Yet, I've also found that those who rail the most against the hierarchies and authority frequently seem to be the ones who need the most oversight to get anything accomplished. Ironic?
Not exactly ironic. The problem is finding authority and hierarchies that treat those above and beneath them with equal levels of respect and have the understanding that each job has a role to play in reaching the intended goal. Very often in hierarchial systems the first thing to go is communication between different levels -- directions and orders go top to bottom, but information needed from bottom to top does not flow freely. The net result is frustration from the rank and file because the bureaucracy is hindering their ability to be recognized for their efforts and/or observations.
Maybe you just THINK you're doing it well. Being late to a shift/work IS a big deal (if consistently so). It's pretty selfish to think otherwise. You're absolutely right that we are living in an "accelerated" world and that a lot of older practices are obsolete and diminishing as we speak. The inward facing solipsism you express is troubling though--ever think that there might be value in other ways of working, other people's viewpoints, beyond your preconceived notions of how the World 2.0 ought to work?
Okay, first, I KNOW I'm doing it well. But I'm an atypical example: I worked software deployment for a Fortune100 company; approximately 100k desktops, 5k servers. My biggest job challenge wasn't the technology but sorting out and prioritizing information coming in from dozens of departments and having only a very limited staff to do the work. The staff under me was, unfortunately, exactly the kind of person you're describing: Under 25 types with no real-world training. I made it work anyway, but it was the hardest job of my life. Multi-tasking is a learned skill. And the most important aspect of succeeding at it is being able to shut out external distractions in spurts and then redirect and move in an entirely new direction after a quick re-evaluation in between those times. The World v2.0 ought to work pretty similar to how The World v1.0 works: But without the social barriers that existing social framework encourages. We still need leaders, and we still need a hierarchy. But what we don't need is dominant/submissive pairings: We need to understand that just because someone is higher up the ladder does not make them any more important than those farther down. If we can do away with that attitude, information will flow from bottom to top, and the cycle will be restored thus radically improving efficiency. Also, in World 2.0, peer groups that come together to solve a problem with each person fluidly moving into different positions within the hierarchy will be more prevalent.
Our generation has an horrible weakness: Actually getting things done
I'd disagree. We can get things done, if given the right environment. We thrive on less judgmental and open atmospheres, which aren't common in hierarchial organizations. Thus, the perception we get nothing done, when the reality is that like any plant starved of basic nutrients... it doesn't grow.