This week I had the privilege of speaking to one of my
former colleagues. We both worked for an employer for 10-plus years, and were witness to some major changes within
the structures and culture of the company.
While I worked in online marketing and content management, he was a director-level
manager of a highly technical group.
Part of my position’s primary responsibility was to be the liaison
between our creative groups and his technical group. He is currently employed by this company,
therefore he will remain anonymous. In
the narrative, he will be referred to as DC.
Our discussion focused on some of the ways the company has tried to
change the process of engaging and motivating employees whose tasks were hybrid
(creative/technical) and highly technical.
DT: DC, thanks for
letting me take some time to talk about one of our favorite topics – old-line
management seemingly not knowing which way is up when it comes to keeping star
players on the team.
DC: (laughter) Oh yeah, some things change and some things
just stay the same.
DT: Funny you make
that statement because it opens the door to get to the heart of what I wanted
to talk about. The company has tried
many times to implement new programs to get the tech folks to stay longer. They implement and then seem to get cold feet
before any results can be measured. And
then it’s back to the old way. What
gives with that?
DC: Honestly I don’t
really understand the thinking but my gut feeling is they can’t see immediate
results and think that its broke. They then
retreat back to what they think they can measure. This causes two problems for me. One is that I come off looking like a fool
for getting the department excited, then dash their expectations. The other problem is our most talented coders
see this as us being unstable and then they go off to greener pastures. I spend more time filling those jobs than I
care to and I know my managers get tired of wasting their time training them
into our system. It’s like constantly
going back to square one. Oh, and let us
not forget that the word gets out about all this and it just makes it harder
for us to get the level of expertise in the door for just an interview. Frustrating.
DT: Yeah, and I know
that the same thing had happened with the engineers in product development and
testing. They could make much more money
going elsewhere without all the back and forth going on. There is a disconnect somewhere. While we look at it from a cause and effect
angle from the management team, do you think any of the attitudes of the newer
employees have anything to do with hanging onto what you do get in the door?
DC: Hmmm, yeah in
some ways I guess. You and I both worked
for the company for a long time, comparatively speaking anyway. I was here when you arrived and you made 10,
so that puts me at 13 years. I
personally have had no burning desire to leave because I’ve got so much
invested here. The kids we have coming
in here now would have to string four or five jobs together to get close to 10
years. I don’t really know why, but the tech
people now seem to hang around for a year or two and move on. Maybe they just get bored. Maybe its
money. Maybe its me! I just don’t know.
DT: I can understand
that it is really hard to find the best way to handle the situation from your
end. The old-school ways of engaging them
and motivating them don’t seem to apply.
In my management class reading this week, we read about some of the
concepts and challenges to motivation.
One of the articles talked about motivation that comes from within and
another that is what I would call “forced,” or you do what you have to do the
keep the boss happy, regardless if it makes you feel good. From those perspective, what do you think
younger developers are looking for when they come in?
DC: Well, most of
these guys are what I would call hyper-competitive and they are really driven
to take a project to the point that the other developers will bow down to their
greatness. Seriously, I have always seen
lot of natural competition going on between our team members. But sometimes the productivity gains I get
out of them get trampled on by some that don’t have a clue as to what they
do. They (sr. mgrs.) don’t know how to
quantify their work. And I have to
balance the feedback I get from that level that’s like “yeah, so what have you
done for me, and why isn’t this other project done” with the direction I give
to them. I try to re-frame all of my
feedback to try to keep the developers from getting into a day to day rut.
DT: What would help
you to solve this problem and that of trying to get talented people in and keep
them?
DC: It’s a real
challenge. I can’t throw money at them
because they can always make as much or more working for someone else. I think if we could get a CIO-level person
who is totally familiar with the space that we are working in to find some
creative ways to recognize these guys, that would be a big help. The biggest obstacle in all of what I am
trying to do is not having a true champion for us on the senior team who could
help to guide us, but also to help communicate my groups needs and
accomplishments to the senior managers.
DT: You are right,
that would take some of the stress off of you, plus maybe get some type of
system going that would help make it a place that folks are beating your door
down to get into.
DC: That’s what I’d really
love to do. I’m gonna die trying that’s
for sure.
DT. Thank you so much
for your time and your honesty.
DC: No worries, thank you.
It would appear from my conversation and my own personal
experience that the company is dealing with a clash of management style of the
long-time senior management team and the real-world needs of the employees in
an area that they likely do not grasp.
This is very similar to the issues of “boomers versus Gen Xers that Erickson
discusses. I think the disconnect that
exists is likely a concrete example of the of the life, cultural and
professional differences that exits between management and the developer
group.
Most of the senior managers are “boomers,”
who have been with the company for many years.
Their management styles and therefore rewards and motivation systems are
devised from their own experience; things that they are most comfortable with and can manage and
measure. That thinking is total opposite
that of the Gen Xers. According to
Erickson, the Gen Xers have been brought up in an era where there has been
rapid technological changes and deep commitments to their employers do not
match with their goals. The leadership
activities proposed by Erickson might be successful in this organization.
I feel of more consequence and higher priority is an
examination of how the company is meeting the needs of Gen Xers and Gen
Yers. They would likely find that they
are not meeting those needs. Ryan &
Deci present an excellent set of “levers” that could be implemented to start to
get to know these types of employees on a deeper level. A progressive study of each fo the primary
levers and the related drives could help the company design jobs, recognition
and rewards that would really feed off of the individuals intrinsic motivations. I would propose that if a company can really
plug into the intrinsic level, they would be able to use an employee’s natural
and internal motivational elements to not only help build satisfaction and
value for the individuals, but help build productivity, innovation and
profitability for the company.
References
Ryan, R., &
Deci, E. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new
directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
Erickson, T.
(2010). The leaders we need now. Harvard Business Review, 11-15.
David, I am thinking that these employees may not be Gen Xers but more likely Millennials. Meister and Willyerd (2010) give some tips on how to motivate and manage this generation. Do you think this organization could employ some of those ideas? Would they work?
ReplyDeleteHi David,
ReplyDeleteNice post. I can relate to much of what DC is saying. Martin and Schmidt (2010) argue top talent need to be included in future strategy meetings, among other suggestions to keep top talent. Nohria, Groysberg & Lee (2008), note that there are four drives for people: acquire, bond, comprehend and defend. Do you feel that DC has been able to address all or some of these ideas and needs in order to Keep the Good Ones?
Thanks.
I think the generational differences in the workplace conundrum is fascinating. A bit scary, but fascinating. One thing that we do at Samsung is recognize the top talent and let them sip the Kool-Aid early on. The problem, though, is that most of the top talent is recognized by your university or previous employer; there is nothing about your current work that makes you part of the top talent pool. Does this company recognize any kind of top talent or high potential employees and work harder at keeping them? One funny quirk about people my age is that we need to feel like we're important and awesome at what we do. Maybe if some of them were recognized more and that intrinsic motivation was made more apparent, they would stick around? Then again, another funny quirk about people my age is our lack of loyalty...
ReplyDeleteSorry for the delayed response.
ReplyDeleteCourtney - You are absolutely correct. There may be some subliminal association going on here in the fact I would love to be identified with these younger employees. They are Millennials. I am a Gen Xer, having missed being a Boomer by only one calendar year! I think that reverse mentoring would be an incredible opportunity for both the employees and the senior managers. Reverse mentoring would allow each side see the other's world in a very clear perspective. From organizational operations to pushing out a code project on a deadline, reverse mentoring would ideally allow knowledge and experience transfer along both structural and cultural lines. Sadly, I do not think this, or any of the other suggestions that Meister and Willyerd would work. Senior management is very closed-minded. And since it is a private, family-owned company, I don't think that there would be a level of trust that could be built due to the fact "the family," is so afraid of leaks about the company occurring.
Al - Thanks! DC has not been officially allowed, but there have been some attempts within the group's structure and culture that may not have to be on the "big radar" of the company. I would say this is especially evident with bonding, comprehending and defending. I would say his hands are tied to work much with the acquiring element. He by no means is doing anything wrong. But he is using freedom that has been generally given to him to help foster a better environment. And he is of the quality and character that I think that his senior managers might implicitly approve.
Lauren - You are too funny! The employer has been good about recognition in the past. Over the years, there has been a marked decline in this area. The company is privately-owned by two families. Look at it from a parent-children angle. The parents (mostly the men, or fathers) were strong proponents of recognition across all operating divisions of the company (and there are many). They have all retired in the last five years and their children have been elevated to the executive positions they once held. The children are my age (somewhere between 40 and 50). Their value system doesn't match that of their fathers. It is evident in recognition and rewards. And it is even evident in the benefits packages. This does not foster much of an environment for high achievers to remain. And your age group doesn't hold exclusivity on the need to be made to feel awesome and important! :)