As of the morning of the event, my husband had no idea when and where they were to meet - and he was getting stressed. "What is the matter with these kids - why haven't they sent out any information?"

"Hmmm," I said. "Have you checked your cell phone? They're unlikely to send out an email. They'll text you when its time to go."

"That's impossible," he responded. "My cell phone hasn't been charged in months. You know I don't use it."

"Well then," I said, "I don't think you're going on the outing, since you'll never get the info. Don't you ever read anything I write?"

* * *

Recently a woman came up to me after one of my lectures for some help in settling a parenting dispute. Her husband was refusing to give their teenage daughter a cell phone package that included texting. The daughter was understandably distraught.

I weighed in on the side of the daughter, reassuring the mom that texting was a completely normal mode of communication for teens today and an important way for the daughter to stay connected with her friends. In fact, as I've discussed before, it allows teens to move from planning to coordinating their activities - to move from making arrangements in advance to making them in real time.

Whether you're a teen, or an adult trying to synch up with today's teens, having access to texting capabilities is a critical communication link.

And, by all means . . . keep your cell phone charged.

* * *

What are your favorite stories about communication patterns and preferences in your home or work environment?

Based on my research on leadership - on the capabilities that business leaders will need over the next decade - I've concluded that what's required for business executives is quite different from the capabilities that we've focused on in the past.  I suspect the same is true for political leaders.

Future leaders in all spheres will have to contend with an environment that is complex in many dimensions - a world with finite limits, no easy answers, and the sobering realization that we are facing significant, seemingly intractable problems on multiple fronts. 

Thinking along these lines has drawn me back to the work of Ronald Heifetz, a professor at Harvard's Kennedy School, who argued that a different type of leadership is required to tackle complex contemporary problems as opposed to routine problems.  The latter require expertise (e.g., knowledge and experience), while the former - what he calls "adaptive" problems, such as the complex issues of crime, poverty, and educational reform, and to which I would add sustainable resources, global warming, conflict in the Middle East and a number of others - requires both innovation and the consideration of values.

To that end, Heifetz encourages future leaders to:

• Consider how individuals' differing values influence their views and behaviors. (Remember the discussions in previous posts of how a business situation - say, an offer to relocate - might look very different to a Boomer and an X'er based on different values?  This is an example of considering values as part of your leadership approach.  Neither is "right" or "wrong" - the values are different.)
• Openly acknowledge the complexity of the issues head on, without attempting to minimize the difficulties involved.  Research has found that ignoring or oversimplifying complex challenges does not work, in large part because of the stress it places on the organization.  Leaders need to wade in and grapple with complex issues. 
• Avoid authoritative (top-down) solutions.  Instead, shift responsibility for problems from the leader to all the primary stakeholders.

Regarding the last point, in "Political Leadership," a classic article co-authored with Riley Sinder, Heifetz pointed out that we have come to accept and expect an approach to leadership in which the leader supplies all the answers.   In contrast, Heifetz and Sinder call for a future form of leadership that provides a context in which all interested parties, the leader included, can together create a vision, mission, or purpose they can collectively uphold.

Leaders able to guide organizations through the complex conditions of this decade will have to become adept at:

• Rejecting absolutes - getting comfortable with the idea that there is no final "right" analysis of events that tops all other analyses, no single rationality, no single morality
• Avoiding expressions of power or dominance - eliminating the language and metaphors of combat and practices that are designed to reinforce the hegemony of one group over others
• Celebrating differences - acknowledging both that there is no reason to grant anyone special significance or value and that the existence of differences are vital to arriving at a full appreciation of the issue and its possible outcomes
• Recognizing one's own built-in bias - acknowledging that your view and the other guy's are both ideology, rather than absolute truth, and are therefore necessarily partial and incomplete.

With that in mind, here are my criteria for evaluating tomorrow's world leaders:

• Has this individual demonstrated an ability to appreciate the validity of multiple points of view?  (Perhaps "flip flopping" should be viewed as a plus, if it represents a considered reflection of multiple perspectives?)
• Has this individual left open the eventual co-creation of a solution?  (Perhaps a pre-set policy should be a minus?)
• Does the candidate avoid authoritative statements and categorical solutions?  (Perhaps being will to listen to multiple points of view should be a plus?) 
• Does he try to simplify complex problems into crisp sound-bite solutions?  (Perhaps we should we wary of any answers that sound too easy to be true?)
• Can the candidate set the context for innovation:  strong relationships, willingness to acknowledge disruptive information (to hear "bad news"), and the ability to ask smart questions?

And I have a follow on request. The editors at Harvard Business Review have suggested that I write an article for corporate leaders on practical approaches to making corporate life better for Gen X. I’m not asking for examples of how corporations have created undying loyalty or any utopian extreme – just constructive ways that organizations have made your work experience better.

Interestingly, as I read all your posts, I think only one out of the nearly 500 offered a comment along these lines (not that I’d posed the question in that first post). One of you said that your company used an assessment process designed to identify your personal strengths and match you with a job that would use those strengths – and that this process made the work experience significantly better.

I’m looking for this level of specific suggestion – programs, approaches, or other ways your corporate leaders have contributed to creating a positive work experience for those in Generation X. If you have an example to share, I’d be delighted to have you post it here, letting me know if you’d be willing to talk with me in further detail. My goal is to develop a dozen or so great case examples of companies that are doing things right.

Thanks in advance for your help.

I guess my assessment is that we collectively end up settling on names that don’t have a strong negative connotation (like the Me Generation or Slackers would) and we resist names that are too narrow – focusing on only one aspect of the generation. That’s why I suspect various other names for Gen Y haven’t really stuck. Millennials speaks to their births spanning the turn of the century; NetGen addresses their comfort with technology.

But, let’s agree that Generation Z would be just plain awful. We can do better. Please, let’s not use that for these poor kids.

Here’s my suggestion: The Re-Generation, or Re-Gens for short.

I think the Re-Generation has a number of appropriate associations:

Reality – This generation will come of age in a world that is grappling with some difficult, inconvenient truths. They will form a mental map based on a world with finite limits and no easy answers.

Realists – Theirs will be a generation of pragmatists, raised by their down-to-earth Gen X parents to consider trade-offs and long-term balance.

Restraint and Responsibility – Necessary postures for them to adopt

Renewable energy, Recycling, Reducing carbon emissions, and Resource limitations – Challenges they will face

Self-Reliance – Their X’er parents’ dominant trait, along with Resentment that older adults have been poor stewards of our world

Recession – Hopefully not something they’ll face throughout their formative years, but demographics alone make it likely that economic conditions over the next decade will be more conservative than the upbeat decades past

Rethink, Renew, and Regenerate – The challenges for this generation

What do you think? Will that name work?

For those of you with children in the under-13 age group, ask them how they’d feel about being part of the Re-Generation.

Many of the dominant traits of a generation are formed when its members are early teens – roughly ages 11 to 13. This is when children tend to shift their attention from figuring out how tangible objects work, to making sense of the events they see in the world around. This is when they wrestle with concepts and ideas, fit the pieces together and work out in their own minds what matters. What their overarching life goals might be. Where their own life priorities might lie.

Individuals who are 11 to 13 this year are seeing a world that I suspect looks substantively different to them than the world did to 11 to 13 year olds over the past fifteen or so years.

This year feels different. Our optimism is being doused with the cold water realization that we are facing significant, seemingly intractable problems on multiple fronts. The inconvenient truths of the past half century are settling around our shoulders, and the preteens of today are not unaware of these issues or their complexity. Today’s 11 to 13 years olds are forming a mental map based on a world with finite limits and no easy answers.

• Most 12 year olds are very aware that the polar ice caps are melting and the march of the penguins is slowing to a halt.
• They know why the family is vacationing in the backyard this year and understand that the high gas prices are related to diminishing global supply of a commodity that has, in many ways, become the ubiquitous lubricant of American society over the past seventy years, since our trek to the suburbs began in the 1940s.
• Many understand that other resources are limited, as well. Their geography lessons have given them a sense of the vital role water plays in politics and our future.
• Whatever they or their parents think about the war in Iraq and the Middle East in general, it’s likely that they have absorbed the complexity of the situation. I doubt they’ve heard anyone offering simple, quick solutions regardless of the direction in which one would prefer to head.
• It would have been almost impossible for them to escape the phrase “housing crisis,” even though few, I suspect, understand how such a disaster came to be. Home ownership, an icon of past generations’ goals, suddenly looks less worthy, now a risky proposition.
• And they have not missed the messages regarding layoffs and challenges to U.S. corporations. The Clydesdales are now owned by the Belgians?

Although they almost certainly don’t know this, demographics support a view of continued tough times ahead – the number of big spenders is decreasing. Boomers are moving out of peak spending years, replaced by a group that is both smaller and more conservative in their spending habits. The economic conditions over the next decade are likely to be more conservative than the upbeat decades past when Boomers where fully engaged in the accumulation of worldly possessions.

This new generation has been swaddled in reality. They’ve been weaned on reality TV – not the “we can do it” optimism of the Boomer’s Mickey Mouse Club, the perky interpretation of shifting family structures of the X’ers Facts of Life, or the Y’s glamorous escape into the unreality of 90210 – but the images of real people, like you and me, taking on big challenges – typically in pursuit of the new Great American Goal: $1 million.

Virtually all in this new generation are parented by X’ers – a generation renowned for self-reliance and self-sufficiency – rather than Boomers. A generation that, like the Boomers, is devoted to its children, but one, I suspect, as parents, often provides a more structured child rearing experience than many Boomers did and are less inclined to compete through their children.

The children of Generation X have undoubtedly absorbed to some degree their parents’ frustration with the economic hand they’ve been dealt – poor job markets when they began their careers, high housing prices when they bought their first homes – and their general disenfranchisement with many existing institutions.

Perhaps they’ve heard their parents’ growing resentment that Boomers have been poor stewards of our world – got us into wars we can’t win and failed to prepare us for the century we face: not providing an adequate educational foundation, making no significant investment in alternative energy, adopting a combative posture toward global partners, in an increasingly collaborative world. A desire to be less short-sighted and slow to react to the issues of limited resources I suspect will be an important priority for the new generation.

Being 11 to 13 in 2008, means you were born in 1995-1997. That, I suspect, will turn out to be the switch point – the cut off for Generation Y and the beginning of the new generation. This is will be a generation of Realists, of Pragmatists. Truth, Finite Limits, Conservation, Tradeoffs, Balance – these, I suspect will be themes of our newest generation.

For those of you with children in the under 13 age group, I invite you to listen to the impressions they’ve been forming. I’d love to have you share what you hear.

What is this new generation likely to be like? Let me ask you to imagine you had no previous impressions of the world – you had never before noticed what was going on around you – you were working from a clean slate. And, you looked up to observe the events of this year. How would this world look to you? What conclusions would you draw about what your life priorities should be?

Peter succinctly outlined the demographic issues that we were then facing: rapid shrinkage in both the numbers and proportion of young people in country after country around the world and the need for what Peter called “non-traditional” work relations: flexible schedules, contract arrangements, and virtual teams.

As a result, he believed that our corporate operating models were headed toward a radical redesign. The growing complexity of the workforce – the need to juggle a wide variety of individuals with diverse preferences and needs, and resultant dizzying array of relationships between businesses and those who perform work – drove Peter to predict that before long, line managers would turn over responsibility for long-term talent management to some type of central staff function. It would simply become too complicated, the arrangements too varied and difficult to track, and the entire process too time consuming for individual line managers to tackle.

In Peter’s vision:

• The workforce would be composed predominantly of knowledge workers in a diverse array of work arrangements – some part-time, some cyclical, some employees, some contract-based

• These people would not need “managers” in the traditional sense – they would manage themselves, but they would need a home base

• A staff function, perhaps an evolution of the then-human resources function, would serve as the “home base” for the corporation’s workforce – attracting, tracking, developing and orchestrating this complex talent corps. Like staffing managers in professional service firms or talent agencies in the film industry, this new talent management function would help connect the right people with the next challenging job.

• This staff function would be judged on its ability to supply the quality and quantity of ready talent to meet the business’ needs. To fulfill the role, the function would evolve toward “line-like” authority over the workforce.

Meanwhile, traditional line managers would evolve to roles more similar to program managers or film directors – setting direction and running the team of employees who have been assigned to the task or division at that moment in time.

Clearly we’re not quite there yet, but, as usual, Peter’s clear vision paints a picture of a world that is looking increasingly likely. Already a number of progressive companies are reassessing the HR operating models – in many cases, laying the ground work for a more active and creative role in talent management.

Where do you see the future responsibility for talent management residing in your firm? How has your capability for talent management evolved over the past several years?

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?

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.

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?

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?

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 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?

The past ten years have been particularly interesting. The Internet has moved from a niche oddity – the turf of specialists and kids – to a pervasive reality in both our business and personal lives.

Look at the last decade.

1998

Google is founded. Let me say that again – Google was founded only 10 years ago! Today, with Google’s advanced algorithmic breakthroughs and the competing frenzy of innovation by Yahoo!, Microsoft, and Amazon, useful Web search is the norm. Rather than ending debates with "well, that's your opinion," facts can be settled in seconds.

Digital Subscriber Lines (DSLs) are introduced for consumers in California, providing the first high speed access to the Internet in homes. Over the next decade, spotty and slow Internet access gives way to ubiquitous, always-on broadband connections for both businesses and individuals.

The first members of Gen Y – the first “unconsciously competent technology users” – graduate from high school. Most of them do not remember the first time they logged on to a computer -- it was before conscious memory.

1999

Everquest, a “massively multiplayer online role-playing game” (MMORPGs) is introduced, changing computer games from feats of individual dexterity to extended contests of strategy and reputation development.

Business jargon expands to include terms reflecting the fear of “brick-and-mortar” companies “getting “Amazoned.”

Jack Welch declares the Internet to be the greatest change in business in his lifetime and orders GE’s 12 units to integrate internet technology into their business plans.

The Melissa Computer Virus shuts down email systems worldwide; creating instant recognition of how dependent business has become on this tool.

2000

Y2K turns out to be a non-event, but, as companies prepare, executives recognize that many IT programs are outdated and unwieldy. A shift begins to construct programs out of smaller building-blocks of code.

Dot.coms “crash,” but not before they have installed a significant Internet infrastructure.

PayPal is founded, extending online purchasing capability to millions. Over the next several years, consumer attitudes shift from not trusting ecommerce to buying comfortably over the Internet.

Over 250 million participate on the Internet – about ten times as many as just two years earlier

2001

9/11. Businesses respond to the attacks by decentralizing data and servers.

First Weblog publishing system, Movable Type, is founded, giving individuals the ability to create and publish online.

Business models to “rent” sotfware are developed. “Software as a service” allows rapid, low-risk experimentation with new applications rather than the massive, time-consuming “buy” decisions and implementation processes of the past. Technology disappears as a barrier to the execution of virtually any strategy or idea.

iTunes is formed, opening the door for millions to experience the personalization of their entertainment.

2002

Wikipedia begins, demonstrating the power of crowd collaboration. A new generation of so-called Web 2.0 Internet-related technologies — including social-networking sites and folksonomies, as well as wikis — make it possible to collect, store, and employ non-transactional information (i.e., conversations, wisdom, and know-how). Companies expand beyond sharing only episodic information and millions of users - not just early-adopters - enthusiastically participate in online communities.

Sarbanes-Oxley introduces new requirements for data security. Again, companies are required to confront the challenges posed by legacy systems, hastening the shift to newer models.

Second Life is founded, bringing virtual reality out of the realm of science fiction and into the everyday lives of millions of middle-aged explorers.

Only half of all men and a third of all women in the workforce say they would want “more responsibility” if it were offered to them.

2003

My Space is founded.

Skype is founded.

The first college educated members of Gen Y enter the workforce, bringing new technology habits and enthusiasm for rethinking how work gets done.

2004

Google goes public.

Facebook is founded.

2005

YouTube is founded.

A study finds that 37% of all professional women drop out of the workforce at some point, typically in their thirties.

The fastest growing course in MBA programs is entrepreneurship.

2006

Over 1 billion are on the Internet

Economists estimate that the lines between supply and demand of workers in the US cross – the US moves into what is expected to be a sustained talent shortage.

The first Boomers turn 60

You are Time’s Person of the Year.

2008

Shortages of technically skilled talent in Europe have doubled since 2005 – 16% of all positions are vacant.

10% of the U.S. workforce are teleworkers

2010

The size of the European workforce is expected to begin a multi-decade decline.

And, although it’s hard to predict exactly how, the other thing we can say with some certainty is that the way we get things done in 2018 will be very different than the way to get things done today.

If you’d like to explore the latest and greatest in business technologies, the Enterprise 2.0 Conference, billed as the largest and most important gathering for the people ready to reinvent the way work is done, will be held in Boston on June 9 – 12.

What do you think the next ten years will bring?

The Enterprise 2.0 Conference organizers are offering readers of “Across the Ages” a discount of either $100 off the conference pass or a free demo pavilion pass. The following URL is hard-coded with the discount; it will be automatically applied when you click on it. http://www.enterprise2conf.com/?priorityCode=CMBMEB20 I hope you’ll be able to attend.

As those of you who’ve read earlier posts know, one of the things that makes a group of people a generation is that they share a common location in history and the experiences and mindset that accompany it. These shared experiences tend to shape a similar set of beliefs and behaviors.

Another interesting wrinkle: teen boys and girls may focus on different events and reach different conclusions. For example, when challenged to identify the most important news of the 20th century in a survey conducted by USA Today in 1999, men and women pointed to dramatically different events. Men chose the dropping of the atomic bomb in 1945 as No. 1 and Japan bombing Pear Harbor in 1941; women named the 1928 discovery of penicillin and the Wright brothers’ first flight in 1903.

Commenting on these survey results, Deborah Tannen, author of You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation, said that the varying responses reflect her view that men "approach everything through the war template" while women "focus on people and what's happening in their lives." John Gray, author of Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, attributed the differing results to biology and hormones. "The male is the protector," Gray said. "The female is the nurturer, taking care of the family, interested in health and social issues." Hmmm . . .

Well, regardless of the explanation, I’d love to know what you remember and how you think it influenced your view of the how things work. Which events had the biggest impact on you? How did they cause you to assume the world worked? What priorities did you set for your life, as a response? Do you think Gen X men and women formed different impressions?

Gen X’ers were teens in the 1980s and ’90s. Some of the key events of this period in history are described below.

The conflict in Vietnam ended when Gen X’ers were children: North Vietnam took Saigon in 1975. As teenagers, X’ers saw:
• Gorbachev begin “glasnost” in 1985
• Berlin Wall fall in 1989
• Soviet Union dissolve in 1991
• Apartheid end in South Africa in 1993

This was a time of rapid progress in science and technology. Some of the events had a bit of a “brave new world” feel. The first “test tube” baby was born when X’ers were children and pre-teens in 1978. As teens, Gen X saw:
• The deadly AIDS disease identified in 1981
• Chernobyl nuke plant explode in 1986
• Scientists clone sheep in 1997
• Pathfinder send Mars photos in 1997

Information technology was particularly at the fore. By the time X’ers became teens, Gates and Allen had started Microsoft (1975) and the Apple II had become the first mass-marketed PC (1977). As teens and young adults, X’ers saw the rapid development of the World Wide Web, beginning in1989.

The social fabric was changing significantly during this time, as well. For the first time, women were entering the workforce in significant numbers. The percentage of women in the workforce during the time Gen X’ers were teens rose from the mid-30 percent range to nearly 60 percent in the United States. For the kids, there was virtually no infrastructure in place to support this move—few day care centers, no nanny networks or company-sponsored child care. As a result, the Gen X children became the first generation of “latchkey kids”—home alone many afternoons, often depending on friends for both companionship and support.

The entry of women into the workforce was hastened by the significant increase in divorce rates. X’ers living in the United States saw divorce rates among their parents skyrocket from the low 20 percent level when they were young to over 50 percent by the time they were teens.

Teenage X’ers also witnessed a significant increase in adult unemployment, as corporate restructuring dramatically revamped any concept of lifetime employment. Most teen X’ers knew some adult who was laid off from a job that he or she had planned hold until retirement.

And, finally, there was the Monica Lewinsky scandal, culminating in President Clinton impeachment hearings in 1998.

How did these events influence your views of how the world works and the choices you are making today?

For more on Gen X see: 10 Reasons Gen Xers Are Unhappy at Work

I was by no means alone as I entered the professional workforce in the 1970s – women were joining in significant numbers. Nor has my progress over the years been solely or perhaps even largely my own – many individuals, including many senior men, helped pave the way.Today, when we reflect on women’s role in business, there is a lot to feel good about:

• Women's wages have risen in all states over the past 20 years.


• Salaries of college-educated, full-time female employees in their 20s have surpassed the same-aged males in major cities like Chicago, Boston, Minneapolis, Dallas and New York. In New York City, these women earned 17 percent more than their male counterparts; in Dallas, this gap jumped to 20 percent.


• In technology, female CIOs, chief technology officers, vice presidents and directors earned 1.4 percent more than male IT executives.


• Female entrepreneurship has been growing at twice the national average since 1997. One in every 11 adult women in the U.S. owns a business.


• 58% of all U.S. college graduates are women, and the imbalance is growing. Almost half of all graduate degrees are earned by women and lines will soon cross. Expectations are that the education gap will widen.


• Over half (50.6%) of all managerial, professional and related positions are held by women. This is a higher percent than women represent in the workforce overall (46%).


• 15% of all Fortune 500 corporate officer positions are held by women (2007) as are 15% of all Fortune 500 corporate board seats.

There are valid arguments for frustration:

• The average full-time woman worker does not make as much as the average man in any state. At the present rate of progress, it will take 50 years to close the wage gap nationwide.


• Thirty-seven percent of professional women are leaving the workforce – fewer than half are ever returning to full time jobs.


• Today, some of the best and brightest undergraduates matter-of-factly opt for stay-at-home motherhood over a career. Forty-three percent of women between the ages of 21-25 say they would prefer to be home with children full time.

No big mystery – research has long shown that many of the norms of our industrial-age organizational cultures are unwelcoming to women and make it more difficult for women to succeed.

However, recent research has highlighted two factors that I believe are very encouraging for the future:

1. The same factors that make the workplace difficult for women make it almost equally so for men.

2. The same factors that make the workplace difficult for women discourage many of the behaviors companies are desperately trying to create today: collaboration, innovation, commitment.

Why is this good news? Because these insights should give every sensible corporation the will to change, based not only on a desire to make the workplace attractive to women, but also to make it more conducive to men and to the behaviors we are striving to achieve. Reshaping our view of work, creating what my colleagues and I call a “next generation enterprise,” is important for women, for men – for innovation – for team work.

And, the progress women have made gives us a substantial voice in the change. Remember, over 50% of all managerial positions today are held by women – and 15% of executive roles.

We are at a tipping point.

So, no time to rest on any laurels. The next challenge looms ahead – to reshape corporations – to make them better places for our daughters – and our sons – and ourselves. You battle-scarred veterans – women and men – who have opened the doors of opportunity, have given today’s young women the confidence that they can achieve whatever they choose. Now, let’s give us all humane workplaces that are worthy of being chosen.

I’ll be speaking at the Business and Professional Women’s National Employer Summit, “Women in the Workplace: Our Next Challenge” on June 20, 2008 in Washington, DC. I’d love to see you then. For more information, go to: http:/ /www.bpwusa.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=4750.