Got your attention with that one, didn’t I?

Let’s talk some more about redesigning our organizations – “hacking” the enterprise. Here’s another fundamental assumption upon which our organizations are built that I think has got to go: weekends.

No, I’m not arguing that we should all work seven days a week. But I do think that the idea of a corporation telling us which days to work (and when to “rest”) is outdated.

The idea of a defined work week makes great sense if you’re performing synchronous tasks – activities in which everyone has to be there all together to get the work done. Clearly in an industrial economy, the idea that everyone needs to be there pretty much at the same time is key. You can’t run an assembly line if the guy responsible for tightening the bolts has decided to skip Friday and come in all alone on Saturday.

But how much of our work today, really, is synchronous?

Less and less. Yes, there certainly are a number of customer-facing roles for which you clearly have to be available when the customers are there. But an increasing proportion of the economy is comprised of work that is individually paced. We may confer with colleagues to get input, but for more and more of us, a colleague’s decision to take the day off will have little direct affect on our immediate productivity.

There is of course one big synchronous activity in which most of us invest a fair amount of time – meetings. Secretly, I suspect many meetings are held largely because we are all in there – what else did we all drive in for? It feels silly just to peer at each other over our cubicles – probably we better get together. It seems like the right thing to do. But is a synchronous meeting really essential to the work at hand?

Best Buy, with their shift from a time-based to a task-based management approach, soon found many meetings being canceled. People were concluding that it wasn’t really necessary to get together physically – at least not nearly as often – to get the work done.

And the Gen Y’s I interview who have been in corporations for a year or so, almost universally, comment on how inefficient they find current corporate habits to be. Why do people wait to share ideas or get input until they can physically assemble, when it’s now possible to use social networking tools to gather input quickly – and asynchronously? Why do we spend much of our synchronous time together simply updating each other on our activities when any 20-year-old on Facebook can tell you how much easier and faster it is to do this with Web 2.0 tools?

From a purely pragmatic perspective, as the costs of commuting rise, it makes sense for many individuals to travel to a common physical place only sparingly. For some, it may be worth skipping the log-jam of the Monday morning commute. Over the last month, a number of organizations have instituted a four-day work week to reduce commuting costs for employees. That’s a great step – but why not allow the individuals to determine how much time is optimum to spend in the office?

I’d like to see companies re-think the idea of a pre-set “week day” and a “weekend” and look instead at which jobs actually need synchronous activity with what frequency. If the job doesn’t require it, why not let the worker decide his or her own schedule?

Has your company begun to move away from synchronous schedules? How is it working? What do you think? How can we best re-think this aspect of our organizations?

One of today’s popular data points on Gen Y is the number of trophies that were handed out at a typical little kids’ soccer match or softball game. Commentators are quick to observe that a lot of kids got a lot trophies (boy, manufacturing those cheap, gold plastic loving cups must have been a great business in the 1990s) and jump to the conclusion that Gen Y’s as young adults are in constant need of praise and reassurance.

Really?

Let’s explore this thought: who got the trophies?

Oh, I hear you – the kids, of course. They got trophies just for tenth place, for participation – heck, even for just showing up.

Okay, let me ask again: who got the trophies? Who desperately wanted the trophies? Who purchased the trophies to hand them out to all his or her friends – oops, that is, friends’ children?

I think the major movers behind the great trophy scam were the parents. Boomer parents.

As I’ve said before, Boomers love to win. I sometimes think you could put a bow around just about anything and give it to a Boomer as a prize, and they’ll be pleased. (Okay, let me come clean: I’ll be pleased – I’m a Boomer, too. Prizes are very high on my “these are a few of my favorite things” list.)

There are very logical reasons for Boomers to love winning. When we were teenagers, we discovered there were too few seats in the school – many of us were sent outside to attend class in trailers behind the building. There were too few sports teams for us all to play; too few college admission letters. The infrastructure was too small for the size of our cohort as we squeezed through the key hole into life.

There was only one logical conclusion for Boomers to draw – if life is a never-ending game of musical chairs, you better play to win. And, we have.

We have continued to play the game with our kids as checkers on the game board. We love it when they win – it’s like we’ve won, too! We put those cheap plastic trophies on our living room shelves and the “I’m Proud of My ‘A’ Student” bumper stickers on our cars. We enjoy every moment of our children’s success. There’s nothing wrong with that in my book.

But I do object when analysts use our slightly nutty behavior to interpret the strengths and weaknesses of today’s young employees. Just because they accepted the trophies we shoved in their hands does not mean that they are puddles of insecurity today, in constant search of the boss’ praise. I read an article recently about a company that is teaching managers how to hand out little snippets of praise on a continuous basis to keep the trophy generation fortified. Frankly, I think that is ridiculous.

Today’s young employees do want attention – they want constructive, insightful input that signals that you’ve noticed what they’re doing and given some thought to how they might do it better. They want to learn, to be mentored. (Don’t we all?) Yes, they expect to receive this type of input with greater frequency than many of us would have, but that’s very different from implying that it has to be nothing but sweet nothings.

I really don’t remember the kids asking for all those trophies. But I sure remember the look of pleasure on my friends’ faces when they (ah, their child) got one.

I had the pleasure last week of moderating a panel of senior talent development officers representing three very different industries and diverse geographies: Deb Wheelock of Mercer (a high-end professional services firm, recruiting highly educated knowledge workers), Pamela Stroko of The Gap (a retailer faced with the classic industry challenges of creating a differentiating employee proposition and enhancing retention of its large workforce), and Sujaya Banerjee of the Essar Group (a diversified India-based enterprise participating in a variety of industrial sectors, including steel, energy, and communications).

Interestingly, even with this diversity of perspectives, we found our views on today’s top talent challenges to be surprisingly aligned. I thought you might like to see our list – and would love to hear your thoughts on things you’re wrestling with that we missed.

Here goes:

1. Attracting and retaining enough employees at all levels to meet the needs of organic and inorganic growth. All three companies are facing a talent crunch. Essar, for example, has grown from 20 thousand employees to a staggering 60 thousand in the past 3 years. Fifty-five percent of their employees have less than two years of tenure.

2. Creating a value proposition that appeals to multiple generations. With four generations in today’s workplace, most companies are struggling to create an employee experience that appeals to individuals with diverse needs, preferences and assumptions. The Gap, for example, has 153,000 people in its workforce. The stores have a high percentage of Gen Y employees, while corporate roles and leadership ranks are primarily made up of Gen X’ers and Boomers. How does one create a compelling employee value proposition for the organization?

3. Developing a robust leadership pipeline. I believe one of the biggest potential threats to many corporations is a lack of a robust talent pool from which to select future leaders. This is in part a numbers issue – the Gen X cohort is small and therefore, as I like to say, precious. But it’s also an interest issue – many members of Gen X are simply not particularly excited about being considered for these roles. There was wide agreement among the panelists that a lack of individuals ready to move into senior client manager and leadership roles is a critical challenge.

4. Rounding out the capabilities of hires who lack the breadth of necessary for global leadership. It’s relatively straightforward to identify and assess experts in specific functional or technical arenas, but much more difficult to determine whether those individuals have the people skills, leadership capabilities, business breadth, and global diversity sensibilities required for the nature of leadership today. Increasingly, the challenge of developing these broader skill sets falls to the corporations. Essar has formed an academy specifically to develop and groom its own leaders.

5. Transferring key knowledge and relationships. The looming retirement of a significant portion of the workforce challenges all companies, but particularly those who are dependant on the strength of tacit knowledge, such as that embedded in customer relationships, a key to Mercer’s business success.

6. Stemming the exodus of Gen X’ers from corporate life. A big threat in many firms today is the exodus of mid-career talent – people in whom the organization has invested heavily and in whom it has pinned it hopes for future leadership. For example, developing talent management practices and programs calibrated to leverage technology and create greater work/life balance has been a priority for Mercer over recent years.

7. Redesigning talent management practices to attract and retain Gen Y’s. The challenge of calibrating talent management practices and programs to attract and engage our young entrants is critically important to all firms and particularly so for firms that depend on a strong flow of top talent, such professional service firms like Mercer. All three panelists agreed that making the business infrastructure more attractive to Gen Y is a high priority.

8. Creating a workplace that is open to Boomers in their “second careers.” Age prejudice still exists, but smart companies are looking for ways to incorporate the talents of Boomers and even older workers in the workforce. In many cases, this requires rethinking roles and work relationships.

9. Overcoming a “norm” of short tenure and frequent movement. Some industries, such as specialty retail, are known for having a very disposable view of talent. Companies intent on changing that norm, such as The Gap, must address both external influences in the marketplace and an internal mindset. The Gap believes retaining employees in roles for 3+ years will be a key to their future earnings growth.

10. Enlisting executives who don’t appreciate the challenge. Many talent executives complain that business leaders still believe that people are lined up outside the door because of the power of the company’s brand. The challenge of enlisting the support of all executives for the transition from a talent culture that has traditionally operated with a “buy” strategy to one that places more emphasis on “build” is widely shared.

What did we miss? What are your biggest talent challenges?

I have a fair number of circular discussions with people these days.

Study after study has concluded that Boomers don’t have enough money saved for retirement, particularly given the long lives that most will lead. So, I get asked repeatedly, “Don’t Boomers have to work?”

Well, in fact most want to work.

“But, really, don’t they have to work?”

Yes, I guess so. But I’m not sure it’s a relevant question. Somehow it feels a little bit like reminding people that sex is essential for procreation. I don’t think that is the major factor affecting most people’s practices.

The McKinsey Institute just issued an analysis of Boomers’ savings. The release says, “The net effect is that boomers carry far more debt than other generations. Because of inadequate saving, two-thirds of baby boomers are unprepared for retirement, defined as able to sustain 80% of their spending as they age. The solution is to work longer. If the median age of retirement were to rise two years, from 62.6 today to 64.1 in 2015, the number of 'unprepared' households would be cut in half.”

I generally love McKinsey’s research and it’s always good to document the specifics of a situation. But really, this is hardly news.

Is it helpful to focus on people need to do something that they want to do regardless? As early as 2004, in our research, 34% of the entire workforce answered that question “never!” The percentages have increased over time, and with age.

In a study funded by HSBC, money was one of five nearly equally rated reasons that people in more than a dozen countries gave for wanting to continue working. The other reasons were to keep mentally stimulated, keep physically active, connect with others, and have something meaningful and valuable to do with your time.

A study funded by Merrill Lynch found that 71 percent of adults plan to work in some capacity post-age 65. Almost half of all those adults never plan to stop working completely. Among those who expect to work in retirement and eventually stop, the average anticipated tenure of their "retirement career" will be over nine years and the average age at which they will stop working completely is over 70.

Yes, people certainly want to work in different ways – with more flexibility and control. Most do not want to work as hard or as long as they are in their 50’s for another thirty years. But most want to work. My latest book, Retire Retirement: Career Strategies for the Boomer Generation, is, as I like to say, my love letter to those of you who are planning for that transition. I hope you find it helpful and encouraging.

So, no argument that most Boomers will need some extra income to match their long life expectancies. Happily, for most, that should not be an issue. For once, wants and needs align.

What are your plans? Have you begun planning for a second career?

I’ve become a big fan of Umair Haque’s blog. (If you haven’t added his to your RSS feeds, I hope you will.) Over the last couple weeks Umair has been leading a lively discussion about “hacking” an industry – in other words, rethinking all the fundamental assumptions upon which the industry is built from the ground up.

Recently, I’ve been thinking a lot about redesigning our organizations – I guess Umair might call this “hacking” the enterprise – because I don’t think incremental change is the answer. We need to question some of the fundamental assumptions upon which our organizations are built.

I’ve already written about one big rethink – the need to switch from defining jobs in terms of hours or time to task-based definitions. For those of you who would like to think about the application of this concept further in your business, check out a newly released book by two people who have tried it, Why Work Sucks and How to Fix It: No Schedules, No Meetings, No Joke--the Simple Change That Can Make Your Job Terrific. The authors, Cali Ressler and Jody Thompson, were the architects of a switch to “task, not time” at Best Buy.

Now, here’s another “hack” idea: do we really need titles?

Today titles serve two purposes – one is to identify to others (customers, colleagues within the organization) to whom they should look for specific actions or decisions. The other is to recognize our progress up the organization.

The first purpose, I think, is vitally important in a “next generation” organization – actually increasingly so. One of the key findings of the research we’ve done on collaboration is that collaboration occurs when responsibilities and roles are clearly defined. A key job of leaders is to sort out who is responsible for what. Leaving this to the group to sort out for themselves, or having loosely overlapping roles – while it seems to many that it would promote collaboration – is in fact highly detrimental. Function-based titles – editor of the company newsletter, manager of the sales team, accountant for the west coast operations – are more essential than ever.

But titles that “recognize” our “progress” “up” an organization need to be re-thought – hacked.

Let’s start with “up.” Many of the employee-related principles in today’s organizations are predicated on the assumption that the employee population is a numerical pyramid – a small number of older people, a medium number of middle-age people, and a large number of younger people. This was an accurate description of the workforce throughout the Twentieth Century. But, the shape is changing rapidly, moving toward a rectangle – an almost equal number of older and younger people in the workforce. As this change occurs, it will become increasingly impossible to move people “up” often enough to provide enough variety and opportunity for increased compensation.

In addition, as we’ve discussed in the past, many younger employees aren’t particularly interested in “up” – they prefer challenge and variety, but don’t care much about managerial responsibility. “Up” is out.

Now, with regard to “recognize” – let’s be real, in many cases, this translates to “cements.” Giving people titles that correspond to organizational levels serves to lock corporations and individuals in – to levels of compensation and assumed prestige – and prevents us from doing some of the things that organizations need and many people want. Moving out of high pressure roles, decelerating at points throughout one’s career. Trying something new that is technically “lateral.” Next generation enterprises need to provide the flexibility for people to step up, step back, move sideways, and try new things – for the good both of the organization and the individual.

Similarly, what is “progress?” Today many people want to define that for themselves – in terms of what they are learning, how much they’re enjoying the journey, or the vision they have for where they’d like to end up. A path of “progress” defined by the organization is a presumption that everyone would like to follow a similar route.

Bottom line: I suggest we define names for tasks, but recognize that individuals will move from task to task, without carrying an organizational title on their backs.

What do you think? Can you imagine this working in your organization? Why or why not?

And what other deeply embedded assumptions do we have about organizations that need to be questioned? What shall we hack next?

I learned something new last week that I just love.

I had the pleasure of being in London during the excitement over the European Football Championships – this year, an all-English final: Chelsea (the team supported by much of London proper) versus Manchester United.

It turned out to be a great game – tied 1 to 1 after regulation, decided in a nail-biting shoot-out, marked by rain, tears, amazing athleticism, and one ignoble fall. Sports at its best. (Manchester won.)

Here’s what I loved. It turns out that the way they decide who will take those final shots at the goal – who will stand out there alone for all the world to see, for a few life-changing seconds, poised on the brink of an indelible future as either hero or goat – is that the coach asks the team who would like to “step up.” It’s a volunteer activity!

Can you imagine – the most important game of the year on the line – down to a do or die situation – and the coach asks for volunteers! “Who wants to step up?”

Not the sort of top-down, “I’m the seasoned coach/boss; I’ll use my greater experience to figure out the strategy” that many business experts would advise. Not a statistics-based, “let’s choose those with the best record and presumed highest probability” that other sports are adopting. But a real bottom-up, “Who’s up for doing this now?”

In this game, at least one guy “stepped up” who had not yet touched the ball all game – came right off the bench for the big moment. (I was so amazed at first that I thought I understood the announcer to be saying that he’d come out of the stands – now that would really be incredible. Can you picture it: fans, jumping down to don a jersey and step up!) But that turned out not to be the case – he was a member of the team and had subbed in earlier in the game for a short time, but never came in contact with the ball. Now, in the limelight, I was relieved when he scored.

Another poor guy stepped up, slipped on the wet grass and missed the goal – not with a block by the goalie – just a humiliating fall. The talk of the town the day after was whether he showed good judgment in stepping up.

And, one of the teams ran out of guys who had stepped up – they were forced to dragoon their last couple players. It’s amazing how much more nerve wracking it felt to know the guy in the hot seat had not really wanted to be there.

So, I’ve been thinking – could we, should we use this same approach in some clutch business situations? Rather than assigning a team to work on the critical product launch, ask who wants to step up? Rather than choosing the team leader, ask for volunteers? Rather than sending the most senior sales person in to negotiate with a key account, ask who is hungry for the challenge?

I personally like the idea. Certainly there are times when I feel more up for the challenge than others – more focused, more personally committed – even better rested.

Are there situations in which you are asking for volunteers today? Will the evolution of corporations toward more horizontal organizational structures give us the opportunity to apply this football practice to business? What do you think?

Who wants to step up?