Generation Gap + Talent War = Lots of Misdiagnosis + Misspent Time and Money

Provocative and alluring...

1. "community, collaboration, global, change, involvement, service, participation engage, create your own (ok this is a phrase), independent, team, multidisciplinary, diversity, internship, job, mission, consortia, focus, self-directed, travel, cafe (not cafeteria), challenge, network, green, environment, wellness, responsibility, growth, imagination"  Russ Eckels, Generations At Work

From Management Issues:

2. Wandering Into a Demographic Disaster

"Despite facing a looming demographic crisis that will see the numbers of working age people plummet over the coming decades, a mere one in seven (14 per cent) of employers in developed economies have any strategies in place to recruit older workers. . ."

3. Generation Gap Faces Customer Service Meltdown

"According to Dr Withers, the fundamental issue is that baby boomers' concept of how a customer should be treated is entirely different from that of the Gen-Y workers behind the counter.

"People born between 1980 and 1996 are coming out of far different family dynamics – many single-parent homes, many double-working parents, pervasive technology use, et cetera," he said.

"Because of these factors, the new generation of service workers struggle to make connections with customers and meet their service expectations."

4. The Gender Generation Gap

Referring to a WSJ article:

Ms. McLemore, 60, often works until 11 p.m., but her young staffers tend to be 9-to-5ers. "They'll tell me, 'Wow. That was really late when you sent me the email last night.'" She tries to understand the reasons behind their reluctance to work hard. "Some are less interested in putting in long hours because they've seen their mothers do it, and they don't want that stress. I've heard this from women in all industries again and again."

As a raft of workplace research shows all too clearly, this attitude is prevalent throughout Generation Y (born after 1980). And the answer doesn't seem too hard to find, either. As the psychological contract between employers and employees continues to be eroded by waves of downsizing, reorganisation and cuts in benefits, is it any wonder that younger workers – men as well as women –feel less inclined to put the job before their lives and work until midnight?

Compounding the problem is the fact that many retailers simply don't have the time or the resources to offer as much customer service training as they would like."

. . .And What Are Companies Spending Their Time and Money On As A Result?

I contend that it's often--if not very often--the wrong thing.  Part of the reason is that headlines, teasers, and "critical demographics" grab the attention and resources of organizations the same way that Reality TV grabs viewers. (And that I tried to grab you with my own headline). What TV viewers are seeing is certainly "real," but by no means "reality." Instead, it's an expanded sound bite of people under a microscope (camera) appearing to do things alleged to represent real life.

But real life is authentic, ongoing, unpredictable, most often routine, and lived out by billions--billions--of people whose lives are not being packaged for broadcast; whose values conflict deeply with the those they see on TV; and who don't start the day waiting for someone to yell "Cut! It's a wrap. That was beautiful, baby!"

If We Want The Right Results, We've Got To Deal With The Right Issue

I really hope you are still reading. My fear when I began writing this was that the issue driving this post would get in the way of readers understanding that the sources I mentioned above are really good sources . They aren't provocative without adding substance derived from research or experience. They all add context to what they are saying.

Here's my issue:

I'm watching companies spend lots of money running workshops to "address the generation gap."

I'm hearing about the War for Talent and have even enlisted on occasion. But I haven't been able to uncover the enemy many places outside of the organizations themselves.

As for the "new generation" not wanting to work hard: The article above concludes with the truth. The real issue isn't hard work, it's sacrificing one's life and family for a 60-80 hour work week. Sounds like a pretty wise generation to me.

What's Happening Here?

Let's look at some hard research about the "Generation Gap" and what the different generations are actually looking for. We're fortunate to have Bob Cenek blogging again after a brief hiatus. Bob's post on
More Fiction About Generational Differences points to a Watson Wyatt study that shows:

The Leading Drivers of Employee Engagement, Regardless of Generation, are...

• Management's ability to demonstrate leadership and strategic direction that builds confidence in the prospects for long-term corporate success

• Effective reward programs

• Frequent, clear two-way employee communication

These are three things that, for years, organizations have known are important to people.

Then what about Russ Eckels and the opening series of words and phrases?

I've read all of Russ' posts to date and he is a thoughtful writer and consultant whose purpose is to promote understanding. Can't go wrong with that and I think his approach is real, useful, and doesn't promise something that can't be delivered. Additionally, he does not try to evoke issues where there are none. (Applause!).

What Russ' words described are things that are valued by many individuals of what he refers to as the Millennial (Gen Y) Generation.

We all have personal values that we either want to have upheld--or at least not violated--when we're at work. But the research shows that the three top work-related values span all of the generations. And that tells me that perhaps job candidates are clearer about the realities of work than many of those who would prefer to see workplaces viewed primarily as sociological/psychological laboratories rather than the product/service/income-providing entities that they are.

Practical Application: Organizations would be wise to put their energy, money, and management into the three drivers that span all of the generations.

If there seems to be on-the-job tension that is impeding performance--and a valid diagnosis shows that it's some kind of generational thing--then sure, deal with it the way you'd deal with any tension. But why make it the focus of your training and development? You and I have both been through enough programs that have raised awareness of issues that didn't exist only to have the issues created as a result of the program.

What About The War for Talent?

As long as the problem is placed "out there," I think that we are missing the solution on the inside. It's like any issue: it's easier to say someone else is causing me a problem than to first look at myself. I think, from experience and observation, that the same is true with organizations and the "War for Talent."

There are some specialty industries whose professionals have a narrow focus and who don't get a lot of glamorous press with young people. Mining, for example. So yes, there may very well be a legitimate shortage of up and coming professionals.

What Can Companies Start Doing Now To Build a Flow of Talent?

I've gone into the higher level issues in other posts and will probably do more. But here are some things that will make a difference now and over which you have control:

Practical Application:

1. Take time to identify what you're really talking about. In a world of platitudes, high potentials, excellence, star performers (fill in your favorite), it's easy to overstate what you need. I'm not talking about lowering standards; I'm talking about raising the reality factor.

2. Do your recruiting systems make it easy for candidates or discourage them?

Online applications are the norm. Yet I can tell you from first-hand experience that many of the websites are clunky, user-unfriendly, and periodically inoperative. I've watched job candidates go through numerous screens, fill in data, and 30 minutes later watch it disappear when they clicked "submit." But it wasn't submitted. It disappeared.

3. Get people in front of people. Fine, you want online applications that are screened by keywords? Then stop telling the world that you are looking for "that unique individual who will add to our diverse workforce." Unless of course you are looking for binary people.

Look, we all know that relationships matter. If it takes a month for a candidate to see, or even talk to, a real manager or recruiter, they're gone. If you at least call me right away and ask me interesting questions and tell me about your organization, I'm still interested even though I may get a call from some other firm.

4. If you're recruiting on campus or at a job fair, actually take and use the resumes given to you. Then follow up.

Real story: Person goes to job fair with Fortune-ranked companies. Asked to bring 20 resumes. Talks to recruiters. Reaches into brief case to hand over resume. Recruiter says: "Oh, if you are interested, you'll have to apply online. Missed opportunity, tarnished image.

What are your stories, suggestions, or experiences with any of these? Do you have  different or similar experiences?

Weigh in with a Comment below and help clarify what 's really going on out there.

Comments

[robert edward cenek]

Steve:

The generational gap consulting business has the same value proposition as the "One Minute Manager," and any number of 4-quadrant models hawked by consulting firms. Far too many leaders in organizations like to reach for simple, non-intellectually challenging explanations of human behavior.

If one's product has too much substance or underlying theory, its automatically dismissed as such. That is, "it's too much theory," or it's "just not practical enough."

In my career, I have seen many savvy consultants make comfortable mid-6 figure incomes by packaging a "Cliffs Notes" version of some dimension of human or organizational behavior. It sells!!!

Thanks for the citation!

robert edward cenek
www.cenekreport.com
Uncommon Commentary on the World of Work

[Viji]

Steve, I feel – it is difficult for a job seeker to settle in a good job – the same thing applies for the recruiter also. It is very difficult to get a good person with one to one or with the most relevant experience. The employer has to give equal weightage to each application at least till they meet the person and evaluate him on whom they are going to spend time and money for training. Investing in human capital is equally important like other factors. May be based on my present experience? Thanks for the wonderful post Steve. Have a great week end. Viji

[Shane]

Hey Steve,

Every generation has its differences from every other one. The real difference today is that few people get great training. Few are the best people for the job. And few are given any reason to care about the work they do at all. But they're cheap.

So that's the attitude ... "Cool. I'll work for nothing, and you'll get what you pay for."

They're coming in behind a generation that succeeded by cutting costs. And this is the longer term outcome of that. Short term gain, long term pain.

Developing people is critical. Cutting costs is critical. And there has to be a balance or the teeter-totter can't go up and down, and in the end, no one gets to enjoy the ride.

[Steve Roesler]

Hey, Shane,

This is spooky...I was just on your blog and getting fitted for a new chicken suit for tomorrow's sales pitch when your comment came through.

You know, I've been trying to go back and pinpoint the moment in time when the phenomenon that you describe produced the reciprocal lack of loyalty between employers and employees. I remember sometime in the late '80s that we started getting requests to make our workshops shorter. "We can't do 3 days--do 'it' in two." Then one. And I just got a request to do in 2 hours what takes two days. And the guy was dead serious. So I think that was a precursor or an indicator of the whole "faster, cheaper, or we'll just find someone else" era.

I think that probably there is some law of physics that would tell us something has to give. And it does. My gut says that large companies has we know them are dinosaurs and doomed. What's not totally clear is the form of the next iteration.

Thanks for taking the time to stop by and add to the conversation...

[Shane]

Hey! That's where my chicken suit went. haha

I agree. I'm not sure where it's all going. It's really tough to stand your ground and develop great people and still manage costs to compete.

Most companies start by cutting costs, and then their goal is to turn more profit, not less, so they keep doing it. And even more aggressively, instead of reinvesting some of the profits back into their people.

I try to balance. And that's a niche market if there ever was one.