Bill McAneny's blog

Generation Z - the silent generation
It seems incredible that Generation Z, those born after 1994, will hit the job market in 3-4 years time. So how do they differ from Gen Y, and what does this mean for how we recruit, manage, motivate, reward and develop this next wave?

Gen Z is the first generation born with full mobile technology already in existence which makes them both comfortable with, and indeed dependent on, such technology. On one hand this has made them primarily independent-minded but it also means they tend to see social media as ‘the norm,’ as education and learning are not adapting quickly enough to modern technology. It also means that ‘socializing’ is not necessarily about physically hanging out with friends, shopping, (or indeed even leaving home), but an activity which occurs online as a solitary, yet collaborative, pursuit. However this generation is not locked into one desktop PC in one location, as all the necessary equipment they require to remain perpetually hooked up is with them wherever they go. This is one of the main differences between Generation Y and Generation Z, that Gen Y’ers remember life before the proliferation of mass technology, while Gen Z are often referred to as the ‘digital natives.’

This has made Generation Z impatient and requiring instant gratification, an introverted and aloof generation, with a lower attention span. Such a high dependence on technology has led to some psychologists suggesting that there is evidence of ‘acquired Attention Deficit Disorder.’ Dr Edward Hallowell, Psychiatrist, former Harvard Medical School faculty member and a specialist in attention deficit disorder claims people have “...become so busy attending to so many inputs and outputs that you become increasingly distracted, irritable, impulsive, restless and, over the long term, underachieving...You live at a much more surface level.” A clinical associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard, specializing in neuropsychiatry, Dr. John Ratey, uses the term "acquired attention deficit disorder" to describe the way technology is rewiring the modern brain. Even reliance on is short-circuiting the brain's ability to process details. "My favourite example is when I type the word 'tomorrow,' I know spell-check will get it right. It would take 30 milliseconds for me to make sure in my mind. But we depend on that spell-check. Even when we take the time to write, we don't have the patience to give that a consideration.” People are becoming accustomed to a constant stream of digital stimulation and feel bored in the absence of it. “Regardless of whether the stimulation is from the Internet, TV or a cellphone, the brain, is hijacked.”

Dr. Elias Aboujaoude, Director of Stanford University's Impulse Control Disorders Clinic at Stanford University agrees: "If our attention span constricts to the point where we can only take information in 140-character sentences, then that doesn't bode too well for our future. The more we become used to just sound bites and tweets the less patient we will be with more complex, more meaningful information. And I do think we might lose the ability to analyze things with any depth and nuance. Like any skill, if you don't use it, you lose it." This will also have a major impact in how this generation forms views, constructs arguments and also how well they see the wider context of issues. This is very much the ‘here and now’ generation.

It also explains why they are more individualistic, self-absorbed and less team oriented than Gen Y. Many of this generation have parents who are ‘stay-at-home’ or working part time and so are less likely to have attended day-care an activity which encourages socialization in teams and also group-play. As such their verbal communication skills also tend to be less well-developed as the majority of their communication takes place individually, online and in ‘shorthand.’ As this is the Google generation who take for granted that information is ‘there,’ immediate and free, they tend to be impatient and expect instant results. They form huge communities and a constant communication loop with people they have never met, and never will meet on the net; paradoxically this generation are collaborative, chatty and sociable on the net, yet in ‘the real world’ they tend to be less well able to develop personal relationships.
 

Generation Y - the wired generation

Generation Y are those born after 1980. They are wired generation, the digital generation, often known as the ‘learning 2.0’ generation. By 2014 they will make up almost half the workforce; already in the US there are 88 million Gen Ys to <50 million Gen Xs. This group are in the ascendancy, (in India for example they make up more than one half of the over one billion population). A recent article in the Economist encapsulated the new breed really well: “It is becoming commonplace for a cafe to be full of people...more engaged with their in-box than with the people touching their elbows. These places are physically inhabited but psychologically evacuated.”

This has a major implication for how we recruit, manage, and motivate this group, how we understand them and their aspirations; and it means a complete change in how we construct and support their learning.

What characterizes Gen Y and learning?

• An instant 24/7 culture, with no tolerance for delays, a need for immediacy
• A ‘trial and error’ approach to problem solving, this is the ‘Nintendo’ generation
• Comfortable with technology coupled with a low boredom threshold, ‘snack’ learning, a bit of TV, a bit of internet all at the same time
• Multi-tasking and parallel processing, preferring visual stimuli, non-linear, virtual learning, all at odds with traditional delivery methodology
• Collaborative learning where they value interaction, being connected, discussing, listening to others
• A constructivist approach, ie they have a strong need to construct their own meanings, not passively accepting or absorbing (or being ‘told,’) with learning undertaken socially and then personalized
• Socially constructive where they both ‘consume’ learning but also want to contribute and ‘give back,’ (c. f. Wikis)

A truly remarkable film that captures the essence of Generation Y and how we need to change our mode of thinking to make learning relevant to them.

Of course you can, but the old dog has to want to learn them!

But then isn’t personality set? Well roughly yes, and from a pretty early age; personality is the result of the interaction between genetic conditions and environmental conditions and can be represented in this way: P = (GxE). This means that from an early age our personalities are set and basically don’t change. Sure I can provide lots of clinical data to back up this assertion but hey just go to a school reunion! Sure they may be balder or fatter but they are just the same, aren’t they?

Behaviour on the other hand is a result of the interaction between personality and situation and can be represented in this way: B = (PxS). Therefore change the situation and we are all capable of modifying our behaviour, to a greater or lesser extent. And this makes it difficult to hide behind the genetics argument because if we choose we can change our behaviour. This also means there are no such things as personality clashes, or any reason why we can’t choose a different path.

In his book ‘Life at the bottom’ Theodore Dalrymple confronts a drugs user who claims: “It’s not my fault I am easily led.” Theodore replies: “Then how come you haven’t been easily led to conjugating Latin verbs, or to study higher Maths?” You see we like the determinism argument (ie that every event is the inevitable consequence of previous conditions) when it suits us.

I think the deeper issue is to find a reason why someone would want to change; and that is far more difficult. I have no problem with the person who says: ‘I’m happy how I am, I understand the negative consequences of not changing and I accept them.’ But I rarely hear that. What I hear are the rationalising arguments: ‘it’s not my fault,’ ‘that’s just how I am made,’ ‘I can’t change now, it’s too late,’ ‘my personality is set!’

So how do you get someone to change? Back to our old dogs, they need to want to change. As Confucius said ‘change is a door that can only be opened from the inside,’ (mind you he also said ‘experience is a comb given to a bald man.’) So it is usually up to us to find the reasons - and there are so many (as many as there are people). A few examples:

‘Altruism,’ (ie it is the right thing to do)
‘Improve your stock,’ (ie if you improve it will be better for your people and you’ll be better thought of as a leader within the organization)
‘These are career-limiting behaviours’ (ie we’ll sack you if you don’t improve)
‘Odd one out’ (ie everyone else in the team is showing progression and you’re not)
‘Look at him’ (ie point to the tangible benefits in someone else)
‘Cementing’ (ie keep on doing what you’re doing, you’ll keep on getting what you’re getting, you’ll become known for the behaviours and so will keep getting the same old projects/tasks)
‘It will make life easier’ (appeal to laziness)

Often the most difficult issue is convincing folks development isn’t about changing what is intrinsically you, it isn’t about taking things away but adding to your armoury, and it will give you a greater array of choices, options and dimensions. The Latin root of the word ‘education’ is ‘e-ducato,’ which means ‘leading out.’ So it is not about trying to be like someone or something else (not possible nor desirable) or cramming your head full of the latest consultant’s nonsense; it is about bringing out the best in you, ie becoming a better version of you.
 

General George Patton was asked, in 1944 how he ‘wins hearts and minds.’ His answer is legendary and witty, but also incredibly profound. Patton said: ‘Grab them by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow.’ Now sure this may sound a little crude and crass but what he is saying is that behaviour will determine attitude, and that is a wise and insightful viewpoint.

We were asked by the world’s largest manufacturer of architectural ironmongery to create a customer-centric culture. Previously they’d tried all the ‘attitudinal changing,’ trite methods of pictures of happy customers, and statements like ‘customers pay our wages,’ and ‘awe-inspiring’ posters of tired-inspired people who had just climbed a mountain for the first time, covered in snow and glory. So no problem with square inches of inspiration on walls but ‘winning the hearts and minds,’ especially of the senior team, was a far more difficult task.

The senior team knew all the arguments: happy customers mean repeat business, happy customers act as advocates by telling other people how good your company is and building a relationship means that doing business is less transactional and price-sensitive; indeed they could make those convincing arguments to others. But the difference was, they couldn’t actually ‘feel’ it because they had no direct experience.

Attitudes have three main components: cognitive, (which is about our beliefs) affective, (which is about our feelings) and behavioural (how we act towards the attitude object). Getting attitude to change behaviour is really difficult because we intellectualise, post-rationalise, make excuses - anything rather than accept the logic. However by effecting changes in behaviour we often find that attitude follows suit. So why is that? We call it ‘cognitive dissonance,’ which argues that people prefer their beliefs and feelings to be consistent with each other and with their behaviour so when inconsistencies occur people become uncomfortable and have to adapt; but how do they adapt? Think about someone whose cognition is ‘I smoke’, who is bombarded with messages ‘smoking kills.’ The obvious corollary to this is that they give up smoking; but they don’t do they? They either discount the evidence or adopt the irrational belief that smoking won’t harm them personally or promise themselves that they will give up on Monday - or the end of the month, or after the summer holidays; anything rather than give up.

So back to our architectural ironmongery organisation; what did we do? Well what we did was initiate a policy, (not a policy, oh yeah a ‘policy.’) Every single senior manager, including all board members, had to personally (personally mind) handle four customer complaints a month, including personal follow-up with the customer. Thus the CEO had to show up at a DIY store in Glasgow and get a ‘severe telling off,’ (as they say in Glasgow) from the store owner; that is truly the sharp end of ‘customer experience.’ And do you know, all of a sudden, customer service really did become important to the organisation and the senior team suddenly became its strongest advocates. Why? Because, like Patton said (perhaps a little more coarsely), having had a direct experience, their behaviour determined their attitude.

For all the books and supposed ‘styles’ of negotiating I think the advice from ‘Getting to Yes,’ by Fisher and Ury still holds true: ‘don’t bargain over position, bargain only over issues.’ By bargaining over position you can cement yourself into a bad place and it also clearly pinpoints your true position to the other person; here is a perfect example.

By 1963 the Beatles were the biggest band on the planet, outselling everyone else, selling out concert halls worldwide and becoming a merchandising phenomenon. Their manager, Brian Epstein was over the moon when United Artists decided they wanted to make a ‘Beatles’ movie and asked him to meet with them to discuss the contract. Epstein was triumphant, and so walked in to the meeting with a swagger and banged the table announcing ‘my boys won’t accept less than 7.5%, take it or leave it.’

Of course in those days 7.5% was a large amount but by cementing himself into the position Epstein did not realise that United Artists were looking at 25% as a starting point for the negotiations. As Denis O’Dell said in his book, ’At the Apple’s Core,’ “Brian, in a meeting with the producer of A Hard Day's Night, stated that he wouldn't accept less than 7.5% of the income from the movie. United Artists had the figure of 25% as a starting point for the deal negotiations.”

And so what is the moral of this tale? Wait, listen, ask questions and never, ever bargain over position, only over issues. Perhaps Lady Ga-Ga would have done a better job:

“Can't read my,
Can't read my,
No he can't read my poker face”

1879 is often cited as ‘the birthday of psychology’ the year when Wilhelm Wundt created the very first psychological research laboratory at Leipzig University and this has led to Wundt being hailed as ‘the father of psychology.’ Yet of course this is like saying that before 5 July 1687, when Newton ‘discovered’ gravity, that we were all floating around in space; we need to differentiate between formalised academic study and the realities of what has been going in peoples’ lives, and minds, for centuries.

I was re-reading Wordsworth recently and if we drill deep into what he was really saying we can see that he ‘knew’ free association long before the term had been coined and he drew on past strengths to shore him up during times of present angst.

“And think ye not with radiance more sublime
For these remembrances, and for the power
They had left behind? So feeling comes in aid
Of feeling, and diversity of strength
Attends us, if but once we have been strong”

William Wordsworth, ‘The Prelude, Book Twelfth,’ 1799

These beauteous forms,
Through a long absence, have not been to me
As is a landscape to a blind man's eye:
But oft, in lonely rooms, and 'mid the din
Of towns and cities, I have owed to them
In hours of weariness, sensations sweet,
Felt in the blood, and felt along the heart;
And passing even into my purer mind,
With tranquil restoration”

William Wordsworth, ‘Above Tintern Abbey,’ 1789

“While here I stand, not only with the sense
Of present pleasure, but with pleasing thoughts
That in this moment there is life and food
For future years”

William Wordsworth, ‘Above Tintern Abbey,’ 1789

The brain states are the sub-conscious, (sometimes called the unconscious), and the conscious mind. Every event from birth, and even pre-birth, gets stored in the sub-conscious, without us realising it. The process through which events ‘leak’ out, (or are brought out), from the sub-conscious to the conscious, waking mind is called ‘free association.’ In the 1960s Penfield conducted some experiments around free association and found that all events were recorded and stored. He found that:

• Memory is evoked in a single recollection in detail, rather than generalisations.
• The feelings which were associated with the event are also recorded, therefore we ‘relive’ rather than ‘recall.’
• Memory continues intact - even after the mind’s ability to recall it has disappeared.
• The brain ‘tape-records’ every experience from birth (possibly even before birth) and all this is recorded in the temporal cortex section of the brain.
• The key therefore is that we not only remember the event and remember the feeling, but can feel the same way now.

So we can see that Wordsworth ‘used’ his memories, his experiences of the past, to help him through the present. He would go to places where he had wandered as a young man and he not only remembered, he not only remembered how he felt but he could feel the same way again; and for Wordsworth this was how he drew on his previous strengths to ensure he remained strong during ...”hours of weariness.” Wordsworth was by all accounts a solitary figure and his writing gives us a wonderful insight into how he coped with ‘modern life.’ Predating ‘Psychology’ by almost a century Wordsworth shows us that there is a huge difference between ‘Psychology’ and ‘psychology,’ ie between formalised academic study and the realities of what is going on in peoples’ lives.
 

Bill has been asked to do a two and a half  hour, live radio phone-in on 'Leadership in the 21st century." The details are at: http://tinyurl.com/nbowyb

I guess one of the problems is that people will be looking for 'the answer,' the silver bullet, the one thing that will make them great leaders and, unfortunately, that misses the point; it is about lots of little things. There are no perfect leaders, (as there are no perfect friends, or husbands, or wives I guess), and so it is about being the best leader that YOU can, with all your foibles and specific traits. The Latin root of the word 'education,' is 'e-ducato,' which means 'leading out.' So rather than try to cram our heads with all the latest theories, or attempt to be like that leader over there, (not possible or even desirable) it's better to bring out the best in us as individuals. Hamel says it's all about innovation, Bossidy says it's all about execution, Collins says it's all about humility; who's right? Well none of them and all of them! I tried to be an innovative, servile, execution focused leader and it's like trying to be short and tall.

I will be interested to see what the questions are from the listeners but I hope they aren't looking for 'the one thing,' as they may be over simplifying things. Maybe see you on there?

There is nothing soft or woolly about coaching, listening or giving feedback. Another perspective might simply be that they are guidelines for listening to, understanding and getting the information you want from the people you lead. Many managers find it useful to have some support in this area, particularly those who have progressed from a more technical environment and then find themselves managing people. The main difference between machinery and people is predictability. People are hard to understand, (they rarely conform to laws of physics), and management should be all about understanding your people and getting the best from them. Indeed management is after all a people game - and a contact sport!

You remember the old story about a fisherman walking along the river bank and he comes across a snake with a frog? He feels sorry for the frog as it’s about to be eaten and so he moves it out of the way. Then he feels sorry for the hungry snake and so he takes out his hip-flask and gives it a shot of whisky.

Next day he’s walking by the river and the snake is waiting for him - with two frogs!

And so what is the moral of this tale? Easy - you get what you reward! And it’s the same in organisations - you get what you reward. How you measure the performance of your people will determine how they behave and you will get what you reward. So there’s little point in rewarding adherence to rules and blind obedience - because that’s exactly what you will get. But you can’t reward adherence to rules and blind obedience and expect initiative and creativity. Incidentally if you do reward creativity and initiative then you may also get the odd spectacular failure!

So what does your organisation reward? And what do you reward?