to argue that neologism has not taken a turn for the worst of late. This trend is completely within our control but many simply don't care to control it. It is not cultural and it most certainly is not tied to quality of education in my opinion. Consider me an example. I spent five years in a private school that was little more than a playground for the children of movie producers and "Masters of the Universe". I then attended an audio engineering school and exclusively studied recording, production and the music business. Hardly Ivy League.

Fast forward nine years and I now make a living with the written word. Marketing, business development, copywriting, product development and even blogging; I have been quite successful in fact. How have I achieved success? I learn as much as I can as often as I can, I treat people with courtesy and respect, I help people whenever possible and I use common sense. I hardly succeed in everything I do but I never walk away from a failure until I have learned everything I possibly can from the situation.

Many of these concepts are lost on the TXT generation. Is it the fault of emoticons? Of course not. In my humble opinion however, they are most certainly a symptom of the disease.

[Sam Ford]

I'm always glad to hear stories of people who have built on their success by learning from failure. I think it's one of the secrets to success that people easily forget, in their effort to emphasize their strengths and hide their weaknesses. If you acknowledge a weakness as being unable to correct, there's no way to overcome it.

That's one of the problems, perhaps, with the frustration of people using informal language outside of its proper place, but the jury's still out on whether any of these problems are systemic of the current generation. It may manifest itself in different ways, especially as modes of communications change, but I'd assume that most of the problems you're articulating were said of previous generations, albeit in different ways. (Attire is too casual; no respect for tradition; language is too informal; shorter attention spans; etc.)

I completely agree with you regarding neologisms, primarily because these aren't a symptom; they're a problem. It's not that the people using them are any smarter or dumber for it, but rather it's become "in" to coin new words at the drop of a hat, rather than use the words our language already has. Part of the problem is that we've rewarded people by citing them with their new term, so that we've set the stage to encourage people to brand every semi-original idea (or even wholly unoriginal idea in some cases) with a new word to articulate it. And that just proliferates the world with more jargon, creating a tower of Babel like situation where no group can understand the other.