Next Generation Next Destination

GENERATIONAL CONNECTION OBSESSION

Workplace Factoids from Human Resource Executive. According to surveys:

• 30% of people born after 1980 say they feel anxious if they can’t check Facebook every few minutes.
• 23%vof recent college grads wouldn’t take job if they weren’t allowed to make or receive personal phone calls.
• 46% of 18-24 year olds would rather have access to the Internet than access to their own car.
• The number of hours U.S. college students spending studying declined by 59% from 50 years ago. At the same time, the number of hours students spent working at a job increased by 44%.

PEOPLE WANT TO SEE A PURPOSE IN WORK

A new survey of 4,200 people in the US, UK and Germany by Calling Brands consultancy found a high level of desire to work for an employer organization with an underlying spirit that goes beyond commercial and operational goals. The study consisted of interviews with HR and Communications chiefs from major multinational organizations. In reporting on the findings, it was said that this is a change in attitude. No demographics were given except the country of residence.

Related but not the same thing as Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Purpose now appears to be a powerful driver for retention and attraction of employees as well as productivity.

Perhaps the need to spend so much time at work is driving people to seek meaningful intangibles during the course of their work and to feel they are fulfilling a greater purpose than merely profitability. Survey results indicated that an average of 57% of respondents (58% in the US) would favor joining an organization that has a clearly defined “Purpose, ” and an average of 65% said that Purpose would motivate them to “go the extra mile.”

 

 

Financial Planning: MultiGenerational Living Is Working

Gen Y/Millennials are contributing at home as they save, not simply living on parental support. A Pew Research Center survey of over 2,000 adults in the U.S. in early 2012 yielded these statistics:

• Over 20% of 25-34 year olds live in multigenerational households, nearly double the percentage in 1980 (the more independent Boomer and Gen X generations).
• 24% of young adults 18-24moved back in with their parents in the last few years owing to economic conditions.
• Even more, 41% of adults 25-29, live with or moved back in with their parents.
• Of adults 30-34, 17% did the same.

And both parents and children report they are positive, neutral or satisfied with the arrangement.

It’s not totally a parental handout.  Survey findings indicated that 75% of the young adult children contribute to household expenses, e.g., groceries and utility bills, and 35% say they pay rent.  96% say they do chores around the house. The report didn’t specify how long the arrangements have continued and whether there will be a tipping point at which either side or both will no longer feel positive about the arrangements.

Financial planners advise that a plan be developed and agreed to by both parents and live-in young adults, including charging rent, so expectations are clear and there be an exit strategy and parents don’t jeopardize their retirement savings.

This experience is probably working because Gen Y/Millennials and their parents, to generalize, have closer relationships than any parent-child relationship in history.  That is a positive thing for the most part, but when possible, adult children should build independent and self-sufficient lives.

How long do you think the current trend will last? How does this impact work attitudes positively or negatively?

 

 

 

 

 

BAD NEWS ON WOMEN’S NETWORKS and generations and gender diversity

The Wall Street Journal reported on a Simmons School of Management survey of 166 female professionals, all of whom had women’s support groups at their workplace. The news was quite disheartening in terms of the overall attitude toward the groups, participation and results.

But first the good news: what worked. The women who said they were actively involved in the women’s networks and thought they were very effective described these characteristics of the groups: They met frequently, had financial support from the company – and they were open to both men and women.

Now the bad news. 29% of the women responding were not involved in any workplace women’s network. Most said they didn’t have the time. Other reasons given were they didn’t share the network’s goals or they didn’t see the value or they weren’t eligible. Another 16% beyond those 29% were a member of a network at their organization but rarely got involved. And of those belonging, more than 75% found their networks only somewhat or not at all effective in meeting the group’s goals. Goals most often included networking, retention and promotion of women and professional development.

What are we to conclude? Perhaps the formation of many women’s networks is still a matter of lip service on the part of senior management, or at least believed to be by many women. Maybe they are getting mixed messages: "We’ll let you form women’s networks, but you’ll be rewarded by other uses of your time." And if the more senior women are not committed to regularly attend, younger women may take their lead from them or feel the value is much reduced without the mentoring possibilities from more experienced professionals.

Going back to the networks that were effective, the reasons are no surprise. For women’s networks to be taken seriously in a still male-dominated culture as far as clout is concerned, there has to be solid and visible support from management, and that includes financial support as well as praising and otherwise recognizing the active members of the networks and their accomplishments. Frequent meetings are needed to establish bonds and trust and build confidence among members.

And, I think, very important (as I have said for many years), men must be part of the process. They need to be welcomed to help and sponsor the women as well as to learn from them. Attending some of the meetings will enable them to better understand how diversity strengthens the organization and what the obstacles are. Gender separation is not a long-term solution. And generationally there are different views on gender separation. To generalize, the Gen Y/Millennials and youngest Gen Xers don’t recognize the gender differences as much as the older generations and have different expectations about how they will be treated.

I hope to see women adjust their approach and attitudes toward women’s networks and get real buy-in from male colleagues so they can be more effective in reaching stated goals and the day when they will no longer be considered necessary because the goals have been achieved.

Phyllis Weiss Haserot    www.pdcounsel.com

 

2012 MARKETPLACE IS PREDATORS' PARADISE: BTI'S ADVICE

I recently attended a webinar by The BTI Consulting Group, Inc. providing an overview of corporate counsel survey results and advice for law firms desiring to compete favorably in what was called a “predators’ paradise” in the marketplace for services. In my opinion, the advice is relevant beyond the legal arena to any professional service or actually any business with which needs a strong client focus. So I offer this brief recap of salient points to my readers.  (For more details, contact me at pwhaserot@pdcounsel.com.) It is important information for members of any generation aspiring to attract and retain clients in the “new normal” economy.

• High client satisfaction rates are crucial to defending against predator competition.
• The more fronts  (practice or service areas) on which you can penetrate and serve the client, the more likely you are to keep the business.
• You must be strongly aligned with clients” marketplace objectives, thinking like them. Situation specific approaches garner higher fees.
• Start with identifying marketplace needs and work backwards to determine and develop what you will offer, with flexibility. The aim is to provide individual clients with semi-customized services and delivery, that is, customizing for each from processes and templates in place.
• Rapid change in external factors means processes and approaches may have to change every 18 months.  Firms that are static in their mindsets and offerings will only get commodity work, which pays on the lower end.
• Focus is critical. Have 5 or fewer strategic objectives in a 12-month period.
• Actively and specifically respond and anticipate clients’ changing needs and priorities.
• What clients said was most difficult to find is “commitment to help them” rather than focus on the service provider’s needs.
• The second most important goal for clients is to have providers who give the best value for the dollar. So they are looking for more value for less cost.

BTI’S ADVICE ON HOW TO THRIVE IN A PREDATORS’ PARADISE. 

BOOMERS PLAN ENCORE CAREER TRANSITIONS DESPITE TOUGH ECONOMY

According to a recent study, “Encore Career Choices: Purpose, Passion and a Paycheck in a Tough Economy,” Boomers have tempered their expectations, while at the same time retaining their unwillingness to give up on efforts to create a better world for succeeding generations. The survey was commissioned by Civic Ventures supported by the MetLife Foundation and conducted by Penn Schoen Berland. They surveyed Americans ages 44 to 70.

Here are a few key findings. To see more…

• The number of people in encore careers for the greater good is up, from 8.4 million in 2008 to 9 million in 2011.
• 40% of the 100 million Americans ages 44 to 70 are either in or interested in encore careers
• Half of the group surveyed says they are very concerned that the state of the economy makes this a difficult time to change careers. However, 25% of those interested in encore careers say they are likely to make the switch in the next 5 years.
• 73% of respondents are concerned that future generations of children will grow up to be worse off than people are now. And 70% say it is very important to them personally to leave the world a better place.

Do these findings resonate with you?

Would you be interested in joining a group to plan out your transition to your next career?

I can lead you to resources. 

Phyllis Weiss Haserot     www.pdcounsel.com

 

NEXT GENERATION CAREERS: WHY THEY CHOOSE TECH

Perhaps it’s no surprise that men and women choose to major in the STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) fields for different reasons. A study released this month (September 2011) called “STEM Perceptions: Students and Parents Study” by Harris Interactive for Waggener Edstrom Worldwide and Microsoft, has some interesting finding on the differences.

The women’s top reason for choosing a STEM major was intellectual stimulation, while men chose those fields for “a good salary out of school.” A huge gender gap was revealed in what led them to their interest. For 68% of the women in the study it was a particular high school class or teacher that they credited with turning them on to the subject. That was true for only 5% of the men. Their experience with related games, toys, books or clubs was a significant factor for 51% of the men but only 35% of the women.

These findings could influence the teaching of the different genders and suggest the importance of high school teaching to attracting more women to the STEM fields. A combination of intellectual stimulation, role models and a welcoming culture would be likely to attract and retain more women.

It is important that those role models and inspirational teachers be men as well as women. How do we make men more comfortable with “sponsoring” women in their field?

Your thoughts?

Phyllis Weiss Haserot   www.pdcounsel.com 

 

DO MERITOCRACY POLICIES WORK?

Sloan School of Management at MIT researchers found in The Paradox of Meritocracy in Organizations study that using a policy of meritocracy might do the opposite of expected results and result in management bias and disparate treatment for women and minorities.

Conventional wisdom suggests that if people perform better than others, they should be rewarded better. Instead, when study participants in what they believed was a meritocracy based company evaluated employees, they gave men an average of $50 more in bonuses than women in a study experiment. Further, women participants were as likely as men to discriminate against women according to the research reported in Human Resources Executive magazine (9/2/11). There was no evidence of bias when meritocracy was not mentioned. The study was co-authored by Emilio J. Castilla, an MIT/Sloan associate professor and Stephen Benard, an assistant professor at Indiana University. Castilla says the unequal treatment that he found in meritocracies could extend to minorities as well.

Despite the results of his survey, Castilla says that businesses should continue meritocracy -- after all, when it's implemented correctly, it's effective. "Although our findings identify the potential side effects of certain meritocratic conditions," he says, "businesses shouldn't abandon efforts to promote workplace fairness and equality [based on merit]."

How can managers avoid being too subjective in their evaluation decisions? Will using hard numbers solve the problem? Will hard numbers present the complete picture of factors that need to be evaluated? In addition to training for managers, giving a voice to employees being evaluated should help to bridge the gap and lead to better results. Please share your thoughts.

Phyllis Weiss Haserot    www.pdcounsel.com   

 

PROGRESS-ENGAGEMENT-PRODUCTIVITY: THE PEP FORMULA

Gallup estimates the cost of America’s disengagement in the workplace crisis is $300 billion in lost productivity annually.

Research by Teresa Amabile, a Harvard Business School professor, and Steven Kramer, an independent researcher, co-authors “The Progress Principle,” revealed the #1 factor that keeps people engaged in their work. It also revealed the disconnect with managers’ perception of the most important motivators. As Amabile and Kramer wrote in a New York Times Opinion piece, “Do Happier People Work Harder?” (9/4/11), “Conventional wisdom suggests that pressure enhances performance; our real-time data, however, shows that workers perform better when they are happily engaged in what they do.”

From 12,000 diary entries kept by 238 professionals in seven different companies, the researchers discovered that the single most important factor engaging people in their work – by far - is making progress in meaningful work.

Apparently, most managers don’t get it. Amabile and Kramer wrote ”When we asked 689 managers around the world to rank five employee motivations in terms of importance, they ranked “supporting progress” dead last. Fully 95 percent of these managers failed to recognize that progress in meaningful work is the primary motivation well ahead of traditional incentives like raises and bonuses.”

The catalysts for progress are: worker autonomy, sufficient resources and learning from problems. The researchers think that if leaders believe their mission is, in part, to support workers’ everyday progress, we could end the disengagement crisis that several studies revealed and increase the work force’s well-being and economic productivity.

The stats are there. How can we convince organizational leaders that the investment in “supporting progress in meaningful work” will have tremendous ROI in terms of productivity?  Please share your thoughts.

Phyllis Weiss Haserot    www.pdcounsel.com

 

DON’T REWARD DISAGREEABLE, UNPROFESSIONAL BEHAVIOR

“Rude People Earn More” was a grabbing headline in the Wall Street Journal, August 15, 2011 among many articles referring to a new study actually titled “Do Nice Guys – and Gals – Really Finish Last? "by professors from Cornell University, University of Notre Dame and the University of Western Ontario.

The big news, (or is it confirming what we suspected?) is that men who self-report that they are below average in agreeableness earned about 18% more than nicer ones in the research sample of over 10,000 people in a wide range of professions from 3 surveys over nearly 20 years plus a separate study by the three professors of 400 business students. “Disagreeable” women earned on average 5% more than “agreeable” ones.

The several articles I saw about the study didn’t define “agreeableness,” so I asked Assistant Professor at the Cornell Industrial & Labor Relations School Beth Livingston, who has been widely quoted in the articles, for the definitions. The study team defined agreeableness as “trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty, and tender-mindedness. Disagreeableness is seen as the opposite, though variance suggests that it's rarely that straightforward,” said Dr. Livingston.

Previous findings by other researchers cited by the study authors concluded that:

• Agreeable people place greater value on their interpersonal relationships.
• Those individuals are more motivated to maintain relationships.
• They are more “prosocial.”
• They are more helpful and cooperative.
• As a result of all of the above, they are better liked by their peers than are disagreeable people.

Take-aways from the research:

• Agreeable people may be reluctant to be assertive in salary negotiations and leave money on the table.
• Males may think agreeableness doesn’t conform to societal and workplace expectations of masculine behavior.
• An organization’s compensation system may reward disagreeableness though managers may not realize it or the downside of doing so.

Distinctions to consider made by other professors and executives are between disagreeableness, incivility and disrespect. They may overlap on occasions but are not the same things. All of these may be perceived as unprofessional behavior.

I hope that the findings in this new study are considered beyond the catchy headlines, and that unprofessional and disagreeable behaviors are perceived as unacceptable and no longer rewarded. However, too much compliant behavior and modesty could be a detriment to the organization as well as an individual's positive leadership. It will be interesting to see if the younger generations make this culture change.

(This is my blog, so I can say I am especially pleased to see all the attention Beth Livingston, the youngest faculty member, teacher, scholar and collaborator, is getting. I recruited her a year ago to work with me on my consulting for the Cornell “generations initiative” for faculty and staff recruitment and retention, a project of the University’s Human Resources Department, and am thrilled with her contributions and commitment.)

Phyllis Weiss Haserot     www.pdcounsel.com