The problem with Millennials - it's the data stupid
- Summary:
- We're awash with data on Millennials but some of the inferences don't make sense.
There are an increasing number of studies that purport to know the mind of the Millennial and go on to identify characteristics of that cohort. The data often appears conflicting and the suggested solutions to perceived problems sometime borderline bizarre.
The problem I see comes in three parts:
- Most of the data is silent on determine cause and effect yet conclusions are readily drawn and generalized.
- There is no account taken for cultural differences. These are often swept aside in the name of generalization.
- There is precious little by way of qualitative data. Such data as is used doesn't always relate to this cohort.
If the goal of better understanding any cohort data is to form policies and practices that match business and personal need then we're going to have to be a whole lot better at understanding the data and creating appropriate solutions.
Millennials (also known as the Millennial Generation[1] or Generation Y) are the demographic cohort following Generation X. There are no precise dates when the generation starts and ends. Researchers and commentators use birth years ranging from the early 1980s to the early 2000s.
Pew Research, an oft quoted resource frames the time period a bit differently. It prefers birth between 1981 and 1997.
If we take the more or less agreed 1981 date then that means the oldest people in this group are 34, the youngest between 14 and 18. Unless they have been very fortunate to have run a successful startup - think Mark Zuckerberg (aged 30) - then almost none of the people in this cohort are industry leaders. They are not therefore in a position to wield the kind of power that brings change. Instead, we have to look at an older generation.
When you look at those at leaders in large businesses there is a broad age range from mid-late 40s to mid 50s. Examples in technology which we are told tends to favor younger people include Marc Benioff, CEO Salesforce (50), Zach Nelson, CEO NetSuite (54), Bill McDermott, CEO SAP (53), Satya Nadella, CEO Microsoft (47), Vishal Sikka, CEO Infosys (47), Aneel Bhusri, CEO Workday (49), Ginny Rometty , CEO IBM, (57). A very small number, like Warren Buffet continue well past the normal considered retirement age. An equally small number, like Marissa Meyer, CEO Yahoo (39), Larry Page, CEO Google (42) and Elon Musk, CEO Tesla (43) are just outside that Millennial cohort.
As I look around the business landscape I observe that many of these people do not get to the 'top of their game' until they are somewhere in the 40-43 age range. This is the point where they have acquired enough knowledge and skills to take on those top jobs in a sustaining way. There are always exceptions. Zuckerberg is one, Michael Dell is another but they are just that, exceptions.
So while these leaders may have a close affinity to Millennials, they are not of that generation. They're the Gen X crowd. As leaders, they are driven by an agenda that is dominated by the need to continue meeting the needs of their masters, the financial markets. Going back to what Mark Hurd, CEO Oracle (58) recently said:
This is what CEO’s care about. Most of the time you’re thinking about survival. You have zero friends and investors? Well, nobody cares about you. They only want your performance. Make me money and if you don’t do it fast we’ll get the next person in line to do it. It’s about execution. It’s in the head of everyone who’s in the corner office. Its the reality.
They may also talk about changing the world for the better but the financial imperative is what counts. Prosaically, Millennials are not so far apart from that line of thinking. The Workforce 2020 survey conducted on behalf of SAP found:
In fact, while there have been millions of words written about how different the Millennial is, in reality they’re remarkably similar to everyone else: they want decent compensation, they’re no more likely to quit their jobs in six months than anyone else and they just want a decent work/life balance.
That 'feels' about right as a broad brush set of statements. A much larger study that is freely available at universum provides fresh perspectives. Critically, this research identifies geographical diversity that so far is rarely discussed and groups questions in a manner that elicits a different kind of response to what you might think. Check this finding:
Notice the significant differences in geographies along with the effective weighting given to the possible answers.
So when I read that:
This interest in achieving a better work-life balance is particularly true of millennials. A recent survey found that nearly half of respondents in every region said they would give up a well-paid and prestigious job to gain better work-life balance—with spending time with family ranked among the highest of priorities in every region surveyed.
I go duh? The data used comes from the same report but there is nothing in THAT data to say that it is 'particularly true for millennials.' What it actually says is:
Recent research by Universum shows that while work-life balance continues to be important, it’s not necessarily a critical aspect of work (it could be an aspiration or “nice to have” rather than de rigueur )...
So while it’s clear work-life balance scores high on the list of Millennials’ priorities, it’s less clear whether it trumps other important factors, such as pay or opportunity for promotion. To say nothing of the difficulty of defining work-life balance, which in recent years has been associated with everything from fewer work hours, flex time and virtual work opportunities.
We asked specifically what Millennials thought “work-life balance” means to them. The answers were very interesting. Overall the dominant definition was enough leisure time for my private life (57 percent), followed by flexible work hours (45 percent) and recognition and respect for employees (45 percent).
And as we have already seen, the data varies across regions, something that is very difficult to take into account in multi-cultural communities like those in the US and UK in particular.
The question in my mind then becomes more nuanced. If we are to create the most effective work environments, then to what extent can we develop policies and strategies that recognize the very different aspirations of different sub cohorts? What is driving the answers across geographies? What about gender difference in answers? To what extent can our systems support the diversity we see across geographies? What systems will we need to make that a reality?
We need more and better studies of the kind published by universum. Equally, we need to dig beneath the surface to better assess the reality rather than conjecturing about what makes a better workplace and then force fitting examples to an agenda that on the surface sounds sensible but which caters for no-one.