Generation X - Harvard Business

Ok, I admit it - I like "10's lists". I also like articles that delve into the impact of culture on the work place. Tammy Erickson's article "10 Reasons Gen X'ers Are Unhappy at Work" in Harvard Business added to my understanding of generational differences and the impact of those differences on the work place.

As a "boomer" and son of a life long GE employee I came into my career with no other expectation than a job in corporate America. Since then I've moved around but remained attached to the idea of corporate job or close ties (consulting) to Corporate America. The article made me think through what many of my younger colleagues have experienced. It also made me think about perceptions - specifically what my own children think about the careers that lie ahead of them in light of what they have seen of my career and the careers of their friends parents. Note: I am the father of a high school freshman and a 6th grader.

Below are Ms. Erickson's 10 Reasons - but please read the full article because each reason has much more to it than the headings supplied below.

1. X’ers corporate careers got off to a slow start;

2. When you were teens, X’ers witnessed adults in your lives being laid off from large corporations;

3. Most corporate career paths “narrow” at the top;

4. Just your luck – the economy was slow when you entered the workforce;

5. And then there are those pesky Gen Y’s;

6. X’ers are, in fact, surrounded by a love fest – and not feeling the love;

7. X’ers are the most conservative cohort in today’s workforce;

8. Many X’ers’ are guarding a closely held secret;

9. Boomer colleagues are annoying;

10. Finally, your own parenting pressures are at a peak.

There are two items that resonated - #2 and #4. Many Gen X'ers would have been entering the workforce during the "corporate re engineering" efforts of the 1980's and the downsizing / economic downdraft of the late 1990's and early 2000's. They watched as parents, relatives and friends were laid off. I did not experience anything like that in my teenage years or during the middle years of my career. But the economy was very slow in the late 1970's when I entered the workforce and I did experience, first hand, tech bust in 2002 while on the verge of moving into the VP / C-level ranks. So I can relate.

My own children have watched as I have moved between jobs and while I have never really struggled financially, because I was able to move into consulting, those changes must have had an impact (note to self: discuss careers with children)..

First things First - get your services right

I've been reading quite a bit over the past several weeks - Gary Hamel's book "The Future of Management", the Wall Street Journal, lot of material on the Internet - from newspapers to blogs to various web sites. One thing that I've noticed regarding I.T. and Leadership in general - there is very little said about where to start.

So on the subject of where to start in a new Information Technology leadership position - start with an evaluation of what's working and what is not. In virtually every business that I've been involved with as a consultant or employee - there are basic issues that are creating problems for I.T. and the business. Most of the time they are not the sexy new stuff - they are basic issues that effect reliability, availability and usability.

So my advice - take 30 days to evaluate. Talk to your peers, talk to your end-users, talk to senior leaders. Don't make changes right away - unless something is really broken. Do you have meaningful stats that can tell you how your services are working? Do you have negative feedback on services? Do you have positive feedback?

Each of the situations that I've been in has had at least a couple of areas where IT was not performing to the user community's (or Senior Management's) expectations. A couple of these areas were serious concerns - instability in the infrastructure supporting key services and lack of progress on reports that had been promised.

Resolve these issues quickly earns credibility for IT (and you) but the process isn't necessarily easy. Issues with instability are typically a combination of straight forward solutions (power, network and server redundancy) along with less easily corrected problems (O/S, Database and application configuration). But focusing on these allows the organization to move to work that is more valuable to the business and more rewarding for I.T. staff members. Reducing after hours calls on instability issues also goes a long way to improving moral.

Looking carefully at the organization that you are coming into - while you still have an "outsiders" perspective is also useful. You may see changes that could improve the functioning of your group(s) and increase morale. Changes that you would not necessarily see after being in the organization for a longer period of time. If that view does point to significant changes in personnel - it is good to start planning those early so that they can be executed early allowing you and the organization past those changes quickly and with less disruption than if you wait.

Leading - the good and the bad

Rule 3 - (this part's not fun - but the results are often very beneficial) be prepared to make changes including moving people out of the business when an organization is not getting the job done. Net is while it's not fun the changes will improve the organization, be better for the business and better for many individuals in the effected group.

Moving people out who cannot (or will not) do the work should be straight forward - if done unemotionally. HR should be able to provide the process - take the time to understand it. It is also easier on everyone if your company provides a transition plan (pay for a few months, outplacement, etc) - if they do - use it. Those plans can be used to ease the transition for the person(s) involved.

Note: I agree that ~10% of every organization will be performing below standard. As a result you have an opportunity to replace those individuals with higher performing people - people that may a better cultural fit as well. Many times you have the opportunity in this case to improve morale - your people know these people are not performing.

Moving people out during downsizing can also be straight forward (10% rule). It only gets painful if it is a significant downsizing that involves putting a lot more work on the remaining people. This situation is problematic - more so if there is no opportunity to "simplify" your operation and processes.

Other changes - reorganizations - can provide real opportunities to reward your best people. The best organization that I've seen at this we GE (actually GE Capital). We regularly reorganized based on the changing needs of the business - I.T. included. Those changes provided opportunities for people that have delivered.

Taking the time to figure out an optimum organization will pay dividends. Organizational changes can improve an organization. Moving people out will be painfull (short term) but could significantly improve your organization if thought through.