How to Manage an Office Full of 20-Somethings

20-somethings

Great article. I think most vital is to talk to and not down to 20-somethings. Chances are they have a lot to contribute!

ramenrentresumes.com of NJ @ Jul 03, 2008 12:22:37 PM

irony

You're all commenting for the office, aren't you? Get back to gchat--you've had enough personal development time.

bob dole of AL @ Jul 01, 2008 12:18:28 PM

A couple quotes from Quarterlifer

1) Give me info. If you don't, then wipe that look off your face when you "catch me" Googling for it. Remember the phrase in math class "When are we going to use this?" The quarterlife corollary is "Why do you need this" If it looks like busy work, and it sounds like busy work, and it smells like busywork, it will be treated as such until proven otherwise. Followed closely by "when do you need it?" "Who are the key players" and "What is the updated list of priority"

2) Priorities. No two tasks can have the same priority. Ever. When you give me another task, assume that it will supersede all other tasks Otherwise, wtf did you interrupt me from the real priority? When I tell you task #1 is complete, don't immediately ask "What about #3?" I will likely "act arrogant" and "roll my eyes" and "think of ways to covertly undermine your success." Thats what I perceive that you are thinking anyway.

3) Acronymania. OMG, srsly? ROFLMAO, I know you've been using the acronym for more yrs than Ive been alive, but if you don't know what it stands for, don't expect me to (care enough to) learn it. In emails, please type it out at least once. Even better, set up an acronym glossary and shoot me a link. YTMND. I will RTFA.

4) Tools and data access. Know exactly what info I need for tool and data access. If I get another email from the IT denying me access bc I identified the wrong data set owner, I will lose that much more faith in you and will be surfing Monster on my lunch break. Don't be shy about setting it up in advance if I am transferred/hired into your group. Oh, thats a pain in the neck?! you don't say?! I wonder how I feel?

5) Crackberry. Oh, ok, kewl, you haz teh internets in ur hand. Now put your toy away so we can talk...please...Oh I'm not listening to you??? Sorry kettle.

6) Inspire. I chose to work at your company. If I don't see the purpose of what my task is and how it makes the company (and esp. me) more money, its just something to do until I "decide to take off early and work from home" today. If I am consistently/relentlessly performing tasks that do not further my skill sets, your competitor will (I will have been surfing their jobs page religiously)

7) Burnout. Do not complain to me about your stress or burnout. You have 3 times the sick days and 5 more weeks of paid vaca. I'm sorry you are having a hard time paying for your Joneses lifestyle and your college aged kids education. My student loans are due, i live in a single income apartment, probably have a roommate. With a 90's era sub-compact, scraping by on Ramen. I'm sorry you are shallow and an enabler. (sry, but not really sry)

8) Instant Awards. Recognizing associates with those "atta-boy" awards won't kill you. Neither will cc'ing me on a positive note about me to your boss.

9) Promotion. Train me to do your job. Chances are, I want it. You won't get promoted until someone can do it. You now have an excuse to say synergy. Its a win-win.

CBus of CT @ Jun 29, 2008 02:57:02 AM

Da Rules

Re: FL's "My philosophy is that if they are good at their jobs & getting the work done, leave them alone & don't harp on internet use or other stupid things just for the sake of "enforcing rules"."

Man, I wish this would work!? Unfortunately, human nature and its need for fairness, namely fairness to the singular self, rears its ugly head. You have a person, regardless of age, who is efficient and highly self-directed who gets their task(s) done well within a time expectation. They then, as you suggest, would be allowed to poke around the internet or call their friends. You have another person, say one who works in the next office/cubicle, whose efficiency is not at a high level. This person looks at the other "fooling around" (when they're just using their time differently since they've completed the assigned task) and they won't be a happy camper.

That person will think it's not "fair" to them. Unfortunately, most companies (like my own) tend to have more of the less efficient folks. I believe that's the case with most companies. So what happens is a mgr spends a lot of time dealing in "fairness" judgements which, unfortunately, makes the most efficient/productive folks unhappy and feeling it's not "fair". It'd be easy to fire the folks that don't get the work done quickly and correctly; unfortunately, they constitute the majority of the work force.

Comme ci Comme ca of NJ @ Jun 27, 2008 11:21:29 AM

Some of the ideas are good, but as a professional 20-something myself, I also think you should explore the idea that you may have just hired some people who are lazy & stupid. I mean seriously, you shouldn't need to hold the hands of your employees like they are kids. My philosophy is that if they are good at their jobs & getting the work done, leave them alone & don't harp on internet use or other stupid things just for the sake of "enforcing rules". But if they don't get the work done & they don't do it well, fire them. It's not their generation, it is just THEM!

of FL @ Jun 27, 2008 10:45:23 AM

Is 20 the new 30?

I work with some very intelligent 20-somethings and what they see is that the women complain that the men get a pass on things that they don't in the workplace. Today I heard one of our educators say "MPH is a masters of public health for women, it is "my pen*s helps for the guys and they don't even need one". There it is. They want fairness, male to female-speaking. So this is where I wonder if we should only hire those old enough and cool enough to know all the words to "Every Picture Tells a Story" by Rod Stewart. It would be a very small company...

madaboutewe of CA @ Jun 26, 2008 23:25:19 PM

To JJM

Interesting point on accountability, but I still put it back on the managers who don't know how to coach accountability effectively.

I've worked with managers who tried the 'tough love' approach - and were unsuccessful. Instead, they experienced a lot of turnover, got a reputation as an inflexible and impossible-to-please boss, and created a stressful work environment where everyone felt obligated to play the 'blame game' to ensure they didn't get viewed as not being accountable.

How will you ensure this won't happen to you if you decide to go in and just expect everyone to 'behave accordingly.' What's your definition of good behavior? Are you sure everyone on your staff is aware of this definition? And lastly, why is your definition the right one? It goes back to my original post above - you can instruct on accountability all you want - but until you coach it, the results will be poor.

J.T. O'Donnell of NH @ Jun 26, 2008 07:48:21 AM

Just sayin...

I can't affod to throw anyone "into the deep end without their floaties" and wait to see if they sink or swim. My clients expect an excellent work product. We can't tell the clients that we missed a deadline because our employees wasted company time on Facebook instead of doing the research project they were given to do. My reputation and the reputation of the firm I work for depend on our ability to deliver results to our clients. I imagine this is true for any industry. Therefore, I expect the employees, 20 somethings included, who work with me to listen carefully, follow instructions, and understand the task at hand (and if they don't, to ask questions). In other words, do their job. I cant' afford to wait to be pleasantly surprised by an employee "autonomously solving a problem more efficiently than I expected" after they've "screwed up" on numerous occasions. I don't have time to babysit my assistants (especially the younsters, in my experience); actually, I don't get paid enough to babysit some of these brats (see, Britney of OK).

Granted, some of the young people I work with are very hard workers, willing to listen carefully and learn. Nonetheless, even the hardest of workers in this age group lacks experience (tech/internet/social networking "saviness" aside). This isn't surprising, as they haven't been in the workplace very long. The smart ones are rather humble, put their noses to the grindstone and gain the experience they need to succeed. The not-so-smart ones (definitely a minority, at least in my experience) have a strange sense of entitlement (see, Britney above), an extraordinary, in your face, ego, and are greatly lacking in maturity (once again, sorry Brit). These are the ones that, unfortunately, will encounter difficulty in their climb up the ladder. Wake up kids.

In respect to the list, I have to agree with JW on one point. If you have to rely on a list from a magazine in order to better your management skills, pack your bags.

My advice, forget the lists, stop pandering to the immaturity of some of your young employees and hold them accountable. If you wouldn't tolerate your 40 year old employee checking out the posts to his My Space page, then don't put up with that from the 20 year old. Stop trying to find ways to "relate" to them, stop trying to create play "groups" and "causes" for them. If they can't see the "bigger picture" for themselves, maybe they need to take their whiney behinds and excel elsewhere. Simple. Someone in an earlier post mentioned treating younger employees as peers. Excellent advise, when I get into work tomorrow, everyone will be 39 and expected to behave accordingly.

Oh, and somebody fire Britney.

JJM of NJ @ Jun 25, 2008 23:02:05 PM