60 minutes (10 minutes for reading the case individually, 20 minutes for small-group discussion, 30 minutes for debriefing)
Work L P, D
1. To learn some values and behavior differences between generations
2. To apply information about generational values and norms to a workplace case study
• Case Study: Age Differences Handout
1. Provide each participant with the case study “Age Differences” handout and give the group ten minutes to read it.
2. Provide participants with additional information about generational differences as appropriate (see the three handouts in Activity 17, “Generational Values,” pages 63–66).
3. Place participants in small groups of 4–6 and ask them to discuss what actions Sandy should take.
4. Bring the groups back together and ask them to share their solutions, looking for areas of commonality and difference. Where differences occur, explore why groups (or individuals within groups) took different approaches and look for how each approach could be helpful.
1. What happened during the small-group discussion? What conclusions were easiest for the group? Hardest? Why?
2. How did you feel about the discussion? Why? Did any individuals have more influence than others in the discussion? Why?
3. What generational values came into play in the case study?
4. What strategies might Sandy employ to motivate C Team?
5. What personal values made this activity easiest or hardest? Why?
6. What did you learn?
7. How can you apply what you learned to everyday work life?
1. Generational norms are not stereotypes—please don’t use them that way.
2. Personal experiences and role responsibilities in the workplace can affect the way we respond to this case study—and to real work situations.
3. Understanding generational differences can provide us with an additional resource as we seek to resolve work situations and to reduce cross-generational conflicts.
4. There is no one “right” answer to any work situation. Rather, collaborating across differences, including generational differences, can help us identify a range of options.
© Executive Diversity Services, Inc., Seattle, Washington, 2000.
Sandy Katzenbacker has just learned that due to a merger and reorganization, she and all of the other midlevel managers in her company must reapply for their jobs. Sandy has survived downsizing before because she always meets or exceeds her sales targets—until this year, that is.
Sandy manages five sales teams. All but one of those teams has failed to meet its goals this year. Sandy has tried many standard management methods to boost the lagging team’s performance: pep talks, cajoling, challenging, and the like. Now, with the announced reapplication process a little more than a month away, the pressure is on to get the nonproducers turned around. Sandy has decided to examine the strengths and weaknesses of the teams, beginning with the highest- and lowest-performing teams—A Team and C Team.
A Team (the best performers) is made up of people who thrive on competition. Some members are high achievers. Turnover is almost nonexistent. All members seem to understand that they could not do as well working alone. They work hard and put in the long hours necessary to continue their success. Politically, they are sharp. As a team they know how to look good for upper management and how to make Sandy look good too. They are well networked throughout the company and often spend off-hours doing things together.
C Team is not producing at all. Its members seem to be constantly fighting among themselves. They often fight with members of the other teams, too. The team has high turnover, and the changes in membership don’t bring about improvements in performance. Their battles seem to revolve around work assignments, hours worked, technology, and interpersonal relations. Two new members are real “computer geeks.” They have no patience with the older members of the team, who seem to them to be reluctant to “move into the twenty-first century.” The two geeks are notorious for coming in late, leaving early, and refusing overtime. They don’t follow directions, which generates a variety of reactions from other team members. In addition, others complain about their rudeness, defined as typing e-mails when others are trying to have a serious conversation with them.
This pair complains that some team members are too rigid, wanting to do everything by the book. They (the older members) want all transactions to be in person or by telephone and refuse to leave or return voice messages. They also do only what they are told and offer no ideas for doing things differently. Their motto seems to be “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” These older, “rigid” folks always show up on time and go the extra mile when necessary.
The remaining members are good individual performers but are judgmental and intolerant of others. They bring complaints directly to Sandy instead of to their team leader, alleging that the newest team members have a poor work ethic, terrible interpersonal skills, and a “What’s in it for me?” attitude. They also complain that these new workers always want to change things faster than anyone could adapt to while the older workers want no change at all.
As a first step toward solving these problems, Sandy meets with the leaders of both teams simultaneously. Her assessment causes the A Team leader to gloat and the C Team leader to explode. “It’s no wonder A does it right. They’re Boomers. You’re a Boomer, too, but I’m not, and my team is different.”
Sandy realizes that what C Team’s leader is saying is true. Nearly all of the members of A are in their forties and fifties, and they generally do what they’re told and have years of experience with the company. On the other hand, C’s members are a mix of generations. Those who hate technology are generally the oldest members of the team, while those who love technology and feel most comfortable using it are the youngest.
What would you suggest that Sandy do?
Adapted from Generations at Work: Managing the Clash of Veterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters, copyright (C) 2000, Performance Research Associates, Inc., Ron Zemke, Claire Raines, Bob Filipczak. AMACOM, a division of American Managment Association, New York, NY. Used by permission of the publisher. All rights reserved.