Archive for the ‘Baby Boomers’ Category

Worried about your next generation of leaders?

You’re not alone. According to a new survey about leadership skills from Pearson and Executive Development Associates Inc. (EDA), 57% of business executives said their leadership talent pipeline was the same or weaker today than it was two years ago. Seventy-five percent said increasing bench strength will be their top business priority for the next two to three years. Is this too little too effort? 

When asked what skills were needed to assume executive positions within the next three to five years, respondents cited strategic thinking, leading change, the ability to create a vision and engage others around it, the ability to inspire, and the ability to understand how the total enterprise works. But the respondents also agreed these were the very skills lacking in their current talent pool.

The right successor must have just the right blend of personality, time and experience. And with a more complex and faster changing marketplace destined to be our future, the ability to deal with ambiguity and paradox is paramount. This combination requires innate talent plus development.  Creating this competency can take years and many people just are not equipped to ascend to the role. And others who have the skills and experience aren’t willing to give up their personal and family lives in exchange for a promotion and title. What motivated the Baby Boomers doesn’t motivate Gen X and Gen Y.

In addition to lack of skills, a leadership shortage is all but a done deal. When the Baby Boomers finally decide to slow down or retire, pure demographics will stall the succession. Gen X, the succeeding generation, is little more than half the size of the Boomers. And many Gen X and Gen Y are putting family before careers. 

One more glitch: while three to five years may not be enough time to develop the next generation of leaders, it might also be too long in a competitive market. Many talented Gen X are tired of waiting for the Boomers to get out of the way. As the economy is rebounding, job  offers will start coming in. It is already happening. Competitors and emerging companies are scouring the job market for talent and your next leader could be their target.

But what happens when the manager slides open the envelope, removes the card, and the note looks like it was written by a third grader. What kind of impression does that make? Is it any worse than receiving the following message on your Blackberry from your top candidate: “TYVM 4 t interview.”  (Translation = thank you very much for the interview.)

In defense of a generation criticized for sending texts instead of a handwritten note, consider this. Unknown to many hiring managers, even those in their 30s and 40s, is the little-publicized trend that cursive writing has all but been phased out of many school’s curriculum.

Taught for more than 300 years in the United States, cursive writing has been reduced to an independent study, an “as-we-have-time” course in second or third grade. The computer keyboard helped kill shorthand, and now it’s threatening to finish off longhand.

Until the 1970s, penmanship was a separate daily lesson through sixth grade. Zaner-Bloser Handwriting, the most widely used penmanship curriculum, reports that, when cursive writing peaked in the 1940s and ’50s, most teachers insisted on as much as two hours a week. But a 2003 Vanderbilt University survey of primary-grade teachers found that most now spend 10 minutes a day or less on the subject. To adapt to this new reality, the Zaner-Bloser method has been changed to a 15-minute daily plan. When handwritten essays were introduced on the SAT exams for the class of 2006, just 15% of the almost 1.5 million students who took the test wrote their answers in cursive. The rest? They printed — in block letters.

For traditionalists, the demise of cursive is an outrage — the loss of a skill, even an art form. But proponents arguing for a young population that is better prepared to work in digital world say there’s no point in wasting students’ time to teach a vestigial skill in a computer age.

The first edge of a gigantic wave of U.S. students graduating from high school and school who no longer get much handwriting instruction in the primary grades is just hitting the workplace. Not only will these students struggle with writing cursive — they can’t read it either.

Ironically, this problem isn’t isolated to poor-performing students, but the best and the brightest. Why? High-performing students are introduced to computers early in their education and rarely, if ever, are required to write longhand. They are never required to learn the skill of writing, or even reading, cursive script. They are taught keyboarding. Just as the pencil replaced charcoal and the ballpoint pen replaced the quill, bits and bytes will replace cursive writing as the primary mode of producing “printed” media.

Many educators shrug at the problem. When the top priority is to teach technology, foreign languages and the material required to pass standardized tests, penmanship instruction just doesn’t seem that important.

So the next time you get a digital message loaded with text lingo or a thank you note that looks like chicken scratch, pause for a moment. Take a deep breath. Then ask yourself: What if the brightest and most talented candidates applying for the job don’t know how to write cursive?  Does it really matter? Will cursive writing improve their performance? Or is this just more sign that the change is really difficult to accept.

Previously posted on Bizmore.com

Everybody’s Fine. Robert DeNiro, playing a recently widowed father of four, discovers that his children have been telling him only what he wants to hear because he held each of them to his expectations, not theirs.

But most poignant was his advice to his most troubled son. As a kid, David wanted to paint. I’m paraphrasing here but DeNiro’s character told David, “don’t be just a painter, become an artist.” David did become an artist. But he also became a troubled soul and unfortunately died a tragic death. In reflecting back, DeNiro talks to David sorrowfully tells him “to paint.”

When I returned home, I quickly “googled” an article I read recently in Time magazine about  the “insanity” of “overparenting.” In it Carl Honoré, author of Under Pressure: Rescuing Our Children from the Culture of Hyper-Parenting, recalled his son’s reaction to learning he was getting an art tutor to help him draw better. “He look[ed] at me like I [was] from outer space,” Honoré said. “‘I just wanna draw,’ he [told] me. ‘Why do grownups have to take over everything?’”

The Time article diagnosed the scenario as a classic case of helicopter parenting. I’ve written and spoken about it for several years. I even devoted a chapter to it in my book:

…we just wanted what was best for our kids. We bought macrobiotic cupcakes and hypoallergenic socks, hired tutors to correct a 5-year-old’s “pencil-holding deficiency,” hooked up broadband connections in the treehouse but took down the swing set after the second skinned knee. We hovered over every school, playground and practice field — “helicopter parents,” teachers christened us, a phenomenon that spread to parents of all ages, races and regions.

Stores began marketing stove-knob covers and “Kinderkords” (also known as leashes; they allow “three full feet of freedom for both you and your child”) and Baby Kneepads (as if babies don’t come prepadded)…

Overparenting’s been around a long time. Douglas MacArthur’s mom Pinky reportedly moved with him to West Point in 1899 and took an apartment near the campus, supposedly so she could watch him with a telescope to be sure he was studying. In the 1960s and 1970s the pendulum swung the other way. With Baby Boomers reprioritizing careers over kids, the term latch-key kid was coined to denote a generation of kids fending for themselves while their parents climbed the ladder. When these kids entered the workforce as Generation X, free agency and work-life balance hit the proverbial work ethic fan.

But in the 1990s the needle shifted again, but this time it went way past the red line. Parents stopped letting kids out of their sight. Welcome to a generation raised by helicopter parents. Parents who were raised walking alone to school, riding mass transit, trick-or-treating, and selling Girl Scout cookies door to door forbid their kids to do the same. The percentage of kids walking or biking to school dropped from 41% in 1969 to 13% in 2001. Parents lobbied to take the jungle gyms out of playgrounds, and strollers suddenly needed the warning label “Remove Child Before Folding.” Among 6-to-8-year-olds, free playtime dropped 25% from 1981 to ’97, and homework more than doubled.

Parents became so obsessed with their kids’ success that parenting turned into a form of product development. The competition to get your child enrolled into top-flight nursery schools became more fierce than getting an academic scholarship into an Ivy League school. High school teachers began to receive irate text messages from parents protesting an exam grade before class was even over; college deans described freshmen as “crispies,” who arrived at college already burned out, and “teacups,” who seemed ready to break at the tiniest stress.

Some elementary schools had to institute a “no rescue” policy to prevent the daily onslaught of parents dropping in to deliver forgotten lunch boxes and notebooks. Many colleges have a “director of parent programs” to run regional groups so moms and dads can meet fellow college parents or attend special classes where they learn school cheers. Others employ “parent cops” so that during orientation, course registration and Parent Days, the faculty and administration isn’t attacked by parents demanding to know why their child isn’t at the top of the class.

What should come as a welcome relief to teachers and employers, a backlash against overparenting has been building for years (although the teachers and parents who seem to be doing the most griping are the most offensive helicopter parents). The shift is no less prominent than what’s printed these days on toddler tees. We’ve gone from “Baby on Board” to Honestbaby.com selling baby T-shirts that say “I’ll walk when I’m good and ready.” This helicopter parent insurgency goes by many names — slow parenting, simplicity parenting, free-range parenting — but the message is the same: Less is more; hovering is dangerous; failure is fruitful.

Grounding the hovering helicopter parent won’t be easy. Parental advice from “experts” has been shaping the parenting style for years: from D.H. Lawrence (who said in 1918: “How to begin to educate a child. First rule: leave him alone. Second rule: leave him alone. Third rule: leave him alone. That is the whole beginning.”) to Dr Benjamin Spock, Dear Abby, Oprah and Dr.Phil. But the lag time between the change in child-rearing philosophy and mature offspring takes a generation. And for those adult-age children raised by the not-so-perfect parent, there is no instant replay to reverse the decisions.

By the time parents recognize the error of their ways, the children have already been molded and shaped. While the shift away from overparenting is obviously well underway, it will take years to shift the attitudes and behaviors of the children. Generation X latch-key kids, the offspring of Baby Boomers, shaped recruiting, retention and business strategies for the past two decades. Their attitudes toward work ethic, communication, career planning and more lingered long after they were out from under the short reach of their parents. Generation Y, nearly double the size of Gen X, is now entering the workforce.

Even if their hovering parents are grounded, the “kids are out of the bag” and standing at employers’ doorsteps. 

Previously posted on Bizmore.com

One of the biggest bonehead blunders taking place in business today has to do with CEOs delegating the set-up of their Facebook business page to the intern or youngest employee.  Why?

First of all, it trivializes the critical role social media plays in managing your brand and reputation.  While Facebook and MySpace might be second nature to a 20-something, that doesn’t mean they have the ability to put social media in its proper context.  By that I mean – social media will only be effective if it supports and enhances your strategic objectives.

Understanding how to set up an account on Facebook, doesn’t automatically infer they understand strategy, marketing, messaging, and branding. Just because I’m a frequent user of Word, doesn’t qualify me for a Pulitzer Prize.

Read more at Workplace Trends

The following book review was printed in The Courier, November 18, 2009. The reviewer was Elaine VanderClute.

The subtitle of the book “Geeks, Geezers, and Googlization” by Dr. Ira S.Wolfe, “How to Manage the Unprecedented Convergence of the Wired, the Tired, and Technology in the Workplace,” is as clever as its alliterative title.  A closer look reveals that the geeks are wired, the geezers are tired and googlization is a fancy word for technology, but Wolfe’s prescriptions for success in the workplace are much more comprehensive than his titles suggest.

Wolfe tackles a phenomenon that many might not even realize exists: the convergence in the workplace of four generations with very different ideas of how to work, when to work, where to work and why to work.  First, he identifies these four generations. The Veterans, born before 1946, are sometimes known as the Silent or Greatest Generation. They remember Pearl Harbor, Mickey Mouse, the McCarthy Era and Joe DiMaggio.  Next up are the Baby Boomers, born between 1946 and 1964, whose memories are of the Cold War, civil rights demonstrations, American Bandstand and the Beatles. Generation X, or Baby Busters, born between 1965 and 1979, recall the Challenger disaster, the Cosby Show, Cabbage Patch dolls and Kurt Cobain.  Finally is Generation Y, or the Millennials, born between 1980 and 2000. Wolfe predicts that they will remember September 11, Facebook, Wikipedia and Bill Clinton.

Mix the Veterans, the Baby Boomers, Generation X and Generation Y together and put them in the same work environment and there is the potential for some interesting results.  Wolfe stresses that knowing the differences about how the workers in each of these generational groups approach the workplace can put a positive spin on those results.  He is quick to point out however, that the defining characteristics in each group may be typical but are by no means universal.  Using himself as an example, Wolfe describes himself as a “Gen Y trapped in a Baby Boomer body.”

Readers might wonder why the convergence of these particular generations should be any different from say, the generations that worked together in the 1940s or 1950s.  One of the reasons is that in the past, it would have been rare to have people from four generations working side by side.

However, people today have a longer life expectancy and more Veterans and Baby Boomers are opting to put off retirement or go back to work after retirement.  Another reason, according to Wolfe, is technology, hence the “googlization” in his title.  In a particularly succinct take on what is happening in the workplace, Wolfe asserts that “technology is the air that young people breathe and it is beginning to leave more experienced workers gasping.”

Lest readers think that this means that Wolfe is minimizing the contribution that the older generations can make at work, the author makes it perfectly clear that workers from all four groups bring valuable assets to work and these should be recognized and cultivated by managers.  The trick he says, to approaching a multigenerational workforce, is to use the right management style for each generation:  a supporting style for the Veterans, an empowering style for Baby Boomers and older Gen Xs, a steering style for the younger Gen Xs and a building style for the youngest workers, the Gen Ys.

 ”Geeks, Geezers, and Googlization” focuses on the mix of generations in the business world, but the application to other parts of living is clear:  people would do well to take the time to learn what distinguishes the members of one generation from another.  As Ira Wolfe says, “Bridging the generational gap is like controlling traffic at a four-way stop sign.  To avoid collisions, drivers must give-and-take from each generation to keep the productivity flowing, creating a more cordial and hopefully collaborative environment.”

Age does matter. Different ages, and therefore different generations, don’t create conflicts in their own right. It’s just that each generation is influenced by different events that shape attitudes, values, and even music tastes. What I remember as a child is mere history for my children and today’s youth. Sure, they can listen to the music but they can never experience the feeling of watching the Beatles for the first time on Ed Sullivan or hearing the news that JFK was shot.

Continue reading

I found this great video about the events, images and influences that shaped the ways each generations think.  What’s missing?  How do you relate?  What did you feel watching this?

Juggling multigenerational workforces is nothing new for many organizations.  What’s changed however is that the Baby Boomers aren’t retiring as expected and it’s capping career growth and stalling job openings for younger workers. This new phenomena is creating a state of generational crowding.

This workplace crowding  is forcing managers to do what my colleague and friend Bette Price calls “gen-blending,” a practice where different generations of workers representing multiple ranks of personnel come together as equals to solve company issues.

Cross-generational teams, according to a just published article in the Financial Times, “are about more than young people imparting technical skills to older workers; they give senior employees the opportunity to learn more about the ideals, behaviors and values of the younger generation,” according to Dan Woodward, senior vice-president at BakBone Software, who was interviewed for the article. “Young people have a different way of thinking and [to use that effectively] creates a real competitive advantage.”

Price believes “The goal is to collectively brainstorm in order to identify problems and get a broader vision of the company.”

One practice that I recommend as a key strategy for getting different generations to collaborate is for young workers to tutor management and older workers how to use social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter for recruitment, business development, customer support, and employee engagement. Time Warner is using what they call “digital reverse mentoring” to blend different generations in strategic discussions.

Gen-blending has improved company morale, according to several companies interviewed for the article.. They get better buy-in for change and avoid what one manager called “warm seat attrition,” when workers just stay around because they have no better options.

Samuel  J. Scott is a “pissed-off Gen Y.”  At first blush, you might just write him off as a young, whining, immature, and unindustrious kid.  But after a brief look at his bio, you will likely take pause at what he has accomplished to date in his young life.  So why is he so angry?

Scott, like many Gen Y and Gen X, are frustrated by the lies they’ve been sold and the economic plight they’ve been delivered.  A recent Pew Research Center report suggested that the generational gap, despite being the widest in 40 years, is more subdued than the rift that the Baby Boomers experienced with their parents.  But “more subdued” infers a sense of unwarranted complacency.  “Subdued” doesn’t necessarily guarantee that the feelings of resentment are less intense.  In fact, the longer this recession drags on and Baby Boomers hang on to their jobs, inter-generational differences will likely widen from a bridgeable gap to a disruptive chasm.

If Scott’s resentment offers even a glimpse of how other Gen X and Gen Y feel, employers (and politicians) are in for the biggest challenge of their lives.   After reading a few of Scott’s comments (below), I can’t help feeling some empathy with Scott and his cohorts.  

We were told that everyone needed to go to college to have a good life, so we gladly took out tens of thousands of dollars in student loans to get a bachelor’s degree. When we saw that we had no competitive advantage because everyone else had a bachelor’s degree as well, we took out tens of thousands of dollars in additional loans for a master’s degree. Now, we have tens upon tens of thousands of dollars in debt by the time we are thirty, but we see that plumbers and mechanics are earning more money than we do.

We are dismayed that people who stupidly took out mortgages that they could not afford are getting assistance from the government, but no one will ever help us with our student loan payments. In fact, the government even amended bankruptcy laws so that student loans are now prevented from being erased in bankruptcy proceedings.

We have jobs for which we probably didn’t even need the college degrees in the first place.

We work for companies that are cutting our health insurance, no longer offering pensions or retirement plans, and constantly thinking about shipping our jobs to India or China, and we will probably never have Social Security because the program will be bankrupt.

We see that Baby Boomers are refusing to retire and allow us to obtain higher-level positions in companies so we can now afford homes, families, and student-loan payments.

We are disheartened that government officials are always criticizing violence and sex in movies, television and video games when the most immoral actions are always occurring in the White House and the halls of Congress.

Baby Boomers – what do you think? Is Scott whining or just speaking the truth? 

Gen X and Gen Y – does Scott speak for you?  Are Baby Boomers the villains or the scapegoat of Scott’s wrath?