Much has been written about Gen Y, AKA, Millennials, in the workforce—the difficulty hiring them, the problems managing them and the much greater problems of retaining them.

What makes them so different?

“When they get to the workplace, they have a sense of entitlement, a need for validation, difficulty in really discerning what to do because their whole lives were managed,” –Christine Hassler, Gen Y career expert and consultant.

Not only managing them, but also fighting their fights—even at the office.

There are eighty million Gen Y, but not all of them fit this description; millions of them are ‘aMillennials‘.

The funny thing (as I’ve said before) is that when you look at a list of what turns Gen Y off you’ll find the same traits that turn off 90+% of the workforce.

• Inflexibility.
• Judgmental attitudes.
• Close-mindedness.
• Unwillingness to listen to and respect Gen Y’s opinions, ideas and views.
• Intimidation.

Yuk! Nobody wants to work for someone like that; the difference is that Gen Y may less patient and quicker to leave—at least until they have a mortgage and kids to consider.

Ryan Healy, co-founder and COO of Brazen Careerist, attributes companies’ success to culture.

“The companies that are doing it well and right know that it’s really about the culture you create.”

Tony Hsieh is well known for creating a culture that both attracts and retains and it’s not just for Millennials.

Flickr image credit: debaird

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about Roy F. Baumeister’s research showing how decision fatigue affects hiring, self-control and is tied to ego-depletion.

Self-control and will power aren’t traits you as much about as you did when I was a kid; these days the focus is on instant gratification, whether it’s a child demanding a treat, an adult looking for a new job or you-name-it.

The question really boils down to whether self-control really offers significant long-term benefits?

Benefits that are substantial enough to stand up to the embarrassing tantrum your child pitches when she doesn’t get what she wants?

In experiments beginning in the late 1960s, the psychologist Walter Mischel tormented preschoolers with the agonizing choice of one marshmallow now or two marshmallows 15 minutes from now. When he followed up decades later, he found that the 4-year-olds who waited for two marshmallows turned into adults who were better adjusted, were less likely to abuse drugs, had higher self-esteem, had better relationships, were better at handling stress, obtained higher degrees and earned more money.

Impressive; certainly enough to at least get parents to think about showing some backbone and helping their kids learn self-control.

But what about those of us who are Millennials, Gen Xers and Boomers? Is our situation hopeless? Are we destined/doomed to careen through life without those benefits if we don’t already have them?

Fear not. According to other research by Baumeister your self-control, AKA, will power, can be toned by exercising it, just like any other muscle—and he wrote a book about it.

In recent years the psychologist Roy F. Baumeister has shown that the force metaphor has a kernel of neurobiological reality. In “Willpower,” he has teamed up with the irreverent New York Times science columnist John Tierney to explain this ingenious research and show how it can enhance our lives.

Wow; buff self-control.

How cool is that?

UPDATE: I just read this article about SpongeBob, which adds an interesting kicker to the research.

In another test, measuring self-control and impulsiveness, kids were rated on how long they could wait before eating snacks presented when the researcher left the room. “SpongeBob” kids waited about 2 1/2 minutes on average, versus at least four minutes for the other two groups.

Image credit: Kirkus Reviews

Yesterday we looked at insanely stupid hiring and I said we would explore the alternatives today.

Every time a manager tells me that staffing gets in the way of their “real work” it makes me crazy. For decades I’ve heard this same stupid statement from various managers, from CEO to team leaders, and none of them was stupid.

Insanely smart (or stupid) hiring starts with individual MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy™).

Here is the basic attitude of insanely smart managers, voiced decades ago by Terry Dial, who eventually became vice chairman of Business Banking at Wells Fargo.

“People are 90% of our costs as well as the key to customer service and satisfaction. The only thing that should take priority over hiring a new employee is keeping a current one.”

Overview of insanely smart hiring

1. Hire people to be part of the team. In other words, people who share your values, will support your culture, are fascinated with your product and believe in your company.
2. Take time to define what you really need. In other words, the right person for the right job at the right time and for the right reasons.
3. What you see may not be what you get. In other words, commit the time needed to interview thoroughly.
4. Performance isn’t always portable. In other words, be sure you can supply the management and environment in which the candidate can flourish.

How to practice insanely smart hiring

• Insanely smart mangers know that no matter what else they have to do it is people, acquiring them, motivating them and retaining them, that is their “real work.”
• Insanely smart managers never lose sight of this basic law of managing—there is nothing a manager can do personally (to save their review) that will off-set the effect of their under or non-performing group.
• It is easier to be an insanely smart manager if you work for an insanely smart company, or at least manager, that understands there is no hiring gene and good staffing skills are learned, not born—but don’t count on it.
• Insanely smart hiring is real work that requires time, energy and commitment.
• Insanely smart mangers focus on ending up being the dumbest person in the group.
• Insanely smart managers never hire jerks, no matter how much pressure they are under.

Join me Monday when we consider how insanely smart hiring creates stars and boosts retention.

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ideaconstructor/563596890

Twitter, twitter little star,
how I wonder who you are…

You’re not above the world so high,
nor a diamond in the cyber sky.

What twends are up in Twitterland?

Here are a few of the most unusual…

Twitter turned five last Monday, which also happened to be World Poetry Day (sponsored by the United Nations), so, of course, the potential of 140 character poetry and literature is being explored—and argued.

Tweeting offers a good deal of instant gratification in the form or strokes, cheers and feedback, but all that where-I-am and what-I’m-doing is fueling stronger feelings of envy than old school wish-you-were-here cards and emails.

In a new (as far as I know) twist on hiring a Minneapolis ad firm used Twitter to source this summer’s interns.

People often say that the instant responses they get when they ask a large number of people what they think helps them make better decisions. But does it? The answer may surprise you—seems like all that information has a similar effect to ice cream—brain freeze.

In case you don’t feel connected enough via Twitter, Facebook and other social media there’s an app for that. Yes, now several sites offer you the opportunity to share your browser history, so your everybody will know every cyber-move you make. Oh joy…

Finally, on to the sex; and today the sex is courtesy of Zynga, maker of all those cutesy games like FarmVille, CaféVille and, now, FrontierVille. And thanks to its obsession with data and a happy accident, it has updated the old “sex sells” to “innuendo is shared.” Perhaps the next game should be called “Ka-chingVille.”

Image credit:  MykReeve on flickr

This is a Friday story if I ever heard one; Friday because it will take you until Monday to quit laughing.

People often call me, my number is prominently displayed in the right-hand column, I’m usually available and I really enjoy listening to the stories and answering questions.

The manager who called today had the most bizarre tale I’ve heard since the one about parents intervening at work.

“Craig” is a regular reader and he said that he thought I would find the stated objective in a resume he received amusing.

The job objective stated that the candidate was seeking “a leadership position in which to use his recent Masters in Leadership that would afford the opportunities required to rise in the organization to more senior leadership positions.”

I didn’t find that amusing, I found it hilarious.

I asked Craig what other background the candidate had and he said a total of seven years of work, four years with a credit card company, two of them as a team leader, three years in a bank, starting as a management trainee and a BA in business.

This wasn’t a naïve kid; this was someone in his thirties who had spent time in the real world.

I Googled “masters in leadership” and got 140,000 hits, some were major universities, but many seemed to be online or in the “for profit” category.

I grant that I am pretty cynical regarding the whole idea of individual leadership, believing instead that companies are better served by developing a culture of leadership that permeates all parts and draws a variety of people into leadership roles based on timing and context.

I know that leadership is big business, but hearing stories like this I have to wonder exactly what is being sold to those who believe they can get an edge through an advanced leadership degree.

Flickr image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/martinbarland/4568777543/

The economy is improving a bit, enough that companies are doing some hiring. And, just as in the past, the same idiotic attitude is surfacing.

It starts with a reference to the need for employee engagement and that ‘experts’ say that the companies with the best long-term success rates retain and grow their human resource base from within the company to ensure it.

But when a company fulfills its human resource needs by hiring from the outside, in most cases, it’s picking up the “rejects” from other companies.

And that part sends me ballistic.

Of all the totally wrong-headed attitudes I’ve heard on the subject of hiring, there is only one that is comparable and, in fact, they go hand in hand.

During every recession I’ve seen the theme is that the only employees worth hiring are the ones who are still working.

Even now, in a recession that dwarfs the previous ones and companies have cut 50% or even more of their workforce and are still cutting, those who are laid off are tagged as “dead wood” or “difficult.”

My blood still boils when I remember the excellent people who were completely trashed by that attitude.

I do agree that growing people from within is good company policy; however, there are dozens of reasons why a company not only would, but should, hire at levels other than entry.

• No company can go through significant growth and not hire from the outside—it’s a given part of that growth. For example, most startups and high-growth companies have neither the diversification, nor the depth, of talent needed when growth kicks in, so they hire at all levels.
• Hiring strictly at entry level and promoting only from within can create a hidebound culture steeped in a not-invented-here mentality, not only for products, but for processes—as happened at both IBM and HP.

There are dozens of other reasons (think about your own experience), but the reject and the dead wood attitudes are not among them.

The dead wood/difficult premise is BS, flawed, short-sighted and plain stupid.

The common belief that “stars” are independent of their circumstances just doesn’t stand up to analysis.

Most people work to the quality of their managers and the validity of the company’s culture—if they don’t shine it’s because they aren’t engaged; give people good managers and good culture and they can all be stars.

It is beyond stupid to lay work quality issues at the door of employees with no consideration of management or culture.

Image credit: TheTruthAbout… on flickr

See all mY generation posts here.

If you have ever had to hire for any position whatsoever you know it’s imperative to consider exactly what the requirements are before you start interviewing and even better to write them down. Additionally, writing them down keeps them from being too fluid and forces you to consider what you actually need when faced with a candidate you really like who doesn’t have them.

The better you are at analyzing and understanding your team’s weaknesses and future needs the better you become at hiring the right person at the right time and for the right reasons.

There are many managers who can’t be bothered to expend the time and energy required to do this and that goes a long way to ensuring the candidate’s (and the manager’s) success.

These managers often shoot for the stars, but quickly roll over, drop the standards and settle for the first warm body that passes by.

Doing so damages the team, imperils whatever projects are being done and even jeopardizes the company’s future by reducing quality and shipping shoddy goods.

Our nation’s schools are responsible for manufacturing the future workforce.

Much of the executive management are choosing the road of least resistance and dropping standards in an effort to raise production numbers.

The result is the same—reduced quality and shoddy goods.

The difference is that there is no alternative supply. Eventually, as the economy improves, you will have no choice but to buy those goods.

The solution for investors is to force management to improve quality, not lower the metrics to look good.

Image credit: Design and Technology Student on flickr

See all mY generation posts here.

I don’t understand the current obsession with other people’s lives, in fact, I find it very weird.

Whether it is a public figure or not, the desire (need?) to know every little detail, what they are doing every minute of their lives, the products they use, their ups and downs to be almost obsessional.

This kind of interest used to be reserved for the intimacy of real friendship or close family relations—and even then there were boundaries—but now anyone is fair game.

Apparently I’m not as out of it as I thought; many people are shutting down their Facebook pages for a variety of reasons, not the least of which are the effects they notice on their own MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy™).

Others are leaving because they don’t like the commercialization, which I find amusing. Any mass human congregating, past, present or future, will attract those who want to sell their product. Why anyone would think it would be different because the location is in the cyber-world is beyond me.

However, if you are going to indulge, I suggest that you focus on what you are doing when you do it, because the repercussions of not doing so will follow you all your life and beyond. That’s serious when you consider that 45% of employers search social media when hiring, 65% didn’t extend an offer because of what they found and that number will continue to grow.

Other than malicious intent, two things happen on social media.

• Not thinking, which causes people to post stuff to venues in which it doesn’t belong and giving access to “friends”—who may not be next week.
• Not focusing, which leads to pilot error though the ease and simplicity of clicking the wrong button.

Consider this post, sent to me by a friend, as a great example of the dangers of multitasking while updating Facebook.

Can you imagine the reaction of hiring managers, potential mates or future kids? Even if it had been posted privately there is nothing to stop a “friend” who is angry from reposting it.

Once it’s out there it’s out there forever—definitely the wrong kind of immortality.

I’ve said many times, both here and at MAPping Company Success that social media never dies and people need to think about that.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: Facebook