Elaine’s blog

I am getting very exercised about some recent anxiety expressed about so-called “Generation Y”. It seems that anyone born after 1979 is different from the rest of us, in their aspirations, sense of social responsibility and level of commitment to work. Well, that was the “universal truth” presented to us a while ago, and HR people and their employers were urged to change the way they ran their businesses in order to attract and, against the odds, hold on to the services of this valuable asset, Generation Y, who would otherwise leave them and go off in a juvenile huff  to work for someone else. And then, presumably repeat the infidelity all over again - because they are young and foolish. Well, at the time when this supposed conventional wisdom was being expounded, I felt slightly uneasy about its seemingly wild generalisations about a whole generation of workers, with no reference  to background, education, health or culture, or indeed any number of other variables.

Now there is a new piece of work, conducted by Penna Consulting, in association with the CIPD and PeopleMetrics which draws up a new set of generalisations about Generation Y, which differ from the first set of generalisations. The original myths are now debunked, probably rightly so, and it seems that Generation Y  is, after all,  much more like the other generations at work than was originally suspected. Well, well, there’s a turn-up!  It seems they do stay longer in a job than was originally and prejudicially, in my view, supposed; they are not as interested in saving the world and social responsibility as was supposed; and they can concentrate!

I was intrigued by what the Penna report said about my own generation, the Baby Boomers - those born between 1948 and 1963. Apparently, we are the most dissatisfied generation at work. We want new challenges, want to feel engaged (hey, we all want to be loved…..) and we want to work for organisations that show some sense of social responsibility. Maybe.  It does make me wonder if being a Saggitarius holds as much insight for me.

The most significant observation and/or finding in the Penna report was that all generations look at the whole work package and what’s on offer for them as individuals: the job, the work context, the benefits, career opportunities. That of course points to the value of the Total Reward model of resource management, irrespective of the generation gaps - whatever they are. I am concerned that the contract of employment is an effective and honourable one; that people as individuals are treated with respect and encouraged to give their best in return. This has nothing to do with age - and ageism - but is more focussed on recruiting on the basis of matched interests and aspirations than inglorious assumptions and prejudices about  dates of birth.

My son, now studying for A levels, is apparently part of Generation Z. They are supposed to be the most technically “savvy”, but I am not sure what that will mean in terms of personal drive, commitment and ambition. I’d just like the social commentators and observers to leave him out of their generalisations, and for prospective employers to listen to what he has to say and identify with him their mutual interests.

As I write this, Radio 4 is monitoring the enthusiasm and progress of a bunch of physicists here and in Switzerland who are planning what has been billed as the end of the world. There have been so many moments in history when mankind’s advances in knowledge and understanding of his environment and his being have scared him near to death. Pleas for forgiveness to the immanent and divine have been offered up throughout the centuries, as Man pushes his unquenchable thirst for knowledge into the hands of Satan. Interestingly, this time, the scientists themselves don’t seem to believe that it is actually the end of the world, and they are not wailing and gnashing their teeth at the prospect of facing up to God or Satan. So we need to keep worrying about climate change, credit crunch, hurricanes and employment after all - no way out of life on earth today, at least.

The CIPD economist, John Philpott, has been speculating about the immigration situation in Britain and what it means for employers. He sees the outlook for immigration as the big ‘what if’. At least half the projected rise in UK population is attributed in statistician’s models to “net immigration” yet we are told that the number of people coming here from Eastern Europe in search of work has started to dwindle. Half those who have arrived since 2004 have now gone back home, putting those Polish plumber jokes in some sort of historical context! The important point for John Philpott is that even if immigration continues at a high rate,  Britain’s population is ageing: by 2060 1 in 4 Brits are projected to be aged 64 or above and 1 in 10 aged over 80 (roughly double the current proportions). Employers, as well as social service and health providers, need to wake up to the implications for them of this “inconvenient truth” and re-work their strategic plans accordingly. Workforce planning is not something that managers naturally enthuse about - they need to see beyond their apprehension about HR gimmicks and anticipate their longer term business risks in order to survive.

In the meantime, down on the ground, tribunal claims roll on with some cataclysmic results: an employment tribunal has recently upheld the workplace bullying claim brought by Gillian Switalski. She was forced out of her £140,000-a-year city job in September last year after being bullied and discriminated against by senior management. She could be in line to receive a record £19 million in compensation!

It must feel like the end of the world for some, even without acceleration………