Multigenerational Team - Essay Example

?Project Team Performance: How to Harness the Best of a Multigenerational Team Introduction There was a time when employees were expected to work up to a certain age, and then opt for retirement to live off their nest eggs. During the economic boom, long time employees are even offered early retirement packages, in order for the company to make room for a younger, more agile and technology-oriented work force. The incoming personnel would normally find themselves interacting with co-workers about their age or just a generation older, and would experience few problems that deal with differences in perception due to age. Partly because of the recent economic recession that eroded the savings and asset values in which their retirement funds were invested, older workers who would have retired instead find themselves extending their employment beyond the time they had originally planned. As a result, the employee mix in many organizations is comprised of a wider age range than a decade ago. The multigenerational team has always existed in one way or another, but of late project performance has tended to suffer because of erroneous perceptions concerning the conduct of team members. The challenge to management (and the aim of this essay) is to understand and appreciate the various generational behaviours and values, in order to plan how managers may realize the intended project synergy. Understanding the Generations Present realities in the workplace have generated interest in various issues which have until recently been rarely heard of: i.e., differences in perception among generations, familiarity with new technologies, behaviour with regard to authority, and divergence in the use of written and oral language. There has been much debate concerning the existence of intergenerational differences, if such are truly significant to merit particular attention, or if the perceived differences are merely misconceptions caused by stereotyping. For forward looking managers, success may be achieved only in a work environment that supports the different generational concerns and work styles (Manhertz, 2009, p. 2). Many organizations throughout the world have realized that their staff may be categorized into four distinct generations, namely: Generation Y (Manhertz, 2009) or Nexters (Durkin in BHM, 2004), 29 years old and under; Generation X (Manhertz) or Xers (Durkin), 30 to 44 years old; Baby Boomers (both Manhertz and Durkin), 45 to 63 years old; and Traditionalists (Manhertz; Buahene & Kovary, 2007), Veterans (Durkin), or Mature (Morlan & Gelbtuch), 64 years old and over. To each of these groups are associated certain attributes which, barring stereotyping, appear to characterize the individuals belonging to them because of their psycho-social development and the unique history of their generation. This is because human beings form a set of insight, intuition, and knowledge in relation to sensory stimuli that exist at the particular time and place. Persons belonging to the same generation will generally be exposed to the same environmental stimuli and may therefore form, to some extent, the same set of attributes (Bell, 2008). For instance, Nexters believe that hard work and goal orientation lead to the realization of their dreams; thus, they work best with leaders who are highly goal-oriented. For Nexters, managers should be sure to definitively articulate their goals, both personally and those of the organization. Nexters need to have a clear image of their role in the team and the firm. The next group, Xers, form the majority of the work force and are beginning to assume the reins of management from the Baby Boomers. They are adept, resourceful and clever, sufficiently versed in the new technology and combining it with their growing work knowledge. According to Durkin (BMH, 2004), Xers “seek instant gratification and have a huge need to succeed, while at the same time striving for a balance in life and work. This generation works to live instead of living to work.” Baby Boomers, on the other hand, were the original inventors of the 60-hour workweek. This is the generation which define themselves through their careers. This group finds difficulty in understanding why Xers are not intimated by authority and who view work as “just a job”. Finally, the Veterans as a generation have a wealth of experience but are generally resistant to or threatened by change; they prefer to rely on time-tested methods that may be viewed by the younger generations as time-worn and obsolete. The strong points of Veterans are that they are thorough and industrious, and need to be appreciated for their dedication and the respect with which they address authority. This generation values any recognition, respect and honor accorded their good work (Durkin, in BMH, 2004). Hierarchy and Authority Matures are loyal to institutions and respect authority; Gen Y is loyal to people and respect veterans. Baby Boomers push for team work and equity, but challenge rules. Gen X dislikes micromanagement, see rules as dynamic and authored by individuals rather than institutions (Morlan & Gelbtuch, 2010). Personal and Work Time Matures prefer flexible work schedules; Baby Boomers are concerned with the hours devoted to each project, without considering productivity. Gen X desire to control their career paths, personal career paths and their time and place of work. Gen Y has a strong need for work-life balance and seek a sense of gratification and fulfilment in their career (Morlan & Gelbtuch, 2010). Preferred Communication Matures have mastered interpersonal communication skills in the time computers were not yet invented. Baby Boomers also feel face time is important, but must be followed up in writing. Gen X and Gen Y put less importance on face time. Gen X seeks open communication without regard to status or hierarchy, and Gen Y favors anytime-anywhere communication while looking for their supervisors’ approval and positive reinforcement (Morlan & Gelbtuch, 2010). The three diagrams preceding are drawn from Morlan and Gelbtuch, and depict the differences in behavior and values of the generations in a continuum. The diagrams comment on the attitudes of the generations towards hierarchy and loyalty, personal and work time, and preferred communication. Elements of project team performance A project team is a specialized work unit that works closely and intensely on a time-bounded activity with a specific goal. The team is comprised of members who perform different and specialized tasks which, when well coordinated and integrated, attains the objective of the project with time and resources efficiency. The task of project managers is therefore to create a strong and collaborative work environment that could achieve project results on time and within budget (Buahene & Kovary, 2007). Even without considering the generational divide, the matter of optimizing and measuring project team performance is itself a broad and complex area of study, if only for the fact that the nature and composition of teams vary widely, as well as the kinds of projects they address. In the course of addressing these wide differences, Crawford and Price (n.d.) have developed a methodology that aims for the continuous improvement of project team performance. Two principles are given emphasis in this methodology: (1) the need for a supportive environment, and (2) that the process will remain sustainable only to the extent that it is owned by the teams and individuals tasked to perform it (Crawford & Price, n.d., p. 291). As the cornerstone principles suggest, a holistic approach is necessary in order to secure the commitment of the people accomplishing the project. Crawford and Price described their framework (see figure below) as involving “individuals, working in project teams, on an ongoing series of tasks, to develop and improve project management practices, which are maintained, updated, and disseminated through a certified Quality Management System (QMS).” (p, 291). In fine, the quality management system is that which integrates all elements in the project management process in a holistic approach that engages the persons at their jobs, as individuals and as members of a team, to ensure quality performance in project implementation. The difficulty in the team setting that is not encountered in organization-wide management is that in the achievement of a particular goal, the team should address its task both as a unit and as a group of separate individuals. The key is to making both aspects work together. The challenge is therefore how to put together a team structure that maximizes teamwork while allowing for the members to exercise a measure of independent discretion. At the same time, the team manager should, much as a symphony conductor, always be available to provide guidance, foresee the emerging results, point out the correct direction, and ensure the team’s effectiveness in attaining the ultimate goal (BMH, 2004). Inspiring peak performance in the multigenerational project team Considered separately, the problems pertaining to either project team management on the one hand, or the multigenerational work relations on the other, could be complex and involved as all human relations situations typically are. Doubtless, therefore, the combination of the two may well be expected to lead to entirely new dynamics in interpersonal relations, with the potential of creating both synergy and discord. In a multigenerational team, the sources of both cordiality and conflict may lie in the dissimilarities in personalities caused by age gaps. As the generations vary in their expectations and behaviour, they also differ in their attitude towards teamwork. All generations contribute and at the same time learn much from team environments, albeit in different ways. Of all the generations, Nexters are those most attuned to teamwork as this has been their orientation in school. Veterans prefer large teams with clearly defined roles and rules that are consistently enforced. Baby Boomers must be provided with meaningful roles because they have the urge to prove themselves and sometimes override what is best for the team. On the other hand, Xers need the opportunity to learn and grow, seek coherent goals and crave the opportunity to substantially contribute to the team’s end result. They need to have well defined and coherent goals (Durkin in BMH, 2004). Aside from dealing individually with the generations, it is important to also set the proper parameters for the work in a manner perceived by all team members to be fair and objective. The salary range should be attached to the job, to dispel any perceptions of unfairness according to age. Furthermore, benefits packages should not be adjusted to conform to different age groups, although it is a good idea to tailor rewards and benefits according to the preferences and needs of each generation. Xers and Nexters will relish time off for themselves or to spend with their families (Xers will generally be young parents who crave time with their children), while Veterans and Baby Boomers will appreciate a plaque or award. This type of reward system is in the nature of “generation sensitivity” (BMH, 2004); for organizational benefits to be a positive motivator they must cater to either the generational need of the individual for financial protection as well as quality-of-life concerns (Gladwell, Dorwart, Stone & Hammond, 2010). Morlan and Gelbtuch (2010) admonish project managers to deal with multigenerational project team members on a generational basis. Their approach includes: 1. The understanding that everyone is right, and that the differences lay merely in perception. Beliefs and values are persistent and may never change, or if so very gradually, therefore managers must work with team members as they are. 2. A manager could develop the habit of asking; simple questions such as “If you were in my shoes, how would you handle the situation?” may yield much insight into the motivations of the other. 3. Finally, showing commitment by keeping a continuous and open dialogue exhibits to team members their leader’s “good faith effort to work with rather than against differences (Morlan & Gelbtuch, 2010). Finally, this study would be remiss if it did not explore the strengths of a multigenerational project team as a source of competitive advantage. Most literature treats the presence of four generations as a problem in project management; while that may be so, much is to be said about the opportunities such a team generates. Intergenerational differences that may cause discord are also sources of competencies that allow the team to comply with a broader range of environmental demands. Many HR professionals have known the worth of experienced, older workers and in many cases have opted to retain seasoned employees rather than accept new applicants. On the other hand, younger employees have an affinity for the new technology and an openness to change. Fink (2010) emphasizes that a multigenerational project team can be made more resilient when the team leader creates the opportunity for team members to share their abilities with others. Mentoring programs, for instance, provide the potential for the transfer of critical skill sets and job knowledge transfer to take place among the generations. Older team members can mentor younger members to transmit practical knowledge and insight garnered through experience spanning decades. Younger members can guide older ones along the intricacies of the new data and communication media. Through this approach of creating channels of positive interaction among the team members, the team leader is able to maximize the benefits of their divergent interests and work styles, and in the process integrate the team as a unit while acknowledging their differences. Conclusion Fink (2010) described the problem quite well by highlighting the dilemma faced by employees today. In a 2010 survey of business leaders, it was found that 68% of respondents admitted to laying off employees during the past year, with 58% stating that their firms have no teambuilding or talent retention program. Consequently, their former project teams (where such were present) had been disbanded and new ones had to be formed out of the personnel retained. Many times, this required combining individuals of different age ranges. The manager is therefore tasked to balance the needs and working styles of the four different generations in the team, to be able to motive each member to perform at his best (Fink, 2010). More than this, however, the team manager has the unique opportunity of developing a stronger project team by capitalizing on its members’ diversity. The paradigm of Crawford and Price recognizes the importance of the individual as integral with those of the team, the organization, the task and the practice in generating quality performance. Ignoring the uniqueness of the individual or subordinating his interests to what may seem the more important interest of the team or organization is a mistake in judgment, because the individual worker provides the motive force that enables the entire machinery to work. What is important, in addressing the peculiarities of a multigenerational project team, is for the team leader to keep in mind that a “one-size-fits-all approach” is no longer responsive to today’s needs. It would be more productive for the team, and the organization, if the manager prioritized the individuals comprising the team, that the unique needs of each generation should find support in the policies and leadership style of the team manager, so that their unique capabilities may find an outlet in the execution of the project plan (Messmer, 2006). Wordcount = 2,500 Bibliography Behavioral Health Management (BHM) 2004 “A Generation Gap Could Fracture Your Team: Don’t Let It Happen.” Behavioral Health Management, Mar/Apr 2004, Vol. 24 Issue 2, p35-37 Bell, E E 2008 “Exploring employee perception of the work environment along generational lines.” Performance Improvement, Oct2008, Vol. 47 Issue 9, p35-45; DOI: 10.1002/pfi.20032 Buahene, A K & Kovary, G 2007 “Leading a Multigenerational Project Team,” Project Times: Perspective, Education, Community. Retrieved 20 March 2011 from http://www.projecttimes.com/project-teams/leading-a-multigenerational-project-team.html. Crawford, L & Price, P. (n.d.) “Project Team Performance: A Continuous Improvement Methodology”, World Congress on Project Management. Digital Equipment Corporation. Paris, France, pp. 291-299 Fink, S B 2010 “Take the multigenerational approach to a resilient workplace team.” Communication Briefings, Oct 2010, Vol. 29 Issue 12, p9-10 Gladwell, N J; Dorwart, C E; Stone, C F; & Hammond, C A 2010 “Importance of and Satisfaction with Organizational Benefits for a Multigenerational Workforce.” Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, Summer 2010, Vol. 28 Issue 2, p1-19 Manhertz, H. Jr. 2009 “The Generational Divide: Crucial Consideration or Trivial Hype?” Achieve Global: Developing the 21st Century Workforce. Achieve Global, Inc. Tampa, Florida. Messmer, M 2006 “Managing a Multigenerational Workforce.” National Public Accountant, Oct 2006, Vol. 5 Issue 5, p32D Morlan, C & Gelbtuch J B 2010 “Multigenerational Teams and Their Impact in Project Management”, Community Post. Project Management Institute, 23 April 2010. Retrieved 20 March 2011 from http://www.pmi.org/eNews/Post/2010_04-23/Multi-gen-Teams-And-Impact-in-PM.html Read More