Filed under: Employee Communication, Employee Retention, Research, Talent Management
Millennials have become a topic of interest, since they are the newest population to enter the workforce. However, this interest is accompanied by many stereotypes about how Millennials differ from other generations and that they have different needs to be successful in the workplace. Much of the attention has been on the negative: some suggest that we are more narcissistic,1 have a loose work ethic,2 and need to get off our parents’ couches4 and take the next bus to North Dakota if we need work.
As a member of the Millennial generation, it can be annoying to be stereotyped as part of a group that is “going nowhere4” but expects to be promoted5 within a year. I definitely agree that there are many lazy people in my generation as well as individuals who expect instant success after graduation. However, there are many of us who are hardworking, yet realistic, and would like to be treated as individuals rather than members of a certain group that need extra care in order to be successful.
What does the scholarly research say about Millennials? Let’s start with a recent article cited often in the current blog-o-sphere.
Jean Twenge and colleauges at San Diego State University recently published an article on differences in values and opinions between Baby Boomers and Millennials.6 The study was conducted over the course of 40 years with a freshman survey for entering college students.
Their research concluded that Millennials entering college place higher value on wealth and fame than the Baby Boomers did when they were entering college in the 1960’s and 70’s. While much of the popular literature suggests Millennials are more socially conscious and intrinsically motivated, Twenge and her colleagues found the opposite to be true. Based on their findings, Millennials are actually more similar to Generation X, and less intrinsically motivated than the Baby Boomers were at the same age. Sidenote: Jean Twenge is the author of The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement and is often cited by columnists who believe Millennials have a major problem.
A caveat to these findings (that popular blogs and articles fail to mention) is that it is based on research conducted on college students and does not provide any evidence on how Millennials behave once they make it to the workplace. In a different study, Ng and colleagues7 found that college students closer to graduation have more realistic salary expectations than college freshmen. These findings indicate that the beliefs and values of young adults change throughout college hence it cannot be assumed that data gathered when they enter college will remain constant once they enter the workforce.
Researchers have also pointed out some of the differences that existed between Baby Boomers and previous generations, giving way to the idea that much of the differences we note between Millennials and older generations are simply age-related.8
- For example, Millennials are believed to have no organizational loyalty and are willing to move between organizations. Thus it has been concluded that job security is not a major factor in a Millennial’s decision on where to work. Is this a generational difference or just an age difference? Forty years ago, younger workers did not list job security as a reason for satisfaction and were more likely to move between jobs than older generations.8 Given that younger workers are less likely to have financial and family commitments, they are more likely to switch jobs. This seems to be a more rational explanation for why Millennials frequently move between organizations as opposed to the popular argument that we watched our parents get laid off and thus have no organizational loyalty.
- Boomers also wanted work that provided more meaning and autonomy. Sound familiar? Theories about meaningful work being the key to satisfaction have been around since the 1960’s and 1970’s, when some Boomers were beginning to enter the workforce. If we look at the classic motivation literature by Hackman and Oldham9, employees want meaningful work (significance, variety, and identification), autonomy, and knowledge of results. When these conditions are met employees will be intrinsically motivated to do their jobs. Based on the popular literature about Millennials, not much has changed (although the press would love for you to believe everything is changing).
Many of the other studies primarily focus on what Millennials want, and give reasons for why. For recruiting purposes, it is important to understand what today’s employee needs in order to be engaged at work. Ng and colleagues7 determined that the most important workplace attributes for Millennials were opportunities for advancement, good co-workers, quality supervisors, and training and development opportunities. Whether this significantly differs from what employees of other generations want is up in the air. Two issues exist: studies conducted today cannot control for the difference in age and experience among generations and studies conducted longitudinally (where all workers sampled were young) cannot control for the changing times. Thus, only speculations can be made on whether differences truly exist.
We can conclude that Millennials want many of the same workplace attributes that have been desired for years: meaningful work, autonomy, good co-workers, good supervisors, feedback, and advancement. As a Millennial employee, I have no problem voicing to my organization that these factors must be present. Perhaps that is what makes our generation different: we are not afraid to speak up about what we need to be engaged.
What are your thoughts on the Millennial generation?
Do you see any major differences between Millennial employees and other generations? Is it because of how they grew up, or a result of being young?
Amanda Harms | Associate Consultant
References:
- http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/05/navarrette.millennials.jobs/index.html
- http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-12-26/business/ct-biz-1226-millennials-20111226_1_millennials-new-poll-older-workers
- Erickson, T.J. (2009). Gen Y in the workforce. Harvard Business Review Case Study, February 2009.
- http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/opinion/sunday/the-go-nowhere-generation.html
- http://www.thelearningcafe.net/downloads/MillennialGeneration.pdf
- Twenge, J.M., Campbell, W.K., & Freeman, E.C. (2012). Generational differences in young adults’ life goals, concern for others, and civic orientation, 1966-2009. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Online First Publication, March 5, 2012.
- Ng, E.S.W., Schweitzer, L., & Lyons, S.T. (2010). New generation, great expectations: A field study of the Millennial generation. Journal of Business Psychology, 25, 281-292.
- Wesner, M.S., & Miller, T. (2008). Boomers and Millennials have much in common. Organization Development Journal, 26, 89-96.
- Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279.
In Part I we examined three approaches for interpreting survey results. Only part of one of those levels/approaches is based on normative data:
- Personal standard along with knowledge of business
- Numeric guidelines to help interpret survey results
- Relative comparisons to history and normative data
Comparison of survey results to the overall scores of the parent company (or previous year’s trends) are fairly easy to obtain. Trends may be kept by your company in-house survey experts and/or can be generated by your survey vendor. What about external normative data? Where does it come from? There are three sources of normative data currently used by the majority of survey professionals. There are norms based upon a consulting firm’s book of business (Also Known As house norms), norms gathered through population sampling via market research, and norms obtained via membership in a consortium.
Norms from these different sources come with a unique set of advantages and disadvantages. First we will briefly define these three sources of external benchmarking or more commonly known as norms.
1. Book of business. The survey vendor keeps the survey results of all of their clients and can aggregate the results by industry. This paints a compelling picture to prospective clients as the survey can be compared directly to other companies in the same industry.
2. Population sampling. Similar to polling, a targeted group of participants which meets your requirements is sampled. These requirements would typically be based on industry (i.e., banking, retail) or possibly a mix of industries to capture your unique company flavor. Essentially, the answers of several hundred employed adults are a proxy to estimate the larger industry norms.
3. Consortia. Multiple organizations contribute their survey data into an aggregate survey database. As long as the items are the same, a very large database can be developed. Companies with more than a pre-specified number of employees are eligible for membership and can receive data from other members. The Mayflower Group is an example of a consortium which is fairly well known.
What Are the Pros and Cons of Each?
External benchmarks are to have an idea of what is happening in your industry, not just to keep up with the Jones. Which type of norms works the best for me? The answer, as always, is “it depends.” Let’s explore the pros and the cons of utilizing each type of normative data.
Book of Business
|
PROS |
CONS |
| Typically based on a very large participant base | If survey is customized, you may not obtain results for several of your items |
| Shares a common methodology with the same company always executing the survey | You may not get many participants for a particular industry (i.e., there are not many norms to compare for Mixed Martial Arts companies) |
| Identical items used for all surveys allowing for consistency across all organizations | Potential bias due to the fact the data is for clients for that consulting firm only i.e., may not be representative due to fees or geographic location |
| Can corner the market on a specific industry i.e., One vendor does surveys for 3/4 of the Consumer Packaged Goods (CPG) companies | Order of items may be different on each survey which could introduce bias from order effects |
| Results for some items may be >5 years old |
Population Sampling
|
PROS |
CONS |
| Up-to-date norms can be gathered simultaneously with the employee survey | Participants may not be invested in the survey because they are participating in market research |
| Items will match exactly to your employee survey | May be difficult to find participants from a very narrow/specific industry in market research panels |
| Relatively inexpensive method for gathering real time data if you use standard industries | Participants are not “on the clock” and may view the survey items differently than your employees |
| Representative based on national population | Survey vendors are unable to “corner the market” on specific industry (such as banking or retail) |
| Independent of the survey firm’s dataset | Small sample size (possibly 400-1,000) from market research may cause concern that the sample is not adequate to make comparisons to their employees |
Consortium Norms
|
PROS |
CONS |
| If standards of item content are enforced, there will be stability of question wording over time. | Each company may ask questions in customized ways, thereby eliminating direct comparisons |
| Often similar industries will band together allowing for deep comparisons in that industry | Consortium norms are not an option for small to midsize companies as membership requirements stipulate a large number of employees i.e., 7,500 |
| Typically large companies with large datasets are involved with consortia providing a robust dataset | There is usually no unifying theory to the items once aggregated, as they come from different vendors and companies |
| Reporting capabilities due to large similar datasets can drill down to deeper divisions/departments | Items are not grouped the same across organizations with potential order effects bias |
| Direct comparisons to other specific companies, including competitors, not just industries | Items can come from a census, a quarterly (or monthly) pulse survey, or other measures – data collection may not be known. |
There is no “right answer” for which types of norms are the best. The advantages and disadvantages of each must considered and the selection of the method should be based on what works best for your organization. Cost, time, and availability may dictate to a certain degree which types (if any) of norms you choose to use.
So where does this leave us?
Is data collected prior to the recession still useful as normative data? By the same token, do people respond differently to market research surveys than surveys for one’s employer? Does it matter if your norms are collected on an industry slightly different than your own? Are firms in your industry even that similar to your organization? If you score below the norm, does that mean you will lose all your top talent? If you score above the norm, does that mean you are doing great? The answer to all of these questions may be “not necessarily.” There is no clear answer to these questions. We bring them up because these are the issues to be taken into consideration before making generalizations about your data in comparison to the norm.
Norms add value to those who interpret survey results, regardless if they are internal stakeholders or external consultants. However, it is the responsibility of all to know what goes into the “witches’ brew,” the relative validity of that information based on when it was collected (and on whom), as well as how to communicate that to others.
Finally, there are other aspects to consider when interpreting survey results such as trending data, numeric guidelines, and your own knowledge of your business which was discussed in Part I. We would contend that those who are using the results of surveys should put most of their interpretation efforts into those areas, while normative data should be secondary or even tertiary to your interpretation.
For more information on norms, see:
Macey, W.H., & Eldridge, L. (2006). National norms vs. consortium data: What do they tell us? In A. I. Kraut (Ed.), Getting action from organizational surveys: New concepts, technologies and applications (pp. 352-376). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Paul Thoresen | Account Manager and Consultant
Filed under: Research
At Questar we are very proud to be associated with the American Cancer Society and its Cancer Prevention Studies. We have worked with the ACS for 13 years designing the surveys, collecting data from these surveys and then providing it back to the researchers in Atlanta. The work they do is astounding and to think that Questar even has a small fraction of responsibility in it is an honor.
I have been thinking about this study a lot lately because of a Relay for Life event that is taking place in Shakopee, Minnesota on Friday, July 8. Relay for Life events are done all around the country to celebrate the lives of people who have battled cancer, remember loved ones lost to the disease, and to fight back to try to put an end to the disease. These Relay for Life events take place in over 5,000 communities with over 3.5 million people participating. (more…)
Filed under: Employee Engagement, Employee Retention, Research, Uncategorized
As Thanksgiving approaches, Americans pause this week to reflect on their blessings. So what are you thankful for? For most people, the intangibles probably come to mind first – the many things that money can’t buy like family, friends, and experiences. Basic needs that are met may also make the list – shelter, clothing, food. And in an economy where more than 9% are unemployed, this Thanksgiving holiday many are thankful that they have a job.
If you ask people why they work, they will probably mention money as the primary reason. But if you ask people what they like best about their jobs, money usually doesn’t top the list. Work brings so much more to people’s lives. Over the past 25 years, Questar has asked millions of employees what they like (more…)
The Conference Board’s press release about Americans’ job satisfaction certainly has caused a buzz. Their annual survey of US households found that only 45% of all Americans are satisfied with their jobs. This, according to the Conference Board, is an all time low.
I can’t say I blame people for being unhappy. 2009 was a really hard year for a whole lot of people. Unemployment rates were at twenty year highs. And while some research showed that those with jobs were happier than they had been – maybe just happy to have a job at all – there is no doubt that those who kept their jobs paid a price. Layoff survivors were expected to pick up the slack while many employers cut wages and benefits. And those nest eggs employees thought they had built up lost much of their value.
I am positive that many companies will see a talent exodus as the economy picks up. Those hard working but exhausted employees may see their opportunity to jump ship in 2010.
And yet – I was surprised by the Conference Board’s findings. (more…)
Filed under: Research
The following link is for a presentation I recently gave at the Marketing Research Association conference in Minneapolis. It describes in detail some of the tips and tricks we have learned at Questar for presenting market research findings to nontechnical audiences.
I would be interested in any suggestions or stories people have surrounding presenting market research findings.
-Tom McGoldrick
Filed under: Customer Experience, Research | Tags: automakers, consumers, reputation management
Out of 31 responses from Liz's Twitter following, 9 said they would consider buying a US-made car, and 22 said they would not.
Out of curiosity, I asked my Twitter followers yesterday if they would consider buying a US car right now. I should have known that this would turn in to a blog post, but that isn’t why I asked. This has been a frequent topic of discussion on the social sphere lately. Ford has Scott Monty managing their reputation on the social web right now, and he frequently reminds us that Ford’s quality numbers are right up there with foreign automakers. But nobody seems to care about that.
The results of the poll in a nutshell: Most people said they would “probably not” and a few people said they’d consider it. I received 31 responses that I could determine a “yes” or “no” from (a lot of people informed me that they would not consider buying any car right now, maybe I should have noted that this is a hypothetical question). I will also note that my Twitter following is not at all a valid sample of the US population, but I follow them because I think they are interesting and intelligent; therefore I value their opinions.
This conclusion is unscientific and based on the explanations from those who responded, but I believe that perceptions of the auto industry right now are much more of a deciding factor than quality numbers. Most of those who said they would not buy an American car believed that foreign cars are better. A lot of people said they never have and never will buy American. Although Ford’s quality numbers are comparable to those of foreign automakers, consumers are in disbelief. The Big 3 need to do something about changing consumers’ perceptions of their brand, and quality numbers will not suffice.
I will admit; I thought everyone would say no. Nine people said yes and twenty-two said no, so it’s not as bad as I presumed. However, it is clear to me that perceptions of US automakers need to change if they want to compete with foreign companies, and it’s going to take more than quality numbers. This is going to take both stability and reliability.
I’d love to hear more in-depth reactions to this topic from those interested in sharing. Thanks again to everyone who responded!
-Liz Giel
There is an interesting article in today’s Chain Leader on the dining habits of most consumers. The article references a study finding that most consumers frequently dine at only 6-10 restaurants per year. This does not indicate that people don’t try a variety of restaurants; it only refers to those restaurants that we dine at repeatedly. The article focuses on how consumers tend to be creatures of habit when deciding where to dine.
This number makes sense to me. In our consulting business, we are always trying to get our clients to think of the lifetime value of each customer. When you lose a customer you don’t lose just one meal- you lose all of their future meals, and all of the new customers they would have brought with or referred to your restaurant. The best restaurant/retail managers don’t think of their customers in terms of an individual visit; they see a visit in the context of the long term relationship they have with each customer. These managers naturally think in terms of service recovery when something goes wrong. They know there will be bumps in the relationship, but always do what they can to make things right. They never just assume they will do better with the next customer.
This is also a good example of the power of brands. When driving down the road tired and hungry, most people will go to the same restaurant for dinner that they habitually go to. I would guess that the more tired or stressed someone is, the more likely they are to go to a familiar brand. Just look at all the large brand restaurants that cluster around airport hotels.
-Tom McGoldrick
