The Myth of Generational Differences: Forget What Seems Intuitive

As we approach winter, it seems appropriate to review some questions that we hear this time of year:

1. Why does it get cold in the winter?
2. Why do we get sleepy after a turkey dinner?
3. Why do we keep poinsettia plants out of reach of small children?

Most of us honestly believe that we know the answers to these questions, but in reality we know the popular, yet incorrect answers. In other words, we often cling to false information simply because it is prevalent. Consider the commonly heard responses to these questions versus the actual correct answers:

1. Why does it get cold in the winter?

• Common, but Wrong Answer: The Earth moves away from the Sun.
    
• Correct Answer: The back and forth tilt of the Earth puts one hemisphere closer to the Sun (i.e., summer), while the other hemisphere is further away from the Sun (i.e., winter). If you remind people that Australia has its summer while the US and Europe have its winter, they might come around to the correct answer.

2. Why do we get sleepy after a turkey dinner?

• Common, but Wrong Answer: Tryptophan in the turkey makes us sleepy.
• Correct Answer: Turkey is usually served with starchy carbohydrates (e.g., mashed potatos, stuffing, pumpkin pie) that we often overeat, causing insulin resistance. As a result, we do not get all the energy from the food we ate, and we feel tired. As fun as it is to use a big word from chemistry, there is not enough tryptophan in turkey to cause this reaction.

3. Why do we keep poinsettia plants out of reach of small children and pets?

• Common, but Wrong Answer: Poinsettias are poisonous.
• Correct Answer: The poinsettia plant was wrongfully accused of causing the death of a young child in 1919, and since that time the urban legend is that the plant is poisonous. More correctly, however, the plant is not edible, meaning that it is not digestible. So, if your child or pet were to devour a large amount of the plant, you would likely see some vomitting, but the plant would cause no harm.

Notice how the common, but wrong answers tend to be simpler to explain, easier to comprehend, and more memorable. They have the sense of logic, by which I mean that there is just enough intuitive knowledge mixed in to make the explanations seem plausible. Perhaps people even figured out the answers themselves, using incorrect, but plausible logic. It is difficult to give up what we discovered for ourselves, even when we later learn that we were wrong in our conclusions.

Okay, so what about the behavioral and attitudinal differences among employees from different generations? We see differences all the time among our coworkers. The Millennials or Generation Y (1980-2000) are different from Generation X (1965-1979), who are different from the Baby Boomers (1946-1964), who are different from the Traditionalists (born before 1964), right? Think of all the changes that have taken place across those generations! It's no wonder that each generation approaches work differently, right? Surely, all the books, articles, and hype cannot be wrong! (I can’t even type that with a straight face.)

The correct answer is that the generational differences have been overstated. Just like the enduring wrong answers to the other questions we discussed, the real facts about people across generations is more complicated than what many writers would have you believe. Let me address the concept of employee engagement and how it varies by generation. As many of you know, employee engagement is a person’s logical commitment to an employer as well as an emotional commitment and a willingness to do more than what is called for. I refer to these three components as the mind, the heart, and the hands. Engagement is usually measured through employee surveys, and I have been working with that type of data for over 10 years. Are there differences in engagement scores by generation? Yes, but consider two factors that "co-vary" with generation.

First, there is tenure. Employees who are new to an employer have the most positive survey scores, and then scores decline after 2 years with the employer. This is the “honeymoon effect” and it is pervasive in survey data. Paradoxically, turnover is highest among this same group of newcomers (much to the dismay of engagement researchers). Now, if you see this pattern in recent data, you say "Ah, the Gen X and Boomers are less engaged than the Gen Y, but those Gen Y employees are still more likely to leave the company!" Well, yes, but that would be because the Gen Ys are newer to the company. This pattern has been around for decades - long before the Gen Ys were around. What appears to be a generational difference is really a tenure difference.

Second, there is age itself. As employees grow older, they go through life stages (relationships, kids, house buying, school, empty nest...). An employee's mobility is greatest before dual-career issues, kids, and school districts anchor them down. Again, if you look at one data set, you would say "Ah, the Gen Y crowd is so much more willing to move for a job," because Gen Y happens to be at a stage that allows more mobility. In reality that pattern occurred 50 years ago, too, when the Traditionalists were much more willing to move than the previous generation (My dad in RI considered moves to Florida and Alaska after returning from WWII, but mom said no way!).

Sure, people from different generations experienced different environments (e.g., technology, wars), but the effects of these environmental differences is small compared to other variables. You will have a deeper and more accurate understanding of your employees if you analyze their behaviors and attitudes according to tenure, age, personality, education level, and job market… instead of generational cuts. Why do you not hear this more often? Simpler explanations are easier to pass along and to remember... and bad science (sadly) seems to sell better.

  

This content is protected by the 1976 Copyright Protection Act of the United States of America. The proper citation for this blog is as follows: Mastrangelo, P. M. (date posted). Title of Post. Bump on a Blog, available at http://paulmastrangelo.blogspot.com. This post is not intended to represent any person or organization other than Paul M. Mastrangelo.

Organizational Change vs. Rocket Science: "When to Do" Is Harder than "What to Do"

I want you to read this blog carefully. Yet, if I were to demand that you read it twice, or if I were to force you to pay me $10 if you got a test question wrong – if I were to coerce you – then you would probably drop the article right away. “What a pompous jerk! I don’t have to do anything he says!” Leaders and change agents understand that coercion does not motivate people to follow. Yet, every waning change initiative that I see in my work with Fortune 500 companies is always met with (unintentionally) coercive communication. See if you recognize some of these phrases: “We have no choice. If we don’t change, then we will go under. This is just how it is now.” I say that these phrases are unintentionally coercive because they are meant to explain why change is needed, but they really come off as saying “you don’t have a choice but to do as I say.” And we wonder why we fail at the human side of organizational change, or why people resist change. We know what not to do, and then we do it anyway.

I came to this conclusion at the end of a day-long session with a group of HR managers where I shared my approach to organizational assessment and empirically based techniques for using this data as the catalyst for a collaborative change process. One manager politely said, in effect, “this approach is exactly like the change model that we already use.” So, I asked for examples of cross-level, cross-functional collaboration. I asked to look at the performance metrics and criteria that were used to evaluate the process. I asked to see the communications that were sent to employees describing the actions, missteps, and ultimate success of the project. Silence. They may have known what to do, but they didn’t do it. I did some thinking on my plane ride that evening. Perhaps as a consultant, I am too quick to teach what to do, and I am ignoring the part about when to do.

Many OD consultants have been warned through Peter Block’s and Edgar Schein’s books to resist taking on the role of the expert, who has all the answers and who will tell the client what to do. (This just in: We don’t have all the answers, and clients tend to enact what they have come to discover themselves.) Ah, but managers read different books, which espouse the virtues of decisiveness, confidence, charisma, and action. Leaders lead. They don’t ask people "would you please follow?" or stand up to say “I don’t know.” At least they don’t do these things by nature. Perhaps, however, there are some opportunities that call for more consultative behaviors than leadership behaviors. Let me rephrase that: There are some opportunities that call for more consultative behaviors than traditional leadership behaviors. The most effective company leader with whom I have worked led a cultural transformation by slowing down the decision making process, inviting collaboration from all levels of management through a permanent “Delta Team,” and using her authority to enact what that team decided to do. Okay, so not every decision came through this process, and not all employees were on the team, but improved organization-wide survey metrics and full attainment of revenue goals pointed to success after less than a year. Are there lessons here?

• All employees were asked to nominate a representative to the Delta Team.

• The team (including members who were not even management) was given full disclosure of all pertinent information for them to investigate root causes and steps forward.

• Actions were tried and tested until the outcome was achieved, and feedback from those who nominated the team brought the changes full circle, back to the people who were doing the changing.

Leading change by sharing leadership. Knowing when to resist the urge to take charge. Finding the opportunities to ask for change and then asking if the change worked. This ain’t rocket science. It’s harder than that—it’s recognizing when to do (and when not to do) what we already know. It is the art of being vigilant for opportunities and disciplined to acting accordingly.

To be honest, I won’t stop teaching the “what to do” part of my organizational change model, but I will begin soliciting more “in the moment” examples that help address opportunities to apply the model. I will also need to discuss what knee-jerk reactions need to be held in check at those moments in favor of a more planned, less natural reaction. Here are some prepackaged dialog starters:

1. In this situation you have an opportunity to spark a series of behaviors that will lead to the outcome you want. What are your options?

2. The easiest reaction would be ____, but that will not get you to where you want to go.

3. What are some ways to apply the elements of successful change?

• How can you set up a specific desired outcome with a clear definition of success, but not presume that you know the best way to achieve that outcome?
• How can you give employees freedom to act, but guide them almost subliminally to choosing the right course of action?
• How can you involve employees, especially those close to the matter at hand and those without high formal authority, to become part of the solution?
• How can you ensure that a novel approach will be given a chance to succeed, even in some small “laboratory” test within the organization?
• How can you use informal networks of communication to share ideas, provide honest feedback, and tell success stories?
• How can you document the process to show ROI and apply the same or similar process to the next opportunity?

 
This content is protected by the 1976 Copyright Protection Act of the United States of America. The proper citation for this blog is as follows: Mastrangelo, P. M. (date posted). Title of Post. Bump on a Blog, available at http://paulmastrangelo.blogspot.com. This post is not intended to represent any person or organization other than Paul M. Mastrangelo.

How Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube Make Psychological Contributions to the Middle East Uprisings

The civil uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia, and other Middle East countries provide illustration of how a few individuals can change the behaviors and lives of many others. While the principal players in these uprisings used many of the techniques used in revolutions before the 21^st century (e.g., strikes, demonstrations, marches), they were able to plan and communicate these events much more quickly by using online social media such as Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. Certainly, the communication advantages provided by 21^st century social media are non-trivial. Thousands of people can instantly be given instructions via smart phones. Where to form rallies, what targets to select, what resistance is being given: These demonstrators had better battle communication systems than any army from WWII, Korea, or Vietnam. What many people seem to forget is that the governments of Egypt, Tunisia, etc. also had access to these same pages, tweets, and videos. No, these social media outlets provided more than just improved coordination. They provided the right psychological environment for a chain reaction of changed behavior.  

First, social media galvanized the movements by proving to each potential demonstrator that there were other people with the same feelings and beliefs. News of Mohamed Bouazizi’s self-immolation in Tunisia and Khaled Said’s death at the hands of Egyptian police not only spread throughout the region, they were spread by people “just like me” with comments to match. The effect was amplified in a way that television or radio could never achieve because those media came from one, distant source. “Tweets” and Facebook “comments” showed the multitude of people who were moved by their sacrifice. They communicated not just the message, but also the social norm that instantly told individuals that there was a shared emotional reaction, a movement ready to launch.

Second, the two-way nature of these media helped to nurture what the next step should be. While any one individual might have considered a next move to take, now there were countless others agreeing and complimenting what otherwise might have been dismissed. You might say that social media created a “group think” atmosphere with positive results. It is the very nature of social networking media to provide social support of individuals to behave differently, such as skipping work to take to the streets. If there was ever a support group for would-be revolutionaries, web 2.0 is it.

Third, social media helped to magnify each individual’s commitment to do whatever it was that he or she discussed online. Because group members publicly committed to take action, they were far more likely to follow through. Their identity became tied to the movement, and predictably, as each regime brutally fought the protesters, the protesters grew more adamant to their cause. Certainly rebels are, by definition, willing to fight and to die, but having an online tool that both recruits and helps retain your fellow street fighters is an added plus.

So, is there something here that can be applied to less dramatic change initiatives, like new guidelines for the salespeople or community support for a local school?

What I notice is that social media help to overcome two major obstacles to getting individuals to join a change effort: diffusion of responsibility and missing the resonant frequencies.  There are usually many individuals who are passively interested in a particular cause, such as protesting legislature or voting for a candidate. Yet, many of these individuals will not act because they believe that some anonymous others will take care of things. Social media does amplify the sense that others will take action, but it personalizes the cause through networks of friends and acquaintances, thereby drawing a person in rather than letting the person relax. Social media uses norms (i.e., crowds) to motivate action rather than passivity. Yet, even when you have a large number of members ready to act, the actions will not achieve any goal unless they are coordinated. Everyone has to pull at the same time in the same direction to win the tug-o-war. The analogy I make is to the physics and musical term "resonance." The classic example of finding the resonant frequency is the act of pushing a person on a playground swing. If you time your push "in phase" with the motion of the swing, then minimum effort will make the person eventually swing much higher. However, if your push is not properly timed, it will not lead to higher heights no matter how much harder you push. Social media are able to get the right actions at the right time to achieve maximum effect with minimal effort. For example, careful planning with just a handful of rebels can lead to the burning of police headquarters, which then makes it easier for hundreds to march in the streets of Suez the next day.

Imagine the possibilities if you were to get even 50% more active supporters for your cause, and you were able to time various actions to create a more hospitable environment for even more support. The attempts for systemic change, neighborhood improvements, civic action, and social justice could use this same blueprint from the Middle East. The events of early 2011 demonstrate the power that technology provides ordinary citizens. Let's choose a just cause to join, one that is just as worthy as the struggles for peace.

This content is protected by the 1976 Copyright Protection Act of the United States of America. The proper citation for this blog is as follows: Mastrangelo, P. M. (date posted). Title of Post. Bump on a Blog, available at http://paulmastrangelo.blogspot.com. This post is not intended to represent any person or organization other than Paul M. Mastrangelo.