“Generation F” is a designation that Gary Hamel used in his Wall Street Journal Blog Management 2.0. For some, you may already be familiar with the term, for others not familiar with it, it stands for the “Facebook Generation.”  While not a surprising definition their expectations of their ideal work environment may be.  Generation F has become incredibly familiar with everything social media.  For those not sure of what social media is or how powerful it has become check out this incredible slideshow by Marta Kagan.  Generation F has fully immersed itself with social media.  Not only has social media become a way to communicate and interact for this generation, it has become the frame work for life and work.

Gary Hamels says it even better. “The experience of growing up online will profoundly shape the workplace expectations of “Generation F” – the Facebook Generation. At a minimum, they’ll expect the social environment of work to reflect the social context of the Web, rather than as is currently the case, a mid-20th-century Weberian bureaucracy.”

This is incredibly crucial for organizations and especially the church to understand.  Gary discusses 12 crucial elements that organizations must grapple with in order to attract, retain and engage the facebook generation. The full article can be found in Gary’s March 24, 2009 Management 2.0 blog posting

1. All ideas compete on an equal footing.

2. Contribution counts for more than credentials.

3. Hierarchies are natural, not prescribed.

4. Leaders serve rather than preside.

5. Tasks are chosen, not assigned.

6. Groups are self-defining and -organizing.

7. Resources get attracted, not allocated.

8. Power comes from sharing information, not hoarding it.

9. Opinions compound and decisions are peer-reviewed.

10. Users can veto most policy decisions.

11. Intrinsic rewards matter most.

12. Hackers are heroes.

Some questions in closing.

So how does a church begin to interact and dialogue about these points?  How do churches engage Generation F that are attending their churches in light of the above points. Can congregants veto decisions, are groups self defining and organizing..what implications would this have to the standard small group model? Most churches struggle with serving and finding volunteers. What would happen if people just chose what they wanted to do, what impact would that have on ministry? Would we (the church) be ok “dropping” some ministries because people were choosing not to serve there. i realize it can be easy to go to extreme examples, but perhaps that’s another question. Are we willing to go to the extreme?

What questions would you have with Gary’s points?

Have you seen some churches excel at some points mentioned above? Or at least think they are on the right path?

You should follow me on Twitter here