the changing landscape of the workplace

A. Generational Differences

B. Workplace Incivility/Bullying

C. Work-life Balance Initiatives

Baby Boomers – Individuals born between 1945 - 1962

Generation X – Individuals born between 1963 - 1981

Millennials – Individuals born between 1982 – 2000 Sometimes, this group is referred to as Generation Y

The Boomers Strong work ethic (their job defines them –

workaholics) Driven (focused) Consensus builders Optimistic Strong relationship skills Excellent team players (understand roles) Buy now, pay later

The X-ers Strong work/life balance (they might say,

life/work balance) Versatile (flexible) Techno-literate Skeptical/cynical Multi-taskers Value individual contributions Save, save, save

The Millennials Self-confident/believe they can do anything

(use to praise) Determined (focused) Techno-dependent Hopeful Conditioned towards an entitlement mentality Team oriented (everyone is a winner) Earn to spend

The Boomers Hours = Badge of Honor Loyal to the firm (if the firm is loyal to them) Respect authority (within reason) Love meetings, analysis and reports Look for role models and mentors Prefer face-to-face communication

The Boomers (continued) Task/process focused Uncomfortable with a challenge/question to

their authority Prefer to avoid conflict Will not openly challenge/disagree with peers Feedback only required once a year Do not handle criticism well

The X-ers Hourly mentality difficult to accept

Their credo is: hours are unimportant, results/outcome are important.

Tell them what to do, not how to do it Want autonomy they have not earned Flexibility/freedom is integral to their

productivity View work, employment and the firm as a

“contract” It is the firm’s responsibility to keep them engaged

Highly efficient

The X-ers (continued) Embrace paperless and the use of technology Have difficulty with authority

(rulebreakers/stretchers) Challenge everything (routinely ask why) Impatient when change is not immediately

implemented Want to be managers/partners now Mentors should be “advocates”

The X-ers (continued) Poor people skills Openly critical/confrontational Believe their skill set will protect them (and

define them) Understand the staffing dilemma (leverage

this to their advantage) Need positive feedback on a regular basis

Welcome “constructive” criticism

The Millennials Tracking hours makes no sense to them

Willing to work if they are told why and/or if they make the commitment to the task or project

Very receptive to the concept of value billing for services provided

They expect their work environment to be fun, stimulating and collegial

They wonder why more of the mundane tasks (entry level tasks they are asked to do) are not done through technology

Generally, they have unrealistic expectations related to their careers and the timeline for their career advancement

The Millennials (continued) Mentors must be proactive and involved (they

are essential for their success) They expect and demand training They have poor communication skills

Except with each other Too dependent on e-mail and frustrated with

face-to-face Want to feel that they are contributing and

thrive in a team approach/environment

The Millennials (continued) Want feedback constantly and need to know

what they are doing right and what needs to be corrected

They are more like boomers in terms of work ethic and attitude towards work

They are more like X-ers in terms of technology utilization and career expectations

Website/Internet Colleges/Universities (Liberal

Arts/Smaller) Alumni Current employees Faculty and programs Internships

Electronic newsletters Young professional organizations Large regional

Interesting Work Variety Flexibility A teamwork approach to engagements Training (especially on “soft skills”) Involved mentor programs Clear career paths and options An understanding of the firm’s

differentiation

Pigeonholing (no evaluation of the best fit for them)

No explanation of the firm’s work/life balance

Working for a workaholic Partners not being consistent Not learning from mistakes Too much emphasis on “busy season” To end up like their parents

Rotate assignments (industries) Provide a training calendar (with course

descriptions) Involve them in Practice Development

early Ensure a team approach/concept Involve them in planning meetings Communicate career paths and options Utilize employee recognition programs Provide a mentor/advocate program

Establish and utilize an alumni program Involve seniors and supervisors in your

efforts Establish both formal training programs

and a rainmaker academy Overhaul your current mentor program Revisit your website (from a recruiting

perspective and have new employees critique it)

Explore flexible schedules

Defined as: “Characteristically rude and discourteous behavior” (Andersson and Pearson, 1999). Examples: Being interrupted when speaking;

not being thanked; intentionally not holding open a door for someone, etc.

Intentional or unintentional Causes: Power dynamics; procedural

unfairness; organizational structure Effects: Decreased job satisfaction,

turnover, violence

Workplace violence, incivility, and bullying all have their origins in the study of organizational citizenship behavior, more specifically, workplace deviance

Workplace Deviance is “voluntary behavior that violates significant organizational norms and in so doing threatens the well-being of an organization, its members, or both” (Robinson and Bennett, 1995, p. 556).

Four quadrants of workplace deviance: 1. Production Deviance (Behaviors that

directly interfere with work) 2. Property Deviance (The destruction of

property) 3. Political Deviance**(Mild

interpersonal behavior) 4. Personal Aggression (Harmful

interpersonal behavior)

Incivility is a negative issue and has varying degrees of intensity Mild examples:

Not making another pot of coffee after last cup has been poured not opening doors for people not thanking someone

Extreme examples: Rude comments Verbal abuse Harassment

Usually starts with some sort of change (i.e. new employee, change in ownership, new work groups)

Causes: Crowded working conditions Excess stress Power dynamics

Occurrence: 92% of current employees reported at least one

incident of incivility in the past three years (American Management Association)

80% of victims are women (Jones, 2006) Of those 80%, 50% are women over the age of

45 Incivility perpetrators are usually (77%) women

between the ages of 20 and 45 (Namie, 2003)

Sometimes referred to as “Escalated Incivility” or “Generalized Harassment”.

Workplace bullying refers to highly negative verbal and nonverbal communicative behaviors that are characterized by: Repetition/frequency /duration(persistent) Intentional Escalated Power Adverse Effects

Both men & women engage in bullying (women tend to bully more than men)

Men are bullied by men/women are bullied by women

Bullies are typically identified as managers or those with a higher org rank than the target

Targets self-report they are college-educated (84%) & veteran’s of the org (7 years)(Namie, 2003).

There is a large gap in research on workplace bullying: The HR (ombudsman) perspective The bully’s perspective Varying definitions Overlap in the construct

Salin’s (2003) comprehensive review of literature identified three necessary organizational antecedents to bullying in the workplace: 1) enabling structures and processes 2) motivating structure and processes 3) precipitating processes.

Individual: Psychological trauma Severe stress Physical health issues Negative self-identity which requires

remediation

Organizational: Toxic organizational culture(recruiting

issues, etc.) Absenteeism, High turnover Lower productivity Costly employee health effects Legal countermeasures by employees

Defined WKB similarly to targets and academics but with important differences

Complicated to identify and pin down bullying due to the myriad of behaviors associated with it, its subtle nature, and its varying degrees.

Varying degrees: Based on repetition and the actual behaviors associated with the bullying.

These HR professionals made sense of how and why bullying happens in organizations in a variety of ways.

Roles: The HR profs. felt they played a progressive,

changing role in bullying situations, emotional laborer, powerful vs. powerless.

The HR profs. felt UM saw their role in bullying situations as: 1) a partner/resource, 2) “take care of it”, 3) objective, third party, 4) and as a nag.

The HR profs. felt targets saw their role in bullying situations as: 1) “fix it” and 2) trusted listener.

Do U.S. orgs use policies to address bullying? 1 had an anti-bullying policy 16 had policies they felt covered bullying

(without labeling it as such) 17 did not have a policy that covered bullying

or did not know if they had a policy. What did these policies seem to be

communicating? What did the HR professionals feel the

policies communicated?

Does what happens in your personal life affect your work life and vice versa?

Should organizations help us manage the relationship between work and home?

What kinds of initiatives have organizations adopted to help achieve better balance?

How has the relationship between paid work and home been viewed historically?

• Diaries• Family letters• Tombstones• Sermons• Publications• Legal Documents• Institutional records (school, hospital, business records)• Songs• Household architecture

A Worthy Matron of unspotted LifeA loving Mother and obedient wifeA friendly neighbor, pitiful to poorWhom oft she fed, and clothed with her

storeTo Servants wisely aweful, but yet kindAnd as they did, so they reward did findA true Instructor of her FamilyThe which she ordered with dexterityThe publick meetings ever did frequentAnd in her Closet constant hours she

spentReligious in all her words and wayesPreparing still for death til end of dayesOf all her Children, Children lived to seeThen dying, left a blessed memory

What does this document say about women’s roles in colonial America and their power in the home and the community?

What was the household composition?

How were roles divided?

How did they intersect?

What were the rhythms of the day? When did work start and stop?

What were the main barriers to “success?”

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, work was carried out by the entire family together, including children—this blurred the line between work and family

Shared responsibility for work Women, however, were still also carrying

the double burden or working and being the sole caretaker of their children

Wages become the family economic lifeline.

Demise of cottage industries in exchange for factories and assembly lines

“Unemployment” becomes a new concern.

Time replaces tasks as the system of organizing work.

Work became physically separated from the home - Emergence of ideology of separate spheres

Family interests were seen as competing loyalties

Entrenchment of segregated gender roles

The mark of manhood became the ability to bring home a wage

Women’s work became defined as “non-productive”

Cult of domesticity and new visions of femininity

What were the benefits and costs of this arrangement for women?

How about men, were their interests advanced or harmed by this arrangement?

Boundary Management (separation/integration) Spillover (open systems perspective) Compensation (offset dissatisfaction in one role by

seeking satisfaction in another role) Segmentation (intentional separation of work and

family roles) Conflict (simultaneous pressures from work and family

that are mutually incompatible) Balance (equally involved in and equally satisfied with

work role and family role) Border Theory (work/family constitute different

domains but they always influence one another—flexibility and permeability)

What challenges face working families today and how do they depart from the challenges faced at the mid 20th century?

Changing family structures Changing work opportunities Changing economy Changing demographics

Source: Moen, P., Sweet, S. & Bickley, T. (2001). How Family Friendly is Upstate New York? Ithaca, NY: Careers Center, Cornell University.

Industries/Sectors What is being produced

Occupations/Jobs The tasks involved

Organization size Small vs. large companies

Employees The types of people performing work

Contractual arrangementsCompensation, security

Schedules When work is performed

Geography Where work is performed

Corporate Campuses Help or hindrance with work/life balance?

Do you believe that companies treat employees differently if they leave work early to address family concerns (e.g., pick up a child) as opposed to personal concerns (e.g., leave early to go to the gym)?

 Why might organizations be more supportive of family reasons? Is it the value society places on family? Or, is it because obligations that involve children are seen as necessary? 

If two obligations are seen as "necessary," does it change the way that the organization treats family vs. non-family obligations? (For example, a person leaving early for a medical appointment vs. leaving early to pick up a sick child).

Do you think organizations should treat family concerns (e.g., picking up a child from daycare) and non-family concerns (e.g., leaving early to further one's education) in the same manner?

As mentioned in Cowan & Hoffman (2007), organizations need to articulate what they mean by “work-life balance” and how employees and managers alike, co-create these meanings (i.e. flexibility is not about telecommuting, flextime or job sharing but rather it’s in reference to time, space, evaluation and compensation)

Researchers studying work-life/family should not impose constructs on the study but rather, allow participants to define the relationship

What does the term “work” really mean in 2010? Is it a place? A period of time? An activity? This needs further clarification