REPORT — Generation alpha: what’s changing?
Dive into the world of Generation Alpha, children born into a hyperconnected world where technology reigns supreme. Discover how this generation, eager for meaning and positive impact, is shaking up the codes of education and work. Between opportunities and challenges, how can schools and companies adapt to shape a more ethical and sustainable future? Deciphering a societal revolution underway, at the dawn of the quaternary economy.
Generation alpha and generation Z: what are the differences?
TLDR —Although close to Generation Z in some respects, Generation Alpha has specific characteristics related to their early and intense immersion in a constantly changing digital world. These differences manifest themselves both cognitively and socially, as well as in terms of values and aspirations. Understanding and supporting this new generation in its unique relationship to digital technology and the world around them will be a major challenge for educators and society as a whole.
lthough often compared to the preceding Generation Z, Generation Alpha, born from 2010 onwards, has distinct characteristics, shaped by a constantly evolving digital environment. According to McCrindle and Wolfinger (2009), Alphas are the first generation to grow up entirely in a hyperconnected world, where technologies are ubiquitous from a very young age.
Unlike Generation Z, which experienced the gradual emergence of smartphones and social networks, Alphas were born into a world where these technologies are already the norm. A Globalwebindex study (2019) reveals that 70% of Alpha children aged 4 to 15 use a smartphone, compared to only 52% for Generation Z at the same age. This early immersion in digital technology gives them an innate ease with technological tools, which they manipulate intuitively and naturally.
Cognitively, Alphas seem to develop different skills than Generation Z. According to Greenfield (2009), intensive use of screens from an early age promotes the development of visual-spatial intelligence and the ability to process multiple pieces of information simultaneously. However, Carr (2011) points out that this can also lead to concentration difficulties and a decrease in long-term memory, challenges that Generation Z did not experience with the same intensity.
In terms of socialization, Alphas are distinguished by their relationship to social networks. While Generation Z grew up with the rise of platforms like Facebook and Instagram, Alphas are exposed from a very young age to a multitude of social networks, such as TikTok or Snapchat, which shape the way they communicate and build their identity (Boyd, 2014). This early hyperconnection can be a source of stress and social comparison, with consequences on their mental well-being that Generation Z experienced at a slightly later age of identity construction (O’Keeffe & Clarke-Pearson, 2011).
Educationally, Alphas learn and get information mainly via digital media, a trend that has accelerated compared to Generation Z. According to Barnes & Noble College (2020), 82% of Generation Z students prefer digital media to printed textbooks, a figure that is expected to be even higher for Alphas. This appetite for digital opens up new educational perspectives, but also raises the question of the quality of online educational content and equity of access, issues that arise with new acuity for this generation (Hirsh-Pasek et al., 2020).
Finally, in terms of values, Alphas seem to be distinguished by a more pronounced social and environmental awareness than Generation Z. According to Wunderman Thompson Intelligence (2021), 85% of young Alphas aged 6 to 16 believe it is important for a brand to have a positive impact on society, compared to 80% for Generation Z. This quest for meaning and desire for positive impact, coupled with their digital fluency, could make Alphas key players in the transition to a more sustainable and equitable society.
1) Information transmission: an intuitive and natural relationship for generation alpha
TLDR — Generation Alpha has a unique relationship to information, forged by the digital technologies that have permeated their childhood. Their natural ease with digital tools is a strength that allows them to adapt to a constantly changing world. But it also carries risks, related to information overload, misinformation and digital surveillance. To help them thrive in this new world, it is essential to give them the keys to becoming enlightened and responsible digital citizens. This is a major challenge for educators, parents and society as a whole, in order to build a future where technology will be at the service of people and the common good.
The transmission of information plays a crucial role in the evolution of societies. As Jared Diamond points out in his book “Guns, Germs, and Steel” (1999), the ability to effectively transmit knowledge and innovations has been a determining factor in the development of civilizations. The invention of writing, then printing, made it possible to disseminate knowledge on an ever-increasing scale, laying the foundations for the scientific and industrial revolution.
Today, we are experiencing a new revolution with the advent of the Internet and digital technologies. As Manuel Castells analyzes in “The Rise of the Network Society” (2010), this revolution has profoundly transformed our relationship to information. From a vertical and centralized model, where access to knowledge was controlled by gatekeepers (teachers, journalists, experts), we have moved to a horizontal and decentralized model, where everyone can access an unlimited amount of information in just a few clicks.
This informational abundance has disrupted the way we learn, work and communicate, making knowledge more accessible but also more fragmented and volatile. It is in this hyperconnected world that Generation Alpha was born, grouping together children born after 2010. As Mark McCrindle and Emily Wolfinger show in “The ABC of XYZ: Understanding the Global Generations” (2009), this generation is distinguished by its intuitive and natural relationship to digital tools.
Having grown up with smartphones and tablets, Alphas are “digital natives” who manipulate touch screens before they can even speak. For them, access to information is instantaneous and unlimited: via search engines, voice assistants or social networks, they can find an answer to any question in a matter of seconds. This technological ease gives them a unique ability to navigate the informational abundance. Used to zapping from one piece of content to another, they are able to process multiple streams of information in parallel and quickly switch from one subject to another.
Their attention is more fragmented but also more agile, allowing them to adapt to a constantly changing media environment. They have developed a form of “liquid” intelligence, fluid and adaptive, which allows them to learn continuously throughout their lives. However, this informational overabundance also carries risks. Faced with a mass of unranked data, Alphas may have difficulty distinguishing the essential from the accessory, the true from the false. They are exposed from an early age to fake news, conspiracy theories and filter bubbles that lock everyone into their own beliefs. In a world where information is an abundant raw material, the challenge is no longer to access it but to know how to evaluate it, sort it and give it meaning.
For Generation Alpha, the challenge is therefore to learn to navigate this informational ocean in a critical and responsible way. It is a matter of developing an “info-ethics” that allows them to find their way in a complex and shifting media environment. Educators have a crucial role to play in helping them acquire these skills, by teaching them to cross-reference sources, check facts and exercise their critical thinking. It is a matter of guiding them to become enlightened “info-citizens”, capable of informing themselves autonomously and responsibly.
Beyond these informational skills, it is also important to raise Alphas’ awareness of the ethical and societal issues related to the digital revolution. As Shoshana Zuboff points out in “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism” (2019), personal data has become the fuel of a new capitalism that threatens our privacy and free will. Faced with these challenges, it is crucial to educate new generations about data protection, digital sovereignty and artificial ethics.
2) Connection between individuals: an omnipresent virtual socialization
TLDR — Virtual socialization is an unavoidable reality for Generation Alpha, shaping the way they connect with others and build their identity. While it offers new opportunities for expression and interaction, it also carries risks that are important to consider. The challenge is to support young people in their digital citizenship, by giving them the keys to navigate these connected environments in a responsible and critical way. But it is also a collective challenge, which involves rethinking the regulation and governance of digital platforms, in order to put them at the service of social ties and the common good. Because beyond the screens, it is our ability to make society that is at stake, and with it, the future of our democracy in the digital age.
The need for social connection is a fundamental driver of human beings. As Roy Baumeister and Mark Leary point out in their article “The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation” (1995), interpersonal relationships are essential to our psychological well-being and our survival as a species. We have a deep motivation to create and maintain stable and positive social bonds with our fellow human beings.
In the digital age, this need for connection finds a new field of expression with online platforms. As Shoshana Zuboff analyzes in her book “The Age of Surveillance Capitalism” (2019), companies like Google and Facebook have been able to take advantage of this fundamental human need by creating services that allow people to stay in touch with their loved ones, share life moments and interact with a wider community. By offering these spaces for virtual socialization, these platforms have acquired a central place in our relational lives, to the point of becoming unavoidable “social infrastructures” (Van Dijck, 2013).
For Generation Alpha, born into a hyperconnected world, social networks are an integral part of their relational universe. As David Stillman and Jonah Stillman show in “Gen Z @ Work” (2017), this generation has grown up with smartphones and instant messaging apps, which allow them to stay in constant contact with their friends and family. Online interactions are as natural and important to them as face-to-face interactions, creating a form of “connected presence” where physical distance is no longer an obstacle to socialization (Licoppe, 2004).
This virtual socialization takes multiple forms, from discussion groups on WhatsApp to ephemeral stories on Snapchat to viral challenges on TikTok. Each platform has its own codes, languages and rituals, which shape the modes of communication and self-representation of Alphas. As danah boyd points out in “It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens” (2014), these online spaces are “rooms of one’s own” where young people can experiment with their identity, tell their stories and stage themselves in front of their peer audience.
However, this virtual socialization also carries risks and limitations. On the one hand, it can create pressure for permanent connection and social performance, where everyone feels obliged to be always available and maintain a positive self-image (Turkle, 2011). On the other hand, it exposes young people to new forms of online violence and harassment, such as cyberbullying or revenge porn, which can have dramatic consequences on their mental health and reputation (Kowalski et al., 2014).
Moreover, online socialization can also create phenomena of “filter bubbles” and polarization, where everyone locks themselves into homogeneous communities that reinforce their beliefs and prejudices (Pariser, 2011). The recommendation algorithms of social networks, by personalizing the information flow of each user, can create “echo chambers” where one is only exposed to opinions similar to one’s own, reducing the diversity of viewpoints and tolerance for difference (Sunstein, 2017).
Faced with these issues, it is crucial to support Alphas in their digital socialization, by raising their awareness of the opportunities but also the risks of online interactions. As the report “Growing up Digital” (2017) by the Children’s Commissioner for England advocates, it is a matter of developing their “digital resilience”, i.e. their ability to navigate connected environments safely and responsibly. This involves media and information literacy, but also the development of socio-emotional skills such as empathy, kindness and peaceful conflict resolution.
It is also important to preserve “offline” spaces for socialization, where young people can interact directly and embodied, without the mediation of screens. As psychologist Sherry Turkle argues in “Reclaiming Conversation” (2015), face-to-face interactions remain essential for the development of our relational skills and emotional intelligence. They teach us to listen, to negotiate, to manage silences and misunderstandings, all of which are essential life skills for living in society.
Finally, it is crucial to rethink the regulation of digital platforms, in order to make them accountable for the protection of users and the promotion of the common good. As legal scholar Lina Khan proposes in “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox” (2017), it is a matter of going beyond the traditional antitrust framework to take into account the systemic effects of these actors on our societies, whether it be their impact on privacy, misinformation or political polarization. This implies inventing new regulatory tools, but also imagining alternative models of social networks, more ethical and decentralized, as proposed by the “HumaneTech” movement (Harris, 2019).
3) Elimination of parasitic tasks: towards increasing automation
TLDR — The increasing automation of tasks is an unavoidable reality for Generation Alpha, who are growing up in a world where machines are ubiquitous and increasingly autonomous. While it offers new opportunities for comfort and efficiency, it also carries risks of loss of autonomy, deskilling and inequality. The challenge is to support young people in their collaboration with machines, by developing their unique human skills and critical thinking. But it is also a collective challenge, which involves rethinking our public policies and economic models, in order to ensure an equitable distribution of the benefits of automation. Because beyond algorithms, it is our ability to preserve our autonomy and creativity that is at stake, and with it, our ability to remain free and fulfilled subjects in the age of machines.
Technological advances are profoundly transforming our relationship to work and everyday tasks. As George Ritzer analyzes in his book “The McDonaldization of Society” (2013), we live in a society where the search for efficiency, predictability and control leads to increasing standardization and automation of human activities. From automatic checkouts to chatbots to recommendation algorithms, more and more tasks are being delegated to machines, which can perform them faster, more reliably and at a lower cost than humans.
This automation is accelerating with advances in artificial intelligence and robotics. As Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee show in “The Second Machine Age” (2014), we are entering a new era where machines are capable of learning, adapting and performing complex cognitive tasks, previously reserved for humans. From self-driving cars to virtual assistants to medical diagnostic algorithms, AI is transforming many sectors of activity, replacing or augmenting human work.
For Generation Alpha, born into this increasingly automated world, delegating tasks to machines is a banal and natural reality. As Kathy Hirsh-Pasek and her colleagues point out in “Putting Education in “Educational” Apps: Lessons From the Science of Learning” (2020), this generation has grown up with virtual assistants like Siri or Alexa, which can answer their questions, tell them stories or control their home environment. They are used to interacting with conversational agents, receiving personalized recommendations and getting instant results to their queries.
This familiarity with automation shapes their expectations and behaviors. As Adele Goldberg and Brianna Piccolini show in “The Tech-Savvy Generation: Millennials and Gen Z in the Workplace” (2021), Alphas expect repetitive and tedious tasks to be handled by machines, so they can focus on more creative and fulfilling activities. They are looking for seamless and personalized experiences, where technology adapts to their individual needs and preferences. However, this increasing automation also raises questions and challenges.
On the one hand, it can lead to a loss of autonomy and control, where individuals become dependent on machines to perform an increasing number of tasks (Carr, 2014). On the other hand, it can lead to deskilling and loss of know-how, where human skills are gradually replaced by algorithms (Frey & Osborne, 2017). Moreover, automation can also have negative effects on employment and inequality. As the World Economic Forum’s “The Future of Jobs” report (2020) shows, AI and robotics could lead to the elimination of millions of jobs in the coming years, particularly in low-skilled and routine sectors.
Without adequate training and redistribution policies, this technological disruption could exacerbate income and opportunity gaps between the winners and losers of automation (Ford, 2015). Faced with these challenges, it is crucial to support the Alpha generation in its relationship with automation, by developing its ability to take advantage of the opportunities offered by AI while cultivating its critical thinking and autonomy. As the OECD’s “The Future of Education and Skills 2030” report (2018) recommends, it is a matter of training young people to collaborate with machines rather than be replaced by them, by developing complementary skills such as creativity, empathy or complex problem solving.
It is also important to rethink public policies and economic models in the age of automation. As economist Richard B. Freeman proposes in “Who Owns the Robots Rules the World” (2015), it is a matter of inventing new mechanisms for redistributing the productivity gains generated by AI, so that the benefits of automation benefit everyone and not just a minority of machine owners. This may involve measures such as universal income, employee ownership or robot taxation, which aim to ensure a more equitable distribution of wealth in the digital age.
Finally, it is crucial to preserve spaces for human autonomy and creation, where individuals can cultivate manual, craft or artistic know-how. As philosopher Matthew B. Crawford argues in “The World Beyond Your Head: On Becoming an Individual in an Age of Distraction” (2015), manual labor and direct contact with matter are essential to the development of our practical intelligence and sense of accomplishment. They allow us to reconnect with our physical and social environment, in an increasingly virtual and disembodied world.
4) Standardization: a fast pace and smooth interactions
TLDR — Algorithmic standardization and the acceleration of the pace of life are unavoidable realities for Generation Alpha, who are growing up in a world that is increasingly fluid and intuitive in terms of technology. While this digital fluency offers new opportunities for learning and creation, it also carries risks for well-being, autonomy and social equity. The challenge is to support young people in a thoughtful and responsible use of technology, by cultivating their critical thinking and digital hygiene. But it is also a democratic challenge, which involves regaining control over the algorithms that govern our lives, in order to put them at the service of the general interest. Because beyond speed and fluidity, it is our ability to preserve our freedom and humanity that is at stake, in a world increasingly governed by the standards of artificial intelligence.
Standardization is a fundamental process in the development of human societies. As historian David Landes shows in his book “Revolution in Time: Clocks and the Making of the Modern World” (1983), the invention of standards for measuring time and space has played a key role in the rise of commerce, industry and nation-states. From unified weights and measures to time zones to quality standards, standardization has made it possible to coordinate human activities on a large scale, reducing uncertainties and transaction costs.
Today, in the digital age, it is algorithms that have become the new standards of our society. As Frank Pasquale analyzes in his book “The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information” (2015), these sets of computer instructions increasingly govern our online interactions, whether it’s our Google searches, our Amazon purchases or our Facebook exchanges. Opaque and complex, these algorithms process huge amounts of data to make automated decisions that influence our choices, opinions and behaviors.
This algorithmic standardization is accompanied by an unprecedented acceleration of the pace of life. As Nicholas Carr points out in “The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains” (2011), the instantaneous transmission of information enabled by digital technologies reduces production and reflection times, creating a sense of urgency and constant pressure. Used to getting immediate answers to their queries, individuals are finding it increasingly difficult to concentrate on long and complex tasks that require deep and sustained attention.
For Generation Alpha, born into this world of instantaneity and hyperconnectivity, this frenetic pace is the norm. As psychologist Jean Twenge’s work on “iGen” (2017) shows, this generation has grown up with the smartphone as an extension of themselves, allowing them to access a continuous stream of information, entertainment and social relationships at any time. Multitasking and impulsive, Alphas are used to zapping from one app to another, from one conversation to another, in a perpetual movement that leaves little room for boredom or introspection.
This ease with digital technologies translates into increasingly fluid and intuitive interactions with machines. As Dell Technologies’ “Future of the Workforce” report (2021) points out, Generation Alpha is the first to grow up in a world where artificial intelligence and virtual reality are ubiquitous. From video games to voice assistants to augmented reality filters, Alphas are used to interacting naturally and immersively with digital interfaces that adapt to their needs and preferences. However, this standardization and acceleration of the pace of life is not without consequences.
On the one hand, they can lead to a loss of diversity and serendipity, where individuals are locked into filter bubbles that limit their exposure to ideas and experiences different from their own (Pariser, 2011). On the other hand, they can generate stress, anxiety and attention disorders, especially among young people who struggle to find a balance between online and offline life (Pea et al., 2012). Moreover, algorithmic standardization also raises ethical and political questions. As Cathy O’Neil shows in “Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy” (2016), algorithms can reproduce and amplify the biases and discriminations present in the data they process, leading to unfair and opaque decisions that affect access to employment, credit or insurance.
Without transparency or accountability, these “weapons of math destruction” threaten individual freedoms and social equity. Faced with these challenges, it is crucial to support Generation Alpha in their relationship with digital technologies, by helping them develop a “digital hygiene” that preserves their well-being and autonomy. As the DQ Institute’s “Digital Wellbeing Guidelines” report (2019) recommends, it is a matter of teaching young people to manage their screen time, cultivate their attention and interact responsibly and empathetically online. This involves media and information education, but also the promotion of offline activities that foster creativity, contemplation and human relationships.
It is also important to rethink the governance of algorithms, to make them more transparent, fair and accountable. As legal scholar Mireille Hildebrandt proposes in “Smart Technologies and the End(s) of Law” (2015), it is a matter of developing an “algorithmic law” that regulates their design, use and democratic control. This implies strengthening the obligations of transparency and explainability of AI systems, but also giving citizens the means to challenge algorithmic decisions that concern them.
Finally, it is crucial to preserve spaces for slowing down and disconnecting, where individuals can cultivate a more peaceful and thoughtful relationship with time and technology. As the “Slow Media” movement (Rauch, 2018) advocates, it is a matter of promoting more attentive, sustainable and meaningful media practices that prioritize quality over quantity, depth over reactivity. From “screen-free days” to “digital retreats” to “digital detox”, these initiatives aim to reintroduce moments of pause and perspective in a world of immediacy and information overload.
5) Search for meaning and recognition: work aligned with one’s values
TLDR —The search for meaning and recognition at work is a strong aspiration of Generation Alpha, who wish to align their values and professional activity to have a positive impact on the world. To attract and retain these talents, companies must create fulfilling work environments that value each individual’s unique contributions and foster the development of transferable skills. But beyond that, it is also our relationship to work and recognition that needs to be reinvented, to build a fairer and more sustainable society, where everyone can find their place and fully realize their potential.
In our post-industrial society, work is no longer just a means of subsistence, but also a source of fulfillment and identity. As Daniel Pink shows in his book “Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us” (2011), individuals increasingly aspire to engage in an activity that is meaningful to them, that corresponds to their values and allows them to develop their potential. Beyond extrinsic rewards such as salary or status, they seek intrinsic motivations such as autonomy, mastery and the purpose of their work.
This quest for meaning is part of an economy of recognition, where individuals seek to be valued for their unique and singular contribution. As Jean-Pierre Brun and Ninon Dugas analyze in their article “Recognition at work: analysis of a concept rich in meaning” (2005), recognition is not limited to financial compensation, but also involves a judgment of beauty (on the quality of the work), a judgment of utility (on the importance of the contribution) and a judgment of gratitude (on the person himself). In other words, individuals need to feel that their work is well done, that it serves a purpose and that it is appreciated by others.
For Generation Alpha, this search for meaning and recognition is all the more important as they have grown up in a world in crisis, marked by the challenges of climate change, social inequalities and distrust of institutions. As June Edmunds and Bryan Turner point out in their article “Global generations: social change in the twentieth century” (2005), this generation has a keen social and environmental awareness, which drives them to want to have a positive impact on the world through their professional activity.
Far from being content with a food job, Alphas aspire to put their skills at the service of a cause that makes sense to them, whether in social entrepreneurship, community involvement or intrapreneurship in companies. This quest for alignment between personal values and work translates into new expectations of employers. As the “The Deloitte Global 2021 Millennial and Gen Z Survey” (2021) shows, younger generations place great importance on corporate social and environmental responsibility, diversity and inclusion, and work-life balance and flexibility.
They expect their employers to embody a strong purpose and values, provide opportunities for learning and development, and recognize the uniqueness of each employee. To meet these expectations, companies must rethink their management and organizational culture. As psychologist Nathalie Delobbe recommends in her chapter “Recognition at work: a health and performance issue” (2018), it is a matter of creating caring work environments that value each person’s contributions and foster skill development. This involves practices such as regular feedback, talent management, internal mobility and employee empowerment on meaningful projects.
It is also important to review the criteria for assessing potential, beyond degrees and past experiences. As the collective book “Assessing Transversal Skills” (Coulet & Chauvigné, 2021) shows, companies have an interest in focusing on soft skills such as creativity, emotional intelligence, adaptability and the ability to learn, which are increasingly critical in a constantly evolving world of work. This implies diversifying recruitment methods (situational assessments, assessment centers, etc.) and valuing extra-professional experiences (community involvement, personal projects, etc.) that reveal these skills.
Moreover, companies must also ensure equity and transparency in the recognition of work. As Maëlezig Bigi and her colleagues point out in their article “Recognition and discrimination” (2015), recognition practices can sometimes reproduce or reinforce inequalities between social groups, particularly according to gender, origin or age. To avoid these biases, it is important to formalize objective evaluation criteria, train managers in non-discrimination and set up alert and appeal mechanisms for employees who feel aggrieved.
Finally, beyond the responsibility of companies, it is also our entire economic and social model that is questioned by this quest for meaning and recognition. As philosopher Dominique Méda argues in her book “Work: a value on the way out?” (2010), we must rethink the place of work in our societies, considering it no longer as an end in itself, but as a means at the service of other purposes such as social ties, personal development or the preservation of the environment. This implies reducing working time, better distributing the wealth produced and valuing non-market activities such as volunteering, caring for loved ones or civic engagement.
Conclusion
By 2040, our society will be profoundly transformed by technological advances, giving rise to a new quaternary economy centered on the creation of intangible value and the contribution to the common good. In this context, education will have a crucial role to play in preparing the Alpha generation to thrive and become “heroes” in the service of causes that are greater than themselves. This humanistic vision echoes the aspirations of this generation, which seeks an alignment between its values and its professional activity. Thanks to its sensitivity to social and environmental issues, it could be the driving force behind a positive change towards a more ethical and sustainable society.
But to achieve this, we will need to fundamentally rethink our economic and social model, by valuing everyone’s contributions to the common good and putting technology at the service of people. This will require developing a true ethic of innovation, based on transparency, responsibility and citizen participation. The emergence of the quaternary economy thus opens the way to a future where everyone can develop their talents and contribute positively to society. The Alpha generation, through its quest for meaning and digital intuition, could be the spearhead of this positive transformation, provided that we give them the keys to become the heroes our world needs.
Bibliographie
Barnes & Noble College. (2020). Exploring the Gen Z Learner. https://www.bncollege.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Gen-Z-Learner-Report.pdf
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Bigi, M., Cousin, O., Méda, D., Sibaud, L., & Wieviorka, M. (2015). Reconnaissance et discriminations. Revue française de sociologie, 56(4), 717–742. https://doi.org/10.3917/rfs.564.0717
boyd, d. (2014). It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens. Yale University Press.
Brun, J.-P., & Dugas, N. (2005). La reconnaissance au travail : analyse d’un concept riche de sens. Gestion, 30(2), 79–88. https://doi.org/10.3917/riges.302.0079
Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2014). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. WW Norton & Company.
Carr, N. (2011). The shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains. WW Norton & Company.
Carr, N. (2014). The glass cage: Automation and us. WW Norton & Company.
Castells, M. (2010). The rise of the network society. Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444319514
Children’s Commissioner for England. (2017). Growing up Digital: A report of the Growing Up Digital Taskforce. https://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Growing-Up-Digital-Taskforce-Report-January-2017_0.pdf
Coulet, J.-C., & Chauvigné, C. (Eds.). (2021). Évaluer les compétences transversales. Presses Universitaires de Rennes. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pur.147190
Crawford, M. B. (2015). The world beyond your head: On becoming an individual in an age of distraction. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Delobbe, N. (2018). La reconnaissance au travail : un enjeu de santé et de performance. In P. Desrumaux & A.-M. Vonthron (Eds.), Santé et qualité de vie au travail : Des méthodes d’analyse aux actions de prévention (pp. 101–114). L’Harmattan.
Deloitte. (2021). The Deloitte Global 2021 Millennial and Gen Z Survey. https://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/about-deloitte/articles/millennialsurvey.html
Diamond, J. (1999). Guns, germs, and steel: The fates of human societies. WW Norton & Company.
DQ Institute. (2019). Digital Wellbeing Guidelines. https://www.dqinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/DQ-Digital-Wellbeing-Guidelines.pdf
Edmunds, J., & Turner, B. S. (2005). Global generations: Social change in the twentieth century. The British Journal of Sociology, 56(4), 559–577. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2005.00083.x
Ford, M. (2015). Rise of the robots: Technology and the threat of a jobless future. Basic Books.
Freeman, R. B. (2015). Who owns the robots rules the world. IZA World of Labor. https://doi.org/10.15185/izawol.5
Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 254–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.019
Globalwebindex. (2019). Kids of the Internet Age. https://www.globalwebindex.com/reports/kids-of-the-internet-age
Goldberg, A., & Piccolini, B. (2021). The tech-savvy generation: Millennials and Gen Z in the workplace. Journal of Business and Management, 27(1), 23–37. https://doi.org/10.6347/JBM.202101_27(1).0002
Greenfield, P. M. (2009). Technology and Informal Education: What Is Taught, What Is Learned. Science, 323(5910), 69–71. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1167190
Harris, T. (2019). Humane: A New Agenda for Tech. Center for Humane Technology. https://www.humanetech.com/newagenda
Hildebrandt, M. (2015). Smart technologies and the end(s) of law: Novel entanglements of law and technology. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849808774
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Zosh, J. M., Golinkoff, R. M., Gray, J. H., Robb, M. B., & Kaufman, J. (2020). Putting education in “educational” apps: Lessons from the science of learning. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 21(1), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100620920267
Khan, L. M. (2017). Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox. Yale Law Journal, 126(3), 710–805. https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/amazons-antitrust-paradox
Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1073–1137. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035618
Landes, D. S. (1983). Revolution in Time: Clocks and the Making of the Modern World. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Licoppe, C. (2004). ‘Connected’ presence: The emergence of a new repertoire for managing social relationships in a changing communication technoscape. Environment and Planning: Society and Space, 22(1), 135–156. https://doi.org/10.1068/d323t
McCrindle, M., & Wolfinger, E. (2009). The ABC of XYZ: Understanding the global generations. University of New South Wales Press.
Méda, D. (2010). Le travail : une valeur en voie de disparition ? Flammarion.
O’Keeffe, G. S., & Clarke-Pearson, K. (2011). The Impact of Social Media on Children, Adolescents, and Families. Pediatrics, 127(4), 800–804. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-0054
O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. Crown.
Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: How the new personalized web is changing what we read and how we think. Penguin.
Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674736061
Pea, R., Nass, C., Meheula, L., Rance, M., Kumar, A., Bamford, H., Nass, M., Simha, A., Stillerman, B., Yang, S., & Zhou, M. (2012). Media use, face-to-face communication, media multitasking, and social well-being among 8- to 12-year-old girls. Developmental Psychology, 48(2), 327–336. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027030
Pink, D. H. (2011). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Penguin.
Rauch, J. (2018). Slow Media: Why Slow is Satisfying, Sustainable, and Smart. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190641795.001.0001
Ritzer, G. (2013). The McDonaldization of society. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335117
Stillman, D., & Stillman, J. (2017). Gen Z @ work: How the next generation is transforming the workplace. HarperCollins.
Sunstein, C. R. (2017). Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400884711
Turkle, S. (2011). Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. Basic Books.
Turkle, S. (2015). Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age. Penguin Press.
Twenge, J. M. (2017). iGen: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy — and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood — and What That Means for the Rest of Us. Atria Books.
Van Dijck, J. (2013). The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199970773.001.0001
World Economic Forum. (2020). The Future of Jobs Report 2020. https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-future-of-jobs-report-2020
Wunderman Thompson Intelligence. (2021). Generation Alpha: Preparing for the future consumer. https://intelligence.wundermanthompson.com/2021/06/generation-alpha-preparing-for-the-future-consumer/
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.
— —
[Article created on May 26, 2024, by Jeremy Lamri with the support of the Claude 3 Opus algorithm for structuring, enriching, and GPT4o for illustrating. The writing is primarily my own, as are most of the ideas in this article].
— —
Follow my news with Linktree
If you are interested in the combination of web 3 and HR, I invite you to subscribe to the dedicated newsletter that I keep writing on the subject, and to read the articles that I have written on the topic:
