Generation Y and Virtual Trust: How Creating Cultural Communities Can Lead to Greatness Introduction
“Trust (n): reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., of a person or thing; confidence.”1 With recruitment freezes abounding and unemployment at its highest level for decades, many businesses are struggling to find the resources to steer through the storm of a recession. They are desperate to squeeze out maximum value from their people, but trust is so fragile between employer and employee that businesses must take care not to squeeze too hard. In the past, companies could hold together if they had a strong corporate culture based on trust, such as Hewlett Packard’s “HP Way”. Since then, globalisation has caused the world to accelerate to light speed and employees from multiple cultures and generations are globally spread. Consequently, it is difficult to imagine that a robust yet flexible corporate culture can be developed which can boldly lead an organisation to greatness. A solution can be found in the perceived source of many business problems: Generation Y and its relationship with a key product of globalisation: the virtual realm. While apparently cocky, demanding and generally the bane of an employer’s existence, this group are absolutely committed to squeezing maximum value from their lives. They do this by supporting and enhancing their physical world with the virtual, building relationships within and between multiple and overlapping communities around the world. A community in this context has been redefined online by Generation Y as an ongoing, meaningful conversation between people with a shared special interest or personal history. This continual sharing through dialogue forms the basis of trust between members, enabling emotional bonds to form quickly and deeply. While ‘trust’ is an essential aspect of a community culture, it means different things to different people: For Baby Boomers, who are generally trusting, trust includes the protection of a relationship with diplomacy, as trust can be broken by being too direct. To Generation X, trust is a difficult to come by commodity, and is hard-earned by a few close individuals. Generation Y’s understanding of trust is to give it out unconditionally, assuming positive intent from friends and strangers alike. They view diplomacy as a sign of opacity, while directness is highly valued. With this latter understanding of trust in mind, Generation Y engages in conversations, developing relationship-based, or fixed trust in communities such as social networking sites, and task-based or swift trust in communities such as Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs). The positive assumptions and directness of Generation Y’s ‘trust’ results in low transaction costs and increased innovation, and this generation’s focus on multiple
(1980). (Fig 1. as compared with within them. those from high context cultures are literally ‘highly contextual’ – their behaviours are influenced by those around them and will take action to harmonise with their environment. a safe constant in an uncertain and changing environment. Intercultural Communication: A Reader. 3 Hall. E. Conversely. G.)
Figure 1. they are often less verbally and emotionally expressive. Belmont. which in turn influences their behaviours in business. which can lead a business to greatness. resorting to unspoken cultural rules and non-verbal cues.networked communities. collectivist cultures are those where the needs of the group subvert those of the individual. Beverly Hills. This presentation will explore how Generation Y’s implicit understanding of conversations as the causal link between trust and value can be translated into an innovative communities-based culture. Thus to avoid any discord with others. CA: Sage. 9th ed.
There are numerous cultural frameworks and theories. Context and meaning. serves to transcend and utilise differences of race and age to produce fast and creative results. with individuals comfortable with openly expressing their emotions. their models complement each other well. while those at the other end of the scale. Geert Hofstede (1980)2 and Edward Hall’s (2000)3respective frameworks will be used.). ‘Context’ refers to how people relate to their environment and to what extent they assume the required information to exist in the world. but this discussion requires a specific analysis of how national culture forms the mindset of a country’s inhabitants.
Hofstede. (2000). individualistic cultures. Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. T. In L. preferring to imprint their individual ‘context’ onto every situation. rather than just one large group. but the most relevant here is his individualism-collectivism scale. E. Hofstede uses a set of polarised scales to analyse cultures. This often manifests as verbal and direct communication. Samovar & R. CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co. Porter (Eds. those from low context cultures place a lower priority on their environmental context.
. are those where the needs of the individual are given priority over those of the group. as not only are they specifically designed for the subject of this discussion.
Hall’s model compares high context and low context societies. According to Hofstede. For example. 34-43). A. (pp.
The two frameworks complement each other. such as saying they will have to think about it. A cross-cultural analysis of websites from high-context cultures and low-context cultures. even if it does not align with those of the group.
Collectivist/ High Context
Figure 2. There may of course be cultures which do not match this model in such a clear cut manner (such as some individualist culture engaging in high context behaviour. Generation X and Generation Y (Fig. In businesses today exist three generations: (to use Western terms) Baby Boomers. or vice versa). as while Hofstede’s model explains the overall structure of a culture. E. a Japanese individual will not directly say ‘no’ to a request. rituals and behaviours as a result of experiences shared by the collective at key stages of its development. meaning they will put personal differences aside in order to complete a task as efficiently as possible. On the other hand. 2).
Würtz. people in the US are deemed to be highly individualistic and low context such that they are more likely to strive to stand out from the crowd and will openly express their personal needs. and will generally prefer to blend in with the crowd. This focus on harmony also indicates that Japanese individuals will prioritise building and managing relationships within the team. as an American might. those from Japan are considered collectivist and high context.
Individualist/ Low Context
Wurtz (2005)4 argues that cultures which are individualist often express low context behaviours. For example.3).
Within each culture exists numerous generations. For example. while those which are group-focused are usually highcontext in manner. but for the purposes of this exercise. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. Americans will also generally perceive rules and tasks to be more important than relationships. resorting to non-verbal or indirect communication so as to not ‘rock the boat’. (2005). following which they will often seek personal recognition.
. groups of people within the same age bracket which develop a set of values. 11(1). norms. but will communicate in a less direct way. Wurtz’s interpretation will be followed. article 13. Hall’s model provides more detail as to how people within that culture interact in order to maintain its structure (Fig. sometimes resulting in projects taking longer to complete.
such as PricewaterhouseCoopers10
http://en. rather than being direct. NGeners6. Their numbers plus their connection to the internet has also taught them the value of collaboration. Millennials5. Generation X experienced wars and recessions. Their competitive and team-focused nature causes many Boomers to build large and formal communities. Finally. often meaning only a few individuals (not institutions) who work very hard can gain their trust – and these friends form a relatively high context tight-knit community.com/ 9 http://www. Generation Me7. and their tendency to build multiple communities leads them to see the Generation X ‘closed’ trust community as limiting. Generation Y. which they perceive to be dishonest. easily trusting both institutions and individuals. We8 and C9. causing them to be disillusioned and openly cynical (low context). competitive and have faith in the power of team work (in pursuing a task – low context). For example. meaning they will form multiple communities online and offline.net/modules. However. influencing its character traits.generationme. arguably making them higher context than younger generations. such as present multi-national organisations. which are in turn expressions of national culture.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&s id=8109
. consultancies.gen-we.org/wiki/Generation_Y http://grownupdigital.org/ 8 http://www.
The First Global Generation
That national culture so influences the mindset and behaviours of each generation seems to contradict popular opinion about the social group key to this presentation.
Various historical events occurred during the formative years of each generation.publictechnology.wikipedia. Witnessing such social disturbance has created a generation which is naturally wary of others.Revolutions
Figure 3. Generation Y has been brought up by attention-showering Boomer parents during a long economic boom and so are confident. Also known as Echo Boom. the social reforms in the 1960s and 1970s plus their vast numbers caused Boomers to be optimistic. their direct and vocal nature contrasts with the Boomer diplomacy. relying only on themselves (individualist).com/ 7 http://www. vocal (low context) and self-focused (individualist). while seeking personal status to differentiate themselves from the crowd (individualist). and building trust through diplomacy.
http://www. the puzzling commonality between all Generation Y individuals that so interests researchers remains their of use of the internet.com/extweb/onlineforms. through spending their formative years connecting with their global peers online. whose social systems inhibit the ‘disrespectful’ questioning of one’s elders. pdf
.com/dtt/cda/doc/content/us_consulting_millennialfactsheet_080606. Davies & Ikeno (2002) report that Japanese parents complain of their children’s individualism and their more vocal rebellion against traditional Japanese adult social order. they are likely to be more individualist and low context than their Japanese counterparts. Japanese Generation Y is indeed likely to be more individualistic and perhaps more low context than their parents’ generation. such as education and family. it is more likely that Generation Y’s ‘global’ traits are merely an extension of its national culture.pwc.
Figure 4.0. plus the attention lavished on children owing to the declining birth rate.and Deloitte11 argue that.
Despite the influence of national culture on a generation.nsf/docid_response/148BEDD957CCA9DC8525 751200749DDF?OpenDocument& 11 http://www. In particular. developing a number of shared characteristics which have combined to create a ‘global’ culture. Generation Y is the first global generation. An American Generation Y is also self-focused because of the internet and attention from helicopter parents. in The Japanese Mind. since a generation is a subset of a national identity. coming from an individualist national culture where established social systems. As previously discussed. and it is far more normal for such youths to be friends with peers from multiple countries than it was for the generations before them. the first global generation seems partial to Web 2. However. For example.
Davies & Ikeno (2002) argue that the influence of Western products such as the internet. including social networking sites and Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs) to successfully converse with and build relationships with global peers. They use social media. encourage independent thought.
in the West. Generation X and Baby Boomers use LinkedIn. that it is the structure and system of social media itself that enables these conversations to take place. Different generations are also using sites which cater to their cultural values.
. then. which is designed around collectivist high-context Japanese values and which allows users to create avatars.6).It can be argued.
Figure 6. which indicates the incredible flexibility of this communications technology. Only with their connection from the ‘real’ world severed can Japanese Generation Y voice an individual opinion. to connect with colleagues and those in a similar or complementary field (Fig. or a fictional profile. and the Boomer desire for teamwork and the gaining of professional status.
Figure 5. For example. studies have shown that people use social media in ways which reflect their norms and values. On the other hand. young people in high context Korea using sites such as Cyworld were reported to use social media more intensively to strengthen relationships with a small group of close friends only. Cho (2008) compares the US and Korea (Fig. Hall (2008) posits that Japanese youth prefer to remain anonymous and so choose to use Mixi. This appeals to the Generation X mindset of selfcommand. a professional networking site.5).
Additionally. For example. where low context Americans were seen to use sites like Facebook to keep in touch with both close friends and acquaintances: it is quite normal for a US Generation Y to have 300 ‘friends’.
Finally. Individuals can build trust-based relationships by controlling their privacy levels and choosing who to accept into or block from their friendship group. By engaging in conversations with others online. such as arranging parties and other social gatherings. Many use Facebook to manage their offline relationships. Generation Y successfully utilises the content-creation aspect of Web 2. When connecting with crosscultural and cross-generational peers on the same social network. such as Spain and Japan. online text-based communication with close friends allows the emotional distance for individuals to be honest with each other and/or to develop textbased in-jokes which serve to strengthen offline relationships. chat. Thus social networking sites such as Facebook. such as updating their close friends and acquaintances with their latest actions. Additionally.) is primarily an English language networking site.
Pew Research reports that over half of social media users are on more than one social networking site. where it is working with volunteers to translate the site into the respective languages. rather than being exclusive to one culture. users tend to adopt a temporary ‘shared’ culture based on the norms of the site. enable Generation Y to engage in multiple yet meaningful online and
http://en. Here people can hold many types of conversations. They can also join specialist interest communities. Facebook has also recently launched in non-English speaking countries. Facebook (Fig 7. play games.org/wiki/Facebook
.wikipedia. thus enabling more diverse cultures and generations to connect (on Facebook). and share photographs with friends. Facebook facilitates the use of multiple sites by enabling users to link their profile to other social networking sites. This will provide even more opportunity for culturallyspecific content to be demanded and created by new users. such as Twitter (popular with Generation X and Boomers) and Orkut (popular in Brazil and India).While the above examples demonstrate how social media can be adopted by various cultures and generations. they also show how each uses a separate networking site according to their cultural values.
Figure 7.0 to create a trust-based community. accessible from a computer or a mobile phone12.
pdf http://www. Visioning: creates a compelling vision for others to follow.
Figure 8. for example. allowing groups to be formed rapidly and implemented effectively. IBM’s 200813 study of online games revealed their success to be linked to the Sloan Leadership model.com/downloads/GIO_PDF_web. Inventing: works with others to invent new ways of tackling the project. Sense-making: learning about the group and stakeholders’ interests in order to develop an understanding of the situation and the group dynamic. Generation Y also uses MMORPGs to hold dialogues and build trust with people from different cultures: World of Warcraft. Nevertheless. 2001). the initial action as a leader is one’s ‘change signature’ – the transparent and authentic communication of one’s core values and beliefs as a leader.. Leadership is a dynamic concept. 1.com/Papers/1078/Sloan_Leadership_Model
. This means current leaders are required to be rapid yet effective in their decisionmaking (sense-making) and social skills (relating and visioning). building trust-based relationships with global peers and other generations.seriosity. in
http://www. 2. leaders are chosen by project.5 million players from over 30 different countries. the essence of the Sloan Leadership Model is to engage in continual and meaningful conversations in order to build a trust-based community. so that the team works as a cohesive whole towards a common goal 4.
Focusing on completing tasks and building up one’s identity and skill set in a virtual world.
According to the Sloan Leadership model (Anacona et al. MMORPGs are designed so that one’s strengths and weaknesses are clear to all users. encourages risk-taking Aligning with Generation Y’s primary use of social media. involves over 11. allowing a variety of users with different skills and abilities the opportunity to lead. The leader then applies four capabilities to lead the team to greatness14. learning about and utilising their strengths 3. which are designed to manage relationships and span the bridge between online and offline communities. through which one gains respect from the team. Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games are distinct in structure from social networking sites. Relating: building collaborative network with others. Additionally.offline conversations.wepapers.
which can cause misunderstandings and raise transaction costs in the real world. A.9)
Figure 9. employees may join an organisation to satisfy a sense of belonging (social). but lack a sense of cohesion and feeling of belonging among employees. Consequently players take risks (inventing). Global Generation Y can thus play each other and other generations. as this is the key to both individual and team success. while other organisations focus on indoctrinating their workers into a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach. 370-396
. social. which can stifle creativity and individualism.
Maslow. which invariably shift. esteem and finally self-actualisation (see Fig. beginning with physiological. Many corporate environments foster the culture of individual. 50. as cultural norms and values. the fluidity of leadership means that it matters far less than in the real world. Indeed. ‘A Theory of Human Motivation’. often resulting in fast and innovative results. The conversation between players in online games becomes one of trusting and respecting each other based on skill set and experiences. social networking sites and MMORPGs align with Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (1943)15. Psychological Review. For example.
The user-focus of social media frameworks not only facilitates their assimilation into the values of national culture (thus enabling users to build multicultural and cross-generational relationships without having to sacrifice their cultural identity). A challenge for many corporate cultures is being able to adapt to these shifting needs. where a failure can become a permanent black mark on one’s record. in which he explains that different biological needs grow out of each other.
Online communities enable individual members to choose and manage their identities within the constructs of the community. fulfilling both social and esteem needs. then safety. (1943). while failure pains many a player. are subverted to an extent by the norms and rules of the online game. but will soon desire to gain a sense of esteem or identity within the firm. but accommodates fundamental human needs.the virtual world.
a corporate culture is often designed around two key objectives: soft and hard. Soft objectives include loyalty. MMORPGs are based on swift trust. is the Obama presidential campaign. Jim Collins in Good to Great (2001) uses the hedgehog and fox analogy to argue the causal link between an effective corporate culture. innovation and reduced costs. 10). it is essential to gain a deeper understanding into how and why social media works for Generation Y. R. (1996) Trust in Organisations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. & Tyler. & Kramer. along with written and unwritten rules. T. D. and then employed swift trust by galvanising people to gather
Meyerson. An example of a successful dynamic social media system. Obama used social media to build fixed trust relationships. Social media specifically fosters two types of trust. which is based on taking the time to build relationships. while hard objectives include increased productivity. 1996)16. ‘Swift Trust and Temporary Groups’. and organisational growth. in business the two must be combined into one dynamic system in order to add lasting value to an organisation. Culture and community is essential for the commercial success of a business. which requires time and emotional investment.. where players who do not know each other come together to complete a task.Trust
In order for organisations to design and implement an effective culture. R. At present. while task-based swift trust aids the effectiveness and efficiency of the company’s hard cultural objectives. Unlike fixed trust. in Kramer. As mentioned. essential to any organisation: fixed and swift trust (Meyerson et al. Sage Publications. Pp166-195
. according to their individual strengths.. While much social media fosters either fixed or swift trust between community members. This explains why networking sites and online games require different conversations to build trust. and where they are assigned to a particular team role. the key to the success of social media is that it enables users to build trust (Fig. swift trust is primarily about minimising time and maximising the effectiveness of the team. Weick. K. with its focus on relationships. combining fixed and swift trust and soft-hard objectives.. motivation and morale.
Social networking sites build fixed trust. in which employees work passionately towards a common goal. helps improve a company’s soft cultural objectives. Fixed trust.
.together and vote.
Soft-fixed and hard-swift trusts can be implemented together around an organisation’s strategic goals. Hard-swift trust enables an organisation to achieve its strategic goals more quickly but. Despite the overwhelming odds. in order for hard-swift trust to be effective. is an overarching soft-fixed community revolving around a set of strategic goals. and within which exist multiple and overlapping mini communities. as seen in figure 12. as Obama’s Presidential campaign demonstrated. which Naked Generations (2009) refers to as a ‘switched on’ global culture.
Switched on Global Culture
Figure 11. a soft-fixed trust environment needs to be established. taking various networked forms via social media technology. each of which contain a set of goals which align with the overarching corporate strategy:
Japanese-speaking Gardening Leadership
Figure 12. Obama’s effective management of trust via social media won him the 2008 US Presidential Election. One possible structure.
Figure 11 provides a very simple illustration of the two different types of trust and how they combine into a working system.
for which they can.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/features/article463877. without it threatening the in-group dynamic. and so will facilitate the rapid formation of effective hard-swift multi-cultural. There would even be communities available for those interested in specialist subjects such as gardening. which includes their real name and details. These groups connect people on a personal. For example. Users can use their personal profile in social communities and their professional profile in professional communities. users can have a professional page. if they choose. thus building relationships between groups. either directly to each other or anonymously in a forum. creating friendships through dialogue and so building soft-fixed trust. The multiple. low context Japanese group members can connect with non-Japanese individuals. create an avatar in order to remain anonymous. This reinforces the Sloan Leadership model that loyalty and productivity stems from a cohesive team (or community). Dr Tehrani’s research (2004) found that the primary reason for employees staying in or leaving their jobs is their colleagues and superiors17. appeasing their need for belonging. To appease both high/low context and individualist/collectivist cultures. a group can connect Japanese-speakers both inside and outside Japan. the results of which users can choose to post on their profiles (again. This structure will remind people that they are part of a larger whole. those working in or seeking to learn about marketing or leadership can establish an ongoing dialogue with marketing and leadership peers. These can manifest as small projects or games testing a particular skill played within and between communities. demonstrating their skill set. it is important to have groups which directly relate to one’s work to encourage professional. Additionally.co. The safe confines of the soft-fixed community and mini communities are where people’s skills and interests become known and trusted. helping fulfil needs of esteem and self-actualisation. Created and managed by employees.ece
. aligned emotionally and professionally by the integral values of the leader’s change signature. depending on the context level of each culture. Here. plus a separate section for those wishing to learn the language or culture if they are travelling there for work. and an optional personal profile. as well as personal development. as well as professional level. This transparency of information echoes that of MMORPGs. overlapping mini–communities are where employees carve out their individual identities within the organisation. Other interest communities can include those for Baby Boomers (or for Generation X or Y) from all countries wishing to share ideas.timesonline. their context level will determine this). communicated to the team in ongoing and meaningful conversations. multi-generational
http://www. and used by all global employees. so laying the foundation for internal cross-cultural and cross-generational conversations to take place. group members from multiple cultures and generations can connect and learn from each other. while helping keep each other aligned with the strategic goals of the company. For example. art or anime. The communities also overlap. This division means collectivist. as people can join multiple groups and can share in one community what they have learned in another. laying the foundation for hard-swift-trust conversations to be had. the mini-communities would include special-interest groups.The overarching soft-fixed community would be a social media platform managed by appointed moderators.
The adverts themselves are designed by employees. This will strengthen the emotional bonds between employees. as part of a YouTube contest.cnn.org/wiki/App_Store 21 http://apple20. initiating conversations to build value from trust. This has been a successful strategy.google. enabling people to collaborate on projects19. In 2008 Pfizer released a (soft-fixed) social networking site. Starbucks23 established a conversation with its community of customers online in a soft-fixed community. a soft-fixed and hard-swift) tool. a communication and collaboration (i.com/ 20 http://en. offline. or help others form their own global culture.computerworld.com/2009/04/23/how-the-app-store-got-to-1-billiondownloads/ 22 http://news.
It’s already happening
Companies are already taking actions to form.e. Finally. is soon to release Wave.21 One app designer was a nine-year-old boy in Malaysia.teams to complete a work project. offering them 70% of the revenue generated from applications they design20.000 apps come from across the globe. and over 180.com/2009/05/19/starbucks-social-media/
. so that they are not disadvantaged because of their cultural preferences. These real-life examples demonstrate that a global communities-based culture. Starbucks used the trust from this conversation to successfully engage with customers. based on Generation Y’s approach to social media can potentially be realised. with each team member being able to choose whether or not to be personally recognised. combining communication media such as multi-way email and Instant Messaging. an oft used touchstone company.fortune.22 pointing to the sustainability of community culture to connect with future generations in diverse cultures. The global community can also include an organisation’s customers.
http://blogs.blogs. with document and image sharing.uk/1/hi/technology/7874291.wikipedia.5million strong fan base on Facebook. by offering prizes for the first photograph posted of the company’s new marketing posters. Apple has created such a conversation with its customers.000 followers on Twitter). leaders can be assigned by project. Those who have chosen not to post their results on their public profiles will be able to retrieve them from the system. drawing out talent that would normally be missed or excluded. re-establishing the values of the culture and so creating a virtuous circle of increasing trust and value through continuing dialogue.com/pfizer_launches_rss_for_r_d_and_eyes_pfacebook_social _network 19 http://wave. allowing the opportunity for a variety of people to lead a project. As with online games.bbc. in which employees can converse and share ideas with each other and find the best solutions by creating impromptu (hard-swift) collaborations with employees in other countries18. (1. Additionally.co. Google. the success of the team’s completed project will communicated back to the overarching soft-fixed community. as Apple has seen over 35.stm 23 http://mashable.
the dialogue within and between these softfixed communities not only serves to break-down cross-cultural and crossgenerational barriers but combined with hard-swift tasks. Instead of berating Generation Y for not following existing structures.Conclusion
Generation Y may be a pain the backside of many an employer. perhaps we should celebrate these young people’s development of new systems which can potentially lead an organisation to long and lasting greatness. they are able to link trust to value through successfully managing their online and offline communities. Such a culture combines soft and hard cultural objectives with fixed and swift trust into one dynamic system in which employees can both feel a sense of belonging and identity. By engaging in multiple conversations using social media.
. utilises such differences to yield fast. Furthermore. yet innovative results. but their invaluable contribution to the future of business is clear. This demonstrates that Generation Y has provided an innovative way for multi-national corporations to build and manage a robust yet flexible global culture.
(2005). R.com: Pfizer Networking Site (2008): http://blogs. Weick. Millennials at Work: Perspectives from a new generation’ Würtz. International Conference of the Association of Internet Researchers. BusinessWeek: http://www. D. E. 11(1). S. in Kramer. (1943). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in WorkRelated Values. Panel proposal for Internet Research 9.).0 Report) Maslow. ‘Swift Trust and Temporary Groups’. Random House. August 2008. A. K. Beverly Hills.co. (1996) Trust in Organisations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. Sage Publications.com/globalbiz/content/aug2008/gb20080826_228835. Intercultural Communication: A Reader. Hofstede. Porter (Eds. J. Real Leaders: Online Games put the future of business leadership on display’ (A Global Innovation Outlook 2.Bibliography
Books Collins.uk/1/hi/technology/7874291. A cross-cultural analysis of websites from high-context cultures and low-context cultures.. Good to Great. Belmont. (1980). CA: Sage. pp85-120 Hall. October 2008: pp1-14 IBM & Seriosity (2007): ‘Virtual Worlds. Context and meaning. rethinking place. T. & Tyler. Samovar & R. 370-396 PricewaterhouseCoopers (2008): ‘Managing Tomorrow’s People.co.businessweek. K.computerworld. 50. ‘A Theory of Human Motivation’.. Psychological Review. (2001).. Meyerson.uk: Malaysian Boy’s Apple App Design (2009): http://news. & Kramer. In L. R. htm. CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.com/pfizer_launches_rss_for_r_d_and_eyes_pfaceboo k_social_network
. 34-43). (2000)..stm http://Computerworld.0: Rethinking community. Pp166-195 Articles Cho. [Viewed May 2009] http://BBC. G. ‘Japan’s Mixi Tops Facebook and MySpace’. A. article 13 Web Sources Hall. 9th ed.bbc. T. ‘A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Korean and American Social Networking Sites Exploring Cultural Differences in Goals and Self-Disclosure When Using SNSs’. E. (pp. E.
.wikipedia.com/ http://Mashable.com/dtt/cda/doc/content/us_consulting_millennialfactsheet_0 80606.php http://www.edu/newsroom/2008-orlikowski.co.TimesOnline.genwe.mit.wepapers.com: Millennials Report (2008): http://www.http://www.com/2009/04/23/how-the-app-store-got-to-1billion-downloads/ http://www.com: Starbucks Social Media (2009): http://mashable.mit.generationme.org: ‘Generation Me’ (2007): http://www.wikipedia.wikipedia.Wepapers.cnn.com/ http://Grownupdigital.com: ‘Generation We’: http://www.com Google.php?op=modload&name=News&file=a rticle&sid=8109 http://www.org: Facebook: http://en.com/browse/trust http://Fortune.org: Apple: http://en.com: ‘Trust’: http://dictionary.com ‘Net Generation’ (2008): http://grownupdigital.com: Sloan Leadership Model: http://www.Deloitte.com/Papers/1078/Sloan_Leadership_Model http://en.Wikipedia.uk: Dr Tehrani (2004): http://www.org/wiki/App_Store http://en.blogs.timesonline.com: ‘How the app store got to 1 billion downloads’ (2009): http://apple20.org: ‘Generation Y’: http://en.fortune.GenWe.Generationme.net: ‘Generation C’ (2008): http://www.pdf http://Dictionary.google.deloitte.co.Wikipedia.com/2009/05/19/starbucks-social-media/ http://MITsloan.edu: Four Capabilities Model (2008): http://mitsloan.net/modules.cnn.ece http://www.Public Technology.publictechnology.org/ http://www.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/features/article463877.reference.com: Google Wave (2009): http://wave.Wikipedia.