Latest posting
A press release has just crash landed into my inbox. It very effectively encapsulates two of my biggest bugbears in contemporary HR thinking. The subject of the email, “Generation Y learns to lead”, admittedly had me wincing before I read it. The message proceeded to mention “the debate on how to manage Generation Y in the workplace”, and an event that assembled “pre-career leaders” to help hone their skills.

So much to discuss, so little time. Bugbear number one: I may be a little touchy about the need to bracket the latest generation of workers into a particular category, partly because I am technically within that category. But that aside, I don’t think any previous generation has come in for quite such a bilious bashing in the management press and conference circuit upon entering (or even before entering) the workplace. Words I’ve come across in articles, blogs, forums and conversations, include – illiterate, innumerate, lazy, short attention span, demanding, fickle, feckless, ill-mannered… I could go on. I’m glad I don’t have to.

If all these insults were true (leaving aside the question of ageism), then why would HR and management professionals be so worried about how to attract this group? The need to coin the phrase “Generation Y” speaks far more of the need to sensationalise and scaremonger than it does about changing demographics. But even the more rational descriptions of Generation Y differences tend to wither in the clear light of the working day: impatient to progress in their career; tendency to change jobs/employers more frequently; need constant feedback and reassurance from management; demand flexible working hours and more work-life balance; can’t be swayed by mere monetary incentives alone. I could go on. And I’d be glad to.

My argument is that, if you see these things as monstrous, then you have to at least to admit that they are monsters of your own creation. But hopefully, as a PM reader, you will recognise the positives of the attributes/demands, for they are the very same that modern HRM has been pushing for over the past couple of decades. At long last we have numerous organisations concentrating their efforts on good management, on fast-track career progression, on work-life balance and flexible working, on CSR, on employer brand. The latest generation to enter the workforce, naturally ignorant of what came before them, has simply adopted these modern working practices more speedily and is willing to challenge poor working practices more readily rather than settling for second best. Is this not a good thing? Please post a comment if you think it’s not – I’d love to hear the counter argument.

Oh, there was a second bugbear, wasn’t there? “Leadership” – it’s become such a catch-all phrase that the reference to “pre-career leaders” seemed a case in point. Surely leadership, in a form that is of relevance to business management, can only be identified once actually in a career? Or maybe that’s just hypocritical ageism on my part. What do you think?

In actual fact, the press release – when re-read more calmly – was commenting on an event that sounded interesting and worthwhile. Now, what was I doing? Oh yes, I’m off to make sure my manager likes my blog and praises me for it, then to demand that she lets me go home early or else I’ll quit…Comments [0]

Latest posting

The cry that there should be more women on the boards of public bodies is not a new one, but the announcement of a target – reported in the People Management news pages – is new. The government-backed Women’s National Commission wants to ensure that by 2011 women make up at least 40 per cent of the membership of public boards. If that sounds rather modest to you, as it does to me, given that women are half the population, the Commission notes that the percentage currently stands at 34 per cent.

Before I rushed into the bloggers’ trap of instant pontification repented at leisure, I checked what the percentage is for the public board which I chair – the board of Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College. We have 19 board places (including staff, students and the principal) and nine of them are held by women (47 per cent) rising to 10 when our new principal joins us: 53 per cent. I think we can claim a tick for that one.

Minorities? Seven out of 19 – though one is our departing interim principal, and 37 per cent in no way reflects the diversity of our students body, which must be at least 90 per cent non-white.

Disability? Hmm: nought out of 19, so far as I know. Let’s move on, shall we?

I’ve pondered these issues for some time, and wonder whether it’s the model of public boards we use in Britain which is wrong. People still use the shorthand “the great and the good” (though mostly now for national bodies, not local ones) and many boards still rely on the time-honoured assumption that suitably worthy people will make themselves available on a wholly voluntary basis. Others pay, with sums varying from a very modest daily allowance to the sort of fee which a private company would pay its non-executives. It’s a muddle.

Why, for example, does a board member of a university get nothing, but a board member of an NHS Trust get £6,000 a year? Where’s the logic in that?

And, back to what the Women’s National Commission is worried about, I wonder if reliance on volunteers narrows the pool of potential board members in ways which are no longer acceptable? It’s a complex business, and I doubt if there’s a simple correlation either way, but I’d like to see the question considered more. It may help to unlock more progress.

Comments [0]