Bill McAneny's blog

Over the past year on our blog we have been discussing generational differences and how these manifest themselves in workplace learning and motivation. How can we know which training providers are best placed to support our organisation, our people, our unique situation? And what are the parameters that matter, what should we be measuring. Here's an example.

The Energy Industry currently spends $6bn on training every year. Yet the difficulty is ensuring the quality of delivery and the capability, expertise and diversity of their vendors, to make sure all generations are supported. With the proliferation of training delivery modes, generational issues and the drive towards mLearning, in a crowded and diffuse market, how can we ensure that the training delivery is appropriate? How can we compare and differentiate?

We've been wrestling with the issue of how to create a comprehensive vendor standards framework. One that's simple, easy to understand and that assesses vendors against a strict and objective set of criteria to ensure that each organisation gets the maximum benefit from each training intervention.

The Prelude CALIBER RATING will allow each training provider to be quickly and objectively measured and compared in terms of capability, specialisations, generational-specific proficiency and value for money to allow the client to make the most informed decision when choosing a training provider, both pre and post procurement.

We'll publish the parameters shortly but we'd love to hear about others ways people have addressed this problem and also on any issues of generational learning.

It can brighten your day, it can diffuse tension, and it can bring people together; so what is a smile? The dictionary definition is: “A smile is a facial expression formed by flexing those muscles most notably near both ends of the mouth;” but that doesn’t really help, does it? It’s a bit like saying Michelangelo was the decorator who painted the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

There are two types of smile: genuine and fake. The genuine smile is spontaneous (you see someone you care about, something makes you suddenly happy, etc) and you smile involuntarily, you don’t think about it. We can see this in people because the far more difficult to control muscles around the eyes come into play. This is linked to our limbic system; our basic mammalian system that bypasses consciousness (ie we don’t choose these actions) and so it is far more natural, like our ‘fight or flight’ response.

Once we think about it, ie when consciousness comes into play, then it is far more controlled. The muscles around the eyes are not utilized and so the ‘smile’ looks incomplete and so not genuine. You can notice the difference between the natural smile of joy exhibited when a parent sees their child and the one plastered on when you order your burger; very different aren’t they?

So can you spot a fake smile? Click the link below and you will be able to test out how well you can detect the real from the fake. And remember don’t look only at the mouth because, as they say, the eyes have it!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/smiles/

Nicholas Carr has followed up his article ‘Is Google Making us Stupid?’
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-... with a book called ‘The Shallows’ in which he argues: “The internet...plays havoc with our ability to see anything through to the end. This is sad because our brains are malleable, still works in progress, moulded by external stimuli.”

At the same time a UCL report states: “It is clear that users are not reading online in the traditional sense, indeed there are signs that new forms of `reading’ are emerging as users `power browse’ horizontally through titles, contents pages and abstracts going for quick wins. It almost seems that they go online to avoid reading in the traditional sense.” It also says students are “...hungry for highly digested content.”

What worries me here is that the inference being drawn is that this is a bad thing which will all end in tears. In my view it is too easy to see “different” as “worse.” Yet maybe, from an evolutionary standpoint, this new way of learning better equips us for a world in which everything is speeding up and where change is a constant. Maybe, just maybe, we don’t now have time for traditional, more linear learning and that the old ways will not equip the new generation for future challenges. So rather than make us ‘worse’ the new learning modes just might make us ‘better,’ and certainly more relevant.

When we say ‘this generation’ we make a sweeping statement about a lot of people; but what about your 19 year old daughter, or your 21 year old son? Are they stupid, or even less bright than you are? Of course not! We live in a far more participative-based world, where people want to both take and put-back, (c. f. the revolutionary language learning site www.livemocha.com) and whilst the older generations preferred passive media (books, TV, newspapers) this generation prefer consuming active media, with ‘snacking’ and multi-tasking. So rather than fit the learners around outmoded and less appropriate learning media maybe our industry needs to see the learner as consumer and offer a wider range of options?

Google CEO Eric Schmidt says its mission is “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” Therefore information is a commodity like other commodities to be mined and processed efficiently. “The more pieces of information we can ‘access’ and the faster we can extract their gist, the more productive we become as thinkers.” And consider the Wikimedia Foundation’s mission: “Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment.”

So rather than hang onto dreams about the good old days when the summers were hotter and the grass greener perhaps we should allow this generation to dip in and out, parallel process, snack, multi-task, skim and power browse; it might just save us all.
 

A lot is now being written about Generation Y and Generation Z. However what about the previous two generations? Again we can see some stark differencies both between the baby-boomers and Gen X but also some major differencies between all four generations - and this has a big implication for how we attract, retain, develop, manage and motivate these groups. This is especially apposite as, until 2008 all the talk was about 'the big crew change;' but now we are seeing many older workers choosing to remain in employment for longer, whilst the Gen Yers are choosing to remain longer in education.

Baby-Boomers the ‘traditional’ learners

The ‘traditional learning’ phase typifies the baby-boomer generation, those born in the post-war period between 1945 and 1964, often schooled in overcrowded classrooms or even prefabricated buildings driving a competitive nature and desire to progress. This period saw huge rises in employment opportunities, a time of economic boom and produced a generation of traditional, hard-working people who accepted what was told to them in return for this leading to a better life.

‘Training’ was primarily didactic, driven by the prevailing culture, expectations and teaching media involving one-way communication, ‘talk and chalk’ sessions with the tutor as ‘expert’ where the emphasis was on ‘training,’ ie a passive approach, something that was ‘done to’ people, rather than ‘learning,’ which is a proactive activity. The learning studies and models reflected these values and produced the Honey and Mumford Learning Styles Model, the Kolb Learning Cycle, etc

Generation X the individualistic learners

Generation X is the ‘latch-key’ generation, born typically between 1964 and 1980. In France they are called ‘Génération Bof’ which means ‘Generation Whatever.’ This was a generation of lower birth-rates, rising divorce rates, faltering economies and less economic security, so fewer in numbers than the previous and succeeding generations and it was the first generation which saw mothers going out to work in large numbers, creating two income families. This was also the first generation to grow up with computers and the first to mark the shift from manufacturing economy to a service economy.

This generation therefore value independence, are more critical and sceptical, have less faith in economic institutions and have an in-built mistrust of authority. They work to live rather than live to work and so independence and work life balance are important. Gen Xers learn best through independent study, technological aides, preferring to solve problems for themselves rather than rely on someone to show them how. They value instant feedback, need to see the relevance of the subject matter, and constantly ask: what will it do for me? The learning studies and models reflected the new values and produced Peter Senge, Knowles Andragogy Theory and Covey’s ‘Seven Habits of Highly Effective People,’ all emphasising self-directed change and learning.
 

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”