Kids today...

As a leader in an organization, how have you adapted your leadership style to cater to the differing needs of a multi-generational workforce?

True, workforces have and will always be comprised of members of different generations, but the contrast between the 23 year old recent graduate and her 61 year old office mate could not be more stark.

** Note ** I am generalizing here. I realize not every baby boomer listens to the Rolling Stones, enjoys a glass of Chardonnay with dinner and prefers a formal, structured work environment; and not every Generation Y'er is an environmentalist who works best listening to their iPod and meeting with the CEO when they feel like it. BUT... we must acknowledge some of the tangible, observed differences in work and values between generations if we hope to harness the efforts and energy of our workforce and motivate them to contribute their best.

“Children nowadays are tyrants – they gobble their food, contradict their parents, and tyrannise their teachers!”

- Socrates (425 BC)

Baby Boomers - (Currently aged 44-64)
Baby boomers know the value of the dollar and are prepared to work hard for their money. They value their long-term needs, have an unquestioned respect for authority. They are idealistic, can be workaholics, resist change and their work style tends to be formal, hierarchical, rules based and loyal.

Gen X'ers - (Currently aged 29-43)
Gen X'ers, the children of the Baby Boomers, acknowledge that money is not everything. They are resilient, more accepting of change, creative, pragmatic, independent and cautious. Their work style is collaborative, more entrepreneurial, eager to maintain a work-life balance and a desire to rise to the top.

Gey Y'ers - (Currently aged 10-28)
Gen Y'ers want money. They are ready to respect authority once it is earned and are well-educated, street smart and technologically savvy. At work, they are focused on outcomes - not how, but what - and are not consumed with position titles or formal authority. Change is not only accepted by this cohort, but needed to keep things interesting.

So, how do we modify our style of management and communication to get through to these different groups? Here are a few suggestions:

Recognize the difference in the need for structure. When working to set goals, manage performance and generally engage employees in the day to day work of your organization, be open to structuring the work to cater to the preferred work style of the employee. Understandably, many managers might not be comfortable simply generalizing across generations. In these cases, simply engage in the discussion to get a sense of the employees expectations around the work they are doing. Asking the questions of, "How can I best support you to get this work done?", will allow the employee to ask for help setting goals, determining time lines, connecting with other stakeholders, etc. Alternatively, an employee might say, "I would really appreciate the freedom to work on this independently, and I will come to you if I need your support."

Recognize the differing preference for receiving direction. For some, the fact that you are the manager is motivation enough to work hard to get the job done. For others, you might need to explain how this work fits into the overall goals of the department or organization. Gen X and Y have a greater need to understand how the work they are doing fits into the bigger picture.

Respect differing degrees of technical competence. Technology can cause stress and aggravation in many ways. If you have a manager that has expectations around your technical competence that you aren't able to meet, it can be very scary and discouraging. Alternatively, if you have a manager that is not aware of what you can achieve by leveraging technology, it can be frustrating as well. As a manager, ask your employees about their comfort level with different forms of technology. If there is training needed, hopefully you are able to provide it. If there are alternative ways to complete the work, you ought to consider letting your employee determine the way they use technology.

There are many other things to consider when managing across generations: email vs. face to face communication; use of formal and informal language; working in groups and teams; career progression and expectations; need for feedback; etc.

Proactively managing these differences can have a positive impact on recruitment and retention, productivity, conflict/problem resolution, turnover, values alignment and managing change.

I am happy to discuss this in more depth and share articles with those who are interested.

E.I VS. I.Q... B.S?

Emotional Intelligence (EI).

The HR and OD professionals whose paths I have crossed throughout my career, when presented with the term, either smile acceptingly, or furrow their eyebrows in disgust. The fact is (or seems to be) that the business case for Emotional Intelligence has been made over and over again for the past 10 years and is likely linked to positive organizational outcomes.

There have been times where perceiving the emotions of a manager, colleague or employee had been so glaringly clear to me, while others in the room remained oblivious to these signs and messages - at times, behaving in ways that exacerbated the already tense emotional environment.

I felt like Ray Kinsella standing in my cornfield wondering why nobody else can see the 1918 White Sox playing baseball. Do they just not see it?

This speaks to the great divide in human abilities that lies between the head and the heart - or more technically (as put by Daniel Goleman), between cognition and emotion.

The concept of EI is not a new one. In 1943, Wechsler wrote,

"The main question is whether non-intellective, that is affective and conative abilities, are admissible as factors of general intelligence. (My contention) has been that such factors are not only admissible but necessary. I have tried to show that in addition to intellective there are also definite non-intellective factors that determine intelligent behavior. If the foregoing observations are correct, it follows that we cannot expect to measure total intelligence until our tests also include some measures of the non-intellective factors."

In 1990, Salovey and Mayer coined the term Emotional Intelligence, and described it as,

"a form of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one's own and others' feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them, and to use this information to guide one's thinking and action."

Since then, countless studies have related EI with work performance. Like anything, EI ought not to be the sole measure used to predict performance, but some have deemed it to have far more importance than IQ or technical expertise in a management or leadership role.

I certainly agree that a persons ability to manage their own emotions and identify and perceive the emotions of others provides the foundation for the social and interpersonal competencies that are critical for success in almost every job.

The New Leader

In our own organizations, we regularly hear about someone being 'groomed' for a key role in the upper echelon of our organizations. We hear about how, when the big boss man retires, this person will be the one to assume the reigns and leading the organization into the future. This approach to succession planning - assigning one person to fill one role at some yet-to-be-determined time in the future - begs too many questions to count.

• If the incumbent leaves tomorrow, will this person be ready?
• What if the incumbent doesn't leave for 7 years, will this person still be right for the job?
• What if this future leader gets a great opportunity with another organization?
• How does this approach make the rest of the employees feel?

Consider a model of Leadership Development that goes beyond the concept of succession, that considers today's work to be just as important (perhaps more) as the work of tomorrow. Consider building a culture of leadership that has employees rethinking the idea that, "One day, I'd like to be a leader in this organization." in favour of the idea that, "I can be a leader TODAY in this organization."

Leadership Development is the approach of creating and growing a ‘leadership culture’ in your organization and believing that leadership can emerge wherever there is a passion to create it. It is the most holistic approach to development that considers the outcomes of Leadership development on 3 levels: improved organizational succession; improved organizational performance; and improved individual career outcomes.

If someone is a part of your organization, presumably you decided to hire them, you believe they are worth compensating and you trust them with your clients and your information. If we assume these ideas all to be true, then surely you must believe they are worth developing. From the front line workers through to executives and board members, we must believe that everybody is in a position to impact the organization in a meaningful way and therefore can all be in a position to demonstrate leadership.

In a recent workshop, I asked the participants to shout out words that come to mind when they hear the term 'Leadership'. The following represents a partial list of the responses:

• Organized, Honest, Transparent, Calm, Integrity, Create, Humble, Passionate, Problem Solver, Good decision maker, Intelligent, Brave, Inspiring, Genuine, Good listener, Empowering, Loves their job, Caring, Realistic, Determined

We soon realized that none of these responses represent competencies or behaviours that are reserved for a Senior Executive, nor can they only be performed by someone with substantial formal authority.

In a subsequent post, I will discuss some possible strategies to engage with different levels of employees to begin the leadership discussion and provide meaningful (but not costly) development opportunities.


Feedback on posts is always welcome.