I honestly don’t know. I guess it depends on if they have TVs in the office, and what service or means of getting signals they use. However, what it means to different people illustrates a good point about employers.
Before we go into that, a quick hi to anyone who stumbled across this site from the track back on Michelle Malkin’s site from yesterday’s post. I swear, had I known I could do that, it would have happened much sooner. I would have never posted about Mr. Potato Head.
ANYWAY, there are several reactions that seem to be the most prevalent:
- People who didn’t get a new TV or receiver and lost their signals
- People who DID get a new TV or receiver and still have TV
- People who had cable or satellite and didn’t have to worry in the first place
- People without TVs
Each of these groups can offer some insight into different employee and company types. Shall we investigate, hypothetical audience? Sure, why not!
The people who didn’t upgrade their TV or get a receiver can actually be divided into two smaller groups: Luddites and naysayers. The Luddites, who usually scorn any technology, do not want to move on. Things will work the same as they always have, and adding new things only makes stuff more complicated, they say. They are resistant to change, and do not like adapting, even if it’s the only way that they can keep getting TV. The naysayers, meanwhile, figured that this would never happen. The transition date will be pushed back forever, they say. And in this economy, the president will stall it more. While they might have various motivations for not wanting the change, they ignored foreshadowing and recommendations through the media, and were even granted extra time to adapt. A refusal to believe that change will happen is almost worse than ignoring it.
Many people do this with work. They do not bother to keep upgrading their skills. They assume that they will always be qualified, believe that they are invaluable to their firm, or use excuses about external factors that prevent them from having the time to learn new things. These people ultimately find themselves becoming outdated, though the speed at which this occurs can vary by industry. Similarly, industries can ignore portents of change, and refuse to adapt, or do so incorrectly (ahem, newspapers, ahem). By not keeping up with competitors’ actions and developments, (ahem, American auto industry, ahem), they fall behind to obsolescence and becoming footnotes in business school textbooks.
Then there are adapters who bought the new TVs or, well, adapters. These are the people who saw the signs and made changes. They still have their TV channels and can continue along swimmingly. And if they acted early and got the converter when the government could afford the refund, they did not have to pay anything to keep up.
People who read trades, go to seminars, self-teach new technology, and sieze opportunities for development can become more valuable to their companies, and also gain a wider array of skills that makes them more marketable to employers. Similarly, companies who innovate and learn from past mistakes (look at the new Windows 7 compared with Vista – Microsoft is making people happy again*). These companies, at least for a while, experience longevity.
The last two are pretty much the same – no change happens either way, because they were not susceptable or not affected by the transition. There is no way that this really can happen in any business, but they are groups that exist in the above extended metaphor.
Regardless of your grouping for TV reception preparedness, ask yourself which group you and (if applicable) your employer fall into. Because when the “digital transition” happens at work, you’ll want to be prepared.
* I don’t have a specific link for this, so you can trust me on it or go to Gizmodo and read what they’re saying over there.
