By the year 2020, as much as 50% of all American workers will be Generation Y. Since January 1, 2011, we are losing 12,000 Baby Boomers to retirement each day. Since there are not enough Generation Xers to fill the void, guess who is the future of every employer? That is correct, Generation Y (Millennials). And while some may call them lazy, we are learning and adapting to their influence already.
Do you feel loved at work? The Greek term for love that best fits the work environment is Philia. This type of love is motivated by practical reasons. In other words one or both parties benefit from the relationship. Ignorant or poorly trained supervisors and managers are oblivious of the necessity to love employees the proper way. Sadly, these same struggling individuals often behave in ways that are counter-productive to the love that is necessary to treat employees in the manner that will get the best performance. Well duh!
Attracting and retaining good employees is getting more difficult. In fact, in rural parts of the country, it is not uncommon for larger employers to have reached “talent saturation”. This condition happens when large employers have “hired and fired” or “hired and lost” potential employees in a given population. Once talent saturation occurs, the organization begins to lessen the qualifications for entry as well as increase the requirements for dismissal. And so begins the slippery slope towards the utilization of the “Mirror Test” for candidate selection. If they can pass a drug screen and fog up a mirror with their breath, welcome aboard.
For too many Generation Yers, parents have micromanaged every part of their lives. Having Mom or Dad hover over them, then rush in and “save the day” every time a child encounter stress is probably normal in today’s culture. While in reality, “helicopter parenting,” can range from scheduling a play date for a four year old to writing college admissions essays in the hopes the child gets into the best college. According to wiki.answers.com, a helicopter parent is a term for a person who pays extremely close attention to his or her child or children, particularly at educational institutions. They rush to prevent any harm or failure from befalling them or letting them learn from their own mistakes, sometimes even contrary to the children's wishes. They are so named because, like a helicopter, they hover closely overhead, rarely out of reach whether their children need them or not.
Bad bosses are not merely like people; some good and some bad. Bad supervision is a learned behavior. It is the manifestation of generations that were never taught exactly how to lead or supervise others. The disproportionate amount of bad supervisors that yell and scream at employees is not representative of humans in general. When surveyed most people know how a good boss should behave yet so many bad supervisors are indelibly etched into our memories.
The deep end of the pool is where most aspiring supervisors are thrown. Allowed to sink or swim with only survival and past experience as a preserver of life in the new role. It is tragic yet repeated over and over in organization after organization. The epidemic of bad supervision in the workplace is now being magnified by a young generation of nomadic workers that simply migrate from one job opportunity to the next without regard for the tired, old stigma of job hopping. In fact, these new workers typically place the most recent work experience on an application because a complete job history at twenty five years old would just take too much time, paper, and effort. Potential employers are only privy to snapshot of work experience these applicants choose to provide.
Looking at some historical context, bad supervisors have been around since the beginning. There are countless examples such as the fictional character, Ebenezer Scrooge and the more contemporary version of a bad boss, Montgomery Burns from...
Steve in particular is a problem. He is a mid-level manager at the branch and now reports directly to Edward...
When it comes to body odor from absent or poor hygiene, individuals may be completely unaware of the strong environmental contribution they are making for others...
What is the collective talent score for your organization? Can you measure how strong or weak your team is today? Is there a way to mathematically know whether you are growing or contracting your collective talent? Until now, most organizations simply never measured talent. Organizations measure results and turnover, but have no clue why these results are achieved. These same companies rely on classical human resource techniques to attract and hire talent, but never measure the impact from gaining or losing talent in a collective sense. They rely on systems and processes but never quantify the individual talent that executes for the organization. Remarkably, this lack of talent quantification has never really been discussed as necessity for organizational success. Consider systems and process as one side of the coin while a talent score represents the other side. Executives examine balance sheets and yet they never see talent sheets.
In a typical organization, three distinctive individuals can be identified based on activity, attitude, and contribution to the collective work. These individuals rarely identify themselves as one or another, yet all three persist in organization after organization. They do not wear tee shirts for identification yet you will recognize each of them once a description has been provided. Ironically, the separation of these identity groups is never really discussed or acknowledged by most organizations. Self-examination and a candid workforce will help you discover where most of the team members fall within this analysis.
According to dictionary.com, drive can be defined as an inner urge that stimulates activity or inhibition; a basic or instinctive need. Motivation is defined as a process that arouses, sustains, and regulates human behavior. In the search for organizational improvement, some very interesting observations are presented for consideration. As an executive coach, I see the same patterns repeated over and over. These patterns of behavior are consistent enough to warrant a more detailed examination. Many struggling managers are under considerable stress for organizational performance. Because I am not emotionally or politically involved as a coach, my objective view very quickly reveals a perspective the manager either cannot or chooses not to see.