Next Generation Next Destination

GENERATIONAL LOOK AT THE CAREER NARRATIVE

Welcome to *Next Generation, Next Destination* Practice Development Counsel’s associate, Robin Ganek, who has provided this post from her Gen Y/Millennial view.

My organization said goodbye to around 15 administrative employees at the end of 2011 at a modest bon voyage ceremony with cake and a champagne toast.  The conference room buzzed with recounted memories and eagerness for sugar, until a tapped plastic cup hushed the room. The tribute was short but heartfelt, and it highlighted the contributions that this group had made throughout their time – an impressive average tenure of 20 years.  One had been with us for over 40 years, witnessing 8 different U.S. presidents in office throughout her career.

It was hard not to pause.  In just three months, I would celebrate my own milestone of four-years, the longest I have ever worked in one place.  Those four years went by quickly, but could I see spending another 16, or even 36?

It’s easy to see that the average time spent in a position is going down. Traditionalists and Baby Boomers may have expected to spend their career working at one organization, but Millennials like myself, and members of Generation X do not.  And while this dichotomy has some common and recognized consequences in the relationships between “resident” employees and more “transitive” ones, it also has ramifications for companies hoping to attract Generation Y into their ranks. One such ramification is a new emphasis on reputation.

One might expect that an employee who spends a relatively short period of time at an organization might not be as interested in that organization’s reputation, both as an employer and in their industry. Interestingly, we often see the opposite.  For Millenials, the mission, social responsibility, business standing and priorities - all elements of an organization’s reputation - are as important attributes of an employer.

The reason for this lies in storytelling. For Traditionalists or Baby Boomers who are defining their career and themselves in a single position, their work tells their story linearly, from their first project to their last, from their apprenticeship to their leadership. In 10 years, or 20, or 30 at an organization, your work literally speaks for itself—it defines who you are and what you do. For a member of Generation X or Y, the story contains flashbacks, jump cuts, side stories, and tangents.  Generations X and Y need to tell their own narrative, and that demands continuity from another source: a purpose, a goal.  The reputation of each organization on a Millennial’s resume speaks to this narrative.

When Millennials leave, they are not expecting a speech with a champagne toast and cake, but they are expecting to take with them the qualities that define that organization and to wear them proudly as they enter their next job.

 

 

 

MANAGING EXPECTATIONS FOR GEN Y AND THE REST OF US

“How we manage expectations is critical to how we pursue our goals,” wrote Alina Tugend in her New York Times column Shortcuts (1/14/12) as she searches for guidance for managing expectations on health and all things in work and life large and small. In these times of a challenging job market and financial future, the psychology of expectations is a significant influence factor in degree of happiness and satisfaction.

Citing brain research, Tugend reports that “negative feelings are much stronger than the good feelings we get when expectations are exceeded.” Further, our brain sends out messages of danger or threat when we don’t meet our expectations.

Several studies about students have found that the best way to motivate them is to set high expectations and let students think they can stretch their capabilities to reach them, even if they have not been high achievers previously. We should want to maintain these high expectations of achievement in the work world.

Tugend concludes there is no “template” to manage expectations in all situations. “It seems as if it is best to have low expectations if things are out of our control, realistic expectations for things we can control to some degree and high expectations of ourselves,” she said. She favors Mary Grogan’s view on Mindfood.com: “It is having flexibility in our expectations and being willing to change track without self-blame that has been shown to increase well-being.”

So how do we translate this for new entries into the workplace and their managers, whichever side we are on?

• When setting high expectations, foster a culture absent fear that not achieving the expectations will result in significant punishment or perceived failure if uncontrollable factors come into play. Many Gen Y/Millennials have had (and still expect) help from parents, teachers, tutors, mentors and fear failure in their eyes, so they thrive better in a supportive culture.
• Be clear and repeat expectations so they are known and not misconstrued.
• Don’t habitually set expectations and goals artificially low in order to appear to over-deliver or your capabilities are apt to be questioned.
• Don’t over-promise to please in the immediate and set yourself up for failure ultimately, which will also hinder your team or project.

Managing expectations is a delicate balance and a considered calculation is needed for each situation.

Phyllis Weiss Haserot   www.pdcounsel.com

 

 

NEXT GENERATION LEADERSHIP - NAME THE STARS?

Should firms tell people they are “high potentials”? Most don’t. 

A recent report (October 2011) from Towers Watson found just 68% of 316 surveyed North American companies identify their high potential employees, but only 26% actually tell them they have been so designated.

Wouldn't letting them know be apt to inspire and motivate potentially star performers? The biggest fear is that labeling “high potentials” will alienate people who are not. Or it might create expectations the company cannot ultimately fulfill.

What do you think: to tell or not to tell? Please share your thoughts and comnents.

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

 

PLEASE RESPOND TO OUR SURVEY ON PROFESSIONALISM

For mentoring that I do with students and professionals and a book I am writing, I have created a survey on professionalism through generational lenses.

 Please click on this link  http://surveys.verticalresponse.com/a/show/639502/979c3acc39/0 and take a few minutes to respond to the short survey. I will be happy to share results with anyone who asks.

Thank you in advance for your thoughts and valuable time.

Phyllis Weiss Haserot   www.pdcounsel.com 

 

FORMULA FOR CREATIVITY COMPETENCY IN LEADERSHIP

Beyond tinkering around the edges, creativity is needed to make significant business model changes that meet the needs of an uncertain, interdependent and nervous world.

In IBM’s last Global CEO Study, CEOs, general managers and senior public sector leaders around the world said that creativity is the number one leadership competency needed going forward. The increasing uncertainty and complexities in the world as we know it now is the reason these top managers give for that choice of top competency.

More than just tweaking of systems, answers on how to run, organize and develop business, deeper business model changes are needed. Leaders will have to take more calculated risks and develop new ideas. They will need to be continually innovating in how they communicate and lead.

More than half of the survey respondents doubt their ability to manage the complexity. (Do professional services firm leaders feel and admit this same doubt?)

So how will they do it?

Here’s the formula suggested for creative leadership success:

• Collaborating with customers and other stakeholders to integrate them into their core processes and co-create products and services
• Making strategic planning an ongoing process to respond quickly to market and other significant conditions
• Figuring out how to incorporate non-financial rewards to motivate personnel into the mix and strong focus on a “people strategy”

Source: Reported in Herman Trend Alert (August 3, 2011)

How many organizations are willing? Are they going to stop being primarily reactive and invite and listen to innovative ideas from stakeholders of various worldviews, generations, diverse characteristics and skills? Courage is needed to harness creativity.

Phyllis Weiss Haserot    www.pdcounsel.com

 

 

 

SAME OLD TUNE: SUCCESSION PLANNING STILL LAGS

Nearly one-third (31 percent) of companies with more than 1,000 employees said they don’t currently have a succession planning program at their organization. This was reported in a new Career Builders survey. 50 percent of senior management (CEO, CFO, Senior VP, etc.) and 52 percent of those in a vice president position said they do not have a successor for their current role.

Responses when asked what is lacking in their current succession planning program:

•     Not enough opportunities for employees to learn beyond their own roles – 39 percent
•     Process isn’t formalized – 38 percent
•     Not enough investment in training and development – 33 percent
•     Not actively involving employees or seeking their input – 31 percent
•     It only focuses on top executives – 29 percent

Managers also reported that workers’ awareness of and input on their own succession planning is important. Forty-nine percent of employers said employees don’t set up career paths with their managers with timelines and milestones.

Still a top HR priority. Still little positive action.

The neglect of career planning is going to bite as the economy comes back to life and people have more options.  High potential personnel will be waving bye-bye for the places that promise an appealing career path at any age.

 

 

CROSS-GENERATIONAL CONVERSATION WITH THE ELEPHANTS IN THE ROOM

A few days ago I was thinking about stories to tell at a conference where our panel is discussing the issues and solutions at the intersection of generations and gender. Most of the attendees are women partners in law firms or senior in-house counsel.. My perspective is not as a player in the midst of management and internal politics of the issues, but as a problem-solver seeing the bigger issues 

Immediately coming to mind was another conference months off at which I was asked to moderate a panel on relationship skills relating to the value equation of inside/outside counsel collaborations. Interestingly, surprising to me, the panel selected by the organizers is all women as are almost all the speakers besides the male conference co-chair.

Next racing through my mind my mind was a fundraising message I had received again this morning from a not-for-profit organization with a mission to enhance the lives, personally and professionally, of women over age 50, which restricts membership to that demographic.

What these three events have in common as I see it is that the focus, intentionally or not, will turn out to be Boomer and older half of Gen X cohort women talking primarily to themselves, preaching to the choir.

I’ve pointed out in each case the need to have all the stakeholders in the room, all with a voice, and all talking freely with each other. Where are the male leaders with the clout to lead change? Where are the younger people who need to be engaged, not only for their career development, but also to sustain the success of organizations? Are the more senior women, many of whom consider themselves a minority demographic – as they are in leadership roles – making assumptions without inviting the voice of others whose support they are only likely to have when the conversation feels comfortable for all genders and generations and other aspects of diversity, including diversity of thought?

I truly believe we need cross-generational conversation and cross-gender, cross-race and other diverse elements as the beginning of the solutions to many problems and to sustainable success for our businesses and our institutions.

Phyllis Weiss Haserot      www.pdcounsel.com

 

 

 

LIP SERVICE WON’T RESULT IN A SUCCESSION PLANNING AND TRANSITIONING WINNER

The American Management Association (AMA) surveyed 1,098 senior managers and executives in December 2010, and released the results in late March 2011. 43% said their senior management team is “sporadic in its commitment” to succession planning, 34% said their team is “genuinely committed,” while 14% said their team just “pays lip service” to succession planning. So at least 66% are not “genuinely committed” and working on their succession plans for all positions that are critical to avoid business disruption.

 This is a critical issue for Fortune 500 businesses, where 1 in 5 executives are reaching retirement age with no named successor in sight. It is also critical for professional firms, whose main assets walk out the door every night, and not-for-profits and many other types of institutions as well as small business.

Why is so much succession planning talk just lip service? Why does a process so obviously an asset in avoiding business disruption and client defections so widely resisted?

There’s a lot of denial underlying the widespread inaction. To varying degrees I believe it’s about:

• Individual’s, particularly Baby Boomers now, fear of losing influence, clout with colleagues and clients;
• Fear of change of direction, personalities and policies;
• Reluctance to admit that talent will defect
• Unwillingness to confront mortality

Can you add other reasons?  Please do comment.

One solution is to establish an ongoing process for succession planning and transitioning as an institutional and cultural expectation. That becomes an integral part of the business model and is applicable to everyone. It’s not a personal judgment. It’s a business imperative and a foundation for sustainable success.

Enough of silence and lip service.

Submit your comments here. Thanks!

Phyllis Weiss Haserot     www.pdcounsel.com