Can it get any worse? Probably not. Mainstream news outlets are often reporting on research about the workplace — about what works, what doesn’t work. This year twitter and social media research is in the limelight. Last year employee engagement was widely reported on. Plus, of course, the general garden variety research having something to do with behavior and productivity in the workplace.
The problem is that the articles are often misleading, or directly and/or indirectly suggest conclusions to readers that are simply unwarranted. Misleading material includes complete direct conclusions not supported by the study (ie. stating completely wrong things), restatement of myths that were never true but have become urban myths (there are several about learning and training), to the most benign practice of providing inadequate guidance to readers about the meaning of the researc. Here’s an example.
Facebook, Twitter Users More Productive At Work Article
In an article published by Reuters UK, entitled Facebook, YouTube at work make better employees: study, we “learn” of an Australian study twittering and using facebook can make you a better employee. The article continues on by stating that “people who use the Internet for personal reasons at work are about 9 percent more productive that those who do not.”
So, What’s Wrong?
There are several simple logical errors associated with what is a fairly simple article, and probably committed by the writer of the article, and his or her editor. We’d have to see the original study to determine if the researchers were also guilty.
First, believe it or not, Being more productive does not necessarily mean a person is a “better employee”. It would seem that productivity and better would mean the same thing, but they don’t. Ask any manager who’s dealt with a talented employee who’s also a pain in the behind about “better”.
Second, though is the issue of causation vs. correlation. Two things can tend to occur together (correlation), but not have any cause-effect relationship. In this case, let’s say we have a situation where increased use of twitter correlates with higher levels of productivity. Does the use of Twitter mean it causes or contributes to higher productivity. The answer is clearly and conclusively no. We cannot say that.
Without more data, or better research design, we don’t know. Not only that, there’s a plausible explanation that fits. It could very well be that the most productive people simply have more spare time to spend on twitter and social networking sites. Does Twitter use cause higher productivity? Does higher productivity result in higher Twitter use? No way to know.
The Sin:
Is there a sin here on the part of Reuters, the writer, the editor? One could argue that nowhere in the article does it explicitly say that Twitter (or Facebook) contributes to higher productivity. Why is it the writer who is responsible for ensuring the reading public understands and interprets the information correctly? Simply put, the reader has no way of tracking back on the information, and not only should the writer take care to minimize false interpretations, but if he or she is not able to do so, then an additional source or expert should be consulted to provide meaning, and limitations. Readers rely on media. Often the ball gets dropped.
So What? Smart People Being Stupid
So what? Is there any practical implication here? What if people get the wrong end of the stick?
If you don’t care about decision-makers making bad decisions that might affect hundreds, thousands or more, in the workplace, maybe it doesn’t matter. If you don’t care about huge dollars invested in things (the latest management, training, and workplace fads) based on faulty interpretations, maybe it doesn’t matter.
If you DO care about bad decisions, then clearly it does matter. Here’s an illustration.
@marciamarcia twittered about this research using the following text:
Facebook, Twitter at work make better employees (Reuters)… then why isn’t this news getting out? via @annemscott
Marcia is a well known trainer/educator type person who is both knowledgable and intelligent, and presumably @annemscot is also bright and knowledgable. But what repeated is WRONG. The word “makes” implies causation. We don’t, at least based on this article, know about causation. The article is misleading, and it is now resulting in others repeating something that is, in essence, incorrect, or at least, an unsupportable conclusion.
Marcia, of course, asks “Why isn’t this news getting out?” Well, the obvious answer is because it’s wrong! The article doesn’t say what she appears to think it says. Do we really want workplaces to act as if Twittering will increase productivity by 9% on average?
Conclusion:
The issue here is not so much whether twittering at work is a good thing or a bad thing. It’s about responsibility, and applying critical thinking. We need reporters, journalists, writers, editors and publishers to do proper due diligence to ensure they are reporting accurately, both in a factual sense, and an interpretive sense.
As readers, we need to be much more critical when talking about and passing on information coming from “research”, even if that research is reported by reputable organizatons (e.g. Reuters), or we risk creating expensive and costly investments in things that simply amount to workplace fads. Finally, we need to take into account that all of us require less information to confirm a belief we hold, or an agenda we believe in, than to disconfirm it.
Would Marcia have been so quick to post the article link and question if she felt that Twitter was a scourge? Maybe not.
(not yet proofed)
