Generational Babel - New Voices for Talent Strategies

As a parent (and, for that matter, a son), I am confronted daily by the need to adjust to differences between generations. On a more expansive scale, companies face this too. And it gets even messier when you factor in the challenges of being a rather large multinational parent.

There is a substantial body of research on the topic of national cultures, and quite a lot of analysis of western generations, but not much that compares generations across the globe. This makes it difficult for global corporations to find credible guidance that will help them formulate their talent strategies.

At one level it’s easy to assume that the current ‘igeneration’ or generation ‘Z’ is much more homogenous (and, therefore, easier to understand) than previous generations, given the role of the internet and its ubiquitous social networking tools like Facebook and Twitter. But we humans have a persistent urge to identify ourselves with more localized cultures (whether it be Kpop fans in Korea, punk rockers in the UK, Texan secessionists, the Ryukyu independence movement in Okinawa, or 2^nd generation immigrants to the US west coast).

Also, given the varying political, economic, social and technological events that shape the culture and outlook of people around the world (wildly different, but still hugely impactful on a generation's outlook e.g. the fall of the Berlin Wall, France in May 1968, the opening up of China, Vietnam, Margaret Thatcher’s premiership, etc. etc.) it seems rather remiss, possibly arrogant, to assume each generation is the same across countries, and trite to universally apply western labels such as Gen X, Y or Z. Yet, all around us are talent strategies predicated on the generational and cultural characteristics that exist in the domestic talent markets of corporations.

So, as pointed out in a recent article by colleagues of mine, it's not much of a stretch to assume that any talent strategy needs to take account of these differences - particularly in regions outside a company's domestic market where it may be toughest competing for local talent. But, the payback for getting this right is to gain access to foreign labor markets where indigenous companies often have an advantage.

Over time, we have seen (particularly in some Western societies like the UK and US) an erosion of reasons why individuals would be loyal to a company, and we see increasingly transactional relationships developing between employer and employee.

In these more transactional environments, individuals must develop strategies to maximize their chances of survival in the corporate world. But the strategies may well be different by generation and by country. This may be a function of timing, so we might see similar patterns emerging but at different points in time as social and economic development occurs (e.g. views on the role of corporations in society might differ in Germany from Russia and be reflected in different generational expectations). Or it may operate at a more tactical level depending on the level of self reliance that a given generation might have developed. Some people might tie their career to the coattails of a successful mentor, while others may rely more on impersonal institutions (in France this might be the strong labor laws, in Japan it may be the expectation that the company will find alternatives).

In an attempt to provide a sufficiently attractive 'exchange' between employee and employer, many companies proclaim their commitment to 'employee engagement' or seek out a compelling 'employee value proposition' (EVP). But, what they do in practice is often at odds with what is espoused and communicates exactly the opposite message to the one intended (e.g. 'Watch out for yourself when the market takes a turn for the worse!' versus ‘Join us and build a long and successful career’). For prospective or actual employees, the only rational point of view is ' I give up my time and expertise to you in exchange for a set of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards that are meaningful to me and sufficient. So tell me, what will I get out of this?'.

It's a complex situation, but seeing the differing talent markets around the world as different sets of transactional relationships may help us to get practical about how to frame a talent strategy. In that regard, we might find some social science theories helpful - in particular two of them: social exchange theory and equity theory. Both theories hypothesize that a rational process is at play that leads people to seek some form of balance in the 'perceived' value of exchanges between individuals. (I am, of course, ignoring the more complex issue of what exactly constitutes a generation which can lead you through some mathematical thickets if you start down that path.)

Talent strategies need to reflect generational and cultural differences around the world if they are to have any relevance to the transactional calculations going on in the labor market. Our HR executives need to develop strategies that reflect the nuances of differing generational expectations. After all, there are several layers of generations that most large companies have to cater to. There is a risk of being seduced into thinking the many similarities between them represent the whole, but building an EVP based on the differences will allow one company to outshine another in the talent market. This is surely the only route to them gaining access to the most talented people in any economy in which they are operating. It is not an easy task, but those companies that understand this and take steps to respond specifically and differentially will have an edge over those that don't. That's an edge that will be hard to overcome for those who seek a more simplistic way to do business around the world.

Developing Superbosses and Superperformers

A very interesting article in a recent edition of The Atlantic (Orchid Children by David Dobbs) describes new thinking on the old conundrum concerning how much of what we become is the product of nature versus nurture. In genetic research the prevailing view, known as "Stress Diathesis" or "Genetic Vulnerability", has been that 'bad' genes make some people more susceptible to things we'd probably rather avoid like depression, ADHD, violence and other anti-social behaviors, if triggered by some kind of trauma or accumulation of stressful experiences .

However, as a result of some fascinating research initially on primates, but apparently corroborated by follow-up research on young children, it seems the 'bad' gene may actually be a 'good' gene, under the right circumstances.

The research found that monkeys with a neurotic disposition will tend to become more nervy in an insecure environment, but be totally normal in a secure environment. Further, those 'neurotic' monkeys given to monkey 'supermoms' (i.e. skilled nurturers) turned out normal, while normal monkeys given to neurotic mothers became neurotics themselves. So far, so unsurprising - especially if you favor the nurture side of the equation.

More interesting has been the finding (in monkeys and human children) that those who have the genetic variants ("risk alleles") that make them susceptible to neurotic or anti-social behavior, if placed into the right kind of supportive environment, can actually out-perform on a wide range of dimensions those without these kinds of gene variants . (This is called, among other things, the "plasticity hypothesis".)

Although the article does not discuss the extent to which this finding translates into similar effects in fully formed adults, this must be worth consideration. If the same effects do indeed manifest themselves in adults (which doesn't seem a totally unreasonable assumption, does it?) then why not consider what this might mean to us in the business world.

In corporations, typically, developmental attention and the best opportunities go to people who are seen to be good performers (using conventional criteria). Meanwhile, poor performers come under increasing scrutiny (and therefore, stress) until they either shape up or are shipped out.

However, if we applied the plasticity hypothesis to the world of organizations, we might instead focus more attention on identifying and developing 'superbosses' who are willing to develop a more nurturing environment. If we identify the right qualities in these 'superbosses' we could move more of our underperformers (at least those who seem to fit a set of relevant behavioral patterns) to work for them, hoping that the payback will be significantly better than we would get from a conventionally defined high performer.

I rather like the idea of challenging our preconceptions about employee potential, and forcing us to be more careful about how we define a 'superboss' (a bit like schools in affluent neighborhoods compared to schools in more challenged areas, it's not difficult being an outperformer, as a school or boss, if you are given all the people who come ready made to perform well). Even more compelling, in business terms, is that it might just give us a bigger ROI than the conventional approach we typically follow.

Talent management is a hot topic right now, so with all the attention being focused on the subject, maybe it's time to look further afield for some new ideas and to actively seek to challenge our preconceptions.