It has been said that Generation X is the most ignored, misunderstood, and disheartened generation our country has seen in a long time. No one can define who belongs to Generation X. While most agree that there is a generation after the Boomers, no one agrees on who it is. In a September 23, 1996, article in USA Today, six experts defined Generation X, each with a different answer. They ranged anywhere from those born between 1961 to 1981 (78 to 85 million) to those born between 1965 to 1976 (46 million). Although Generation X appears to be the accepted term, other labels have been applied. William Strauss and Neil Howe refer to them as the Thirteenth Generation (the thirteenth generation since the founding of our country). Baby Busters and Twenty-something’s have also been used.

One of the most fundamental requirements for effective coaching is the ability to understand others’ motives, values, and goals, not enforcing one’s own on others. A slight variation of the Golden Rule-instead of ‘treating others as you want to be treated,’ coaches should ‘treat others as they want to be treated.’ This means understanding, and accepting, that people are all different. It also means that there is no ‘script’ for coaching-it is different for every person you coach.

The need to understand differences is especially apparent in the ongoing conflict between Baby Boomers and Generation X. These struggles are rooted in the desire (on both sides) to want everyone to be alike. This would certainly make our lives and relationships easier, but it is not based in reality. Of course, clashes between generations are not new. Remember the generation gap in the 1960s between the Boomers and the Silent Generation?

The fact remains that Generation X are the employees in the workforce today; they are the future. They aren’t going away, nor are they likely to conform to the previous generation’s definition of work. Boomer managers cannot continue to ignore Xers’ differences and try to manage them according to their own mindset. This does not mean agreement with a Xer’s attitude but, understanding them to make coaching easier. The better you know them, the more likely you are to have insight to their ‘hot buttons’-what motivates them. And, at the very best, understanding them may begin to remove the conflict and hostility that exists between the generations and will lead to positive actions and results that are mutually beneficial to the individual and the organization.

The problem with generalizations is that they only go so far and stereotyping runs the risk of alienation. There are always exceptions to the rule, those who will say ‘that’s not me’. I can sometimes identify with Boomers and sometimes with Xers (you guess my age!). It is impossible to suggest a prototype for how to coach 46-85 million people. As a start, the generalizations made here are based on a review of the relevant literature and personal observations/discussion with coaches-all with the hope of understanding this generation and offering suggestions on how to effectively coach them. To successfully coach and help Generation X, we must learn what they want, how they feel, and how they view their world.

WHAT WON’T MOTIVATE?

Generation X won’t do things because they have a deep sense of mission, or loyalty to an organization. They have nothing but disdain for corporate politics and bureaucracy and don’t trust any institution. They grew up watching their parents turn into workaholics, only to be downsized and restructured out of their chosen careers. They believe work is a thing you do to have a life (work doesn’t define their life).

During the practice situations in our coaching workshops, the coach will often say-’Your behavior is affecting the company and if you don’t change, we won’t be in business in the long term.’ They raise the company flag and pull out the loyalty line. This means nothing to Xers-it will not capture their interest, raise their awareness, or stir them to new thoughts, feelings, and actions.

Xers have no expectation of job security, so they tend to see every job as temporary and every company as a stepping stone to something better, or at least to something else. They have been accused of not wanting to pay their dues. But, in todays changing workplace, anyone who is thinking about doing a job long enough to pay dues is out of touch!

Because they won’t put in long hours at what they mostly term ‘dead end’ jobs (Douglas Copland coined the term ‘Mcjobs,’) and they don’t exhibit the same loyalty as Boomers do towards an organization, they have been called slackers. However, Xers will work very hard for a job that they believe in, for something that challenges them. In a l995 survey, Babson College Professor Paul Reynolds found that ’10% of Americans between the ages of 25-34 are actively involved in creating a start-up company, a rate about three times as high as any other age group…it should help dispel once and for all the myth that today’s youth are motivationally challenged.’ (U.S. News and World Report, September 23, 1996)

WHAT DOES MOTIVATE?

Value The Individual and Nurture Relationships

Although there doesn’t seem to be one description of Generation X, most will agree that a defining characteristic is that they don’t like to be characterized (as I’m doing in this article!). They don’t want to be treated as a single entity, but want to be looked at as individuals. In addition, this is the first wave of latchkey kids to hit the work force. They are homesick for the home they never had (due to both parents working). Their focus on relationships over achievement is what leads Boomers to complain about their laziness. Isn’t this strong sense of community and personal relationships in the workplace just what we need?

Challenging Work

This generation has sometimes been called the MTV Generation because of their short attention span. Xers want new challenges and the opportunity to build new skills. Training is one of the best motivators. They have a tremendous capacity to process lots of information and concentrate on multiple tasks.

They don’t want to spend a lot of time talking about things or having meetings. They want to get in, do the work, and move on to the next thing. If you’re looking for someone to deliver a report every week, you don’t want a Xer. I recently brought up the subject of understanding twenty-something’s during a coaching workshop. Immediately a manager complained, with a lot of emotion, that kids today don’t want to work and will only stay for a week or so and then leave. Well, the job was very repetitive and offered little challenge. No wonder!

Freedom to Manage Time and Work

Xers don’t want over-your-shoulder, in-your-face managers who constantly check what they’re doing. Perhaps as a result of their latchkey childhood, these young workers are not used to being closely supervised and are remarkably good at working on their own.

Feedback and Recognition

On the other hand, members of Generation X seem to crave time with their bosses and can never get enough feedback on their performance. They may be searching for what was missing when they were growing up. Because of their short attention span, recognition and rewards must arrive quickly. Employee of the month doesn’t do anything for them.

CONCLUSION

The characteristics for which Generation X has received such bad press are the very qualities that make them valuable. We say we want an empowered work force…give Xers the ball and they will run with it…we want a self-directed work force…these workers have been self directed from a very young age…we want computer literacy…Generation X comes out on top…we want flexible, adaptable workers-right on again.

Xers will respond to Boomer managers if they put meaning, into the buzzwords they use so often-empowerment, teamwork, communication. Create an environment where they are challenged by and enjoy their work, where they’re measured on performance rather than on which clothes they wear, where they are informed, included and recognized. Gee, maybe Xers aren’t so different from anyone else!

i m Gaurav Walia. i m good author

Grasp back control and put an end to your hostile workplace this very moment, get Work Laws Exposed right now. You can’t alter a position you don’t like and don’t warrant without having an open mind, believing in yourself, and taking action.

If you were a lawmaker, would you consider workplace bullying to be illegal?

Unfortunately, no laws were made to go against it.

It’s the bullying the causes a hostile work environment. And proving work harassment/bullying is very difficult in court. Being bullied results in health issues such as heart disease, stroke, and long-term stress.

Answer
I would totally make that illegal. I actually dealt with the same issue for over a year at my last job. I even had an investigation opened with HR about it, which basically got nowhere except for retaliation from the bosses. I still have nightmares about that place. No one should have to put up with being treated like that, especially in a professional environment.

Writing in the Equal Opportunities Review recently, Rachel Krys, Director of the Employers’ Forum on Belief, described religion in the workplace as the ‘Cinderella’ discrimination issue saying, ‘No one wants to wade in and get it wrong.’

 

As the number of grounds of unlawful discrimination increases, so does the potential for those grounds to conflict with each other.  So what happens when there’s a clash of interests?

 

An interesting example of the difficulties facing employers is presented in the case of Ladele v London Borough of Islington [2008] and the case has attracted a lot of media attention.

 

Lillian Ladele became a Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages in November 2002. She is a Christian and held the view that marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others. She could not reconcile her faith with taking an active part in enabling same sex unions.

 

Ms Ladele raised objections with her line manager to the carrying out of civil partnership ceremonies. She did not seek to discriminate against homosexuals, but asked her employer to accommodate her Christian beliefs by excluding her from the duties associated with same sex unions.

 

She was told that, by avoiding carrying out civil partnership duties, she was discriminating on the grounds of sexual orientation and could be in breach of the Council’s equality and diversity policy. The parties agreed that as a temporary measure Ms Ladele would not be asked to participate directly at civil partnership ceremonies.  She was told that she would be expected to perform all other duties which arose and were related to civil partnerships. Ms Ladele said she could not accept this and wrote a letter to the Council setting out her reasons.  She did not receive a reply.

 

Two gay colleagues wrote to the Council, complaining that Ms Ladele was not complying with the Council’s Dignity for All policy and was discriminating against the gay community by refusing to carry out civil partnership ceremonies. The Council did reply to that letter. Further complaints were made by gay members of staff. Ms Ladele complained that she felt victimised and unsupported by management. 

 

Matters continued in this vein for about 18 months.  In May 2007 the Council started disciplinary proceedings against Ms Ladele.  She was told that she was required to undertake straightforward signings of the Register and administrative work in relation to civil partnerships.  She did not have to conduct civil partnership ceremonies. They said that if she did not agree to this one possible outcome would be that her contract of employment would be terminated.

 

Ms Ladele complained of direct and indirect discrimination and harassment on the grounds of her religion or belief.

 

Comparing herself with another hypothetical office holder or employee who was protected by the Council’s Dignity for All policy, she argued that a comparator, who relied on another ground of discrimination, would not have been treated in the same way. She had therefore been treated less favourably. In concluding that there was direct discrimination the Tribunal also compared the Council’s treatment of Ms Ladele with that of her gay colleagues. Their complaints were dealt with swiftly, whereas Ms Ladele’s letter was never responded to, and Ms Ladele was disciplined because of her alleged discrimination. Ms Ladele’s religious views were considered discriminatory and were not taken seriously. The two gay colleagues were never questioned about whether they considered their conduct to be discriminating against Ms Ladele.

 

Ms Ladele was further directly discriminated against when her contract was unilaterally changed to include the civil partnership duties. This was never discussed with her and her consent was neither sought nor given.

 

The Tribunal found that the requirement that all registrars were to carry out civil partnership duties put individuals who held orthodox Christian beliefs at a disadvantage when compared with other persons who did not hold that belief. She had therefore suffered indirect discrimination.

 

While accepting the Council had a legitimate aim, the Tribunal considered the means for pursuing it to be disproportionate, particularly as there was evidence that other authorities accommodated religious views and Ms Ladele’s refusal had not disrupted the service.  On the facts, it was established that the Council could have continued to meet the demand for the provision of civil partnerships by simply rostering staff who did not share Ms Ladele’s orthodox Christian views.  Managing the staff rota in this way would not have necessitated any outlay of expense, nor would it have affected service delivery.

 

The Tribunal considered that the Council placed a higher value on the rights of the gay community without protecting Ms Ladele’s rights.

 

It also held that Ms Ladele had been harassed. She had raised concerns which had not been taken seriously. The unfounded accusations of homophobia and the disciplinary process were held to be unwanted conduct which violated Ms Ladele’s dignity and created an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for her on the grounds of her religion or belief.

 

This case highlights the difficulties that can arise when two sets of protected interests are in direct conflict with each other. The Tribunal made clear that one set of rights cannot override the other. The Council’s argument fell down here because it gave little or no thought to Ms Ladele’s rights to protection, other than making a small concession.

 

In order to avoid successful direct discrimination claims employers should seek to treat such conflicting views as equally worthy of protection. The starting position for any employer when balancing conflicting rights should be that all rights are to be valued equally. Any decision subsequently made may be indirectly discriminatory against one protected view but is more likely to be subject to the justification defence. Direct discrimination cannot be justified, but indirect discrimination can, if a legitimate aim is being pursued and the means are proportionate to achieving those aims. This requires a difficult balancing act and will very much depend on the circumstances of each case.

 

Kate Russell, BA, Barrister, MA

Director

Russell Personnel %26 Training

www.russell-personnel.com

 

For more information on avoiding discrimination in the workplace or for advice on other HR matters, please contact Kate on 0845 644 8955 or email kate@russell-personnel.com.

Kate Russell is a human resources expert, specialising in employment law. A qualified barrister, she worked in industry before setting up her own business. For the last 10 years she has headed Russell Personnel %26 Training, working with a crack team of experts.

Kate’s unusual combination of legal training, line management background, and hands-on HR experience has resulted in her being an accomplished advisor and trainer in employment law. She is a charismatic speaker, and her brisk no-nonsense style has earned her the nickname of ‘The Headmistress’ and a reputation for practical problem solving. It’s demonstrated by her robust, down-to-earth application of employment law, balanced against the reality of working life.

Kate is the author of several successful books, and records a quarterly audio update called ‘Law on the Move’.

Take back control and put an end to your hostile workplace this very moment, get Work Laws Exposed right now. You can’t alter a position you don’t like and don’t warrant without having an open mind, believing in yourself, and taking action.

Are women in the workplace protected too much ?

Feminists fought for affirmative action and a lot of security for women in the workplace. Medium companies and up have to keep women even if they do not perform. Could that be the reason that although women get top grades in college (something affirmative action wont get them) and access to the working world they quit performing due to lack of pressure and end up getting edged by the male competition on the career ladder, because men can be subjected to pressure to push them while it would be considered creating “a hostile work enviroment” if the same is done to women ?
Croa and you think the reason women are immune to the lack of pressure and resulting drop in performance the way we saw it in communist countries (yes even glorious german engineers built $hitty cars in the red half of Germany)
is ?

Answer
Do you have any evidence that overall women do not perform well in the work place? There is plenty of pressure in the work place on women and in my experience they preform as well as their male counterpart. The only time I hear about affirmative action, in terms of women, is when questions are posted on this page. Here are some statistics from the Department of Labor and the Department of Justice…”White men hold 95% to 97% of the high-level corporate jobs.”…and that’s with affirmative action programs in place. “Of 3000 federal court decisions in discrimination cases between 1990 and 1994, only 100 involved claims of reverse discrimination; only 6 of those claims were found to be valid.”

In my opinion the concept of affirmative action is being blown out proportion on this page and when askers begin to complain about being turned down for a job because they are men… perhaps they should look at their experience, interview skills, education and references. Perhaps they are one of the few (0.20%) that have been discriminated against but more likely the better person did get the job.

Think of an impending inter caste marriage, and the first thing that comes to mind is a sobbing mother, an angry father and one rebellious offspring. Inter caste marriages in India have long been a reason for familial, and sometimes communal, discord. Seemingly innocuous love affairs have turned into law and order nightmares. All this while, today’s young generation thinks what this religious fuss is all about? The human genome may have been cracked, but understanding an average Indian parents’ DNA still seems elusive. But things are changing for the better. Archaic mindsets are changing; parents are no longer very hostile to an inter caste arrangement. And Dr. Manmohan Singh made this happen. Surprised? Read on.

Love is like water, it finds its own way. Today, we see more intercommunity marriages taking place than at any other time. When Dr. Manmohan Singh opened up the floodgates of our economy in 1991, little must he have realized that his move will also help a thousand flowers bloom in the garden of love? When the Indian markets opened up, new jobs started coming into India. And this led to a large-scale migration of people within the country. You would find a Haryanvi %26 an Iyenagar, a Bengali %26 a Marathi manoos sharing cubicles and hobnobbing at office water fountains. And it included people of the opposite sexes, too. Young hearts and fertile minds, which could survive on love and fresh air, threw issues like religion and caste in the recycle bin. All they were looking for was compatibility and unconditional love.

The new companies that came into India were MNCs, and they brought their professional work culture along with them. That meant reward for good work, irrespective of the gender, and longer working hours. This spelt more opportunities for Indian women and extended time in the office and more interaction with co-workers of the opposite sex. Also, in a new city, an individual is all on his own and very lonely. A few loving words, and a warm shoulder, work like magic and bring strangers closer. Besides, in an unknown city, one tends to grow more adventurous, as the fear of being caught is left back in the old town. Offices became breeding grounds of romance.

Those who could not find love at their workplace resorted to the web. Lunchtimes in the office were spent surfing matrimonial websites. These sites replaced the friendly neighbourhood aunty who would arrive at the doorstep every alternate day with a new proposal. Instead of doing the rounds of marriage bureaus due to paucity of time, people could look for possible matches at the click of the mouse. More than the usual search criteria of religion, these websites offered criteria such as Education %26 Career, Lifestyle, and Location for searching for a life partner. Moreover they enabled a search of potential partners from across the globe. So an Indian in Gurgaon could find a life partner from the US or UK and vice versa. For a nominal charge, the websites provided a platform for people and enabled them to meet people belonging to the same mindsets, rather than religions. Today, websites, like Shaadi.com, have gone a step further and are offering a range of wedding services under one roof. The flowers, the venue, the catering… you name it and they will arrange it, not just in India but even abroad. For the young upwardly mobile generation of Indians with long working hours and globe trotting careers, this has proved to be a real boon. Shaadi.com also has a panel of experts on its website that provide advice on various matrimony related issues. Thanks to the huge choice from across the world and ease of use, not only are the young flocking to these websites but also the older generation and specials cases such as physically challenged people. These websites are coming into their own, and becoming a very strong part of the marriage market in India. By bringing people closer, they are facilitating an exchange of new ideas, thus playing an important role in our society.

Today’s generation is headstrong and, yet, very thoughtful. It doesn’t hurry into taking decisions, but when it makes one, it sticks by it. Economic independence has led to a new boldness among youngsters who are determined to make their own paths and follow their heart and head. Their offspring is the product of people following different religions, and the ‘mixed breed’ grows up in homes where it is exposed to two different ways of life. It has allowed the young minds to imbibe the tenets of different religions, they worship different Gods and Goddesses, they pray with raised and closed palms at the same time. Young minds are like wet cement, they take the desired shape quickly, and it stays that way for the rest of their lives. These children mature quickly, and are more accommodative and understanding when it comes to the issues of caste and religion.

Even today, in India, in educated middle and upper middle class families, a large percentage of marriages are arranged, and mostly done within a caste or community.. The number of intercaste marriages though less, is growing at a fast pace. The 40′s %26 50′s generation is realizing this, and is acquiescing to the wishes of its children, and is happily marrying off their sons and daughters into communities other than their own. The growing trend of intercommunity marriages is likely to have a significant and positive bearing on the social fabric of our society. People coming from such mixed family backgrounds are less likely to create communal disturbances and, in fact, act as shock absorbers in sensitive situations.

India is a land of peace and tolerance. Buddha and Gandhi have walked this land. Followers of different religions, who faced persecution in foreign countries, made India their home, further enriching our society with their new thinking, ideals and culture. The practice of inter caste marriages has a similar effect on the society. This will lead to a more tolerant and accommodative India, an India that is colorful, peaceful and a kaleidoscope of happy faces.

Anish Sapra is a relationship expert specializing in Marriage, Family and Relationships. He has written authoritative articles on relationships and marriage and is currently assisting Shaadi.com and Shaaditimes.com as a Family and Relationship specialist.

Grasp back control and put an end to your hostile workplace this very moment, get Work Laws Exposed right now. You can’t change a position you don’t like and don’t deserve without having an open mind, investing in yourself, and taking action.

Is this Harassment in the Workplace?

I feel that my workplace is hostile with a gang mentality. I’ve seen this particular group torment various employees until they lashed back and were fired as the victims looked like the aggressors. Here’s yesterday’s scenario: I was at a work function and got a piece of pastry. Two guys walked behind me on their way out the door. I said hello to one of them and I heard the other make loud imitations of a pig. I turned around and looked at the guy who did it, and I heard him say to the other one as he looked at me, “She turned around”. I was quite angry and by the way, he’s fat and I’m thin. Do you think that this constitutes harrassment?

Answer
Yes, talk to your boss regarding this incident, also let him know
your thoughts of the overall environment. Sometimes it takes
several complaints, but its better than retaliating and being dismissed.