IN THE BEGINNING

There’s nothing new about fake news. After all it’s been part of subterfuge and deception ever since the serpent convinced Adam and Eve it was a good idea to eat that apple.   If they’d been a bit more thorough with their due diligence they would have spotted the trickery for what it was; that apple would still be hanging there, and we’d have been in a state of grace ever since. 

They did us all a favour though, for it is because we know the world is far from perfect that we’ve developed an innate degree of cynicism that protects us from the perils of blind faith.  It is healthy to question whatever we see before us, and we make judgement calls based on risk assessments which can be instinctive or carefully considered. It is only when we are off our guard that we are in danger of being duped, and this is what those who create fake news are counting on.  

THROUGHOUT HISTORY

History is rife with examples of false information leading to diversionary tactics that altered an outcome. Fake news when used by the media is nothing new either. Deliberately designed to mislead, propaganda has always been an effective tool to cause people to behave in a way that they otherwise wouldn’t.  Back in WW1 it would have been too damaging for morale if the true horrors of Passchendaele and Gallipoli were relayed back home – not to mention how useful that information might have been to the enemy – so the headlines were of ‘Victory’ instead of the unpalatable truth.  The British used some very inventive tactics for persuading the US to lead the Allies against the Nazis in WW2, and you’ll not have to dig far to discover numerous other examples where ‘news’ has been concocted, published, relayed, acted upon and later exposed as fake, by which time the intended results would already be history. 

MODERN DAY

Online fake news adds a relatively modern twist and has been termed “the scourge of democracy” due to the massive influence it can have on political campaigns, notably the US Presidential election and the Brexit referendum.  “Social Media fake news is inflaming the gullibility of the ill-informed” is another headline which should have us all worried about the long-term implications.

Motivation for spreading this sort of news takes various forms, and there may be no more sinister intention in its everyday usage than to either boost hopes, stoke fears or underline biases.  How it may affect you yourself could have a knock-on effect to others, and this is the whole point of fake news in the modern world.  The technology behind social media platforms enables information to change hands in an instant and feed on itself before anybody has spent any time bothering to separate fact from fiction. It doesn’t help that since everybody has reached a tech-savvy level of professionalism it is very easy to pass something off as real, and in wanting to prove that we’re involved, in the know and an active component of our social network we are inclined to hit ‘send’ before really thinking about the consequences.  It may or may not have had a harmful effect on us the sender, but we have no idea how it might affect everybody else.   

LOOK BEFORE YOU LEAP.   

‘Healthy’ and ‘cynicism’ are two words that so often go together, and for good reason.  A critical mindset doesn’t have to imply that you’re intent on being argumentative just for the sake of it.  Rather it means that your senses will be on permanent alert.  After a while this will become instinctive, and once you start to trust these refined instincts you’re in good shape.

TESTING FOR FAKE NEWS

Here are some real (maybe) examples of fake news:

• “The Pope endorses Trump as presidential candidate”.
• “Instant disqualification if caught speeding on the M25”
• “Left-handed people are more at risk of catching COVID-19
• “Elbow gland secretion responsible for spreading virus”
• “NHS to offer FREE BEER prescriptions to hard-up Brits”

Whenever a headline catches your eye as it flashes up on your news feed, here’s how to react:  

• Ask yourself how it makes you feel.  Pleasantly surprised?  Horrified?  Dubious? Vindicated?   If any of the above, those hopes/fears/biases that fake news aims to exploit are now aroused, and alarm bells should be primed to ring.  It may be that nothing is untoward but the fact that you’ve bothered to ponder this question is a great start.
• Keep it to yourself.  Before you even consider the point of passing information on to somebody else, ask yourself why you have received this news. Is it a random ad or an article, and is the source known to you?  Does it come from an activist group or a neutral source?.
• Double-check the information.  Ask around. You may be in good company, but bear in mind that just because something’s trending it could still be fake.  Is the same story running on different websites that you can trust? Has any reputable TV channel run the item?  Is it a scam about which you can find warnings via a search-engine?  
• Does it literally sound too good to be true?   If so, then it almost certainly can be dismissed as fake.   It could also be too bad to be true, and if you can keep your emotions in check while you separate fact from fiction you’ll be all the wiser for it.
• Learn to read the signs.  Unusual URLs, wrong spelling, inconsistent grammar, dodgy-looking account handle or username and exotic domain names are easy to spot if you’ve bothered to look.  They are not only a sign of something sinister which can disrupt the workings of your computer, but you could unwittingly pass them onto somebody else.   

The picture of daisies at the top of this blog was posted on Twitter in 2015 to show the frightening consequences of nuclear exposure following the Fukushima Daichi Nuclear Plant explosion back in 2011. 

Or does it?   Get into fact-checker mode; go through the process above and see for yourself if it’s really true.

Consequences of deception needn’t necessarily be harmful in the context of an April Fool or a conjuring trick, but in other instances there can be longer-reaching effects, intended or otherwise.  Fake news at home or in the workplace can have a negative effect on trust and morale so we’d be wise to expect it, know how to identify it and be very careful what we do with it.  

Employers are very vocal about the qualities they’d like to find in job applicants. Let’s give them what they want.

Mark Twain is quoted as saying: “I’ve never let my school interfere with my education”.  Michelle Obama brings us right up to date with a quote from her own podcast: ‘I had a limited vision of what I could be because schools don’t show you the world, they just show you a bunch of careers”

You don’t have to look far to find more quotes along these lines, with known voices from the world of Education and Business in agreement that something should be done about the gap between what young people know and what employers would like them to know; what constitutes correct preparation for the world of work and what should be done to instil a degree of common sense and cultural capital that will enable them to make the best of themselves once they’ve left the confines of the classroom.    

Let’s look at the positives, for wherever a student is heading after leaving school the gaps referred to are easily filled with a few hours of focussed application.    

If only there was such a thing as an A* in being Work Savvy. 

The press and social media are warming to their task in alerting the world to the fact that our students are failing to learn a whole host of things that would genuinely be useful in later life. The gap between academia and the world of work has grown to the point where we must have somebody to whom we can point the finger of blame.

Blame is commonly placed on a traditional teaching curriculum whose focus is on passing exams, and not on passing-out with qualifications equipped for survival in the real world. The point is also made that it’s not a school’s job to teach students all those things that should be taught at home. Hence blame is also directed towards parents who in theory should have the time and the incentive to impart wisdom and common sense at any available opportunity, to do with any subject that is deemed relevant.

It’s unreasonable to blame either.  Schools are all too often judged on where their students’ academic qualifications stand relative to a closely-monitored performance benchmark, and they’re on a hiding to nothing if they fail to allocate precious resources to do just that.  If there’s any time or money left to promote extra-curricular matters they almost certainly do what they can.   As for the parents, even the most dedicated might realise that all too often children are more inclined to listen to/absorb information from anybody else but their own. The maxim that “You teach my child to drive and I’ll teach yours” might chime with both parents and would-be drivers alike. 

MIND THE GAP

Let’s put the blame somewhere though. There has always been a gap between what is taught and what’s needed, but this gap has widened in recent years.   Sociological, environmental and technological influences are all forces that have altered the dynamics by which employers hire their staff, and perhaps it’s not fair that they hold all the cards since they can have their workforce ‘on trial’ as interns/trainees while they make up their minds whether to take them on full-time.  They can take their pick from screened applicants, and those who still fall short of exacting standards to do with hard/soft skills will find themselves back in the mix. 

However, there’s little point in blaming the employers because nobody is press-ganged into working for them, and they make no secret of the qualities they’re looking to find in applicants.  The methods used to do so might make the whole process of job application a thoroughly dispiriting experience but that’s a topic for another day. 

So, if we don’t yet have the right answers we should set about altering the questions. 

There’s no need to alter the benchmark by which schools are judged if we keep the exams but make them different. They could focus on topics that are far more relevant and pose questions to equip students with the ability to understand how their daily lives will be influenced by the modern dynamics of change. The basic principles of subjects to do with personal finance, daily politics, accountancy and economics are all too often peripheral but should become mainstream.  Alongside workplace protocols there are also various miscellaneous topics that should be incorporated to shore up social and cultural capital.

You could argue that this has never been more important than right now, since COVID-19 has created some radical adjustments to the way that we work.  Worries about how to cope in the workplace have too many people on the back foot, but a little knowledge at the right moment provides the confidence to succeed in interview, hit the ground running and not merely survive but thrive.

Such a thing as a ‘Work Savvy’ qualification would get somebody off to a fine start in life beyond school. After all, the real world is still ‘school’ but with (perhaps) better food, fewer rules and shorter holidays. The chances are you’ll still be wearing some kind of ‘uniform’, and there’s still a ‘curriculum’ but it’s now referred to something called a learning-curve. But at least you might get paid while you’re gaining all that experience. 

Current restrictions in the way that we communicate due to COVID-19 has forced us to forego face-to-face meetings and make the most of virtual reality. Unlike in the past, in settling for something that isn’t real we have no choice in the matter but it wasn’t always thus. 

Ever tried instant mashed potato?

Back in the 60’s/’70’s the world was introduced to ‘Smash’, which consisted of a dry white powder added to boiling water. The experience of being mocked on TV commercials by Martians for the laborious way that we Earthlings peeled, boiled and then smashed our potatoes into little bits was enough for many people to switch from the real thing to a synthetic alternative. The fact that the contents were listed as 98% potato is missing the point. Add the other 2% and you’re still not even close but enough consumers were hooked. Certainly in the eyes of the ad industry there’s no denying the success of the TV commercials which were subsequently voted ‘best of the century’ by Campaign Magazine.

Smash still exists, competing for shelf-space alongside various other brands, so clearly the market is prepared to settle for something that doesn’t even claim to be the real thing. If it’s less bother, saves time, reduces washing-up and there’s even a cost advantage what’s not to like? Does it matter if it’s not real?  Is it in fact the new real? 

The technology behind collaborative platforms such as Zoom, Teams and Skype has come of age and proved successful in addressing many of the same problems put across by ‘Smash’ in terms of cost and time-saving efficiencies. However, virtual reality is nothing like as close as the term suggest. It’s simply the best that’s available, and it’s important not to lose sight of what we valued pre-COVID.   

In the context of successful job interviewing the pronouncement: “Ok, I think it’s a good idea for us to meet” used to be a sure sign that you’d successfully passed the preliminary rounds and could have a real crack at nailing the role – or indeed finding out if you really wanted it. Spend 20 minutes on a phone call with a friend and sign off with “let’s have a quick drink later” will launch you into a different realm where everything just said will take a back seat to all that’s about to be discussed. You don’t need to ask “why?” because you know it’s just going to be about ‘stuff’. Don’t you miss all that?

For the sake of argument, even if we assume that everybody on a webinar has the same tech specifications, same signal strength and everything is working perfectly the X-factor is still missing. Nuance can get lost in translation; body-language is indistinct or artificial; reaction lacks spontaneity, and much of value that doesn’t get said remains subliminal. In an interview situation, the manner in which the candidate interacts with the interviewer will be how the latter might envisage the former will behave with proper clients. This will be an adequate test for many roles but by no means all, and for a job that requires steady relationship-building, information-sharing and dynamic problem-solving there’s so much that’s still missing. So much is left to the imagination, there’s so much that must be taken on trust and to make a hiring decision at this stage requires a leap of faith. That leap represents the gap that yawns between today’s normality and pre-COVID reality. As it stands, we have to make do with the next best thing and therein lies the rub. So close can be so far, and it’s worth reminding ourselves what we’ve been missing. 

Imagine you’ve arranged to meet somewhere neutral, and this could be for an interview, client-meeting, sales-pitch or just for a spot of networking. The fact that you’ve both bothered to turn up requires effort from both sides. You may think you know somebody really well until you see them out and about. Have you ever seen them eat? What are they like in a social situation? How do they behave in a crowded room? Do they show any empathy for waiters or other customers on tables? What are they like outside the office environment? Do they use their height advantage to diminish your own presence and input?  Can I actually bear to be in the same room as this person on a daily basis? Without saying what’s right and what’s wrong the point is you miss out on so much that we used to take for granted. 

In reality (there’s that word again) there’s nothing ‘neutral’ about territory online if one of you has better technology, more privacy or a more ergonomic chair. Frequent pauses and moments of silence create negativity. There are real problems when processing non-verbal clues of communication. You can have 3 different screens scheduled for 3 different meetings and due to a tech problem nothing gets done despite best efforts. You find yourself crying out for a real live meeting when everything was easier. 

Right now, and until the restrictions are eased there’s nothing for it but to endure Smash despite all its limitations. 

Oh, and did I mention?  It tasted dreadful.  

I’ve written before about how important it is that we don’t let our phone skills lapse, because there’s nothing like a live conversation for establishing clarity of  information, degree of urgency, tone of mood and (ultimately) the building of relationships.

 A well-written email does of course play its part when it comes to detail but it’s still possible to lose much in translation.  You can’t rule out somebody misinterpreting the spirit in which it was written, and it’s no wonder that the brevity of a text has to be embroidered by a proliferation of emojis and excitable punctuation marks in order to leave nothing to chance.  How often does the re-reading of an email that is sitting in your ‘sent’ box send shivers down your spine?  Often I bet.  It happens; and when it does, how best to put an abrupt stop to any awkward follow-up messages?    

When cutting to the chase there is no more efficient way to lay fears to rest than by picking up the phone, so don’t let this be the last resort.  Often it should be the first, and here’s yet another example of why:   

Imagine a typical scam whereby the recipient opens an email from somebody he/she knows. There’s nothing suspect in the email address, the headline message is brief and beggars some sort of response, eg: “small favour request, please get back to me for detail” and on doing so the recipient is made to understand that the apparently genuine friend needs to send somebody a voucher but can’t because her credit card’s not working.  “Would you mind doing this for me, and of course I’ll pay you back in due course?”

Alarm bells will be ringing I am sure. You’ll all have seen this sort of thing.  You know you’d never fall for it, even if the request was from your best friend and not just because I’ve already told you it’s a scam.  But have a care for those that are so eager to help out that they go ahead and initiate the order process online. 

As luck would have it, in this case the happy ending was because the password wouldn’t work so our scammee decided to call his friend to explain why he was dithering.  Lo and behold, the scam was immediately laid bare for what it was.  A small victory then with a simple act of dialling a number, indicative of the fact that those who devise these schemes are relying on the fact that so few people use the telephone these days to make live calls.    

This is not an email to guard against scams but to re-emphasise the importance of picking up the phone and having a conversation, so take every opportunity you can to do this.

Employers place a premium on those who are prepared to pick up a phone for it implies initiative, confidence and energy.  These are all qualities that you’ll need to display in the workplace but before you get the chance to prove this in interview you have somehow got to convey this in a CV.   Properly written there are ways to do this, but invariably in the application process you are invited to phone a number for further detail…..

WHY WOULD YOU NOT? 

You have nothing to lose. If nobody answers you may even get the chance to leave a voicemail, and the world is split between those who are bad at this and those that have learned how to do this properly (believe me – it’s an art in itself). Often the recruiters are simply curious to see which applicants bother to seize the best chance they’ll ever get to jump the queue. The good news for anybody who is properly work savvy is that so many don’t. 

It’s not just good to talk. Sometimes it can make all the difference.

Virtual meetings such as the ones enabled by the technology behind Zoom, Teams and Skype have proved their worth during lockdown, and if this was a trial for the effectiveness of online collaboration tools they would have passed with flying colours. Cheap and easy to use we know that for conducting meetings, interviews, debates and pure entertainment they are a terrific substitute for the real thing. 

But let’s not forget what that real thing is.  

Even if the internet connection is robust, the sound quality impeccable, the screen perfectly-focused and contributors await their turn to speak with disciplined restraint there is a ‘connection’ missing that you only get from a live face-to-face encounter.  You miss out on nuance.  You miss the tell-tale signs from body-language.  It is harder to gauge the mood and discern genuine reaction to the way issues are being discussed. How do you know if you’re holding the room? Is that a wry smile, a genuine grin or a grimace through gritted teeth? Did you just miss a nod of affirmation or a raised eyebrow which in a live meeting could have been a conspiratorial wink to somebody across the table? 

In short – what were they all thinking?

Mona Lisa as portrayed by Leonardo da Vinci is apparently smiling about something but opinion is divided as to whether the mood is tinged with melancholy, regret, mirth or something else. The traditional interpretation is that her countenance is ‘enigmatic’ which tells us very little, and much as with a screen-grab from a Zoom meeting we’re never going to be any the wiser.  The only way we’d ever know for sure is to have asked the artist and the chances are he’d have wanted us to make up our own minds in any case.        

My point is this:  No matter how efficient the technology there’ll still be a premium placed on face-to-face meetings, and wherever practically possible this is how it should be no matter how the workplace is changing in terms of flexibility and trends for working from home.  It’s no different when it comes to recruitment, so at the same time as preparing for interviews over a phone line or an internet connection your ultimate test could be a live encounter, where presentation skills and body-language can remove all trace of ‘enigma’.   

So, unlike the girl in the portrait, you will have to think about your shoes too.