You Tube Channels and Google Hangouts Integration - Qualitative observations about limited interactions and "group think"

My original research idea for an Applied Social Psychology naturalistic and qualitative study in the I/O Psychology Ph.D. program and an "Applied Social Psychology" seminar that I am attending seemed to promise plenty of opportunities for original research and data analysis.

For the research study I chose to look at social behavior and possibilities of "group think" on YouTube channels and integrated Google hangouts and in particular the almost weekly "Immediate Response Team" (IRT) show on the "Lives with Meredith" YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tm-S8Dzs69A.

The "IRTs" are essentially weekly live streaming news shows with accompanying opportunities to comment on what is being watched in the show by audience members. My challenge however has been that I picked a show that did not get many viewers to interact with the live streaming content and hosts yet but that is in part due to the fact that the hosts are not taking the time to look at audience members comments and allow for the opportunity to ask questions in a more interactive social format.

For the purpose of this blog post I took out the more academic aspects of my research and list observations and recommendations more in line with media psychology and popular television theory and criticism. For my final academic research project however I am currently exploring also other shows that are on YouTube that use associated google hangouts which allow for live interaction with and between audience members in a social circle that is solely online amongst anonymous group viewers.

But for now here are some basic social psychology findings about the "Instant Response Team" on the "Lives with Meredith Channel":

1. Audience members are hesitant in commenting. Many who sign up and view (a few hundred) never take advantage of actively participating and commenting. And those who do all have the following in common.

2. They do not like to use their real name and picture. Some are just posting a picture and first name.

3. They also do not want to post anything highly controversial but instead rather agree with what is being said during the show. This supports the notion that online and live stream events where audience members participate are engaging in "group think" (Janis, 1972).

4. They never comment on other viewers but instead just comment on what is being said in the live stream show by known guests. Social engagement and a sense of community is therefore not being built amongst audience members who participate. Web 3.0 capabilities that allow the audience members to become the co-creators are not taken advantage of.

5. They comment with just a word or a phrase and never go into detail with a full sentence or more.

6. They do not criticize and instead rather applaud or encourage opinions voiced by those on the show with comments like: "Well said"

When I looked at this channel and the online version of participation between show hosts, guests, and audience members in a live format it seemed like a great example of a social media application that includes not only Web 1.0 and 2.0 features but also Web 3.0 features as the audience members have the opportunity to become co-creators and drive show content.

I looked at the quality of interactions by looking at the number of viewers and how long and how much they interact with the hosts and guests as well as other audience members in this qualitative study that I am also interested in switching to a mixed study that includes quantitative data. I also looked the quality of their comments. All of these seem rather limited despite the variety of topics that many more typically relate to on regular television and on other YouTube Channels.

I did not interfere to make sure that I reduce the potential of a bias error and strictly took the position of outside observer in the last two shows while I interacted previously to get a better feel for also experiencing the show as an audience member.

For the purpose of this social psychology study I am particular interested in group think theory and if audience members are subjected to limiting themselves to "group think" and so far my limited observations prove to be supporting the findings.

Again, I look forward to checking out one or two more shows on this channel but also look forward to watching other more popular channels this week so I can gather more relevant data about audiences being more submissive and reliant on group consensus which does not allow for seeing individual contributions, opinions and personalities which I argue would make these shows actually more effective and interesting for audience members but that falls more into media psychology and television theory research.

One final observation: it is not part of this study but worth examining is the hosts and guests participation levels and their challenges in trying to keep up with and integrating viewer responses and comments.

It might be worth it exploring in a separate study the quality of live streaming shows and associated google hangouts and limited opportunities for social interaction unless the comments are consciously being made part of the show. That would mean that hosts are proactively engaging not only with guests on the show but also audience members. Instead of scripts and questions for the entire show it might be worth it just picking a theme and then integrating the audience by asking them to ask questions more proactively in the comments section.

Suggestion to the show hosts and producers:

1. Integrate audience comments by looking at those after every question that guests on show answered. Make it more of a conversation and worry less about racing through all questions. Quality and engagement can drive the show as much as quantity of questions covered.

2. Allow audience members to ask questions by encouraging them actively throughout the show to post their questions and then picking them.

3. As there is more audience involvement maybe less topics need to be picked.

4. Allow audience members to pick topics they want to discuss in poll and/or focus group online before show.

5. Continue conversation by not just posting and re-posting show content but by actively engaging with audience members after show. Polls, contests, audience members' v-blogs and blog posts could also be encouraged.

6. Length and time of show. The show is at a time of day where almost nobody can watch the entire 40-60 min. show. It might make more sense to limit the show like it used to just to 30 min. and ask producers and hosts to pick questions while driving engagement without getting carried away. Guests could be reminded to answer in 2 min. max answer formats before being gently reminded. Time of day might also be an issue and maybe there could be some experimenting with the time, e.g. 9am PST/12pm PST.

Ultimate goal of the "Instant response team" can either be sharing news or ideally allowing for the building and continuation of a sense of an online community. Useful exercise for the show creators would be to instead of looking at the "what" looking at the "why" and then the how and "what" which is a mindset that Simon Sinek make popular in his Ted Talk and associated Book "Start with Why". (Simon Sinek, 2011).

References

Janis, I.L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (Eds.). (2012). Applied social psychology: Understandingand addressing social and practical problems (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sinek, Simon (2011). Start with Why. Retrieved from http://www.startwithwhy.com

Strickland, Jonathan (2013). How Web 3.0 will work. Retrieved from: http://computer.howstuffworks.com/web-30.htm

About the author: Patricia Anglano has two Masters degrees from the University of Southern California in Cinema-TV and Linguistics. She also is completing a Ph.D. in I/O Psychology with focus on organizational and media psychology.

Agile Media Producer Program

Please contact me today for training programs: patricia@agilemediaconsulting.com for pricing and start dates.

NEW in Fall 2013: Agile Media Producer Program

Customized for Media, Entertainment and Technology companies and the products they develop.

Foundation Track Options:

1.Agile Product Owner

2.Agile Scrum Master 

Advanced Track Options:

(Note: for successful candidates who completed both foundation tracks and who have worked with Agile Media Consulting for at least 1 year - a 1-year program in your 2nd year while you are working with clients)

1. Agile Media Strategist

2. Agile Media Coach

The foundation track is a 40-hour program (either Product Owner or Scrum Master) that consists of 20 hours of applied theory and 20 hours of hands-on training while working with me as a coach at client companies. You can also choose both foundation tracks which prepare you for the advanced track. There are optional add-on courses in the curriculum to allow you to deepen your knowledge like "Agile Team Assessments" or "Jira and Confluence Configuration Management". 

You can do this program while working at a company or do it on your own with a flexible schedule for the theory component. For the practical application component I join you at your company and coach you and help apply the knowledge per your teams' needs or if you are not with a company you shadow me doing my work with clients.

You always have a coach you can call if you have questions as we offer you an on-going Mentorship program.  You also receive a certificate of completing theory and practicum with a recommendation for your Agile job while showing that you are participating in the mentorship program and receive my company's support to help you succeed.

Why?

1. Many Scrum Masters and Product Owners have limited training or limited experience applying. We help team members in your company and optimize not only teams but also key team members with the optimization of their knowledge and application of Scrum and Kanban practices. 

2. We also introduce Product Owners, UX designers, QA to Agile and help apply it. 

3. If you are a traditional Media Producer or TPM and want to learn Agile and prove you have experience this is great for you as well. There is the option of becoming an Agile Media Consulting team member and make it a career.

The Government Health Care website and its REAL problems

So I am having lunch with a friend and business associate who happens to have a lot of experience as well with working with technology companies and offshore teams. We are both discussing regular business and give each other updates on our projects. But then the conversation switches to what is going on with the government health care website.

I comment that it is interesting that unlike with most other projects there is no technical lead or Project Manager who speaks up, there are no schedules shared or technical issues as they might relate to the information architecture or design or simply poor management practices. There is a grin on my friend's face before I continue to state what is REALLY going on. The absence of leads makes it clear that they do not want to show who worked on the site, and we know why.

My friend Ray points out that CGI is really a Canadian company. They are handling the development and they are known to offshore development work to their India teams especially since they bought another company based in India for cheap offshore work. Ah, I say, well, I guess they could and would not want to disclose that our American government websites are handled outside the U.S. by India developers who as usual are facing major difficulties if not managed properly. In the meanwhile great talent here is not being utilized and no jobs are filled in the U.S to work on government projects. We all have a right to be upset indeed!

I know what I am talking about as I worked for Cognizant. It is a U.S. based consulting company but most of their employes and all development is done in India. All we are asked to do in the U.S. is business development and client management - and not planned but often true RESCUE projects that India teams could not handle. Sad but true, Cognizant is a Fortune 500 consulting firm and I could not and will not work for them ever again after seeing how territorial and outright hostile the majority of India based management teams became towards us in the U.S.

Why you might ask did the government not disclose who the technical teams are behind the health care website? Maybe it is because they feared they would be exposed and called redundant and not as money-saving as they claim they were. Often times the India based teams are only costing one-third but the quality of their work is nowhere nearly as good as what we can produce in the U.S. especially when we do not provide solid project management and user experience design, information architecture, visual design, and pretty much everything else other than just coding. That is because they do not understand the cultural nuances of products and services and in my opinion also often do not care as much as we do. There is a sense of pride that comes from working with U.S. based companies and team members. We all take part in something bigger and feel strongly about succeeding and not just delivering a part of a component and then getting paid without knowing the customer base.

And I am an immigrant and very much in support of outsourcing and limited offshoring where it is not just all about profits but quality and taking care of your people and country. I don't care where you are but as a PM lead I am interested in hiring the best and using the best practices to succeed. That is what made America and American customer service successful. So for those stating I am discriminating against foreign workers stop right here, I do care about immigration and bringing the best and brightest here and like to work with teams in other countries. But it has to make sense and from experience I know that the savings claimed with offshore teams are set off by expensive costs fixing and managing later on often by teams and leaders in the U.S.

Now, I actually developed a documentary that talks about excessive offshoring of work to foreign teams in India and other countries where work is cheaper. I placed it on Kickstarter for support and received nasty emails and even threats from both Indians and those in the U.S. who profit from offshoring where profit is placed over people. The name of the documentary is: Americans for Hire!

I stopped the Kickstarter campaign as a result as I felt misunderstood and have secured private funding instead but wanted to wait for and research additional developments that include work being brought back to the U.S. as companies learn that really offshoring does not mean cheaper but often not good and more expensive as projects need to get rescued. This doc is still in development and we would love your support and collaboration. We are here to reveal all sides and be objective while looking at actual projects so nobody can claim we are just one-sided and against offshoring.

This issue is not widely known unless you work in Technology. Many in the U.S. would not even think about asking about listening to technical leads and directors in charge of the healthcare government site. Then there are others who just blame poor project management: 

http://www.projectmanagers.net/i/is-poor-project-management-to-blame-for-the-launch-of-the-obamacare-site/

In my opinion this is very short-sighted as they do not even know who developed it. Can you imagine listening to India developers and Project Managers talking in a U.S. congressional hearing about why they could not get the U.S. healthcare website up and running? Rightfully many would ask why we did not hire American developers and an American company to produce this website and related services. Where did our tax dollars just go?  I think we all have a right to be upset.

And I am speaking as an Obama supporter as usual but it bothers me that our government is not disclosing to us who is working on the site. President Obama himself even claimed that the best and brightest in our country are working on fixing the site. Really? How come they do not speak up? 

I would like to see a solid project management plan and the tech leads explain what exactly is broken and how it can get fixed. 

As an Agile methodology coach and consultant with my own company: Agile Media Consulting and a very experienced Technical Project Manager (TPM) and Practice Director I also know that the problem is in the project management methodology. You do not wait to test or what we call QA (Quality Assurance) until the end before launch.  You develop in smaller chunks or iterations and test continuously. You have teams communicate daily and work on blockers as they come up and present work that is ready for launch well in advance. You release in smaller releases and then test until the site is ready. Applying Agile methodologies in this project is completely possible even though it is late in the game. 

India teams I should point out are hesitant in using Agile as it means that they have to be fully transparent and communicative. That is because 1. their English communication skills are often very limited and 2. they culturally are not as open as we are. Daily meetings with India developers proved to be difficult and many became actually hostile towards us leads at first. Some also did not respect working with female leaders and I personally filed a complaint alleging being discriminated against as a woman while at Cognizant. Nothing happened as usual and I was offered to work in a different division instead which I passed on and rather worked in my own consulting practice where I can pick my teams and clients.

Here is what a client wrote about me as a recommendation which is posted on my Linkedin profile: 

Thomas Emmons

Big Data & Machine Learning Guru

Patricia's leadership skills and mobile expertise were key to the success of our Kindle Fire application development. She drove the offshore development/UX/QA and was a tireless voice for sound mobile principals.

We'd have been lost without her efforts.

May 10, 2012, Thomas was with another company when working with Patricia at Cognizant Technology Solutions

Thomas who is American and based in Chicago, IL, worked for the client and was great to work with. I was asked after rescuing two projects for Cognizant to be helping on another important application by VPs at Kaplan but Cognizant would not let me as I would be too expensive as a U.S. based resource plus I was known and obviously still am known to speak up because I like to truly help and succeed.

Just today I spoke up again and posted on both my Linkedin and my Twitter #agilemediacoach:

I am serious, I would like to help fix this website and would like to help as a consultant by applying a solid project management methodology and help assemble teams that can actually help while overseeing the process. I have a lot of experience building and supporting high-performing teams and I would like to work with India-based teams and others but would make it clear that we need to hire whoever can actually help fix this site in time for launch. That would most likely mean that we have a lot more technical talent and help including architects and Project Managers here in the U.S. Non-performers would be replaced. Responsibility needs to be taken by technical leads and not just government officials.  I ask all my team members to own what they do and care like it is their family or their own company. Agile methodology helps empower and bring out the best in team members which is why I love coaching the methodology.

It is time for us to speak up. If you are in the technical development industry join me and let's help our country and government fix this site. I am not convinced as we have no insight and no technical leads speaking up right now that they know how to fix this site. I know the best and brightest and they are not working on the site right now, President Obama! Let us help you!