Gen X' Managers Manage
If you want to witness the power of demographics, simply take a drive
through the garage of my parents' retirement complex. There you will see
row after row of Buicks, Cadillacs, Lincolns, Oldsmobiles and
Chryslers. You will see few Toyotas, Nissans, Mazdas and Audis.
The absence of foreign brands seems at first peculiar. So you need to know one thing about my parents and their peers. They are in their 80's, products of the World War II generation, one that was fiercely loyal to America and to the products it makes. Through the ups and downs of the American automobile industry, they stayed true to a belief in "Buy American." They are just one small example of how history shapes the attitudes and tastes of a generation.
In this article, we will turn our attention to the newest adult generation, Generation X, and specifically its attitudes toward the workplace and toward managing. Originally called the Slackers or the MTV generation, Generation X'ers were at first thought to be a somewhat unmotivated, cynical group of nihilists. After all, Beavis and Butt-head were their cultural icons.
Coca-Cola thought so, too, when it introduced a soda with the name OK in 1994. With cans colored in gray, the label read, "Don't be fooled into thinking there has to be a reason for everything" and "What's the point of OK soda? Well, what's the point of anything?" To Coke's surprise, the campaign failed, and the product was withdrawn.
Coke and the rest of the world discovered that certain myths about this generation are grossly inaccurate. What we are now realizing is that Generation X'ers are very much in sync with the new rules of the workplace and with America's love affair with financial success. At the same time, they are indeed different from previous generations. For example, 61 percent of Generation X women answering a Gallup poll said they would prefer to work for a woman, compared with 26 percent of the women surveyed in a group of older baby boomers.1
And if Madonna was the "material girl," she was certainly the forerunner to the "material generation." The term "slacker" doesn't apply to this generation when it comes to making money. Financial well-being is very important to Gen X'ers -- even more than it was for the boomers in their earlier years. For example, the Roper Organization found that 69 percent of today's 29-year-olds are interested in a high-paying job.2 This contrasts with 58 percent of a comparable group in 1978 who pined for a job that "pays a lot more than average." When the University of California at Los Angeles asked freshmen in 1993 whether "to be very well off financially" was an objective they considered essential or very important, 74.5 percent responded in the affirmative. The figure in 1971 was just 40.1 percent. When asked why it was very important to go to college, 75.1 percent of freshmen in 1993 said "to make more money." Only 49.9 percent said so in 1971.3 (See Exhibit I.)
What we are experiencing is a remarkable historical event -- a pivotal change between the workplace generations in their attitudes toward authority and toward organizations. Many of these changes began with the baby boomers and continue today with Generation X, setting these two groups distinctly apart from innumerable generations that went before them.
1Gallup Monthly Poll, 1993.
2Fay, W., "Understanding Generation, X" Marketing Research, Vol.5,No.2, pp. 54-55, 1993.
3"The American Freshman," Higher Education Research Institute, University of California at Los Angeles, 1994.
Why Generations Differ
To understand how generations come to differ from one another, we have to see each as a product of historical events that have profoundly shaped its members' values and views of the world. These events leave emotional memories that are far more potent than the mental impressions derived from reading about events that have never been experienced. These emotional memories deeply shape our feelings about institutions, authority, materialism, family and careers.
For example, the Silent Generation -- composed of those born between 1925 and 1942 -- was filled with the children of families that went through the Great Depression; they were influenced by their parents' hardships to treasure employment and to be obedient employees, and by their parents' military service in World War II to be command-oriented in their leadership style.4 Following the Silent Generation came the well-publicized baby boomers, the group born between 1943 and 1964. Raised on rock and rebellion in an era of phenomenal national wealth, they became a somewhat indulged and narcissistic tribe nicknamed Yuppies. Their views were shaped by events such as Watergate and Vietnam, which exposed the vulnerability of authority and the follies of a powerful nation. They were also witnesses to striking contrasts in leaders -- some inducing hope and idealism, like Martin Luther King Jr. and John F. Kennedy, and others promoting cynicism and apathy, such as Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.
The most recent generation -- born between 1965 and 1981 -- is called Generation X (after the title of a novel about them), or sometimes the busters, because of the drop-off or "bust" in births following the boomer generation. They are the children of dual-career parents and of parents whose marriages produced record divorce rates. In contrast to the boomers, who in college tended to major in liberal arts, this group chose majors in business and economics. In short, they spurned the idealism that their parents had embraced when young for a more pragmatic and cynical realism. The shaping events in their lives were Ronald Reagan, the crash of the Challenger space shuttle and the Gulf war.
To understand how Generation X managers may prove to be different from yesterday's flock, we need to take a step backward and look briefly at the Silent Generation managers for whom the term the "organization man" was coined. They are our point of contrast -- after all, they were the managers of the 1950's, 60's and 70's. They were loyal to their organizations and given loyalty in return.
Nowhere was this world of the "organization man" more in evidence than in America's banking industry, where I conducted interviews with managers who began their careers in the 1950's and 60's. There I discovered a startling contrast with the world of management today. The comments of one senior executive at a New York bank who started out in the 60's are representative of the command era of just a generation ago:
"As a junior man, I didn't even have an office, of course. I was out on what we then called a platform. Having an office was a sign of having really arrived. We wore white shirts only. We wore hats to and from the office; hats were considered part of the uniform. And, of course, we would never dare take our suit coats off. Not even in our offices, if we had one. That was totally taboo. Instead, we wore them all day -- even if our door was closed.
"It was easy to manage in a strictly hierarchical setting like that, because that was the system that was in place and that was the system that was honored, revered, feared -- all of the above -- both by those managing the hierarchy on top and by those who were on the rungs below. You always knew exactly where you stood. There was a built-in sort of incentive to go level by level by level. You would go one at a time.
"There were sharp divisions of labor. Vice presidents and senior vice presidents discussed policy matters only among themselves. It was absolutely off-limits for them to talk about policy with junior people. The decisions of the senior people were never questioned by the juniors. You would never say, 'Does the president really know what he is doing with this particular thing?' That stuff was in the exclusive domain of the senior people.
"Relationships with bosses were much more formal than they are today. You would work many, many years before referring to the vice president and certainly the senior vice president by their first names. There was always a very formal overtone to the whole thing. Seniority almost always meant age as well as rank; your bosses were older than you were. I think the formality was necessary to support the hierarchical system.
"Sharing of secrets was much more restricted then. Your discussions with a boss would be confined to the matter of the day. If you happened to be working on a project for U.S. Steel, your discussions with your seniors would usually be limited quite narrowly to discussions about U.S. Steel. Usually the senior's standard question at the end was 'How are things going?' The expected response was 'Things are going very well, sir.'"
The world our banker describes is one that, until fairly recently, shaped most managers' actions and values. But by the mid-1970's, this world of the "organization man" started to erode. The changes began as soon as the baby boomers entered the work force.
4For more on the generations, see Howe, N., and Strauss, W., "The new Generation Gap," The Atlantic Monthly, December 1992, and Russell, C., "The Master Trend" (Plenum Publishing, 1993).
The Bridge To A Changing Workplace:
The Baby Boomers
To understand Generation X, we need to begin with their older brethren, the baby boomers. The trends that started with the boomers have become only more pronounced with Generation X.
First of all, what separates both generations from earlier ones are important changes in the world of business. Competition has become much more intense; companies have been forced to speed up their responsiveness to the marketplace as never before. The hierarchical chain of command of the past has proved too slow. It took too long for decisions to move up and down the levels in their ordained sequence. In response, cross-functional and special project teams have been introduced as the new organizing units.
As the command model has weakened and teamwork increased, working relationships have become more informal. Employees assert themselves more. They have less patience with the restrictions of a hierarchical system and are less likely to defer to their bosses automatically. A command boss can no longer manage with the ease of just a decade ago. Loyalty has diminished sharply -- at first, on the side of the corporation, but this has been followed by employees. The No. 1 book on the Business Week best-seller list -- "The Dilbert Principle" -- mocks managers and their half-hearted and sometimes deceptive attempts to garner employee loyalty.
Collapsing at the same time is the traditional aura that surrounded positions of authority. In part, this is due to the flattening of organizational hierarchies. More profoundly, it is due to societal events. Unlike their parents, boomers as children saw the vulnerability of authority in society at large. Instead of watching a victorious battle with Nazi Germany, they witnessed a failed war in Vietnam, a series of assassinations of national leaders, the disgrace of several Presidents, an economic breakdown following the OPEC oil crisis and environmental disasters like Three Mile Island.
For this generation, authority looked increasingly unreliable and often just plain wrong. So, in their music and manners, they displayed contempt for leadership. They took to the streets and invaded college administration offices to protest. This kind of challenge to authority would have been unimaginable to their Silent Generation parents. Both the Silents and their own parents served in the military, where they learned great respect for the effectiveness of the command model. After all, they had seen strong and admired military and political leaders win a world war and overcome an economic depression.
Tied to these crumbling perceptions of the legitimacy of authority is a steep rise in the importance of individual independence. For example, throughout this century, independence has become more and more desirable to parents as a character attribute for their children, as evidenced by historical surveys. In 1890, for example, only 16 percent of parents believed that independence was an important quality; but by the end of the 1970's, approximately 75 percent felt that independence was the most important character trait.
As independence has grown in importance, its antithesis -- obedience -- has diminished steadily as a valued trait. For example, 64 percent of parents in 1890 cited obedience as one of the three most important characteristics in child-rearing. This fell to 17 percent by 1978.5 This gap between the two traits has only grown further with Generation X.
The heightened importance of independence is, in part, related to the nation's growing affluence. People have more money for the services and machinery needed to run a household. That has made them less dependent on family and community. Fathers were transferred by their companies across the nation, and this mobility further encouraged self-sufficiency. A book, "Dr. Spock's Baby and Child Care," published in 1946, put a strong emphasis on teaching children the value of independence. Over the next decade, the book became hugely influential -- the bible for child-rearing.
In the 1960's came the commercial introduction of the contraceptive pill, which gave women a greater sense of control and aided the emergence of the women's movement. Women also began to enter the work force in ever-growing numbers. For many women, these events spelled autonomy.
Education, too, undercut traditional authority. The baby boomers and Generation X'ers were beneficiaries of the greatest surge in education in history. Since 1960, the percentages of men and women graduating from high school have doubled and, from college, considerably more than doubled.6 The new hordes in college and graduate school found themselves encouraged to critique the books and ideas they were studying. They were actually graded on their ability to challenge one another's thinking, and often the professor's.
These changes created a new breed of businessperson among boomer managers. One editor of Fortune, Walter Kiechel 3d, caught it perfectly. "As managers," he wrote, "and with remarkable consistency across the group, they espouse values that any progressive organization would endorse: lots of communication, sharing of responsibility, respect for each other's autonomy ... They are also thoroughly uncomfortable with much of what has traditionally... been thought of as the leader's role. They don't like telling others what to do any more than they like being told. As bosses, they can be just as controlling as prior generations ... but they're sneakier about it. [They are] no respecters of hierarchy."7
I will use Paul as a paradigm of today's boomer executive. Just 40, Paul is the chief executive of a subsidiary of one of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies. He is also at the forefront of a wave of baby boomer bosses now filling the executive suites of North American corporations. A former hockey player, Paul stands tall and is physically imposing. Perfectly groomed, he looks the part of a young C.E.O. As he speaks, you hear the confidence in his voice, yet there is also a reflectiveness that hints at a different breed of company president. Deeply concerned about teamwork and participation, Paul believes in the egalitarian organization:
"I grew up with autocratic leadership -- top-down management. I found in those situations that there are always winners and losers and that it doesn't necessarily resolve issues effectively or move an organization forward. For me, there's a lot wrapped up in the word 'boss.' People of my generation are negative on the word. We don't want to be a 'boss.'
"When people ask me what I do, I say I'm with so-and-so company. I don't say I'm the president. You don't take pride in being a boss over people. What you take pride in is the accomplishments of your organization and how you help people's daily lives.
"So my style is to be very involved with other people. I prefer to get expert opinions before having to impose a decision. I'm not afraid to impose one if I have to, but I like to involve others in the decision process. You'll get a better solution that way."
Within the space of a single generation, then, words like "boss" and "president" have completely changed their meanings. No longer positive signs of accomplishment and authority, they now symbolize distance from others, an unreasonable toughness and other unattractive attributes.
Compared with executives of previous generations, Paul and his peers are distinctly different in style and attitude, and it shows in small ways as well as large. After a luncheon interview with Paul, I watched him climb into the front seat of his chauffeured company car so that he could be "up front" with the driver he knew. In the simple choice of where to sit, he had made a not-so-subtle statement about how he regarded his relationship to employees far down the line.
These generational shifts characterizing the baby boomers are now becoming more magnified with Generation X. Like their older brothers and sisters, the X'ers possess a strong sense of independence and a desire to be masters of their own destiny.
5Russell, C., pp.34-35.
6Statistical Abstract of the United Sates, Department of Commerce, pp. 152-155, 1993.
7Kiechel, W., "The Workaholic Generation," Fortune, April 10, 1989.
The Bridge To A Changing Workplace: The Baby Boomers
Generation X'Ers: What Sets Them Apart?
Four
prominent character traits of Generation X'ers have implications for
today's workplace. First, they quest for a real balance between work and
private life. Second, they are deeply independent, following in the
footsteps of the boomers. Third, they are the first real Information Age
generation. Finally, they yearn for workplaces that feel like
communities.
Quest For Camelot: Work/Life Balance
There is a greater search among this generation for a balance between work and private life. This quest is rooted in the childhood homes of X'ers and in the organizations where their parents work.
For one thing, Gen X'ers tend to be the children of parents who both held jobs. Indeed, the share of women participating in the labor force who had children under the age of six jumped from 18.6 percent in 1960 to 59.9 percent in 1992.8 The X'ers benefited from the extra family income these dual careers produced, but they felt deprived of their parents' company, a situation aggravated by the fact that a very high percentage of them were the children of divorce.
It was during their growing-up years that the divorce rates soared --roughly doubling between 1965 and 1977, the biggest jump ever. This was mainly because more of their mothers had an income of their own, and so had fewer worries about the poverty that can come with divorce. As a result, more than 40 percent of this generation spent time in a single-parent home by age 16.9
Generation X'ers appear not to want the sort of lives their parents led. They want to build more traditional families and to be more available to their children. As a 25-year-old manager explained: "You really need to be careful not to give 100 percent of yourself to the job, or else there will be nothing left over for your partner when you get home at the end of the day."
Having time at home with the family is a priority they felt their parents set too low. Consistently in interviews, I have heard the comment: "We are not living to work, but working to live. We are choosing a life, as opposed to just bringing home a paycheck."
They also want families. The Roper Organization found that between the late 1970's and late 80's, the share of 29-year-olds who said they expected to have no children fell to 8 percent, from 21 percent.10
Marie is a good example of this new attitude. She is fresh from college and now training to become a corporate banker. Well educated, a child of divorced parents, she embodies many of the characteristics associated with her generation. She likes to work hard and to do well -- but to a point:
"I'm definitely willing to work long hours during the week, but there's a limit. You need some time for yourself, for your family, for recreation. With people my age, there's more concern about quality of life. It's not really wanting the big, expensive vacation -- it's just wanting to enjoy life. It's not just a matter of having more things.
"It's related to the uncertainty of life. Life is just not the way it was in the 50's and 60's. There are so many nasty things that can happen along the way. There's disease, there's crime -- I mean, you're bombarded so constantly with all these negative aspects, it makes you think you might as well enjoy some of life. Also, your family is just as important as your career. Many of my friends are considering staying at home to raise their kids even though they are really bright and have great careers."
Because of the yearning for life balance, this will be a more conflicted generation than its predecessors. For example, Gen X'ers value highly interesting work, which is often accompanied by longer hours and greater demands. At the same time, they want their weekends, they want happy marriages.
This set of values may change as Generation X'ers move into mid-life, when career pressures soar, but for the present it appears to be a trademark. This generation will insist that organizations find more flexible ways to integrate time for family and private life into demanding careers.
8Statistical Abstract of the United States, Ibid
9Zill, N., and Robinson, J., "The Generation X," American Demographics, April 1995, pp 24-33
10Fay, W., Ibid
Master Of My Destiny
Generation X'ers will prove to be far less willing to identify closely with any organization. They like to think of themselves as an independent lot who can move if they don't like where they are. They are continuing the independence trend begun with the boomers and taking it to its logical endpoint -- little or no loyalty.
The attitudes of X'ers were in part shaped by an American President who preached self-sufficiency. As one 25-year-old manager commented to me: "One of the most influential individuals of our generation was Ronald Reagan. He basically said, 'Your destiny is in your own hands. You work hard, you can achieve. But it's up to you. You are the master of your ship. This is the land of opportunity. If you don't make it, it's your own fault.' Bill Clinton's recent dismantling of the national welfare system is only further reinforcing what has become a national mind-set."
In previous generations, you were obedient and made sacrifices in your personal life to demonstrate your loyalty to the company. The rewards were often promotions, lifetime employment and the power to command others. This kind of contract means little to Generation X.
The erosion in Generation X's interest in loyalty was unleashed by the corporations themselves. Just as the X'ers were graduating from college, the wave of downsizing began, with companies unceremoniously dumping longtime employees on the sidewalk. Between 1979 and 1995, 43 million jobs disappeared due to downsizing.
Many of those "downsized" were the parents of Generation X'ers. On the covers of the business magazines sitting on their parents' coffee tables were such headlines as "Your Career Is in Your Own Hands" or "The New Employment Contract: Self-Sufficiency." The X'ers rightly sensed that company loyalty was definitely a thing of the past. The contract of lifetime employment, which began to deteriorate for the boomers, feels practically nonexistent for the X'ers.
These young managers make their attitude very clear when you ask them about their career expectations. Generation X'ers will tell you that they anticipate having -- easily -- three to five employers over their career. Ask them why so many and they'll say that, sooner or later, they expect to lose their jobs. A typical comment heard in my interviews: "You need to be prepared if there are adverse conditions in the industry you're in. I think a lot of our generation are prepared that they might at some point lose their job, so it's good to be ready and have a mix of skills."
Talk with them further and you'll encounter their belief that you get better opportunities, better salaries, better challenges, better locations not by waiting patiently to move up the ladder, but by moving to another company. The objective for each job is to use it to build skills that will create opportunities for the next job. Loyalty is only to yourself and your teammates, not to the boss or the company.
For this new generation, work is more than ever before a transaction. Their parents saw working hard and "following orders" as an investment likely to yield greater responsibility and rewards. Generation X'ers expect a more immediate payout from their employers. The words of a senior executive who works with this generation sum it all up:
"The people who are my age [basically boomers] have been with the company for a while. There is an understanding that we are very committed to this organization and that we all truly want to work together to make this company a success. Over and over again, I've seen people put the organization ahead of their personal objectives.
"But with the analysts, the associates, the junior managers [Generation X'ers], the commitment to this organization is not necessarily there. Instead, you have to continually show them what it is they're getting out of this
organization. Continually, you have to make it a two-way street. That's the way you get their commitment. Commanding this generation won't do much to motivate them. They've got to be informed and convinced and involved."
From the other side, here's the perspective of a talented Gen X manager who observes the same phenomenon but has a different take on it:
"We view employers with more cynicism than previous generations: You use me for a couple of years, and I will use you for a couple of years. As soon as you and I cease to be of use to the other, then farewell. Employers can expect long hours and travel from us, but we in turn expect to gain experience and training that we can take to the next job. With the death of lifetime employment, companies lost one of their most important tools for commitment. As a result, we are far more assertive and will walk away as soon as we feel our expectations and needs are not being met."
To illustrate this change, we will return to our senior banker in New York, who compares the way a restless, ambitious young employee would have been dealt with a generation ago, when he was beginning his career, with the way he would be dealt with today:
"In the old days, the particularly assertive ones were pretty tame compared to how they are today. A restless junior employee would have gone to whomever he reported to and said, very politely, 'Jack, I'm not sure I'm cut out for this,' or whatever. Then Jack would have talked to his boss. That boss would have called the junior in and said, 'Now, I understand from Jack that you're a little bit restless. Let's talk about it.'
"The discussion would have been very circumspect. There were certain unwritten codes of conduct about what the junior could and could not say. He could have said, 'Well, I'd like to move along a little faster.' That would have been perfectly acceptable.
"The boss might have nodded sagely and said, 'Well, your day will come if you work hard.' He would have given the junior a 'be patient' lecture, mentioning all the good things that would come with time. Or he could have said, 'Well, now, Dave, you don't think you're moving along fast enough. Let me say that we think you're doing very well, and may I remind you of your high performance ratings and how highly the bank thinks of you?'
"It was always sort of third person -- the reference to how the bank thinks about you and how your seniors have a very high regard for you and all of that. There wouldn't have been much you could do about it. The boss held all the cards. The junior might have meekly said, 'Well, if it wouldn't be out of line, sir, I wonder if I could have a little more direct responsibility with clients.' And that might or might not have ended up being factored into some short-term plan for you.
"Today's generation, however, comes on very differently and with an entirely different set of expectations. This afternoon, I have a meeting with
a young man who is stewing over whether he should stay at the bank. He's a very bright, impatient fellow who doesn't think he's moving as fast as he should. He's going to tell me, in no uncertain terms and in a lot of detail, why he doesn't think he has enough responsibility. And why he thinks that he may go to Goldman Sachs because he's heard that in 1.8 years you can be at a certain position there, and you can be making this amount of money and so on. Thirty years ago, a boss just wouldn't have been exposed to that sort of challenge from a junior."
With great speed, this new attitude about loyalty is undermining the traditional models of managing.11 To win this generation over, managers have to understand that Generation X'ers want experiences that fit their career aspirations and information that keeps them informed and growing.
The comments of one young product manager echo throughout many of my interviews:
"I have a very good supervisor. What I enjoy the most is that she shares information with me. It's really an issue of mutual respect. I like the person for whom I work to understand that I want information. I don't want to be excluded from things. Knowing what is happening makes your job more satisfying, makes you feel part of a team and that your opinion is valued. After all, why should information be selectively kept from you? It's absurd. It's just an artificial line when there should not be any. It should be based on how well you perform. If I were the C.E.O. of a company, I would want everybody involved."
11Stewart, T., "Managing in a Wired Company," Fortune, July 11, 1994, p.50.
The Computer Is My Friend
Boomers will remember the first computers showing up on their college campuses. They had special rooms all to themselves, and often their own building. These mainframes were a bit mystical, sitting in rows behind glass walls in special air-conditioned spaces while students typed madly away at terminals in nearby rooms.
For
Generation X'ers, the computer story is quite different. They are truly
the first generation raised on computers. As adolescents, they knew the
computer at its most personal level -- as a small box sitting on a
desk.
In reality, the Computer Age began with the boomers. The first commercial computer, the Univac 1, made its appearance in the early 1950's. But for several decades, all that computing power remained relatively distant for most people. It was not until the creation of the microprocessor at Intel in 1970 that computing became truly accessible. This microprocessor, or "computer on a chip," proved to be the "big bang" for a new era, marked by the arrival of the personal computer.
By the time Generation X was entering high school, kids had begun playing simple computer games on machines made by Atari, Commodore and Mattel -- the forerunners to Nintendo and Sega. The first commercial personal computer was introduced in 1977 by Commodore. It was called the PET, after the popular pet rocks of the day. That same year, Apple Computer was born in a garage, destined to produce $500 million in revenues within five years from sales of its Apple I and II models. By 1981, I.B.M. announced its own PC. The world would never be the same. Nor would the way kids learned and played.
Being computer savvy gives Generation X'ers two advantages. One is that they possess a facility at accessing and manipulating information that prior generations lack. They are, in essence, the first true Information Age managers.
A suitable analogy is that older generations are using hammers to crack open sources of information while this generation is using pneumatic drills. This facility with the new "information tools" will give Gen X'ers both greater career portability and some measure of power. For example, computer skills are in universal demand -- they can be transported easily from company to company. Witness the movement of programmers in Silicon Valley as they migrate to whatever company has the next best project.
Just as important, this facility will give Gen X'ers certain levers of control over the hierarchy of command -- especially the senior levels, which are populated by those with less computer literacy. For hand in hand with the ability of Gen X'ers to access information goes the erosion of power and authority of executives who once controlled that data. Normally, when people begin losing power, they fight back. But with information technology, fighting back is likely in the long run to undermine an executive's credibility and ultimately his or her organization's competitiveness.
A very powerful example of this dynamic involves a young manager I studied, named Chris, who works for a billion-dollar company that distributes electronics parts. Chris monitors the creditworthiness of customers and the overall inventory, to see what is selling and what is not. He then forecasts sales to make sure the levels of inventory are appropriate. Along with 12 other asset managers, he reports directly to an operations vice president. Between Chris and his vice president, there are two key differences. One is age -- Chris is 30 and his boss is 52. The other is computer literacy. Chris is literate, and the boss is not.
Once a month, the vice president hands Chris a 1,000-page computer printout to review. It takes Chris four to five days to examine it manually, searching for problems such as ballooning inventories of a certain part or credit difficulties. One day, Chris asked the vice president for a copy of the computer diskette that had produced the 1,000-page printout. With the diskette, he knew he could do his job a lot quicker. The vice president was reluctant, but after Chris pressed for several days, he handed it over.
Chris then performed in three hours what had previously taken him five days. As he went along searching the data base for credit problems, he took the opportunity to perform other analyses. He discovered some disturbing surprises. He learned, for example, that certain parts were being purchased for which there were either diminishing orders or none at all. In some cases, these errors were costing the company tens of thousands of dollars per part.
Chris brought his discoveries to the vice president. The vice president seemed uncomfortable, and the following month he denied Chris access to the diskette. Shocked by this response, Chris saw the implications of his simple request:
"The vice president realized that it gave him information that he was totally unaware of. It would have taken him six weeks to do manually what I did in two hours. What he also realized is that I could replace him -- because I knew what questions to ask of the computer. Imagine what I could do if I had total access. He wouldn't be needed anymore.
"But this vice president is about to become the fall guy. The president is now saying, 'I can't understand what the problem is in operations. You keep hiring these high-priced asset managers, but the same problems have kept reappearing over the last two years. I'm going to hire a new director of asset managers, somebody who can get to the heart of this.'
"The secret is out. The other VP's had access to my report. They've seen what the computer can do, and they know my results didn't take eight weeks to produce. They're coming to me, asking how to get the same information. One of these days, it's going to be revealed that the vice president is the one holding all the horsepower back. But by that time, it will be too late. A third of our asset managers have already left, and I figure the rest of us will be gone soon. Another asset manager and myself are leaving in a week."
The greatest power of information and information technology comes from its openness. To maintain control over it by restricting its use defeats its very purpose. What we have to understand is that a phenomenal skill gap is growing between the generations in computer literacy. In olden times, wisdom came with experience and age. Today, wisdom is increasingly tied to youth, thanks largely to very rapid rates of change in technology.
Older generations who feel threatened by this will simply be undermining themselves and the very advantages of technology. Instead, they must develop strong and trusting relationships, knowing that there will always be these gaps in wisdom between the generations. The key is to harness the knowledge and facility of Generation X, not to restrain it.
Home, Home On The Campus
Looking over the last two decades at leading-edge companies that have sprung up on the West Coast -- the Microsofts, the Nikes, the Sun Micro-systems -- many are distinguished by a "campus culture."
In
essence, their architecture and company services are designed to blur
the distinction between the workplace, a college campus and a hometown
community. Company outings mirror fraternity life, with volleyball,
barbecues, dances. The companies house cafeterias that are open day and
night. There are fitness centers just like at school. Refrigerators are
always nearby, stacked with snacks and soft drinks like the one back
home. There are convertible sofas or futons in the closets, so that
offices can quickly and easily become dorm rooms. These places are in
essence designed to create a sense that one never really left college.
The advantages of creating physical spaces reminiscent of university life are clear. At school, one often worked long hours without really noticing it. Exams and projects demanded intense work periods. But students accepted such demands. You knew that they would end when the exam ended. The sense of accomplishment made you forget that there were more ordeals ahead in the next semester -- just as young software engineers and consultants always forget that there is a never-ending stream of projects down the road.
What made this all the more tolerable in college was the fact that your friends were working and playing alongside you. You were a community. You could escape your hardships with companions. The campus settings of corporations achieve similar outcomes -- long, hard work but in a community.
What sets Generation X'ers apart from others is the redefining of what they consider their communities to be. Remember that their most intimate community, the family, was undergoing remarkable stress during their childhood -- primarily caused by record divorce rates. At the same time, many of America's most important civic communities witnessed remarkable declines in membership. For example, participation in parent-teacher associations dropped to 5 million in 1982, from more than 12 million in 1964. Membership in the League of Women Voters has fallen 42 percent since 1969. The Boy Scouts are off by 26 percent since 1970; the Masons are down by 39 percent since 1959; the Jaycees by 44 percent since 1979.12
What Generation X'ers witnessed was a major decline in civic community. Even religion, which has traditionally played a more consistent role as a source of community, experienced a modest membership decline during their upbringing. While families from previous generations attended social events at churches and temples during the week and on weekends, attendance today is largely restricted to a one- or two-hour service on the weekend.
Robert Putnam, a professor of international affairs at Harvard, pointed out recently that while more Americans are bowling than ever before, bowling in leagues has dropped precipitously. From 1980 to 1993, the number of individuals who bowl increased by 10 percent, while bowling in leagues dropped by 40 percent.
"Trends of the past quarter-century," Mr. Putnam concluded, "have apparently moved the United States significantly lower in the international rankings of social capital (networks, norms and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit in a society). The recent deterioration ... has been sufficiently great that another quarter-century of change at the same rate would bring the United States ... to the midpoint of all these countries. Two generations' decline at the same rate would leave the United States at the level today of Chile, Portugal and Slovenia."13
What this means is that Gen X'ers are the first generation to feel a significant absence of real community in their lives. Their communities, instead, tend to be small circles of friends. For this very reason, workplaces that are able to create a true sense of community become the preferred work environments for this generation. And teamwork is a favored way of creating momentary communities.
Conclusion
These are but a few of the trends that are shaping a new generation in workplaces across America. The message of this survey of Generation X has been to help managers and organizations recognize that each generation does indeed have a special character. To harness the potential of any generation, we must be sensitive to what motivates its members as individuals. Our tendency is often to see only the similarities, while a younger generation's tendency is to see only the differences.
Neither perspective will do. To work effectively with these younger people, older generations will have to be far more perceptive. If you can provide the younger people with challenging projects, respect their needs for independence and create work- place communities for them, they will reward you with something quite rare -- dedication.
Reprint No. 98102
12Putnam,R., "Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital," The Journal of Democracy, 1994.
13Ibid.
| Authors
Jay A. Conger, jconger@marshall.usc.edu Jay A. Conger is a professor of organizational behavior at the London Business School and a research scientist at the University of Southern California’s Center for Effective Organizations. He is the author of many books and is recognized throughout the world as an expert on leadership, organizational change, and boards of directors. |
-------------------------------
QUOTE:
When in doubt, keep in mind these things:
- Lead, not manage.
- Pay attention to, and care about, the individual.
- Foster a sense of belonging to a team doing something great.
- Create a sense of purpose that will better society.
- Be sincere about adding genuine meaning to life.
AND
Why Baby Boomers and Millennials Make Great Teams
The differing communication style of these two generations can
prove to be an asset — if managed correctly.
TEAM
CULTURE
On the other end of the demographic spectrum are the
Millennials – roughly 90 million strong – sandwiching Gen X (93 million).
Millennials are known as tech-savvy, idealistic, and (in some cases) hard
for older generations to work with. But when you do the math, it’s clear that
Boomers and Millennials will be increasingly working side-by-side.
Rather than buy into the oil-and-water view, I
propose a different view of this inevitable mixing. I see vibrant, powerful
opportunity due to the overlapping nature of what each group needs and wants,
and what each has to give.
At the core of the Millennial energy is potential.
- Relatively fresh, especially in the working world. Millennials haven’t had time to learn what doesn’t work – their brains aren’t wired yet.
·
Able to work incredibly hard when they are motivated
to do so. Intense focus, long hours, across a range of task domains.
·
Intuitively understand technology – they are “digital
natives.”
·
Want to see the world become a better place for
themselves and their future families.
·
Want mentors who can guide them and explain what
mistakes to avoid to maximize their progress and contribution.
At the core of Boomer energy is experience.
- Spent decades learning, their brains are wired now for what works.
- Intangible wisdom that comes from decades of forming and living through relationships, projects, and experiences.
- Tend to have an uneven relationship with technology, how it works, and what is possible.
- Want to see the world become a better place for their kids and grandkids.
- Want to feel like they have a direct and tangible way to give back and pass along the things they’ve learned.
I think these groups are a match made in heaven.
Here’s how I would structure a Boomer-Millennial dream team to become an
unsuspecting source of power for a project or business unit.
------------
It’s Time
to Prime the Millennial Generation for Managerial Success
------------
NOVA SCOTIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE-
---------------
NOVA SCOTIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE-
For those who mean business and
are ready to take on the world. https://cards.twitter.com/cards/18ce53vvv89/1m9cp …
---------------
Millennials Play the Long Game
With
the right incentives, younger hires want to commit to your organization.
by Jennifer J. Deal and Alec Levenson
---------
----------------
Epic Guide To
Managing Millennials In The Workplace
http://wheniwork.com/blog/millennials-in-the-workplace/
-------
---------------------
QUOTE: Critics might suggest that the lack of interest among youth with respect to the armed forces is symptomatic of a general decline in the commitment of this new generation of Canadians to their country as an influential armed power on the world stage. Young people, the argument goes, lack a real sense of Canada’s military past. Since only three provinces require that students take modern Canadian history in high school, most youth have a limited understanding of how their country evolved in the 20th Century. They do not know, for example, about Canada’s military accomplishments in the world wars, and in the Korean War. They are only vaguely aware of early successes in peacekeeping and peace support missions. And they have, as one recent poll by the Dominion Institute has suggested, displayed less and less interest in honouring the country’s surviving veterans, although it is true that opinions vary on this particular perception. Without these memories of combat, it becomes difficult to develop national pride, and without such pride, there are fewer reasons for today’s youth to volunteer to risk their lives overseas.
Generally speaking, critics have allocated blame for this scenario in two different directions. Some have noted in anger that the auditor general’s reports dating all the way back to 1990 had predicted a long-term personnel crisis. They therefore blame the military, and DND, for failing to deal with the crisis early enough and effectively. The world has changed, they argue. Security is no longer the exclusive domain of officers and generals. Youth who want to make a difference do not see the military as the best way to do so. And by failing to reinvent themselves effectively, the armed forces have not done enough to convince them otherwise.
Others focus on education. They believe that if Canadian youth knew more about the nation’s history, interest in the military would increase. Young Canadians would feel a greater commitment to the future of their country and would understand that we are, and have always been, a nation of significant military accomplishments. If today’s youth were taught to appreciate the sacrifices made by previous generations of Canadians to preserve their freedom and freedom around the world, they would feel a duty to do the same for future generations.
O CANADA- Not Necessarily Conscription... Bringing the Forces up to Strength: A Question of Motivating Youth to Serve
For more information on accessing this file, please visit our help page.
Thanks largely to the dangerous mission to Afghanistan, and the situations in Darfur and the Middle East, Canadian awareness and commitment to the nation’s armed forces has undergone a profound resurgence of late. As recently as the 1990s, the Forces were largely regarded by the federal government as a money drain, and by large portions of the general public as an out-of-date, ineffective, and perhaps even irrelevant institution. The national economic recovery, effective public pressure by pro-military enthusiasts, and an increase in pride in Canada’s place in the world have changed all of this.
A recent poll by the Innovative Research Group found that two-thirds of Canadians agree that for the country to play a significant role in world affairs, it needs an effective armed forces. During the last election campaign, after the Martin Liberal government promised to spend an additional $13 billion over the next 20 years to revitalize the Canadian Forces (CF), the Conservatives pledged to spend almost $2 billion more. And while the Liberals expected to add 5000 regular and 3000 reserve personnel, the Conservatives have created a recruiting target of 15,000 additional personnel in total. Both parties seem to believe that “people,” as former Defence Minister Bill Graham put it, “remain the greatest strength of Canada’s military.” The less partisan Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence has agreed. It recently released a report arguing that the budget for the Department of National Defence (DND) should be increased even more to somewhere between $25 billion and $35 billion. The Liberal proposal would eventually result in a Forces budget of about $22 billion, and the Conservative proposal, $24 billion, supposedly allowing for between 15,000 and 20,000 additional personnel.
There must be significant expansion, say the experts, and there will be, reply the politicians. But how? Buying new equipment, modernizing military tactics, and reforming inefficient bureaucracies can be accomplished relatively easily, but even in an era when youth unemployment is dangerously high, recruiting new personnel has proven much more difficult. In fact, judging by current trends, without major changes in the approach to recruiting Canadian youth, the proposed increases will not be met. In April 2002, Auditor General Sheila Fraser issued a damning report of the state of the recruitment and retention abilities of DND. Although she found that efforts were being made to improve the recruiting process, to increase wages and benefits, and to make the Forces more open and accessible to previously underrepresented groups – such as women and ethnic minorities – the results had not been realized quickly enough. The navy still needed people with technical skills, she noted at the time, the army still needed engineers, the air force still needed pilots, and the entire armed forces still needed additional medical personnel.
More than four years later, with even more money available, in two separate reports, both Fraser and Yves Côté, the Canadian Defence Ombudsman, have found that the results remain disappointing. The CF is still understaffed, and, in spite of some incremental improvements, particularly among better-educated recruits, there are few signs of long-term positive developments. The current system, in Côté’s words, “is neither efficient nor is it adequate to meet the needs of the Canadian Forces.” Put simply, even if the general public, the so-called experts, and the political elite have increased their commitment to the Canadian military, the country’s youth – the present and future of the Armed Forces – have not, and without them, there can be little hope of meeting the recruitment goals.
Critics might suggest that the lack of interest among youth with respect to the armed forces is symptomatic of a general decline in the commitment of this new generation of Canadians to their country as an influential armed power on the world stage. Young people, the argument goes, lack a real sense of Canada’s military past. Since only three provinces require that students take modern Canadian history in high school, most youth have a limited understanding of how their country evolved in the 20th Century. They do not know, for example, about Canada’s military accomplishments in the world wars, and in the Korean War. They are only vaguely aware of early successes in peacekeeping and peace support missions. And they have, as one recent poll by the Dominion Institute has suggested, displayed less and less interest in honouring the country’s surviving veterans, although it is true that opinions vary on this particular perception. Without these memories of combat, it becomes difficult to develop national pride, and without such pride, there are fewer reasons for today’s youth to volunteer to risk their lives overseas.
Generally speaking, critics have allocated blame for this scenario in two different directions. Some have noted in anger that the auditor general’s reports dating all the way back to 1990 had predicted a long-term personnel crisis. They therefore blame the military, and DND, for failing to deal with the crisis early enough and effectively. The world has changed, they argue. Security is no longer the exclusive domain of officers and generals. Youth who want to make a difference do not see the military as the best way to do so. And by failing to reinvent themselves effectively, the armed forces have not done enough to convince them otherwise.
Others focus on education. They believe that if Canadian youth knew more about the nation’s history, interest in the military would increase. Young Canadians would feel a greater commitment to the future of their country and would understand that we are, and have always been, a nation of significant military accomplishments. If today’s youth were taught to appreciate the sacrifices made by previous generations of Canadians to preserve their freedom and freedom around the world, they would feel a duty to do the same for future generations.
Unfortunately, to move the military forward will take more than just better recruitment and more history being taught. Both criticisms are fair, but addressing one of them exclusive of the other will not solve the problem. There is no doubt that the world and the meaning of security have changed dramatically since the end of the Cold War. Indeed, security must now be understood as more than just military might, and to convince Canadian youth to join the military will require a modern, progressive and far-reaching approach to national duty and global citizenship. The military will have to make itself more relevant in the eyes of the country’s future leaders, and a more rewarding form of service than it is considered today. It is also true that young Canadians do not know enough about their country’s past. And in those rare instances when they are presented with the Canadian story in school, too much of it is delivered ineffectively, and it does not result in real learning and appreciation. We have to teach more history, and we have to do it more effectively.
Nevertheless, even if DND continues to modernize its recruitment strategies (for example, it has increased its budget for advertising by over 500 percent since 2000), and even if future young Canadians are taught more history, there are reasons to believe that the CF will still struggle to attract sufficient numbers of Canadian youth. No matter how effective the recruiters, nothing can replace the impact of a veteran’s presence in the home. Apart from some recent immigrants, the current generation of Canadian youth is among the first to have almost no direct links to veterans of previous wars. The soldiers who fought in Europe in the Second World War and in Asia during the Korean War might well have told their children stories of their experiences, but, until very recently, today’s parents do not have those stories to relate. It is difficult to imagine, barring the obvious recent involvement in Afghanistan, that war can be real to most young Canadians. Unless they have travelled through failed or failing states overseas, the closest they likely will have come to genuine danger will be, at worst, a book or film in school, or perhaps an hour-long visit from a veteran to a school assembly that they may or may not have attended. Try as they might, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for National Defence recruiters to recreate in this country the military culture and sense of duty to which previous generations of young Canadians were exposed.
Teaching more history, and even teaching it more effectively, will also go only so far. Young Canadians today learn differently. Technological advances have made it possible for them to read less, to concentrate for shorter periods of time, and to rely more on experiential forms of learning. Books and films on Canada’s wartime experiences will affect some youth, but not as many as has been the case in the past. And no matter how well taught, fewer of today’s youth will be inspired by a typical classroom experience to go out and join the military. If they are not fighting themselves, and they do not know anyone who has fought to preserve Canada’s security, no matter what they are told in school, they will have great difficulty understanding what military service even means, let alone appreciate its value.
This problem is obviously not exclusive to Canada. In Sweden, the solution is known as full conscription. Under the Swedish military system, in the event of an emergency or a war, anyone living in the country between the ages of 16 and 70 is obligated to help ensure the nation’s security. Men between the ages of 18 and 24 must go even further by enrolling in the military and reporting to a training unit if they are accepted for service. For women, the decision to participate is optional, but if they pass a special admissions test, their obligations become the same as their male colleagues. Sweden averages about 8500 conscripts per year from a nation of nine million people, less than one-third the population of Canada.
Such a solution is not at all realistic for Canada, nor will it ever be. Conscription has a history of creating national divisions along linguistic and ethnic lines, as it did in both world wars, and those experiences are unlikely to ever be forgotten. The current approach of the Canadian Forces, which favours better-educated recruits (the average recruiting age has increased by close to ten years), is also unlikely to be entirely helpful in the long run. Today’s youth need to be exposed to the military in a positive manner at as early an age as possible, if they are to develop any durable sense of affinity and attraction to military service. Furthermore, the traditional approach to recruitment as a whole, focusing directly on the youth themselves, is out of date. It reflects a technique that might have worked in previous generations, when knowledge of history was better, and when a sense of the country’s military tradition was more evident, but as the auditor general’s reports have shown, it has not worked more recently and will not work in the near future.
Promoting the military today requires a two-track strategy. In an era when security is understood so broadly, and at a time when the CF has worked exceptionally hard to redefine themselves as professionals, recruiters must focus more explicitly on the social benefits of military service. Young people today might, at least at first glance, be less interested in dying for their country, but they are certainly interested in developing leadership skills. In an age of increased global volunteerism, they generally embrace the idea of ‘service before self.’ Even though many do not vote, they do have pride in their country. Concepts such as duty, loyalty, integrity, and courage do resonate with them. They believe in bilingualism, and in working with those in need, and they want to ‘understand the inherent violence of armed conflict’ so that they can put a stop to it. These are all values discussed in the DND publication Duty with Honour: The Profession of Arms in Canada, but how many young Canadians would be aware of this publication and its contents? Young Canadians generally do not know that the military employs doctors, engineers, technicians, and strategic analysts. They are largely unaware of the paid opportunities for professional and educational development, and they do not realize that service in the military need not be for life. If the CF hopes to attract today’s youth, it must show itself in the broadest and most progressive light possible.
It must also be practical. Military recruiters arriving on a university campus in full uniform are open targets for criticism from so-called ‘peace activists,’ among others. As a result, trips to schools and universities tend to ‘preach only to the converted,’ alienating the ambivalent, and further upsetting the critics. Recruiters should instead target high school guidance counselors and university and college career centres. Ambitious Canadian teenagers who are worried about having to work while obtaining a university degree should routinely be informed of the Regular Officer Training Plan (ROTP), which not only pays the tuition of military recruits, but also covers the costs of their books and provides them with a salary that includes a pay-living differential for those who attend school in more expensive cities. Summers are spent being paid a reasonable wage to develop what future employers will interpret as leadership skills, the ability to work as a member of a team, and also to develop a second language capability.
Upon graduation, recruits do indeed owe the nation five years of uniformed service, but during this time, they receive what is increasingly becoming a competitive salary, they are provided with full benefits, and they are given opportunities for further self-improvement. Unlike many of their colleagues, university graduates of the ROTP program do not have to spend their final year of school worrying about finding a job after graduation. Furthermore, while these graduates train, the CF contributes yearly to what is called a Personnel Enhancement Program (PEP), which provides funding for officers who seek to improve their qualifications, especially during their uniformed careers, but also in anticipation of the transition back to the civilian population. Pursuing further higher education is also encouraged, and rewarded with increased pay and responsibility. A similar plan exists for college students, and opportunities are also available for those interested in careers in trades.
The old military culture in Canada is fast becoming obsolete. Being a member of the Canadian Forces no longer generally and presently commands the pride and respect that it would have in previous generations. We must create a new form of this culture in Canada, and to do so, the Department of National Defence must integrate the values it holds that resonate with young Canadians more directly into its marketing strategies. It must spread its message through people who do not wear uniforms and who do not automatically provoke what can often be misleading and damaging images and ideas.
At a time when Canadians have developed a more sophisticated appreciation of the importance of a strong and capable military than they have in at least a generation, it is crucial that increased government spending not result in failure and disappointment. New equipment and greater focus are important, but if we lack the people to carry out the missions, the CF will have no future. And without it, Canada has much less of a place in the world. The action must begin now. There is no longer any time to waste.
----------
1. Canada's First Responders' Suicide Crisis • SJS
http://www.socialjusticesolutions.org/2014/07/28/canadas-first-responders-suicide-crisis/
Jul 28, 2014 ... According to this article, 13 of Canada's first responders
have committed ... i.e paramedics, firefighters, police officers, dispatchers
and prison staff ... Despite working in the best interest of others, these first
responders did not receive the ... California Reforms Cause Youth Incarceration
Rates To Plummet ...
-------------------
BLOGGED:
CANADA MILITARY NEWS: Most Militaries of Nato 65% retirement age- and youth aren't interested in serving such a messy difficult horrific job that is so thankless by much of global population /Pope Francis/ Global News/Military News/F**KING PAEDOPHILES/if colonization was such a bitch, why are so many children, aged, disabled all nationalities still worse off 2da/Environment matters folks/Mexico steals First Peoples-Indigenous lands/O Canada/july 15-JUST IN WIKILEAKS Pacific Rim
http://nova0000scotia.blogspot.ca/2015/07/canada-military-news-most-militaries-of.html
--------------------
----------
How Millennials Are Changing the Rules at Work
It's not your dad's workplace anymore.
We hear a lot about what Millennials want
and how they are different from Gen-Xers and (especially) baby boomers. While
we need to be careful
to not stereotype any person, we can definitely say that, as of late, the
rules have changed. Here are 5 things that have changed in the workplace.
1. Bring Your Own Device
(BYOD)
Can you imagine in 1982 being asked to
bring in your own phone and typewriter? Ridiculous. But now? Lots of companies
ask employees to bring their own phones and sometimes their own laptops. While
there are some legal pitfalls involved in a BYOD policy, lots of people love
them. If we're expected to be on call 24/7, do we really want to carry two
phones in our purses and pockets?
2. The Brain Break
The old adage may be if you aren't head
down, you aren't working, but today's Millennials aren't interested in
that type of environment. While Millennials
don't want to job hop, being happy at a job is more important to them than
to their older counterparts. And what makes Millennials happy? A nice brain
break--be it playing a game on their smartphones, texting friends, or doing
whatever the young whippersnappers do these days (and while you're at it,
get off my lawn!). Is this bad? Not at all.
We recognize that you can ruin your muscles
by lifting boxes for eight straight hours with no pauses, but we're not as good
at recognizing that our brains need a break as well. If your employees are
getting their jobs done, don't say anything about their Candy Crush
addiction--unless they are on a higher level than you are.
3. The Multicultural
Workplace
Fifteen percent of American Millennials were born outside the
U.S. That's the largest generational cohort since 1910. It's not your
dad's workplace anymore. Millennials don't see these people as
"others," because if a Millennial isn't a first- or
second-generation American, it's likely that a good portion of his or her
friends are. This can mean lots of new insights in the global marketplace.
Other lands aren't seen as scary. Almost one-quarter of Millennials speak a language other than English
at home.
I've seen this shift firsthand through my
radio appearances. I frequently do radio appearances. Various shows ask
me on to explain some weird HR thing in the news, or to give advice on how
to get a job or how to get your supervisor fired. The Millennial producers who
find me have no problem with the fact that I live overseas. But three different
times, a Generation X-aged host rejected me because "we only want someone
in America." Never mind that I hold an American passport and write about
American issues (almost exclusively). They are scared to death to have someone
from "overseas" on the phone. One host explained (through her
producer), "We can't trust phone lines to Switzerland." It's doubtful
a Millennial would have made the same statement. (For the record, you can trust
phone lines to Switzerland.)
4. Entitled at Work
Whether or not Millennials feel entitled,
business leaders think they feel that way, with 31 percent of CEOs saying that they need more intense
supervision. I have to say to that, duh. Why
wouldn't the youngest members of the work force need more supervision than
the people who have been working for 20 years? Heaven knows, I needed more
supervision when I was just starting out, and you did too.
Nevertheless, that image follows them, and
some good has come about because of it. Because Millennials do value perks and
work-life balance, and companies believe they need to offer those things in
order to attract the younger employees, we
see a lot of perks. Thing like yoga classes, free lunches, and game rooms
are designed to make the Millennial employee happy, but everyone benefits.
5. Informal Communication
The days of formal memos are gone in favor
of IMs and text messages. While I'll continue to counsel people of all ages to
use formal language and stay away from "text speak," informal message
systems are here to stay. And it's not only informal forms of delivery, it's
also the emoji. Seventy-six percent of Americans use emojis in their
professional communication.
Business deals can be closed through a
serious of text messages at 9:00 p.m.--or later. You can know how your
co-worker feels about a particular project by the little face she's added at
the end of her email. Companies are picking up, and in
2015, Apple is releasing a whole new set of characters with different skin
tones. The informal is here to stay.
------------
Leadership Lab
Five
things employers must know about millennials
This column is part of Globe Careers’ new Leadership Lab series, where executives and leadership experts share their views and advice about the leadership and management issues of today. There will be a new column every weekday. Find all Leadership Lab stories at tgam.ca/leadershiplab.
Millennials are the largest, most diverse, most educated and most connected generation of all time and that’s why companies have to pay attention to them in a big way.
By 2025, they will become 75 per cent of the global work force and more are stepping into management positions every day. Most employers aren’t prepared for the sheer number of millennials who are going to be entering their companies in the coming years because of the generational differences.
To better understand these disparities, I partnered with PayScale.com on our annual “Generations At Work“ study. In the study, we compared millennials to Gen X’s and boomers to identify differences in how they view work and how they are dealing with the current economy. As work force demographics change, companies have to be prepared to cater to people who were raised differently and have different levels of comfort with technology. Here are some of our key findings and how they can help employers better engage with millennials.
1. They are happy with their managers.
More baby boomers (9.40 per cent) wish they could change their boss (out of all the possible changes to their work situation) than millennials (5.90 per cent) or Gen X (6.80 per cent). In Canada, fewer millennials would change their boss at 4.9 per cent. Based on previous research I’ve done, millennials have a positive view of their management. They see them as being wise and willing to mentor. Millennials are looking for mentoring support and seek their boss’s advice on how to get ahead since they are just starting out in their careers. Companies need to provide these mentoring opportunities so they can better engage their millennials and retain them, instead of lose them to the competition.
2. They want to work for a small company.
Millennial workers are more likely to work at small firms (less than 100 employees) than both Gen X or baby boomers (55.6 per cent compared with 48.1 per cent and 49.6 per cent respectively). In Canada, slightly more millennials work for small firms (58.5 per cent). Millennials are seeking a startup culture where they can dress casually, have workplace flexibility and be innovative. Smaller companies provide an environment where they can get involved with various business activities too. Millennials are also turned off by the daunting interview process used by large companies. Employers should create a culture that supports millennials if they want to compete against millennial entrepreneurs and those who wish to work at smaller companies.
3. They have a delayed adulthood.
In the study, we found that baby boomers are more likely to have always lived on their own after starting their career (95.6 per cent) than Gen X (88.5 per cent) or millennials (70.8 per cent). In Canada, slightly more millennials have lived on their own (71.9 per cent). Millennials across the world have felt the harsh realities of the economic collapse. Millions are still living with their parents and are either jobless or underemployed working as bartenders or waiters. Employers need to be sensitive to this during their recruitment process and also understand that millennials are very family oriented. Some have even brought their parents on job interviews.
4. They want to work from home.
Despite millennials wanting workplace flexibility, they aren’t receiving it as much as older generations. Gen X (6.5 per cent) is more likely to have the option to work from home than millennials (5.3 per cent) or baby boomers (4.8 per cent). In a previous study I did with oDesk.com, we found that millennials embrace the idea of freedom and flexibility in the workplace over older generations. Employers should give all generations the ability to work from wherever they want as long as they get their jobs done. Millennials will be more loyal and effective if you trust them with this privilege and if you don’t, they will go to another company that offers it.
5. They want meaningful work.
In the study, we found that millennials report the lowest levels of job meaning. In Canada, only 40 per cent of millennials report a high level of job meaning. Millennials often choose meaningful work over higher salaries when selecting a company to work for. Their workplace expectations are higher and not met by what corporations are currently offering either. Employers need to find a way to allow millennials to work on projects that align with their strengths and have a true business impact. They should also set expectations that not every project will be what they are looking for and that they have to pay their dues over time in order to earn opportunities.
Dan Schawbel (@DanSchawbel) is a workplace expert, keynote speaker and the New York Times best-selling author of Promote Yourself: The New Rules for Career Success.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/careers/leadership-lab/five-things-employers-must-know-about-millennials/article15793832/
-----------
14 Rules Of The New Workplace That Millennials Need To Master
“Today’s workplace doesn’t tolerate slackers,” says Gen Y career expert Dan Schawbel in his new book "Promote Yourself: The New Rules For Career Success." In a rapidly changing economy, young people either rise to the top or don’t survive.
To navigate the new
workplace, Schawbel says millennials need to master a new set of rules that
aren’t taught in school. Advances in technology, the rise of social media, and
24/7 connectivity mean young people have to promote themselves and take
ownership of their careers in ways that previous generations wouldn’t or couldn’t
have imagined.
Based on interviews and
original research from Schawbel’s Gen Y research firm Millennial Branding, he
reveals the new rules of the modern workplace that young people must learn to
get ahead. The following is adapted from the introduction of “Promote
Yourself.”
1.
Your job description is just the beginning.
If you want to succeed
in today’s workplace and make a name for yourself, you’ll have to do a lot more
than what you got hired to do. In fact, your job description is just a scratch
on the surface of what you should be doing. Always be on
the lookout for new projects and collaborations with other groups, and do as
much training and development as possible.
2.
Your job is temporary.
As the world changes, so
does the workplace. Companies are acquiring or being acquired, merging with
other companies, or crumbling. Your team could be eliminated, your position
outsourced, or you might lose interest in your job altogether.
3.
You’re going to need a lot of skills you probably don’t have right now.
A recent Department of
Education study shows that companies are having trouble finding and retaining
the right talent. Soft (interpersonal) skills have become more important than
hard (technical) skills. It’s never been easier to acquire hard skills — and
those skills will only get you so far. Companies are looking for leadership,
organizational, teamwork, listening, and coaching skills.
4.
Your reputation is the single greatest asset you have.
Titles might be good for
your ego, but in the grand scheme of things what really matters is what you're
known for, the projects you’re part of, how much people trust you, whom you
know, who knows about you, and the aura you give off to people around you.
Sure, what you do is important. But what others think you do can be
just as important if not more so. If you build a strong reputation, the money
and opportunities will find you.
5.
Your personal life is now public.
The 15 seconds it takes
you to tweet about how much you hate your boss or to post a pic of you passed
out with a drink in your hand could ruin your career forever. Even the littlest
things — how you behave, dress, your online presence, body language, and whom
you associate with can help build your brand or tear it to the ground.
6.
You need to build a positive presence in new media.
There are plenty of
benefits to new media and the convergence between your personal and private
lives. Your online social networks enable you to connect with people who have
interests similar to yours. Your online presence can help you build your
reputation, and the educational opportunities available online can help you dig
deeper into the things you’re passionate about and want to become an expert
in.
7.
You’ll need to work with people from different generations.
There are now four
distinct generations in the workforce: Gen Z (interns), Gen Y (employees), Gen
X (managers), and Baby Boomers (executives). Each of these generations was
raised in a different period of time, has a different view of the workplace,
and communicates differently. By learning how to manage relationships with
those in other generations, you will be more successful.
8.
Your boss’s career comes first.
If your manager is
unsuccessful, his frustrations will undoubtedly rub off on you, and the chances
you’ll ever get a promotion are pretty slim. But if you support your manager’s
career, make his life easier, and earn his trust, he’ll take you with him as he
climbs the corporate ladder — even if that means going to another
company.
9.
The one with the most connections wins.
We have moved from an
information economy to a social one. It’s less about what you know (you can
find out just about anything within seconds with a simple Google search), and
more about whether you can work with other people to solve problems.
10.
Remember the rule of one.
When it comes to getting
a job, starting a business, finding someone to marry, or just about anything
else, all it takes is one person to change your life for the better.
People may be saying no all around you. But as long as one person says yes,
you're on your way.
11.
You are the future.
By 2025, 75% of the
global workforce will be Gen Y. That means that even though you may be early in
your career, in the not too distant future you’ll be at the forefront. Right
now, you have to position yourself to take one of these major leadership roles
when the workforce shifts and older generations retire.
12.
Entrepreneurship is for everyone, not just business owners.
A lot of people define
"entrepreneurship" as starting a business, but in recent years
the meaning has broadened to include someone who’s accountable, who’s willing
to take risks, and who sells him- or herself. If you want to get ahead, start
looking at your company’s management as a venture capital firm. Be persistent,
sell your ideas to them, and come up with innovative solutions no one else has
thought of.
13.
Hours are out, accomplishments are in.
If you want to keep your
job and move up, stop thinking that you have to put in a ridiculous numbers of
hours per week. Instead, realize your value, deliver on it, measure your
successes, and then promote yourself.
14.
Your career is in your hands, not your employer’s.
No matter what they say,
companies are looking out for themselves. And while you should definitely try
to make your company successful, you need to make sure that you’re getting
something out of the deal, too. If you aren't learning and growing, you aren't
benefiting anymore, and that's an issue that you will have to resolve. Don't
rely on anything or anyone: Be accountable for your own career, and take charge
of your own life.
--------
BUSINESS BOOKS: Millennials educated, talented resource
KAYE PARKER
Published April 2, 2016 - 9:02am
Published April 2, 2016 - 9:02am
Millennials and Management:
The Essential Guide to Making it Work at Work, by Lee Carahar, Bibliomotion
Inc., 2015, 205 pages $28.50
If
you are a Baby Boomer or a Gen X trying to figure out how to work with or
manage the “young People” in your office, Millennials and Management can give
you some insight into their thinking and how to best harness their
capabilities.
If
you are the parent of a millennial, an individual born somewhere between 1980
and 2000, you might also be interested in whether your parenting skills are
those of an encourager or an enabler. Enablers ask very little of their adult
children. These helicopter parents have always paved the way for their
offspring and they continue to do so even as their child graduates from
university or college and heads back home to a comfortable nest. Maybe they pay
the child’s rent or provide them with a car. Perhaps they find jobs for them,
or intercede on their behalf at performance review time.
Encouragers, on the other hand, help their children make that transition into
being a fully functioning adult. They help their children understand what will
be asked of them in the workplace, and prepare them to make compromises. Should
their children return home to live, they are expected to help out, either by paying
rent or doing chores, and these young adults are also expected to live by the
house rules as long as they are living at home.
Author
Lee Carahar, herself a parent of and the employer of millennials, recognizes
that not everybody is enthusiastic about having to bringing millennials into
their workplace, and she is hoping to change that impression by educating us on
how to work with and support this latest generation to hit the workforce.
After
all, says Carahar, they are going to be around for a long time, and if we plan
on being around too, we’ve got to learn how we can work together. There are
differences between millennials and the generations that have come to work
before them, acknowledges Carahar, but in the end there are more similarities
between people of different generations than there are differences. In fact,
one chapter on meaningful acknowledgement and appreciation is worth a read by
any manager.
These
are the best-educated generation to hit the workplace, so organizations should
be looking for ways to turn all that talent to an advantage, without having to
bend over backward, or lie down and be trodden upon. However, there are some
things that organizations will need to learn how to do differently.
For
example, that long-standing idea of throwing people in at the deep end and
letting them figure things out for themselves doesn’t work very well with
millennials. They don’t know what is expected of them, not in terms of work or
dress or office hours. For them, it might be no big deal to work wherever they
have access to the internet. For managers who want to see everyone at their
desk by a certain time in the morning, this could be a trigger point.
We
will have to be clear about what we expect of them, and if our expectations
have not been met, the author’s advice is not to wait. Give them immediate and
helpful feedback. They do want feedback, but they don’t want criticism, so
managers have to swallow their ire, and figure out what the millennial employee
needs to know. In fact, they don’t want a boss at all. They want a coach, a
mentor and people they enjoy working beside. They have been used to getting
information at the click of a mouse so they expect access to every member of
the organization.
This
is a generation that has never lived in a world without technology at their
fingertips. They are vastly more comfortable than most of us will ever be, so
take advantage of it. Expect them to be faster at some tasks or to know
shortcuts the rest of us don’t know but would like to know.
Leaders,
parents, teachers and millennials, if you don’t have the time to read the whole
book, buy it and read the summaries at the end of each chapter: practical
advice for all of you.
Reviewed
by Kaye Parker, www.kayeparkeracademy.com, kparker@herald.ca
-------------------
VIETNAM-
| ||||||||||
|
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.