Tempering My Millennial Rage

During the past few years I have grown increasingly weary of millennials and their insistence that management kowtow to their unrealistic expectations with the hope of possibly motivating them to perform their job at an acceptable level.

Here is a recent example.  A column published by Ragan Communications entitled "How to manage a millennial, according to a millennial" in which a 20-something schools readers on why we have to "go the extra mile to pay a few compliments to get the results we're looking for."

I'm all for complimenting a colleague when the performance warrants it and I certainly recognize the importance of a positive and supporting culture.  Yet, this "gold star at the end of the day" millennial mentality merely creates an environment that celebrates mediocrity.

Enough...please!  If demanding an employee invest the time, energy and effort to improve and master their craft is old school, then call me grandpa.

In fact, Strategic Communications Group (Strategic) adopted a blended staffing methodology in part because of how tiresome it had become identifying, hiring, motivating and retaining millennials.  The return simply wasn't worth the time and aggravation.

Yet, I've begun to rethink my perspective on this wayward generation.  At Strategic, we employ two rising stars who have demonstrated a willingness to truly invest in their professional growth and development, and (most important) recognize that this is their responsibility.

We also recently added an account assistant to the team based on a mutual understanding she'll need some time to get up-to-speed.  I've been incredibly impressed with how she has appropriately questioned our senior team about Web 2.0 tools, content strategy and social media best practices.

And finally, I received this Email from a millennial-aged corporate marketer who I met a few months back through a valued client.

Hi Marc,

I hope you have been doing well! I have been keeping up with your blog posts on FedBizDaily and have used your suggestions within our organization.

I wanted to write you and say again how thankful I am for having the opportunity to meet you. I took the advice you gave me to heart and made sure I was not just the "Twitter girl" at our company. Currently MANDIANT's Klout score is at 54, 10 points higher than our competitors! There is no doubt in my mind that our social media efforts wouldn't be nearly as successful without you taking time out of your day to meet with me and give me some truly helpful advice. I have told Meredith how thankful I am for her having introduced us and hope she has relayed those sentiments to you.

Once again I want to thank you and hope both you and your company have continued success.

Best,
Helena

My reaction:  Mandiant is fortunate to have such a polished and professional manager in their marketing organization.  Yes, the compliments in her Email are appreciated.  More important, Helena understands how to cultivate a relationship. 

That's a skill that will serve her well as her career continues to progress.

Time's Change Agent Takes a Bullet

Without unwavering executive support, it's a lock that a change agent will take a bullet happily fired by a bureaucratic and dysfunctional employee base resistant to change.

It happened to Michelle Rhee, the former chancellor of the District of Columbia Public Schools system.  While the wisdom of her grandstanding on the cover of Time magazine was questionable, Michelle had moved admirably to shake up academic administrators and teachers who had collectively failed to educate a majority of the students under their watch.

The union cheered as Vincent Gray defeated Washington, DC mayor Adrian Fenty (Rhee's boss), setting in motion her resignation.  It's back to the status quo for DC schools.


The most recent change agent to be burned by a top level executive with little stomach for follow through is Jack Griffin, the just fired chief executive of Time, Inc.  Even worse, Griffin's now former boss -- Time Warner CEO Jeffrey Bewkes -- thought it wise to give Griffin a lashing in an Email sent to employees announcing his departure.

Jack Griffin

My only knowledge of the environment at Time created by Griffin is through media reports and it appears his style and personality ostracized employees.  Yet, he was an outsider brought in by Bewkes to shake the organization free of the morose and dated thinking that has plagued many publishing operations.

When hiring Griffin a mere five months ago, Bewkes had to know that there was going to be outcry from long-tenured staff, as well as the departure of certain senior level executives. 

Change agents are suppose to cause change, right?

Shades of Gray with Former Employees

It is well accepted in executive ranks that it is poor form to speak ill of a former employee.  This sin creates a negative work environment and leaves those around you pondering how they might be trashed should they elect to move on.

This guidance is easy to follow with high performers.  Yes, there are feelings of disappointment and loss, yet you are ultimately thankful for their contributions to the success of the organization.

The picture is less clear though when it comes to the mediocre and those who have been asked to move on.  While it's best to refrain from comments that could be perceived as a personal attack, there is risk in failing to acknowledge the shortcomings of a former staffer.

For starters, it potentially creates the impression that you are out of touch with the day-to-day pulse of the company.  Most workers recognize the weak links and can be frustrated by management's inability to act.
   
Granted, a termination clearly demonstrates that ineffective performance won't be tolerated.  But, what about a less than stellar employee who chooses to resign?  Should an executive refrain from acknowledging what everyone else already knows?

There is also the issue of lessons learned.  I've personally experienced this one. 

Years ago, a senior level staffer was unsuccessful managing client engagements.  This person moved on and perhaps the sole value they imparted on the organization was a collection of things not to do.

How do I share this failure to enhance our success today?  We're a small business...everyone knows who I'm referring to.

Corporate decision-making is defined by shades of gray.  It's easy to make a sweeping policy statement like "never bad mouth a former employee."  Yet, in practice, policy can be tough to follow. 

Clients and Culture

There is a marketing agency principal I know who brags to prospects that he missed the birth of his second child to handle a client requirement.  He uses that anecdote to illustrate the commitment of his firm.

Over the years, I've been asked in three competitive review situations whether I mirror that level of client intensity.   To this I always agree that my competitor is committed...or, in my opinion, should be.

In our new business presentations, one of the initial topics we address are the principles that guide client representation and business decision-making at Strategic Communications Group (Strategic):

1.  Great work for great clients.

2.  An unwavering belief in work/life balance for our professional staff.

These principles are obviously related, and the second is reflected in our ultra-flexible work environment and management of team resources based on a 40 hour work week.

While I do translate for a prospect why these business principles produce a better outcome and ROI for their social media marketing campaigns, it is an unconventional approach to invest time in the sales process talking about us.  So, why do it?

Every (and I mean every) client/agency relationship has its share of stresses.  PR consultancies, ad shops, marketing providers or other professional services firms that state its clients are always a true pleasure to work for are either delusional, full of s**t or both.

There are going to be disagreements in strategy and execution, breakdowns in communication that impact the work product and misaligned expectations.  In many ways an effective professional relationship is comparable to a successful marriage.  It takes compromise, mutual understanding and (in some instances) forgiveness.

That's why I talk about what is important to us in a client engagement at the initial meeting.  Yes...we're passionate about the clients we represent and appreciative of the opportunities they afford us to deliver great work.

Yet, we never shirk from standing true to our core beliefs.  And we recognize that we're not an appropriate fit for every client.

 

Paranoia for Culture

I always enjoy quiet moments with colleagues during an informal lunch, prior to the start of a meeting or while on travel. It’s a great opportunity to momentarily put aside client requirements and stresses, and focus on what is important to them professionally.

Last week, I joined two co-workers at a new client kick-off meeting in Atlanta. We had about 20 minutes to chat before diving into the agenda and an interesting employee relations issue came up in which I described my mindset as one of “healthy paranoia.”

I wasn’t referring to a concern about a treasured employee leaving the firm or a 1099 consultant severing the relationship. And I certainly did not imply that I have some Orwellian desire to monitor the online activities of Strategic Communications Group’s (Strategic) staff.

Rather, my healthy paranoia centers around the self-inflicted pressure I feel to bring into the agency interesting and challenging social media marketing assignments, while remaining true to Strategic’s two core principles: 1) great work for great clients; and 2) an unwavering commitment to work/life balance.

I’ve written in this blog about the flexible work environment we have embraced at Strategic. It empowers our team, and has helped create an environment defined by performance and accountability.

Yet, culture creation lingers in my mind as a concern. Sure, there is plenty of daily interaction via social and electronic channels. However, we simply don’t physically spend time with each other as often as your typical office environment.

Is this a problem?

It may very well be if you put credence in an article in the current issue of BusinessWeek entitled “The Importance of Connecting with Colleagues." Here is one particularly telling paragraph:

Researchers at the University of Pittsburgh reveal that encountering a stranger on 10 occasions instead of five makes us find that individual more attractive, intelligent, warm, and honest. By extension, showing up in person to a meeting rather than dialing in may be more important than we realize. The same goes for attending optional gatherings, keeping your office door open, and communicating in person rather than over the phone.

I’m currently thinking about how Strategic can be more proactive in organizational culture building, without forfeiting the freedom and flexibility afforded by our work environment.

Stunner from Zappos

Features, functionality, speeds, feeds and, of course, price are all important considerations when a person makes a product or vendor selection.

Yet, most business transactions are ultimately conducted by two people. The personal connection is critical for commerce which is why social media can have such a profound and positive impact on an organization’s success. It makes the process of personal connectivity more scalable.

Zappos is a company I have long admired (and purchased product from) for their ability to align corporate culture with customer and employee satisfaction. I also stand in awe at how this culture has been effectively promoted via social networks.


A recent article in TechCrunch turned me on to an excerpt in Inc. Magazine from Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh’s new book entitled “Delivering Happiness: A Path to Profits, Passion and Purpose.”

(Photo: Tony Hsieh, Zappos CEO. Courtesy of WWD.com)

This is a fascinating read about the pressure on Hsieh induced by Zappos’ board of directors which ultimately led to the decision to sell the company to Amazon. Here a couple of paragraphs which have stuck with me:

As the economy deteriorated, the appraised value of our inventory began to fall, which meant that even if we hit our numbers, we might eventually find ourselves without enough cash to buy inventory.

These issues had nothing to do with the underlying performance of our business, but they increased tensions on our board of directors. Some board members had always viewed our company culture as a pet project — “Tony’s social experiments,” they called it.

I disagreed. I believe that getting the culture right is the most important thing a company can do. But the board took the conventional view — namely, that a business should focus on profitability first and then use the profits to do nice things for its employees.

I do agree with Zappos’ board that a business exists to generate profit and return for its shareholders.

However, I am truly stunned that they failed to recognize that the company’s success in a commoditized market was greatly influenced by its culture, as well as the articulation of that culture via social media.