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
1
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trust
networked communities, rather than just one large group, serves to transcend
and utilise differences of race and age to produce fast and creative results.

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, which can lead a business to
greatness.

Cultures
There are numerous cultural frameworks and theories, but this discussion
requires a specific analysis of how national culture forms the mindset of a
country’s inhabitants, which in turn influences their behaviours in business.
Geert Hofstede (1980)2 and Edward Hall’s (2000)3respective frameworks will be
used, as not only are they specifically designed for the subject of this discussion,
their models complement each other well.

Hofstede uses a set of polarised scales to analyse cultures, but the most relevant
here is his individualism-collectivism scale. According to Hofstede, collectivist
cultures are those where the needs of the group subvert those of the individual,
while those at the other end of the scale, individualistic cultures, are those where
the needs of the individual are given priority over those of the group. (Fig 1.)

Collectivist Individualist High Context Low Context

Figure 1.

Hall’s model compares high context and low context societies. ‘Context’ refers to
how people relate to their environment and to what extent they assume the
required information to exist in the world, as compared with within them.

For example, 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. Thus to avoid any discord with others, they
are often less verbally and emotionally expressive, resorting to unspoken cultural
rules and non-verbal cues. Conversely, those from low context cultures place a
lower priority on their environmental context, preferring to imprint their
individual ‘context’ onto every situation, a safe constant in an uncertain and
changing environment. This often manifests as verbal and direct communication,
with individuals comfortable with openly expressing their emotions.

2
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related
Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
3
Hall, E. T. (2000). Context and meaning. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.),
Intercultural Communication: A Reader, 9th ed. (pp. 34-43). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Publishing Co.
The two frameworks complement each other, as while Hofstede’s model explains
the overall structure of a culture, Hall’s model provides more detail as to how
people within that culture interact in order to maintain its structure (Fig. 2).

Collectivist/ High Individualist/ Low

Context Context

Figure 2.

Wurtz (2005)4 argues that cultures which are individualist often express low
context behaviours, while those which are group-focused are usually high-
context in manner. 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, or vice versa), but for the purposes of this exercise,
Wurtz’s interpretation will be followed.

For example, 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, even if it does not align with those of
the group. Americans will also generally perceive rules and tasks to be more
important than relationships, meaning they will put personal differences aside in
order to complete a task as efficiently as possible, following which they will often
seek personal recognition.

On the other hand, those from Japan are considered collectivist and high context,
and will generally prefer to blend in with the crowd, resorting to non-verbal or
indirect communication so as to not ‘rock the boat’. For example, a Japanese
individual will not directly say ‘no’ to a request, as an American might, but will
communicate in a less direct way, such as saying they will have to think about it.
This focus on harmony also indicates that Japanese individuals will prioritise
building and managing relationships within the team, sometimes resulting in
projects taking longer to complete.

Generations
Within each culture exists numerous generations, groups of people within the
same age bracket which develop a set of values, norms, rituals and behaviours
as a result of experiences shared by the collective at key stages of its
development. In businesses today exist three generations: (to use Western
terms) Baby Boomers, Generation X and Generation Y (Fig.3).

4
Würtz, E. (2005). A cross-cultural analysis of websites from high-context cultures and
low-context cultures. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(1), article 13.
 Revolutions Conflicts Technologies
Figure 3.

Various historical events occurred during the formative years of each generation,
influencing its character traits, which are in turn expressions of national culture.
For example, the social reforms in the 1960s and 1970s plus their vast numbers
caused Boomers to be optimistic, competitive and have faith in the power of
team work (in pursuing a task – low context), while seeking personal status to
differentiate themselves from the crowd (individualist). Their competitive and
team-focused nature causes many Boomers to build large and formal
communities, such as present multi-national organisations, and building trust
through diplomacy, rather than being direct, arguably making them higher
context than younger generations.

Generation X experienced wars and recessions, causing them to be disillusioned

and openly cynical (low context), relying only on themselves (individualist).
Witnessing such social disturbance has created a generation which is naturally
wary of others; 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.

Finally, Generation Y has been brought up by attention-showering Boomer

parents during a long economic boom and so are confident, vocal (low context)
and self-focused (individualist). Their numbers plus their connection to the
internet has also taught them the value of collaboration, meaning they will form
multiple communities online and offline, easily trusting both institutions and
individuals. However, their direct and vocal nature contrasts with the Boomer
diplomacy, which they perceive to be dishonest, and their tendency to build
multiple communities leads them to see the Generation X ‘closed’ trust
community as limiting.

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, Generation Y. Also known as Echo Boom, Millennials5, NGeners6,
Generation Me7, We8 and C9, consultancies, such as PricewaterhouseCoopers10

5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Y
6
http://grownupdigital.com/
7
http://www.generationme.org/
8
http://www.gen-we.com/
9
http://www.publictechnology.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&s
id=8109
and Deloitte11 argue that, through spending their formative years connecting
with their global peers online, Generation Y is the first global generation,
developing a number of shared characteristics which have combined to create a
‘global’ culture. For example, in The Japanese Mind, Davies & Ikeno (2002) report
that Japanese parents complain of their children’s individualism and their more
vocal rebellion against traditional Japanese adult social order, 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.

As previously discussed, since a generation is a subset of a national identity, it is

more likely that Generation Y’s ‘global’ traits are merely an extension of its
national culture.

Figure 4.

Davies & Ikeno (2002) argue that the influence of Western products such as the
internet, plus the attention lavished on children owing to the declining birth rate,
Japanese Generation Y is indeed likely to be more individualistic and perhaps
more low context than their parents’ generation. An American Generation Y is
also self-focused because of the internet and attention from helicopter parents.
However, coming from an individualist national culture where established social
systems, such as education and family, encourage independent thought, they
are likely to be more individualist and low context than their Japanese
counterparts, whose social systems inhibit the ‘disrespectful’ questioning of
one’s elders.

Social Networking
Despite the influence of national culture on a generation, the puzzling
commonality between all Generation Y individuals that so interests researchers
remains their of use of the internet. In particular, the first global generation
seems partial to Web 2.0. They use social media, including social networking
sites and Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs) to
successfully converse with and build relationships with global peers.
10
http://www.pwc.com/extweb/onlineforms.nsf/docid_response/148BEDD957CCA9DC8525
751200749DDF?OpenDocument&
11
http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/cda/doc/content/us_consulting_millennialfactsheet_080606.
pdf
It can be argued, then, that it is the structure and system of social media itself
that enables these conversations to take place. For example, studies have shown
that people use social media in ways which reflect their norms and values, which
indicates the incredible flexibility of this communications technology.

Cho (2008) compares the US and Korea (Fig.5), 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’. 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.

Figure 5.

Additionally, Hall (2008) posits that Japanese youth prefer to remain anonymous
and so choose to use Mixi, which is designed around collectivist high-context
Japanese values and which allows users to create avatars, or a fictional profile.
Only with their connection from the ‘real’ world severed can Japanese Generation
Y voice an individual opinion.

Different generations are also using sites which cater to their cultural values. For
example, in the West, Generation X and Baby Boomers use LinkedIn, a
professional networking site, to connect with colleagues and those in a similar or
complementary field (Fig.6). This appeals to the Generation X mindset of self-
command, and the Boomer desire for teamwork and the gaining of professional
status.

Colleagues

Marketing

Figure 6.
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. When connecting with cross-
cultural and cross-generational peers on the same social network, users tend to
adopt a temporary ‘shared’ culture based on the norms of the site. By engaging
in conversations with others online, Generation Y successfully utilises the
content-creation aspect of Web 2.0 to create a trust-based community.

Facebook (Fig 7.) is primarily an English language networking site, accessible

from a computer or a mobile phone12. Here people can hold many types of
conversations, such as updating their close friends and acquaintances with their
latest actions. They can also join specialist interest communities, play games,
chat, and share photographs with friends. Individuals can build trust-based
relationships by controlling their privacy levels and choosing who to accept into
or block from their friendship group. Many use Facebook to manage their offline
relationships, such as arranging parties and other social gatherings. Additionally,
online text-based communication with close friends allows the emotional
distance for individuals to be honest with each other and/or to develop text-
based in-jokes which serve to strengthen offline relationships.

Colleagues

Marketing

Figure 7.

Pew Research reports that over half of social media users are on more than one
social networking site. Facebook facilitates the use of multiple sites by enabling
users to link their profile to other social networking sites, such as Twitter (popular
with Generation X and Boomers) and Orkut (popular in Brazil and India). Finally,
Facebook has also recently launched in non-English speaking countries, such as
Spain and Japan, where it is working with volunteers to translate the site into the
respective languages. This will provide even more opportunity for culturally-
specific content to be demanded and created by new users, thus enabling more
diverse cultures and generations to connect (on Facebook).

Thus social networking sites such as Facebook, rather than being exclusive to
one culture, enable Generation Y to engage in multiple yet meaningful online and

12
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook
offline conversations, building trust-based relationships with global peers and
other generations.

MMORPGs
Focusing on completing tasks and building up one’s identity and skill set in a
virtual world, Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games are distinct in
structure from social networking sites, which are designed to manage
relationships and span the bridge between online and offline communities.
Nevertheless, Generation Y also uses MMORPGs to hold dialogues and build trust
with people from different cultures: World of Warcraft, for example, involves over
11.5 million players from over 30 different countries. IBM’s 200813 study of online
games revealed their success to be linked to the Sloan Leadership model.

Figure 8.

According to the Sloan Leadership model (Anacona et al., 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, through which one
gains respect from the team. The leader then applies four capabilities to lead the
team to greatness14.

1. Sense-making: learning about the group and stakeholders’ interests in

order to develop an understanding of the situation and the group dynamic.
2. Relating: building collaborative network with others, learning about and
utilising their strengths
3. Visioning: creates a compelling vision for others to follow, so that the
team works as a cohesive whole towards a common goal
4. Inventing: works with others to invent new ways of tackling the project,
encourages risk-taking

Aligning with Generation Y’s primary use of social media, the essence of the
Sloan Leadership Model is to engage in continual and meaningful conversations
in order to build a trust-based community.

MMORPGs are designed so that one’s strengths and weaknesses are clear to all
users, allowing groups to be formed rapidly and implemented effectively.
Leadership is a dynamic concept; leaders are chosen by project, allowing a
variety of users with different skills and abilities the opportunity to lead. This
means current leaders are required to be rapid yet effective in their decision-
making (sense-making) and social skills (relating and visioning). Additionally, in
13
http://www.seriosity.com/downloads/GIO_PDF_web.pdf
14
http://www.wepapers.com/Papers/1078/Sloan_Leadership_Model
the virtual world, while failure pains many a player, the fluidity of leadership
means that it matters far less than in the real world, where a failure can become
a permanent black mark on one’s record. Consequently players take risks
(inventing), often resulting in fast and innovative results.

Global Generation Y can thus play each other and other generations, as cultural
norms and values, which can cause misunderstandings and raise transaction
costs in the real world, are subverted to an extent by the norms and rules of the
online game. The conversation between players in online games becomes one of
trusting and respecting each other based on skill set and experiences, as this is
the key to both individual and team success.

Maslow
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), but accommodates fundamental human needs, which invariably shift.
Indeed, social networking sites and MMORPGs align with Maslow’s Hierarchy of
Needs (1943)15, in which he explains that different biological needs grow out of
each other, beginning with physiological, then safety, social, esteem and finally
self-actualisation (see Fig.9)

Figure 9.

Online communities enable individual members to choose and manage their

identities within the constructs of the community, fulfilling both social and
esteem needs.

A challenge for many corporate cultures is being able to adapt to these shifting
needs. For example, employees may join an organisation to satisfy a sense of
belonging (social), but will soon desire to gain a sense of esteem or identity
within the firm. Many corporate environments foster the culture of individual, but
lack a sense of cohesion and feeling of belonging among employees, while other
organisations focus on indoctrinating their workers into a ‘one-size-fits-all’
approach, which can stifle creativity and individualism.

15
Maslow, A. (1943). ‘A Theory of Human Motivation’, Psychological Review, 50, 370-396
Trust
In order for organisations to design and implement an effective culture, it is
essential to gain a deeper understanding into how and why social media works
for Generation Y. As mentioned, the key to the success of social media is that it
enables users to build trust (Fig. 10). Social media specifically fosters two types
of trust, essential to any organisation: fixed and swift trust (Meyerson et al.,
1996)16.

Fixed Trust Swift Trust

Figure 10.

Social networking sites build fixed trust, which is based on taking the time to
build relationships, along with written and unwritten rules. MMORPGs are based
on swift trust, where players who do not know each other come together to
complete a task, and where they are assigned to a particular team role,
according to their individual strengths. Unlike fixed trust, which requires time and
emotional investment, swift trust is primarily about minimising time and
maximising the effectiveness of the team. This explains why networking sites
and online games require different conversations to build trust.

Culture and community is essential for the commercial success of a business. Jim
Collins in Good to Great (2001) uses the hedgehog and fox analogy to argue the
causal link between an effective corporate culture, in which employees work
passionately towards a common goal, and organisational growth. While much
social media fosters either fixed or swift trust between community members, in
business the two must be combined into one dynamic system in order to add
lasting value to an organisation.

At present, a corporate culture is often designed around two key objectives: soft
and hard. Soft objectives include loyalty, motivation and morale, while hard
objectives include increased productivity, innovation and reduced costs. Fixed
trust, with its focus on relationships, helps improve a company’s soft cultural
objectives, while task-based swift trust aids the effectiveness and efficiency of
the company’s hard cultural objectives. An example of a successful dynamic
social media system, combining fixed and swift trust and soft-hard objectives, is
the Obama presidential campaign. Obama used social media to build fixed trust
relationships, and then employed swift trust by galvanising people to gather
16
Meyerson, D., Weick, K. & Kramer, R., ‘Swift Trust and Temporary Groups’, in Kramer, R.
& Tyler, T. (1996) Trust in Organisations: Frontiers of Theory and Research, Sage
Publications, Pp166-195
together and vote. Despite the overwhelming odds, Obama’s effective
management of trust via social media won him the 2008 US Presidential Election.

A Model
Figure 11 provides a very simple illustration of the two different types of trust
and how they combine into a working system, which Naked Generations (2009)
refers to as a ‘switched on’ global culture.

Soft-Fixed trust
Switched on
Global Culture

+
Hard-Swift trust =

Figure 11.

Soft-fixed and hard-swift trusts can be implemented together around an

organisation’s strategic goals, taking various networked forms via social media
technology. Hard-swift trust enables an organisation to achieve its strategic goals
more quickly but, as Obama’s Presidential campaign demonstrated, in order for
hard-swift trust to be effective, a soft-fixed trust environment needs to be
established.

One possible structure, as seen in figure 12, is an overarching soft-fixed

community revolving around a set of strategic goals, and within which exist
multiple and overlapping mini communities, each of which contain a set of goals
which align with the overarching corporate strategy:

Japanese-speaking
Gardening
Leadership

Marketing
Boomers

Figure 12.
The overarching soft-fixed community would be a social media platform
managed by appointed moderators, and used by all global employees. This
structure will remind people that they are part of a larger whole, appeasing their
need for belonging. The multiple, overlapping mini–communities are where
employees carve out their individual identities within the organisation, helping
fulfil needs of esteem and self-actualisation. Created and managed by
employees, the mini-communities would include special-interest groups, so
laying the foundation for internal cross-cultural and cross-generational
conversations to take place.

For example, a group can connect Japanese-speakers both inside and outside
Japan, plus a separate section for those wishing to learn the language or culture
if they are travelling there for work. This division means collectivist, low context
Japanese group members can connect with non-Japanese individuals, without it
threatening the in-group dynamic. Other interest communities can include those
for Baby Boomers (or for Generation X or Y) from all countries wishing to share
ideas, either directly to each other or anonymously in a forum, depending on the
context level of each culture. There would even be communities available for
those interested in specialist subjects such as gardening, art or anime.

Additionally, it is important to have groups which directly relate to one’s work to

encourage professional, as well as personal development. For example, those
working in or seeking to learn about marketing or leadership can establish an
ongoing dialogue with marketing and leadership peers. Here, 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.

To appease both high/low context and individualist/collectivist cultures, users can

have a professional page, which includes their real name and details, and an
optional personal profile, for which they can, if they choose, create an avatar in
order to remain anonymous. Users can use their personal profile in social
communities and their professional profile in professional communities.

Dr Tehrani’s research (2004) found that the primary reason for employees
staying in or leaving their jobs is their colleagues and superiors17. This reinforces
the Sloan Leadership model that loyalty and productivity stems from a cohesive
team (or community), aligned emotionally and professionally by the integral
values of the leader’s change signature, communicated to the team in ongoing
and meaningful conversations. These groups connect people on a personal, as
well as professional level, creating friendships through dialogue and so building
soft-fixed trust. The communities also overlap, as people can join multiple groups
and can share in one community what they have learned in another, thus
building relationships between groups.

The safe confines of the soft-fixed community and mini communities are where
people’s skills and interests become known and trusted, laying the foundation for
hard-swift-trust conversations to be had. These can manifest as small projects or
games testing a particular skill played within and between communities, the
results of which users can choose to post on their profiles (again, their context
level will determine this), demonstrating their skill set.

This transparency of information echoes that of MMORPGs, and so will facilitate

the rapid formation of effective hard-swift multi-cultural, multi-generational
17
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/features/article463877.ece
teams to complete a work project, drawing out talent that would normally be
missed or excluded. As with online games, leaders can be assigned by project,
allowing the opportunity for a variety of people to lead a project. Those who have
chosen not to post their results on their public profiles will be able to retrieve
them from the system, so that they are not disadvantaged because of their
cultural preferences.

Finally, the success of the team’s completed project will communicated back to
the overarching soft-fixed community, with each team member being able to
choose whether or not to be personally recognised. This will strengthen the
emotional bonds between employees, re-establishing the values of the culture
and so creating a virtuous circle of increasing trust and value through continuing
dialogue.

It’s already happening

Companies are already taking actions to form, or help others form their own
global culture, initiating conversations to build value from trust. In 2008 Pfizer
released a (soft-fixed) social networking site, 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.

Google, an oft used touchstone company, is soon to release Wave, a

communication and collaboration (i.e. a soft-fixed and hard-swift) tool, combining
communication media such as multi-way email and Instant Messaging, with
document and image sharing, enabling people to collaborate on projects19.

The global community can also include an organisation’s customers. Apple has
created such a conversation with its customers, offering them 70% of the
revenue generated from applications they design20. This has been a successful
strategy, as Apple has seen over 35,000 apps come from across the globe.21 One
app designer was a nine-year-old boy in Malaysia,22 pointing to the sustainability
of community culture to connect with future generations in diverse cultures.

Additionally, Starbucks23 established a conversation with its community of

customers online in a soft-fixed community, (1.5million strong fan base on
Facebook, and over 180,000 followers on Twitter). Starbucks used the trust from
this conversation to successfully engage with customers, offline, by offering
prizes for the first photograph posted of the company’s new marketing posters.
The adverts themselves are designed by employees, as part of a YouTube
contest.

These real-life examples demonstrate that a global communities-based culture,

based on Generation Y’s approach to social media can potentially be realised.

18
http://blogs.computerworld.com/pfizer_launches_rss_for_r_d_and_eyes_pfacebook_social
_network
19
http://wave.google.com/
20
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App_Store
21
http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/04/23/how-the-app-store-got-to-1-billion-
downloads/
22
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7874291.stm
23
http://mashable.com/2009/05/19/starbucks-social-media/
Conclusion
Generation Y may be a pain the backside of many an employer, but their
invaluable contribution to the future of business is clear. By engaging in multiple
conversations using social media, they are able to link trust to value through
successfully managing their online and offline communities. This demonstrates
that Generation Y has provided an innovative way for multi-national corporations
to build and manage a robust yet flexible global culture.

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. Furthermore, the dialogue within and between these soft-
fixed communities not only serves to break-down cross-cultural and cross-
generational barriers but combined with hard-swift tasks, utilises such
differences to yield fast, yet innovative results.

Instead of berating Generation Y for not following existing structures, perhaps we

should celebrate these young people’s development of new systems which can
potentially lead an organisation to long and lasting greatness.
Bibliography
Books

Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great. Random House, pp85-120

Hall, E. T. (2000). Context and meaning. In L. A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.),

Intercultural Communication: A Reader, 9th ed. (pp. 34-43). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing Co.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-

Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Meyerson, D., Weick, K. & Kramer, R., ‘Swift Trust and Temporary Groups’, in
Kramer, R. & Tyler, T. (1996) Trust in Organisations: Frontiers of Theory and
Research, Sage Publications, Pp166-195

Articles

Cho, S., ‘A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Korean and American Social Networking

Sites Exploring Cultural Differences in Goals and Self-Disclosure When Using
SNSs’, Panel proposal for Internet Research 9.0: Rethinking community,
rethinking place, International Conference of the Association of Internet
Researchers, October 2008: pp1-14

IBM & Seriosity (2007): ‘Virtual Worlds, Real Leaders: Online Games put the
future of business leadership on display’ (A Global Innovation Outlook 2.0 Report)

Maslow, A. (1943). ‘A Theory of Human Motivation’, Psychological Review, 50,

370-396

PricewaterhouseCoopers (2008): ‘Managing Tomorrow’s People. Millennials at

Work: Perspectives from a new generation’

Würtz, E. (2005). A cross-cultural analysis of websites from high-context cultures

and low-context cultures. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(1),
article 13

Web Sources

Hall, K., ‘Japan’s Mixi Tops Facebook and MySpace’, BusinessWeek:

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/aug2008/gb20080826_228835.
htm, August 2008. [Viewed May 2009]

http://BBC.co.uk: Malaysian Boy’s Apple App Design (2009):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7874291.stm

http://Computerworld.com: Pfizer Networking Site (2008):

http://blogs.computerworld.com/pfizer_launches_rss_for_r_d_and_eyes_pfaceboo
k_social_network
http://www.Deloitte.com: Millennials Report (2008):
http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/cda/doc/content/us_consulting_millennialfactsheet_0
80606.pdf

http://Dictionary.com: ‘Trust’: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/trust

http://Fortune.cnn.com: ‘How the app store got to 1 billion downloads’ (2009):

http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/04/23/how-the-app-store-got-to-1-
billion-downloads/

http://www.Generationme.org: ‘Generation Me’ (2007):

http://www.generationme.org/

http://www.GenWe.com: ‘Generation We’: http://www.genwe.com

Google.com: Google Wave (2009): http://wave.google.com/

http://Grownupdigital.com ‘Net Generation’ (2008): http://grownupdigital.com/

http://Mashable.com: Starbucks Social Media (2009):

http://mashable.com/2009/05/19/starbucks-social-media/

http://MITsloan.mit.edu: Four Capabilities Model (2008):

http://mitsloan.mit.edu/newsroom/2008-orlikowski.php

http://www.Public Technology.net: ‘Generation C’ (2008):

http://www.publictechnology.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=a
rticle&sid=8109

http://www.TimesOnline.co.uk: Dr Tehrani (2004):

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/features/article463877.ece

http://www.Wepapers.com: Sloan Leadership Model:

http://www.wepapers.com/Papers/1078/Sloan_Leadership_Model

http://en.Wikipedia.org: Apple: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/App_Store

http://en.Wikipedia.org: Facebook: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook

http://en.Wikipedia.org: ‘Generation Y’: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Y