As the book Crowdsourcing discusses, peer review sites like Yelp, Amazon, and Hotels.com have become the basis for consumer purchases, meaning companies can no longer completely control the marketing message and must rely on their customers to spread the word instead.  Allen Adamson, the managing director at Landor Associates says that “It’s a growing reality, [and] companies can either embrace it or pretend it doesn’t exist, but you might as well embrace it and encourage it because it’s not going away.” (“Ford Takes Online Gamble with New Fiesta”, Wall Street Journal)  Of course Ford is not the only company to have tried this ground level approach.  Almost two years ago Toytoa launched its Scion line using very little traditional marketing and found success.  Fast Company Article It will be interesting to see if Ford can generate similar results.

I believe an interesting parallel can be drawn between companies ceding control to consumers in their marketing messages, and employers doing the same with their employees.  For the last forty years we have built all of these rules, structures, and schedules regarding work only to find that very few of them actually help.  In their efforts to create and control the perfect, neutral office, companies have in fact developed the opposite.  Employees routinely lie, cheat, and steal to get their way to the top and we make fun of office bureaucracy in movies, books, and blogs.  What if companies started to relinquish control and empower their workers just as Ford and Toyota are leveraging their customers to increase their brand’s message.  There is a chance that it will not work, but can we afford to stick with such a broken and dysfunctional system?

Other Post on the Ford experiment:

Wired Blog Post

We always hear that Millennials are different, and that their constant online interaction is changing the very way they interact.  However, I do not know if I believe all of the hype.   While older generations may not understand Gen Y’s methods, they should realize that these new communication tools enable people to connect faster and more efficiently than ever before.  No longer do countless teenagers and young adults have to miss each other while trying to catch a movie a la an episode of Seinfeld, and can instead always find their friends on Loopt.  Also, even though it seems that Millennials are always texting on their phones, a recent OTX study shows that hanging out with friends, going out with a girlfriend/boyfriend, and listening to music are a Millennial’s top activities.   Going online, using social media applications, and texting do not even appear on this list, which means the stereotype of Gen Y losing themselves to the online morass must be off.

Many psychologists though are sounding the alarm regarding how internet use is changing Millennial brains.  In a recent CBS News piece, Social Misfits, Dr. Gary Small demonstrates how Millennial brains operate while using the internet much differently than older generations.  Another recent post on the blog Grown Up Digital by Anthony Williams highlighted the fact that some psychologists believe early childhood interaction with the internet through social networking, IM, etc. has had a direct correlation to increased prescriptions for attention deficit disorder, a desire for instant gratification, and an erosion of an individual’s sense of identity among Gen Y’s.

Even though I do not entirely believe the idea that Millennials only want to operate in a virtual world, I think there can be some truth to what the experts are saying.  Unfortunately, there is not enough research currently being done to definitively see what is actually going on in the minds of the youngest generation, but that will hopefully change soon. 

Do you think the internet is changing Gen Y’s brains??

You would’ve thought that nuclear Armageddon had come from the way my dad’s jaw dropped as we drove around the winding streets of San Diego. 

“What did you just say??” he exclaimed.
I knew that signal…it looked like it was going to be long drive home as the lecture on hard work began…

I’m sure a few of you have found yourself in a similar situation when you gave the ‘wrong’ response to the “What do you want to do with your life?” question.  While I was only a junior in high school at the time, the discussion has always stuck in my head (which as I recall quickly turned from a dialogue into a monologue), and the question of what to do with my life after school has always plagued me.  I think the same question faces many young professionals when they begin their careers.  The thought of entering the job world (for me) has always been associated with a loss of self, like you no longer have control over your own life, and that idea frightened me. 

Growing up we are told that we can be anything we want to be, and then all of the sudden the day after graduation we have start choosing, but how do we know it is the right choice?  I think what makes it even harder is that unlike the older guy in “the Graduate” who recommends plastics to Dustin Hoffman, our parents have told us to find what we are passionate about, which I think is much harder.

Coming back to the conversation with my dad, he explained to me how work was not fun, and that I could not expect it to be so.  The goal of work is to provide me something to live on he said, and not for me to diddle around like a kid.  I have never accepted this idea however.  Aside from sleeping, a person probably works more than any other activity.  Why therefore wouldn’t I want to find something I enjoy?  And as we work longer and longer hours (yes Gen Ys work as long or longer than older generations) our work lives and personal lives blur.

I must say that my dad has been right on about 99% of the life stuff, but I think he has not adjusted to the times in this instance.  The world is rapidly changing, and the old rules or what constitutes work no longer apply.  I believe that part of my generation’s quest is to find jobs that satisfy them, and after our upbringing, we will be neither satisfied nor accept it until we do.  Too often adults squelch our ideas as being unrealistic, but in reality isn’t this what they have been searching for all their lives as well?  I have no desire to go through a mid life crisis, waking up one day and realizing that I am a drone who works 9 to 6 Monday thru Friday, sees their family for two hours at night, and oh yeah plays golf on the weekend (did you catch the Old School reference).  We are told constantly that we need to grow up, and yet every movie I see or article that I read about grown up life sounds miserable.  Why can’t life be as fun as an ‘adult’ as it was when we were kids?

Let me be clear.  I am under no illusion that success or work requires no effort and that I can just sit back and expect things to happen.  I think that stereotype of my generation could not be further from the truth because as kids we were highly engaged, did more homework than any previous generation, volunteered in record numbers, and are civically oriented (proven by the record turnout in the recent election).  I also do not believe that I can completely avoid monotonous tasks at work, nor do I need to have work be fun all the time.  However, I do not accept a system that cannot change, whose rigidity insists that employees do things the same way as were done 50 or even 100 years ago.  We live in an era of constant change, and institutions must adapt because it is not only my goal to maximize my skills, knowledge, and learning, but to create the greatest ROI for my employer since their success will also lead to my own.

I am also a realist.  I can see that the drone work is being outsourced, and shipped to countries where 10-12 hours of monotonous work can be bought for pennies on the dollar.  Why would I want a job that has that risk of being outsourced?  And this is why I want a job where I can have fun because those kinds of jobs take thinking and do not get outsourced as easily. 

I am sure that some reading this post will be shaking their head at the word fun, first among them my dad.  However, my dad and most of the people from his generation define fun much differently than my generation.  To them fun is a mindless event like playing freeze tag, pick up basketball, fishing in the Pacific for yellow fin, whereas fun for me encompasses a much broader range of activities. It is an amorphous thing that I can only know when I see it, but I have found it in the following examples: examining a process from a new perspective, and taking down an old system and rebuilding something stronger in its place.  ‘Fun’ is the chance to develop disruptive ideas, to complete an unlikely challenge, to expect one result and find another.  The fun is the experience, the unknown, and the stretching of oneself not just physically, but mentally and emotionally.

When you really look at it, this definition of fun is what has made America so successful over the past two decades.  The ability to innovate new ideas, challenge the old way is what allows America to constantly reinvent itself.  Gen Y wants to take this process not just to the products we develop, but how we live as well.  This next generation entering the workplace operates much differently, and the current corporate structure has not adapted to the tools that they use.  This current corporate structure stifles the creativity of this generation because it doesn’t allow them to utilize/access their natural tendencies and talents.

If you look to some of the most successful companies over the past few years you will see a common thread: they were early adopters of the Millennial ideal: letting employees develop new ideas, encouraging innovation, and replacing rigidity for openness (especially to new ideas/methods).  These companies range from tech giants like Cisco to retailers like Best Buy, and when you compare them to failing companies like GM you can see stark contrasts in how they manage their people.  Study after study confirms that as workers become more engaged and satisfied with their lives inside and outside a company, the will increase their personal productivity and overall profitability to the company.  As such, companies that create ‘fun’ (using the Millennial definition) atmospheres and allow their employees to develop outside the workplace, accrue incredible benefits for minimal costs.

This is one of reasons why I think that this whole idea of Millennials and Gen Ys as an ‘entitled’ generation is a myth.  We want change because the old system does not work in the current environment.  Change is not easy, and there are always winners and losers when a dramatic shift occurs.  Parents, employers, and older workers should be supportive as we change not only this country, but transform the very way we work and interact.    I am not saying that everyone will be CEO or President of the United States, but I think Millennials will modify the workplace in such a way where it can actually be ‘fun.’  All you have to do is look at Zappos.com or how Cisco shifted from a hierarchical company to a more organic structure to see the benefits. 

I can tell you I have no desire after 40+ years of working, to receive a golden watch and know that I missed out on my own, my friends’, and my family’s growth over the years because I was stuck at my job watching life pass me by.

Another great post to check out is Why Generation Y Should Job-Hop, Even in the Recession by Rebecca Thorman over at Modite.  She has some great insights on changing jobs during a recession.

For the first time in American history, according to Mr. Malone, 18 to 24 year olds are starting companies at a faster rate than 35-44 year olds. I think this fact demonstrates how wrong the general perception of Millennials is. Young professionals are not lazy, they are trail blazers, and they are innovators in its purist form: entrepreneurs. Mr. Malone has finally given voice to what this generation wants: that it is ok to want more, to look to new horizons, to constantly expand your knowledge base to stay competitive, and to say no to the regular corporate job.

I believe that in the coming years the entrepreneurial aspect of the Gen Ys has to be tapped in order for companies to stay relevant and competitive. Unfortunately so much of this creativity gets stifled in corporate seniority and bureaucracy, and as I have read in far too many articles: some senior managers are excited by this recession because they can finally ‘teach’ Gen Ys how to respect their elders and how to put in an ‘honest day’s work’. Times like these are not when we should ‘buckle down, go back to the old way, and weather the storm’ because those were the ways that failed us the first time. The world has changed. It is fast. It is global. And it is all connected. These times demand a new vision, new ideas, and new leadership, and those companies that manage to leverage these young minds have the opportunity to invigorate tired corporations while developing disruptive products and unseen markets. It takes a leap of faith on the part of management, but isn’t taking a calculated risk what this country is all about?

Employers have been slow to recognize the shift in the American workplace toward increased employee mobility. In fact, most companies have failed to realize that they need to actively recruit talent with as much determination as potential employees look for their own jobs. Too often companies approach both recruiting and employment in a passive way: posting jobs in different media, and waiting until a credible candidate appears. That system no longer works especially for Gen Ys or Millennials, and companies must develop processes that attract new talent to them.

This process starts first and foremost with the employer brand. The employer brand represents the ideas/impressions a company evokes in the minds of others. Suppliers, customers, current, past, and future employees all affect the employer brand. Each of these influencers takes their positive or negative interaction with the company and spreads their impression across their network of friends and acquaintances. This constant interaction with influencers means that an employer brand has to be an ever evolving thing, which companies must adjust and tweak over time. Too often companies rely on vague mission statements that were formed at a company’s inception to create the brand, which are both boring and useless (especially to Gen Y recruits). Human resource managers must begin to see the employer brand as a living, breathing thing that needs to be updated, modified, and changed on a daily basis. Human resource employees must also realize that in this marketplace of real time information and instant connection, developing a static brand is the wrong approach to take.

To understand an employer brand, a person must first understand what an employer brand is not. Human resource executives often make the mistake of defining an employer brand through a slogan. Many of the management and entrepreneurial books suggest that creating a slogan energizes and focuses employees on a company’s goals. While that may have worked in the 90’s, we have become a society completely over stimulated with slogans. According to Nike we should “Just Do It”; Canon seeks to “Beat Xerox”, but much like advertising messages, Millennials have tuned these catch phrases out of their conscience. So instead of arguing over the minutiae of what ten words describe the vision of a company, expand the discussion to create a whole host of characteristics and traits the company hopes to attract (Dan and Chip Heath have also written an interesting piece about ending corporate slogans in Fast Company that I suggest everyone take a look at as well titled “Kill the Slogans Dead”). Companies must also evaluate their employer brand on a consistent basis to see if it still has relevance. In evaluating the brand, human resource professionals should look at a few simple questions:

How Do You Define Your Company/What Do You Stand For?

This question usually posses the greatest barrier to creating a powerful brand because this part must be effective and succinct. The normal corporate jargon of achieving synergy, strong partnerships, and value for the shareholder serves no purpose defining a company or the creation of its employer brand. Instead of vague mission and vision statements, corporations should define themselves with a series of short, powerful statements that can be easily transmitted throughout the community and workplace.

What is the Corporate Lifestyle?

What type of people fit well in your company? Human resource managers should create a ‘buyer persona’, which is a list of characteristics that define a certain type of buyer (in this case a prospective employee) the corporation wants to attract. A company can have multiple buyer personas for each division or team within a company. With these buyer personas in mind, a company should create content, material, and marketing directives to attract the various candidates.

Companies should additionally look at their corporate culture and how that affects which types of new hires succeed over the long run. Does the company look for team and consensus builders who want to achieve work-life balance? Or are they seeking a candidate who understands they need to be in the office on Saturday and possibly Sunday? Is the atmosphere at work freewheeling with an anything goes attitude? Or do casual Fridays not even appear on the radar screen?

What Differentiates Your Company From Your Competitors?

Distinguishing yourself from other companies is critical when trying to attract young professionals. After expressing their initial interest, this question comes to the forefront of a prospect’s mind, and will make or break the deal. Many Millennials have the impression that salary is the only differentiating factor between companies within an industry, but showing how your company is different using non-monetary examples will break that cycle. However, human resources must really think about what sets the company apart from others: Is it your low turnover rate? Employee benefits?? Flexible schedules? Young professionals value honesty, and fake/generic responses to these questions will affect a prospect’s decision negatively.

Constant Reaffirmation and Marketing of the Brand

After creating the brand, the hardest and most tedious part becomes maintaining the brand. I would suggest going to the marketing department, and learning from them how they create engaging advertising for your customers. Just like marketing, human resource employees must constantly reaffirm, promote, and update the brand across a wide spectrum of media to ensure its success.

Why the Brand Matters

Employers should understand that the recruiting world now requires employers to act like marketers. The recruiting process has changed from a young professional begging for the opportunity to work at a company, to corporations having to present a convincing case why their company is the best choice. Even in a recession, talented recruits will have offers from multiple corporations, and not differentiating oneself from a competitor could prove costly. This is why the employer brand has become so important to winning the next generation of workers. The brand is the first aspect of a company that piques a candidate’s interest in a company, and the last part that pushes a candidate to choose a company. The brand takes on such importance because prospects want to ‘get inside’ the company, and the employer brand provides one of the few windows into the soul of a company. As such, a company with a compact message that differentiates itself from its competitors will have a distinct advantage when recruiting talent.

Unfortunately, when constructing their brands too many companies create mission statements and sayings that no one really understands, let alone cares to read. Young professionals want an honest assessment of the company’s strengths and even their weaknesses because just as much as a company is interviewing them, they are interviewing the corporation. Think about Google. Whenever you hear that name mentioned in a recruiting sense, you get the image of a successful company that has an engaged workforce, expecting them to work hard, but also rewarding them with interesting perks. Now think about your corporation, what impression does the average prospect receive when they first walk in the door?

A solid employer brand attracts the talent you desire. It takes the guesswork out of a prospective employee’s hands and allows them to see the true distinctions between various companies. These prospective employees know best if they want a company built more on teams or where the individual takes control, and a bold employer brand will quickly weed out candidates who do not fit your mold. And while you may lose some candidates because of the brand, they probably weren’t the right fit for the organization anyway.

Another great post for young professionals to check out is by Alexandra Levit where she gives some good advice about what young professionals should look for in a company:

Are They A Good Fit For You

Has your mom ever nagged you for being online or playing video games for too long?? Well you are in luck because new research shows that internet savvy Gen Ys (or those who use technology most frequently) see a two fold increase in brain activity when searching on the internet compared with non tech people. Internet savvy participants also had increased activity in the frontal cortex or decision making part of the brain.

Gary Small, a neuroscientist, believes that the increased brain activity allows Millennials to successfully multitask. So when it appears that Gen Ys are ignoring you while listening to their Ipods, Dr. Small theorizes that Millennials might just have the ability to listen to both the Ipod and the speaker. He says the key is not to judge how young professionals and students learn, but rather understand that these people have adjusted to the incredible technology revolution we have experienced over the past 20 years and therefore take in information differently.

On a side note, I have heard that a genius like Einstein only used 50% of his brain, and some people have suggested that the percentage of brain used has a positive correlation with intelligence. A question I am wondering, and would like to hear some comments on is: do you think that because Gen Ys use more of their brain when using technology that they are smarter than non tech oriented people?

Links:

cbs news story

cbs blog article on Gen Ys

“We have flextime for senior positions,”

“We don’t have a starting time for work.”

“We have summer hours.”

Well as I’m sure most of you know these office ‘policies’ rarely translate to all employees, and are mainly used to attract recruits. In many cases, workers cannot use all their vacation time let alone their ‘flex’ time for fear they’ll be labeled lazy and ‘not a team player’. Even going to an appointment can be a hassle with some people having to use sick days to cover these everyday events, leading me to wonder why people assume work has to be like this. Why is the movie Office Space our model for corporate America? Few people enjoy work, and yet no one has attempted to change the system or its basic premises. Even with the advent of tools like the internet or email, people still fail to question whether employees need to sit in their seats from 9-5 in order to be productive. Although many people like the comfort and predictability of the current workplace, this new economy of terabytes and efficiency forces us to reexamine the entire idea of work and how it affects both our professional and personal lives.

Almost every aspect of our lives other than the way we work has changed radically over the past ten years. Take home video formats as an example. Over this period the American public has switched from VHS to DVD and now to Blu-Ray. While we have changed a simple thing like media formats, the way we work has stayed relatively constant. For many of us the work week goes from Monday to Friday, 9 to 6 with about 20 vacation days a year just as it has for decades. While it is true that the workplace has changed in some areas (such as incorporating computers, software programs, etc.), most of these changes are window dressing compared to the broader question of how we work as a culture and how employees are managed. The internet, cell phones, and email afford employees the ability to complete many of their jobs from any location, and yet most companies are scarred to change the work environment.

Change; however, is on the horizon. One of the first radical shake ups in managing employees has come from two women who worked for Best Buy, the consumer electronics retailer. Best Buy’s management had tasked them with revolutionizing the corporate work environment, and reinvigorating their employee base, and in their book titled Why Work Sucks and How to Fix It, the authors describe how they transformed Best Buy’s management of its employees.

During their initial research, Ms. Ressler and Ms. Thompson found that many corporations still utilize a manufacturing management structure little changed from the 50’s and 60’s when workers had little education or access to technology, and therefore had to be actively monitored. They argue that this management style has persisted to the modern day through the ideas that employees must be at their desks in order to maximize productivity and that without constant supervision workers will be less productive. Today’s workforce; however, is obviously much different than that of the 60’s. Our service economy is better educated and has broadly adopted technology, making a manufacturing management structure inefficient. As a result, the authors claim that workplaces no longer need an active monitor, but a facilitator that empowers and guides their workers.

The authors also felt that managers place too much emphasis on time in the office, and not production/output. Ressler and Thompson also found that many employees reported feeling stressed at not making it into work ‘on time’ because their boss would get a negative opinion of them. They reasoned that while managers were placing a high degree of importance on their subordinates arriving at the office before 8 AM, an employee arriving 15 minutes late had no actual bearing on their work performance. Managers were simply taking the easy route and evaluating the employees not on their production, but whether they fit into the classical model of appearing on time, taking only a half hour lunch break, and staying until 5. In fact, they argue that time spent in the office has no correlation with results or profitability, and managers should instead focus only on results. Eliminating time, they reason, breaks the cycle where every employee feels chained to their desk, and allows them to be more creative and innovative, while achieving measurable, company-centric goals.

To solve this problem, the authors created a system without schedules, made meetings optional, and a work structure where an employee was judged solely on their results. They called this system a Results Oriented Work Environment (ROWE), and began with a large focus group. The key tenant and revolutionary idea that forms the basis of a ROWE is that we should not be paying people for their time (as we do in a typical workplace), but their results. Under the ROWE at Best Buy, employees could now leave work at 11 AM if they needed to pick up a sick child or not even come into work until 1 PM if they wanted to get a few extra hours of sleep. Within this system, no one is allowed to judge another employee for how they chose to spend their time, and must instead focus on their own goals. While seeming like a paradox, letting employees take more control of their schedules and methods to accomplish goals increased productivity and employee engagement at Best Buy. The program expanded rapidly, and during the course of their study, Best Buy saved $6.5 million from a reduction in voluntary turnover alone (Work Sucks and How to Fix It, pg.160). In fact, the program has been so successful that Best Buy executives have decided to extend ROWE across the entire workplace, including their hourly employees in the retail stores.

Why Does ROWE Work?

It is a commonly held belief that each person is unique, and learns/functions differently than everyone else. In the workplace; however, we have failed to adopt this idea, and instead treat everyone the same. Operating under a ROWE though allows a company to maximize the skills, timing, and output of each of its employees because the system treats each worker as a unique person, acknowledging that some people operate better in the morning, others at night. The manufacturing management style cannot possibly create the unique work process necessary for each employee, but a ROWE can because it lifts the burden from the manager and places it on the individual employee. In a ROWE, the manager serves in a more advisory/guiding role, concentrating on the big picture and keeping their team motivated.

Additionally, a ROWE’s overarching goal is to increase communication through decreasing forced communication. Since meetings and even coming into the office are made optional at Best Buy, employees must maximize the time they have together and work smarter. The system also enables employees to take control of their own work-life balance (a key employee concern), and believes that because they control their own schedule, employees will naturally maximize their production.

Why Companies Should Adopt a ROWE

Aside from the dramatic positive results with regards to productivity and reducing turnover, the ROWE system signifies a transition to the 21^st century workplace. The ROWE system offers the flexibility and employee empowerment necessary to succeed in this decentralized environment. While there will always be a need for a central office, technology will shortly allow a majority of workers to operate remotely in the near future. Combined with the globalization of the workforce, a company’s employees will be working at all hours of the day, making time and a 9-5 work schedule more and more irrelevant. Companies will also see a dramatic reduction in their office space cost because they will have less people at an office at a given time. We can already see the first versions of a decentralized workplace in the consulting industry where many employees do not have their own desks or a direct landline. Instead, corporate managers/partners expect employees and their teams to handle all work related matters in a timely and efficient manner, operating fairly independently from and having little interaction with the central office.

This decentralization trend will continue to accelerate as business becomes more virtual. ROWE provides a system to manage this decentralized workplace because it focuses on the only thing that matters: results. Companies who become early adopters for this system will have a dramatic head start on their competitors, and employees of all ages should respond well to this environment because they have more control over their careers. And so for once it looks like both employee and employer interests are aligned.

For more information about ROWE please see: http://www.culturerx.com/

Other Posts on the Book:

http://www.businessweek.com/careers/managementiq/archives/2008/06/why_work_sucks.html

http://alexandralevit.typepad.com/wcw/2008/06/why-work-sucks-and-how-to-fix-it.html

http://www.finance-weblog.com/50226711/book_review_why_work_sucks_and_how_to_fix_it.php

http://mystrategicplan.com/resources/why-work-sucks-and-how-to-fix-it-a-book-we-all-need/

http://edodds.blogs.com/conmergence/2008/05/why-work-sucks.html

Top Trends Blog on Millennials

Unfortunately, times have changed. In a global work environment where technology, news, and information move so quickly, employees need many of the tools to keep up with the massive amounts of data. In the emerging real-time corporate world, employees must have access to these applications in order to be part of the 24/7 public opinion conversation. The impenetrable firewall; however, many corporations institute stifles and restricts employee movement on the internet, and prevents employees from exercising flexibility or judgment about what is and is not appropriate.

Take as an example a blog post describing how a particular product is harmful to its users. Many corporations would have no idea that this review had been created until after it becomes the front page news story across the country. In contrast corporations with an open internet policy stand a greater chance of having an employee who is a member of that blog, and who could have quickly spotted, notified an appropriate party, and diffused the problem within a matter of hours. Even though many corporations employ PR companies to troll the blogs and other media outlets, the sheer volume of information prevents them from being everywhere at once. A company though, with a diversified employee base that has an open technology philosophy, will probably find these negative comments and address them appropriately.

Sony As A Perfect Case Study

To demonstrate the enormous negative influence a blog post can have, one only has to look at the Sony BMG DRM fiasco in 2005. On Halloween of that year, a blogger wrote in a post that Sony BMG’s software to reduce music piracy actually opened a person’s computer to malware and could not be uninstalled. While the post gained steam across the blogosphere, Sony BMG did not respond to the post or participate in any online media to establish a dialogue with concerned music buyers. It took almost five full days until, their president went onto a radio program to address the problem, and two weeks until the company offered to exchange the songs with that software. Not only did Sony BMG damage their reputations among music fans, but they were also taken to court by the Attorney General’s of Texas, California, and New York. All of the cases were eventually settled, but imagine the potential savings Sony BMG with a few employees trolling the blogs responding quickly to the blog could have had. While much has changed since 2005, many companies are still incredibly restrictive with regards to their employee’s usage of the internet.

Benefits of Web 2.0 Applications

Access to customers, co-workers, and even competitors through these services creates a great diversity of information. For the first time, companies can consult directly with their consumers instead of operating in the ‘marketing bubble’ of focus groups and estimates of a customer’s desires. In reducing employee interaction on the web, companies are negating the potential benefit of communicating directly with their consumers, and leveraging young professionals (who have the greatest knowledge and experience with these various programs) to initiate the conversations with targeted audiences. I believe that not allowing employees to access these services will hinder their productivity and profitability in the long run.

A case could also be made that many of the Web 2.0 programs such as IM or Skype reduce costs across the company since many of the applications for messaging, talking, and storing information are offered for free or at reduced rates. This low cost benefit combined with the fact that many services allow the sharing of content across multiple users creates a solid value proposition for many companies.

Prohibition Does Not Work

History has shown that a blanket approach has never worked on anything, and one only has to look at the Prohibition in the 1920s to see the effectiveness of such an approach. The only thing that such strong firewalls and the Prohibition prove is how adept and smart people are at getting around those rules. At Unilever, the IT department estimates that close to 50% of the “desktop software and services used by employees come from outside the corporation.” BusinessWeek Article If the massive resources of Unilever cannot control the problem, how can any one else expect to compete? Instead of trying to restrict, why not try to control and leverage the various platforms with guidelines, and reap the benefits of the applications?

In terms of lost productivity, I think most managers are delusional if they believe that their workers work for 8 hours straight at 100% effectiveness. If corporate America would loosen their grip on employees just a bit, allowing their employees some freedom to surf the net and not feel watched the entire time, companies would receive increased employee goodwill and possibly even improve retention.

Finally, with regards to security, as demonstrated in the Business Week article, employees have already found ways around the corporate firewall. Putting these applications directly on the server instead of having a separate, contained section on the company’s server presents a much greater risk for intrusion. Again, the whole idea is to bend a little, adapt a lot while still maintaining control of the situation, and in the process receive the admiration of your employees.

As a demanding generation Millennials will expect companies to evolve to the current environment. If not they will go the direction of the rum runners in the 20’s and quickly figure out a way around that firewall, potentially causing even greater harm.

Link to BusinessWeek Article

Unfortunately for corporations, the job market has profoundly changed. At no other time in society has business depended so heavily on the knowledge in their employee’s heads, and McKenzie Consulting believes that a company’s employees provide its greatest competitive advantage. Coupled with the aging American workforce and too few young workers to replace them, the cost and need for quality employees has risen dramatically. These factors have enabled Millennials to look at their employer using a market perspective, meaning they look for the best deal and will always choose to maximize their return. With very little to differentiating jobs within a particular industry other than salary, price (wage rate) becomes the sole driver in the marketplace.

This sole focus only on price decreases loyalty because compensation provides a very low barrier for exit (competitors can raise an employee’s salary relatively easily). In order to create any loyalty among their younger employees, Human Resource departments must end this monetary arms race. Developing a robust employer brand that appeals to multiple parts of an employee’s persona is key to initially attracting and retaining the young professional for the long term. In order to create this employer brand, companies must examine their culture and find where it is lacking. Taking a read of the young professionals already at the company would be an excellent starting point. After this initial examination and finding the weak points, companies must adapt and be open to change. The Millennials will accept nothing less.