Why Some Employers are Disappointed with Gen Z Hires

https://www.monitask.com/

Fortune's Orianna Rose Royle reports that, "six in 10 employers say they have already sacked some of the Gen Z workers they hired fresh out of college in recent months."  She cites data from a survey of nearly 1,000 business leaders conducted by Intelligent.  Royle offers some more data from the Intelligent study: 

Employers’ gripe with young people today is their lack of motivation or initiative—50% of the leaders surveyed cited that as the reason why things didn’t work out with their new hire. Bosses also pointed to Gen Z being unprofessional, unorganized, and having poor communication skills as their top reasons for having to sack grads. Leaders say they have struggled with the latest generation’s tangible challenges, including being late to work and meetings often, not wearing office-appropriate clothing, and using language appropriate for the workspace. Now more than half of hiring managers have come to the conclusion that college grads are unprepared for the world of work. Meanwhile, over 20% say they can’t handle the workload.

Now you may or may not have experienced these hiring challenges.  Some have argued that these complaints are overblown, and that they are typical of an older generation of managers that does not understand younger workers' mindsets and habits.  Still, one cannot easily dismiss these concerns expressed by managers.  Their perceptions matter because they will affect hiring practices, as well as the experience of those new hires during their initial months of employment.  

What strikes me, though, is that these hiring managers are not complaining about a lack of business skills such as data analysis, and they aren't pointing out a lack of content knowledge in specific business disciplines.  Instead, they are focused on how young workers conduct themselves.  These managers are focused on the basic blocking and tackling of becoming a professional. Can you show up on time?  Can you communicate clearly?  Can you dress appropriately?  The lesson for those of us in academia is very clear.   We cannot focus only on teaching content knowledge and analytical skills.  We have to prepare students for the day-to-day interactions that will take place in the workforce.  For young workers, the lesson is also very clear: being smart is not nearly enough to succeed in the workplace.  If you are late, disorganized, and/or cannot communicate clearly, no one cares how knowledgeable you are. 

Reducing Customer Pain Points: The Savannah Bananas

My former student, Jon Huntley, and I are working on a new case study about the Savannah Bananas, the wildly successful and highly entertaining barnstorming baseball team co-founded by Jesse and Emily Cole.  The company provides a wonderful example of how to identify and alleviate pain points in the customer experience.  In his book, Banana Ball (written with Don Yaeger), Jesse explains how the Bananas sought to find and eliminate all the friction in the fan experience.  

“Here’s what I don’t understand about many businesses.  Why do they continually do the things that their customers hate? Why are people endlessly put on hold, while a message plays that tells them how ‘important’ their call is, but they do a slow burn while waiting to talk to an actual human being… and maybe they still hang up in frustration.  In the Bananas’ organization, we have a word for this – friction.  We looked at all the friction points from a baseball experience – ticket fees, price gouging on parking and concessions, as well as limited access to autographs and fan photos with their favorite players – and we did the opposite.”

Jesse Cole explains that improving the customer experience involves a focus on both macro-frictions and micro-frictions.  At the macro level, the Bananas had to overcome the perception that baseball games were too long, slow, and boring.  At the micro level, the Bananas mapped the entire customer journey, from buying tickets to arriving at the ballpark, watching the game, and returning to their cars in the parking lot.  They identified each of the frictions, or pain points, along that journey.  They are relentless about eliminating friction.  

They use several methods to identify and eliminate pain points. First, employees pose as Undercover Fans during games.  Second, senior leaders in the organization work on the front lines at times to see the processes and fan interactions up close.  Third, the organization takes photos and video of the fans throughout the ballpark to see when and why they are frustrated.  Finally, they constantly look for opportunities to transform pain points into moments of joyful entertainment.  For instance, most people hate being put on hold.  The Bananas have created such entertaining voicemail messages and hold music that fans enjoy the wait.  Many people become frustrated by the wait times in the concession areas.  The Bananas try to reduce those wait times, but they also have developed all sorts of entertainment on the concourse.  

Sounds simple, right? Why do many organizations fail to alleviate these pain points?  In my view, three main reasons exist. First, managers become too isolated from the true customer experience.  When they "experience" the customer journey, it's not real.  Employees know they are watching and inspecting, and they create a "false" process for managers. Second, managers do not empower front-line employees to eliminate those frictions.  They constrict their freedom and autonomy such that the employees feel powerless to address problems that are clear to them on the front lines.  Third, and perhaps most importantly, managers convince themselves that an amazing product should be sufficient to satisfy customers.  It's like the doctor who thinks that patients should be happy if they receive the appropriate treatment to remedy their illness, even if patients had to experience long wait times, confusing insurance forms, an array of unexplained fees, and unclear instructions about medication and other treatments.  A great product alone is not sufficient to satisfy customers.  How you deliver that product matters.  In baseball, a competitive, well-played game is far from enough to satisfy fans.  That's the key insight that the Bananas have used to transform the ballpark experience into a magical one for fans. 

Negotiating a Job Offer: Step Back, Think Broadly

As the new semester begins, many soon-to-be-graduates are deeply immersed in the job search process.  Some already have job offers and are contemplating whether to accept those positions.  During this process, many students and recent graduates ask me about negotiating with their potential employers.  Can I negotiate? What should be the focus of my negotiation?  How do I make sure that I don't harm the relationship before I even start working?   For those students, I highly recommend a Harvard Business Review article by my friend Hannah Riley Bowles and her co-author Bobbi Thomason.  They write:

Although reaching agreement on pay and benefits is important, failure to think more broadly about your career could mean losing valuable opportunities for advancement. For instance, women are increasingly urged to negotiate for higher pay as a way to close the gender wage gap. However, studies have shown that women’s “80 cents on the dollar” is explained more by differences in men’s and women’s career trajectories than by differential pay for doing the exact same job. Our research and our work coaching executives suggest that negotiating your role (the scope of your authority and your developmental opportunities) is likely to benefit your career more than negotiating your pay and benefits does. And at times of work-life conflict, negotiating your workload and the conditions that affect it (including your responsibilities, your location, and travel requirements) may be critical to remaining gainfully employed and moving forward professionally.

They offer terrific advice for job-seekers.  Step back from your focus on the job offer that presents itself at the moment.  Start instead by considering your long-term career goals and aspirations.  How can this job help you achieve those longer term objectives?  What will it take to achieve those goals?  How can you craft the opportunity in front of you to help fulfill those aspirations?  Work backward from this focus on career goals to the more immediate issue of the potential job you are considering.  Most importantly, think broadly about all aspects of the opportunity, rather than simply about compensation.  I find this last point so important, particularly for new graduates.  An extra $5,000 may sound enticing to a student with very little remaining in their bank account at the end of college.  However, taking the long view is so critical in that situation.  Investments in growth and development, with ample opportunities to learn, will provide a long-term payoff that far exceeds that extra compensation here and now.  

How to Ask for Advice (and Why Many Ask Incorrectly)

Source: WikiHow

When we ask for advice from others, we would like their independent opinion.  In other words, we would benefit a great deal if we did not influence their response.  However, many of us frame our question or request in a way that does bias the advice we receive.  

Jessica Reif, Richard Larrick, Jack Soll have published a new paper titled "The inclusion of anchors when seeking advice: Causes and consequences." They write, "Sometimes advice seekers include their own thinking in their requests for advice, providing anchors that make it difficult for their advisors to access their own independent judgments."  For example, you might ask a colleague: How many people should I interview for an open analyst position on my team?  Alternatively, you might ask: Do you think that interviewing five people is appropriate when searching for a new analyst for my team?  In the second case, you have anchored the other party by providing a number to them.  In the first case, the more open-ended request for advice improves the chances of receiving an unbiased perspective.  

It seems obvious, right?  Don't anchor others when seeking advice. Yet, many of us do just that. Why?  The authors find that people who worry about appearing competent and/or diligent are more likely to anchor others when soliciting advice.  In other words, we often worry about the impression that we are making.  Asking a completely open-ended question makes some us feel as they though we may seem clueless to the other party.  

How does one signal competence without anchoring the other party (i.e., while preserving the independence of the other party's advice)?  Feif, Larrick, and Soll demonstrate that one can do so by using a "preparation signal."  They offer an example: “I have calculated what I think is reasonable but am interested in hearing what you think."  In short, let the other party know that you have done some research and come to your own conclusion, but you do not wish to disclose because you want their unbiased advice.  In one of their studies, they tested the usefulness of such a signal.  They concluded, "The key insight is that a preparation signal– an indication that the advice seeker made an estimate prior to the interaction but is withholding it– may be similarly effective in accomplishing impression management objectives without introducing potentially biasing information into the advice interaction. This finding is important because it offers advice seekers a strategy for simultaneously accomplishing impression management and independence goals."

Withstanding External Pressure When Making Decisions

Source: NFL.com

Conventional wisdom often asserts that strong familiarity and cohesion within a group leads to a high risk of groupthink.  In other words, a strong sense of social belonging within a team can lead to pressures to conform, which in turn can diminish the quality of decisions that a team makes.  However, might that strong in-group familiarity be helpful when it comes to resisting external pressures?  Amanda Ferguson and her colleagues studied that question in a new paper titled, "Relieving the Pressure: Team Familiarity Attenuates External Conformity Pressure on Team Member Decisions."  

Ferguson and her colleagues conducted an ingenious study of NCAA football officiating crews.  They examined data from 2012-2015 to measure "crew familiarity" - i.e., how often had referees worked together.  Then, they evaluated officiating crews' performance during the 2016 football season.  Ferguson and her co-authors studied whether crews with more experience working together were more or less vulnerable to pressure from the home crowd when making penalty calls.  In short, the home crowd represented what they called "external conformity pressure."  They discovered a meaningful relationship between in-group familiarity and external conformity pressure, particularly when the stakes are very high: 

"Crews with 20 games of experience working together call 0.92 fewer penalties on the visiting team when under high pressure, and crews with 30 games of experience working together call 1.56 fewer penalties on the visiting team under these conditions. Although the magnitudes of changes in penalties may seem small, they represent anywhere from a 15% to 25% difference from the average number of visiting team penalties, which is consistent with effects reported in previous studies on the influence of crowds on referee penalty calls."  

In other words, in-group familiarity and cohesion seems to provide a protective effect, leading teams to not be as susceptible to external conformity pressure, particularly in high-stakes situations.  The scholars conducted a second experimental study examining the same factors.  That study largely corroborated the findings from the NCAA referee research. 

What's the practical implication for business leaders?  We know that many managers feel pressure to conform to industry standards and conventional wisdom.  Companies often tend to exhibit herd behavior in industries, with competitors mimicking the actions of industry market share leaders. Perhaps, more seasoned management teams with a history of working together are less likely to succumb to the pressure to conform to "standard practice" within the industry.  They might be more likely to take risks, be different, and stake out a distinctive competitive position.  Teams with less familiarity may not be able to resist the pressure to conform to conventional wisdom.