In the meantime, check out this little article from ZDnet: Businesses Struggle to Serve Gen Y.

It’s a standard article on Generation Y and businesses’ total inability to rationalize how things are changing and what they need to do to meet those changes:

Although 75 percent of respondents said the Gen Yers will impact their organization as consumers in the next three years, 54 percent have yet to establish business or marketing strategies for this generation, despite wide recognition that such steps are needed.

That’s not surprising data, though I do love uncovering stats like this, especially in the face of those who still have trouble admitting anything is changing with Generation Y coming into maturity. The flip side of that, of course, is the crushingly depressing reality that, despite struggling with generational differences, no one has any idea what they are going to do about it.

Even of the 46% that say they have have developed a strategy for Gen Y, I’m not sure many of them are getting it. Take Nokia, who seem to think they have it figured out. From the same article:

Nokia, for example, has added “Gen Y-friendly” features to its products, McCallum said. “Gen Yers want more features like music, imaging, games and Wi-Fi [capability] in their mobile devices, because they may not be able to afford multiple gadgets,” he said. “Acknowledging this, Nokia offers a wide range of convergent devices to suit the different needs and preferences of various Gen Y consumers.”

If that’s all Nokia has, they’ve got nothing. Marketing to my generation is about more than just ‘adding features’. It’s about way more than Wi-Fi capabilities. We do like those things. Hell, we even NEED those things. But they’re not what’s going to push a brand to success with a Gen Y audience.

I’m not arguing that Gen Y is somehow above long lists of features and standard marketing tactics. What sets us apart is that we’re the first generation that is in a position to think about products in a more contextual sense. Instead of simply asking “What does this do?”, we tend to ask “How does this fit into my life and my world?”

We demand more from our products, whether they be mp3 players or t-shirts. Some questions Gen Y might ask about a product they’re buying: how does this work with other products I own? Do too few of my friends have this product? Do too MANY of my friends have this product? Where is this product made? How is this product made? Does it look good? Does it look good next to the other products I own? Can I feel good about buying this? Do I understand this product and everything it does? Is this product artistic? Is the company that produces this product lying to me?

These questions are the difference between brands that I think are working with a younger generation and those that aren’t. It’s why a Nokia cell phone has less appeal than an iPhone. Why a T-shirt from Wal-Mart has less appeal than something from threadless. Why Microsoft keeps losing to google. Why people want to drive the Toyota Prius despite being entirely unable to tell you how a hybrid engine works.

We’re very image-driven as a generation. We’ve been criticized for it a lot, but I’m not sure it’s particularly a bad thing. It’s neither good nor bad — it just is. And it’s new, so it’s taking companies a long time to figure it out.

The thing is that, as we get older and get jobs and start to generate income, we’re very much looking for companies who create products that will fit into our lives.

P.S: Just to hammer home how international this generational shift really is, check out these stats from the aforementioned article:

According to Genesys, the research was designed to help enterprises identify key challenges and enable them to improve the overall customer experience.
Of the 164 executives who took part in the survey, 29 percent were from North America, 31 percent from Europe, 30 percent from the Asia-Pacific region, and 10 percent from the rest of the world. Participants represented 19 industry segments, and one-third of respondents’ organizations had annual revenue greater than US$1 billion.

The study found that two of the top five places to work were tech companies: Google and Apple. According to DECODE partner Eric Meerkamper, “The brands that were chosen are considered to be authentic and innovate; part of some new and important values emerging in the workplace. All of these organizations are places that resonate as being stable and secure. This is an important variable considering the substantial debt load many students will carry upon graduation given rising tuition costs.”

You could essentially distill this down to “people want to work somewhere cool.” And a lot of what’s cool is admittedly perception more than it is reality. Is that fair? Not particularly. But I’d argue that’s almost unavoidable. Think about this question, and answer honestly — would you rather work at Exxon Mobil or Google? Deloitte or Apple? Ernst & Young or Nintendo?

People tend to gravitate towards the younger, hipper companies, even if there’s really not a huge difference in individual experience at the entry-level. And what makes these companies seem “young” and “hip” are actually small things, which don’t have to impact your bottom line. In fact, employers can make their businesses instantly more Y-friendly through just a few small changes to their corporate culture.

Here’s five to get you started:

1. Cultivate an environment of questions — with answers

Current corporate culture often encourages passive learning. New people are expected to attend meetings, stay quiet, take notes, and learn slowly through osmosis. This doesn’t work in the twenty-first century. Without the expectation of a 25 year job with a gold watch at the end, young workers don’t really feel like we have time to just sit quietly and absorb information.

So we tend to ask questions. Often it gets us in trouble. There’s a comment thread on BrazenCareerist wherein Quarter Lifer Amanda notes she’s been fired for asking too many questions.

This is crazy. In the information age, questions are the foundation of learning. Think of google — each search query is a question, and answers are delivered immediately. This is the kind of information environment your new hires grew up with.

Obviously you can’t spend 8-hours a day answering questions, but don’t discourage people from asking. Set up infrastructure — like a twitter account — where employees can ask senior employees questions. That way, everyone will be able to follow along with the answers.

And, no matter what you do, don’t avoid the tough or “insulting” questions. Confront everything head on. If you can’t answer something, then maybe ask your new employee to come up with alternative solutions — you’ll have instantly made them feel valued.

2. Get away from the boring work environment

You don’t need to rip out all your cubicles or put down new carpet, but small things can quickly take an office from “soul-sucking” to “fun”. If your type of business allows, consider setting up a shared music system, where everyone can contribute mp3s or CDs. Instead of those cloying “Motivational” posters, throw up a bulletin board and let people post funny signs or photos (within reason, of course). Don’t use Group Policy to lock everyone to some bland desktop wallpaper — encourage people to individualize their computers.

And, when the situation calls for it, don’t be afraid to use a little bit of profanity around the office. It boosts morale. Really.

3. Embrace — and try — new technology

Too many businesses are still using sales software that’s straight out of the 1980s. Nothing kills morale faster than knowing that you have to deal with cludgy old technology. Especially when the employee knows that they could accomplish the same task in half-the-time if given better software.

This doesn’t have to cost you. A ton of software these days is open-source and free. If someone has a suggestion involving new technology, give them a chance to pitch it to you and, if it makes sense, give it a week-long trial run. What’s the worst that can happen?

4. Be Open

This doesn’t mean you need to hand out your budgets to all employees, but it’s no secret that closed door meetings are divisive. Inclusiveness is a vital part of retaining your Gen Y employees.

So be open. Invite people involved in other projects to sit in on meetings. They’ll feel more plugged in, and you may end up getting some interesting perspective. If something big has happened to the business — whether good or bad — consider letting the whole staff know about it. If you start crafting an ‘inner circle’ of only your senior staff members, those left out can easily become disgruntled.

If you’re worried about the time this might take, leverage technology. CEOs from all sectors are blogging regularly, to great effect. It lets people know what’s going on at the top-level, and also has the bonus side-effect of making people who can easily seem distant more relatable.

5. Don’t try too hard

The last thing I want is for people to take this list and instantly become the boss that wanders around trying to be everybody’s friend. Don’t be that guy. The kinds of changes outlined in this list shouldn’t be forced. Nor should you implement them then act like you’ve given all your employees a great favour.

This works in tandem with the point above — in addition to being open, you need to be honest. Ultimately, when it comes to managing people, if you’re not happy and motivated in YOUR position, none of the people under you will ever give a damn.

This kind of change needs to be made in the spirit of making your business more efficient and your team more effective. Go forward in that light, and your intergenerational team should hum along just fine. Start making changes because you just want those damned young employees to play nice and stop jerking you around, and you’re not likely to get anywhere at all.

Be open. Be honest. Be real. Be cool. It can be that simple.

Photo by Steve Deger. Licensed under Creative Commons

I thought these stats were interesting:

Last year, researchers from Penn State analyzed 46 studies of telecommuting conducted over two decades and covering almost 13,000 employees. Their sweeping inquiry concluded that working from home has “favorable effects on perceived autonomy, work-family conflict, job satisfaction, performance, turnover intent, and stress.”

The article also notes that managers are taking notice, or at least they’re SAYING that they are:

Earlier this year, an IDC report from Asia found that 81 percent of managers believe telecommuting improves productivity, up from 61 percent in 2005.

Interesting stuff. Read the whole thing. Maybe we ARE looking at a turning of the tides on this issue.

Needless to say, I think this is really really cool.

I also think it has some pretty interesting implications for the future of work. If — hopefully when — these types of cars become commonplace, they’ll contribute significantly to where people choose to work in relation to where they live. In effect, technology like this will give workers an “ideal range” for their commute. In a climate where many are already choosing to work closer to where they live (or vice versa), these cars will push people even further into defining a live/work “zone”.

And it will all be due to an on-board computer, a battery, and good fiscal sense.

Tethered to home — but not in a bad way

From GM’s press release officially announcing the Chevrolet Volt:

At a cost of about 80 cents per day (10 cents per kWh) for a full charge that will deliver up to 40 miles of electric driving, GM estimates that the Volt will be less expensive to recharge than purchasing a cup of your favorite coffee. Charging the Volt about once daily will consume less electric energy annually than the average home’s refrigerator and freezer units.

The Volt can go 40 miles (about 64 kilometres) using its electric motor. The electricity needed for those 40 miles comes at a negligible cost, especially if you charge at night where rates are lower. 40 miles — about three times the length of Manhattan. After hearing that, every working person needs to ask themselves whether they currently work more than 20 miles away from home.

A lot of people do. We live in an era where monster commutes are not uncommon. While I’m not a daily commuter, my drive in to the office is roughly 30 miles. And I know I’m not alone. But an electric car would undoubtedly force me to rethink that drive.

I concede that there already is an economic impetus to work closer to home, especially as gas prices rise — it’s just nowhere near as significant as it would be with electric vehicles like the Volt. When you’re just going by your gas gauge, with the variable price of fuel and the calculation you need to do to determine your car’s cost-per-mile, it’s easy to get into the trap of pushing yourself just a few more miles.

Electric vehicles start making commuting choices for us. Living within a certain range of your home — 20 miles with these first-generation plug-in hybrids, but surely that number will increase some — you can eliminate the gas pump from your life.

That, dear readers, is incentive. That’s a game-changer for many people. We’re looking at a future where it’s feasible that someone may turn down a job because it’s not within their car’s electric range. Some may scoff at the thought, but I think that’s a big step forward.

Photos of the Chevrolet Volt taken from gm.com. All copyrights are theirs.

But hear me out — I have an excuse. Of sorts.

The reason I haven’t updated this blog is that I have been, since the beginning of the month, completely and totally overwhelmed by work. It’s crashed over me like a tidal wave and knocked me off of my metaphorical surfboard and into an ocean of deadlines and high expectations.

I knew it was coming. I had all of August to prepare for this rush. But I didn’t. Instead, I took some personal time. Had a nice vacation in the city. Went out for lunch a lot. Worked on the back porch in the sun. I knew the freight train was coming, but I took my time getting off the tracks.

But I’ve realized during the chaos of this week that I don’t need to feel ashamed or wrong about the way I work. Some people do live in a world of precisely ordered schedules and timetables. They plan for blocks of work, making sure everything is in its place well ahead of deadlines. But I don’t. I’ve tried, in the past, to operate like that, but inevitably, in the face of actually getting things done I neglect to make a schedule.

I don’t live in a world of printed schedules, tacked up on the wall. Though the past couple of weeks have been absolutely crazy for me in terms of always being busy, I’m not feeling bad. In fact, it’s the opposite — I’m feeling more determined and energized about everything. In the face of a looming deadline, I get lost in the rush of working: of facing challenges, of problem solving, and flying through the creative process. I love to work in bursts — to knock out eight or nine tasks in a morning, bouncing from program to program on my computer.

This is where I thrive.

I’m not disparaging or promoting any style of work. What I am saying, though, is that it doesn’t really MATTER how anybody works provided the end result is delivered on time, and that the final product is good.

I think a big part of the generational shift these days is recognizing that the final product — the destination — is more important than the journey there. And that by simply accepting different working styles we can actually, as intergenerational workspaces, increase output. I know a lot of people would call the way I’ve worked “inefficient”, but where are the drawbacks? I work best in bursts, and shouldn’t any employer want their employee to be at their best?

Photo by moomim_lens. Licensed under Creative Commons

The other big reason is that, with the time I do spend in front of my Macbook, I’d rather be reading insightful posts than trying to craft my own. Reading, I’d say, is about 95% of the reason I use the internet.

Yes, Viriginia, I do enjoy reading on the internet

Which brings me to what I really want to talk about. It’s something I’ve been seeing again and again from so-called ‘business leaders’ (who like to talk about ‘integrated verticals’ which, I think, breaks the record for two words who, together, mean absolutely nothing at all) who fancy themselves exports on the web. They claim that people do not read on the internet.

Not to single anybody out, since I came across this quote as the result of a random search, but take this article from masternewmedia.org titled Online Reading Habits: How much content do web audiences read?:

Though hard to believe for most, a recent research study shows that “on average, users will have time to read 28% of the words if they devote all of their time to reading. More realistically, users will read about 20% of the text on the average page.”

I don’t quibble with the result of the research, but what I do quibble with is the conclusion that’s often reached as a result. It’s the Pro Blogger mantra, calling ‘wordiness’ a sign, and recommending lite content, full of easy-to-digest lists and giant pictures. In essence, it’s calling for an almost-illiterate web.

I’m not an elitist. I like lists. I like pictures. I skim articles when I come across them. But I also, and I am going to bold this, like to read on the internet. I like reading long, interesting articles. I like encountering so-called “walls of text” when I know it’s subject matter written by a talented writer. Never have I encountered a post by Gruber or 37signals and thought “Damn, I wish this content was presented in the form of a Top-10 list.

I like to read on the internet. I like to read paragraphs on the internet. Maybe I’m not a large audience, or even a common audience, but I am an audience, and I hope that the talented writers out there, drowning in a sea of advice calling for short, easily-digestible, content-free writing on the internet, are aware that readers like me exist.

Postscript: What makes a good blog?

Man-about-town Merlin Mann has a post titled What makes a good blog?. It’s really good. The best bit:

Good blog posts are made of paragraphs. Blog posts are written, not defecated. They show some level of craft, thinking, and continuity beyond the word count mandated by the Owner of Your Plantation. If a blog has fixed limits on post minimums and maximums? It’s not a blog: it’s a website that hires writers. Which is fine. But, it’s not really a blog.

Exactly.

As we move through new generations, blogging is going to become a very common tactic for businesses. It works better than the traditional brochure-style website, because a blog creates a strong connection with the reader. It’s more like having a conversation than viewing a commercial. It gives your business personality. And personality on a corporate level is more important than ever. (Look at Apple versus Dell, as an example.)

But if we let blogs descend into a swamp of nothing but links, lists and funny pictures, we’re never going to get anywhere meaningful. To be honest, I’m a little concerned that maybe we’ve already passed that point of no return. But, hell, all I can really think to do that might help is say, proudly and over and over again, that I like to read on the internet.

Photo by rosefirering. Licensed under Creative Commons

The Nova Scotia government is looking at switching to a four-day work week in a bid to conserve energy.

Energy Minister Richard Hurlburt said Thursday the idea came up during a brainstorming session at Conserve Nova Scotia, a government agency that encourages people to use energy more efficiently.

Of all the reasons to consider a four day work week, I think energy savings is probably the weakest — especially in a more rural province like Nova Scotia, where people will likely spend their extra day off driving around.

But I do think the four-day work week is a great idea for a lot of industries. Working four 10-hour days as opposed to five eight-hour days means more ‘core time’ and less time winding up and winding down. Plus, three days gives people the chance to actually get away on the weekend and come back feeling refreshed.

I know it’s something 37signals has done to great success. I’d be interested to hear about other examples.

Studies continuously show that we’d rather feel like we’re contributing something or building our skills than we would just sit around, twiddling our thumbs, collecting a salary while waiting for those higher on the ladder to either retire or get high by a cement truck. Even if that salary is large, we’re often still not content: only about 20% of the interviewees stated that salary levels were “very important” to them.

Is this a bad trait? Not really. The same studies also show that Gen Y employees are completely willing to work their asses off if the right opportunity comes their way. It’s only if we feel stuck in some soulless, static position that we start to show off some of that now-infamous Generation Y laziness.

Where things DO become problematic, though, is that I think we often don’t give our employers a chance. We can be impatient, and we can be impulsive. If we don’t feel immediately like we’re being valued in a position, we’re liable to job hop, skipping from one employer to the next in the hopes of finding the position that does give us meaning right away.

The reality is that most employers are not going to thrust their new employees into important and meaningful work from day one. And their reasons for not doing so are actually pretty solid. First, because it can be business suicide to give something that could seriously impact your company’s bottom line to a untested newbie. Second, because they’ve likely been burned before by people leaving less than a year into the job.

You can see the Catch-22, can’t you? It’s that big, obvious thing heading straight at us. Young people don’t want to wait around for meaning, so they leave. Employers don’t want to give their new people big projects, because new people are notorious for leaving after a few months on the job.

It has all the qualities of a vicious cycle, and indeed, I’ve heard anecdotal reports of people bouncing around, from entry-level position to entry-level position. These are often talented, well-prepared, skilled individuals, but after eight months of doing nothing but shuffling paper around and watching older, more seasoned employees juggle all sorts of meaningful projects, they bail out.

I think this is one situation where the younger people need to adjust more than the employers do. Gen Y needs to remember that it can’t be so idealistic to think that they can just slide into a high-paying, high-responsibility position² and that, in this case especially, patience is a virtue.

However, employers need to understand that this attitude is commonplace, and adjust for it. Even just a little communication goes a long way here. Give constant feedback, let your young employees know where you see them going in the organization. The absolute worst thing you do is just leave them behind their desk, convinced that all they’re ever going to do is staple, copy and add formulas to your spreadsheets.

In sum: patience and communications. They just might be the fundamental building blocks of the effective intergenerational office.

Photo by gilberts. Licensed under Creative Commons

1. NGO is a really stupid, term, by the way. Here are a list of literal non-governmental organizations: Wal-Mart, McDonalds, The Pittsburgh Steelers, Sony, Ben & Jerry’s. But I digress.
2. Yes, this is true even if you went to Grad School. I know they might have tried to convince you otherwise.

Lying during the interview process it’s so common it’s almost not worth talking about. Some studies peg “the rate of lying on resumes or in job interviews at 20 to 44 percent. That includes lies about past degrees, jobs and responsibilities.” And that’s just outright lying — the kind that you really probably shouldn’t do, because it’s not entirely ethical. And it can get you fired.

Add to that, though, all the casual lying that occurs as part of the process. These are omissions, small mistruths and skillfully engineered negatives that become positives. Job education practically recommends applicants do this kind of lying: how many strategies for answering typical job interview questions recommend being straight-up? Almost none of them. Otherwise people would be answering that damned “What’s your biggest weakness?” question with honest answers like “punctuality”, “personal hygiene” or “a tendency toward white-hot rage.”

That never happens.

The job interview — and the whole hiring process, really — has become a game of deception and often lies. And Generation Y is the first generation to really embrace that. Because, hell, we’ve been trained to approach it as such by our boomer parents and our Gen X siblings and friends. It’s become a simple formula: play the game, win the company over, get the job.

The problem, of course, is that it never ends there. You have to go on to work at the job, and it’s there that conflicts arise. Because your employer will inevitably find out that you’re not quite so proficient in HTML/CSS, that your biggest weakness is NOT that you’re ‘a perfectionist’, that you’re not really a “self-starter with excellent communication skills” and that your “three years of management experience” really amounts to two years of summer camp and a string of nights where you were the designated driver to a group of very, very drunk friends.

And that tie you were wearing during the interview? A clip-on. That you borrowed from your dad. Then spilled coffee on.

I ask the question in the title of the post: Should we present ourselves more honestly? Wouldn’t it be better if job interviews were more like conversations, rather than performances, and we just lay our true personalities and views on the table? If they’re compatible with the company’s aims and vision, then you’re a strong candidate. If you don’t quite ‘fit’, you shake hands and move on. No trained responses, no fancy buzzword-heavy language, no creative spinning of experience — just down-to-the-brass-tacks conversation about the things both parties are passionate about it.

I think this would help us a lot as a generation. Gen Ys get a bad rap because we surprise employers. We’ve been taught to interview in a tell-them-what-they-want-to-hear kind of way, which doesn’t often gel with our true attitudes and work styles. So the employer has no real idea what they’re getting into when they hire one of us.

I already know the answer to my question, though: No. We can’t present ourselves more honestly. Because the other candidates won’t. They’ll continue to lie. So while we’re saying that we don’t really like to work before 10 a.m., they’ll be claiming they love to start the day at 4 a.m. with a 10-mile run and a stint at the soup kitchen. There’s just no balance.

I wish I had more answers. Is it smarter hiring managers? Is something rotten in the world of HR? Are some companies taking alternative approaches to the old interview equation? Let me know if you have any thoughts.

Photo by ld. Licensed under Creative Commons

At my old job, I had my own office and there was zero IT oversight. My new job has me in a cubicle–at least my screen isn’t facing outwards, but I still have little warning when someone will walk up to me (but at least I’m fast with Alt-Tab). I made friends with the IT guys, who basically said, “Don’t give us a reason to check your browser activity, and we won’t do it. We have better things to do.” So for the time being, looks like things are safe.

There’s also discussion in the thread about writing a browser plug-in that will insert random “business-looking” graphs and buzzwords into internet pages to make everything look work-related.

I still struggle to understand why this seemingly never-ending game of cat-and-mouse is worth it.