I got this from my mother, of all places, and I'm very glad she sent it along. While it was extremely interesting, I also thought it was at least 50% wrong.
What is it? An online article from Fortune magazine about Gen-Y workers and how "we're" different. I put that in quotes because while I don't really identify with the article a whole lot, I am in the age group, so I'm likely to be lumped in there.
Also, a disclaimer: there's bound to be more than a few stupid generalizations made by me throughout this post. Please point them out in a kind fashion if you find them. Thank you.
Let's start at the beginning - and I warn you, this is likely to be a long, long post. From early in the article:
They're ambitious, they're demanding and they question everything, so if there isn't a good reason for that long commute or late night, don't expect them to do it. When it comes to loyalty, the companies they work for are last on their list - behind their families, their friends, their communities, their co-workers and, of course, themselves.
From the tone of the post, I read this as the author expressing surprise, or at least written as though it will be news to the people who the magazine is aimed at.
My response? Well, duh. And yes, I realize that this is the dominant cultural norm surrounding work, especially for folks who have personally experienced the 1950s-80s. However, it's no longer a major expectation of anyone I know. Why is there no company loyalty? Because it works both ways - folks I know are fully aware that many companies, especially large ones, don't give a rat's ass about individuals at the bottom of the food chain - and we also know that this lack of care is institutionalized and globalized. Find us a place that cares about its employees, and we're still suckers:
Dorsey recalls the time the president of an engineering firm called a new employee's mother and asked her to be there when her daughter started work Monday morning. "When her mom walked through the crowd, she was like, 'Oh, my God,' and her mom says to everyone, 'I took her to kindergarten, and now I'm here for her first day of work,'" Dorsey says. "The president took them on a tour of the company and explained to both of them why what new employees were doing was so important to the company. And the mom turns to her daughter and says, 'You are not allowed to quit this job. Real companies are not like this.'"
Thing is, this "new paradigm" still leaves in the place the old structure of wages and a hierarchical division of labor - i.e. modern capitalism. So as new as it is, the demands of "Gen-Y workers" are not really radical at all...they are something else. (But what? I'll get to that eventually, I promise.)
Next:
And speaking of fashion, this isn't a group you'll catch in flannel. They're all about quiet kitsch - a funky T-shirt under a blazer, artsy jewelry, silly socks - small statements that won't cause trouble. The most important decorations, though, are electronic - iPods, BlackBerrys, laptops - and they're like extra limbs. Nothing is more hilarious than catching a Gen Yer in public without one of those essentials. Let's just say most wouldn't have lasted long on Walden Pond.
Speak for yourself. The older I get, the more I like flannel, dammit - and this is an example of some pretty bad generalizing, though I suspect it's more accurate for certain demographics (large firms and business majors) than others. Again, my social circle, by and large, isn't really embracing these trends - though it is, I think, aware of them.
On the other hand, this is also a good example of an interesting compromise or concession on the part of "Gen-Y" folks: They keep their quirkiness, but they keep it hidden and willingly conform to the norms of professionalism, or at least some norms. Like the article says, they want to be weird, but they don't want to risk anything. Sigh. I'm not sure I can call that progress in good faith.
When it comes to Gen Y's intangible characteristics, the lexicon is less than flattering. Try "needy," "entitled." Despite a consensus that they're not slackers, there is a suspicion that they've avoided that moniker only by creating enough commotion to distract from the fact that they're really not that into "work."
Not into work? No?! Really? Why in the world would anyone not like work?
Give me a break - though to be fair, this seems directed at old white people who happen to be middle- or upper-level managers and who spent years, if not decades, doing crap-work just to get promoted to a position with meaning. It appears that Gen-Y folks don't like that model. Surprise, surprise.
The catch here is that at least for me, I define "work" as drudgery, make-work, repetitive, etc. I don't mind laboring - ask the grass seed farmers I used to work for - but, like the article says, I can't stand not to end a shift and realize I might as well not have done anything, because everything looks the same as when I started (can you say McJob?). Here's a little secret: Jobs don't have to suck. I promise. Envisioning a worker as someone that can be broken down statistically at corporate headquarters or someone who is essentially a profit-producing robot results in the kind of "jobs" that do, in fact, suck - they don't require any creative thinking or any problem-solving, and they don't result in a feeling of accomplishment when something does get done. For an example of how to organize work in such a way that keeps it meaningful and makes it empowering, see Michael Albert's Participatory Economics.
Moving on:
Of course, Gen Yers have been told since they were toddlers that they can be anything they can imagine. It's an idea they clung to as they grew up and as their outlook was shaken by the Columbine shootings and 9/11. More than the nuclear threat of their parents' day, those attacks were immediate, potentially personal, and completely unpredictable. And each new clip of Al Gore spreading inconvenient truths or of polar bears drowning from lack of ice told Gen Yers they were not promised a healthy, happy tomorrow. So they're determined to live their best lives now.
This paragraph digs at me a bit. My outlook wasn't really shaken by Columbine or 9/11 at all (sorry, I guess I didn't grow up in much of a bubble), and I had a moral/intellectual framework that was flexible enough to respond without freaking out, even then (and for that matter, I know plenty of older folks for whom 9/11 was not at all a surprise - they say that anyone with a knowledge of how the US acts in the world shouldn't have been surprised at what happened). I suppose it is possible that "9/11 changed everything" for Gen-Y, though I doubt it. I think older folks read this into younger folks because it challenged older folks more - their worldviews were more established than someone who graduated HS a few months after GWB took over. It also challenged the dominant media narrative in America, which sort of by default is supposed to reflect the "fact" that "everyone" changed, though I think that's quite obviously wrong.
As for the last couple of sentences...well, again, I'll save that for later. I think there's a large undercurrent running though the article that needs addressed separately, maybe even in a separate post that has to do with the perceived and/or real maturity of "today's youth." In fact, I think I'm going to end this post here; I'll have more to say later.
