OffLine

Are we really so stupid as to put up with this sort of weak, sloppy analysis? (And I mean on BNET's behalf here - c'mon, please don't just repeat what's told to you, actually do some work here!) 

From BNET: Lack of authority and an inability to see where their contribution fits into the big picture is leaving Generation Y, or Millennials, disengaged and disenchanted with work, according to a report by BlessingWhite.

What's wrong with that statement? Well, first up, what is BlessingWhite and what axe do they have to grind? Unsurprisingly we find that they are "engagement" specialists, ie people who make money out of advising others how to "re-engage" and "re-align" a disenchanted workforce. So they are hardly likely to want to report a solid "engagement" situation, are they? (Not that I'd suggest they would distort the figures, but they may unconsciously ask the wrong questions of the wrong people, or simply leave out the good stuff.) 

Secondly, where is this report, how was the research conducted and how valid are the results? Well if you click on the link and look at the free summary reports (as against the $500 'full analysis') they do tell us that it was an online survey of employees (invited by email and broken up by the usual demographics)  backed up by manager interviews. BNET doesn't look into it, but one wonders (doesn't one?) what the (multiple choice) questions were and how the invite-only email addresses were obtained (randomly, or from prior interest shown in surveys?). Of course such surveys are only as good as the final sample size and distribution, and the questions posed; and only as accurate or truthful as the respondents care to be. Which is to say they probably mean little but look fabulously interesting when graphed.

One interesting takeaway from these reports was that the HR industry in North America was the most engaged of all - doesn't that suggest something? Either the HR industry is the most adept at engagement - what they'd suggest, I wager - or simply the best (or most "aligned") at answering "HR"-style surveys.  Groan.  

Anyway, to get back to BNET - it all revolves around generational labelling again. Like, somehow, it matters. Well it's interesting to label things - or in this case people - but what does it mean? Millennials or Gen Y are somehow, surprise surprise, the least engaged and empowered, the Boomers the most. Heck, guys, this isn't because of their birthdays - this is because Boomers have grown up, have had their kids, settled their affairs, saved some cash, travelled, gotten used to life and probably found their way into an "empowered" and respected role in their working lives. Whereas young adults are just starting their journey. Where you happy about starting at the bottom when you started out? Where you more likely to look around and try different things when you had no kids and no responsibilities except to enjoy your youth? Of course you feel less empowered doing "assigned" or "donkey" work - when you get into senior management and settle down a bit you may be a bit happier about it, eh?

Let's face it - just thinking of Western democracies now - we had 2 massive World Wars in a row that seriously distorted our demographics - robbed us of our sons, if you like. The generation after that was a release from fear and war and an opportunity to rebuild populations. Early 'boomers' really had to face some changes, some deprivations, and built some real prosperity out of it. That was a real thing, and those that came later lived off that prosperity and rapid post-war change. And whilst the aftershocks matter, that's all they are. To dream up correlations with "engagement", "technology" and "soccer moms" just for the sake of it, and to apply these funky X, Y and Z labels simply because we once had a real demographic post-War bubble... is just a convenience for the researchers, the marketers and the booksellers.

Get over it. 

Labels: generation Y, generations industry

posted by gtveloce  # 11:55 PM