Generation Z: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Start Loving the Bomb (Part 2 of 2)

In the movie, Dr. Strangelove, the tag line is How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Start Loving the Bomb. It was a way of saying, we don’t need to worry, nuclear destruction is inevitable. What can we do about it? Nothing. So we might as well stop obsessing about it and just enjoy the life we have. This is fatalism by another name. It is a social mindset that in essence, has given up. There is no point in trying to change the world since the fate of the world is predetermined and inevitable. We are small and the enemy is great. 

But a funny thing is emerging with Generation Z. These are those people born between 1997 and 2012.  There are many new players raising their voices against the sins and failures of the preceding generations that will be assuming leadership roles in the new era. The world they will inherit isn’t a nicely wrapped gift with a bow. In many respects, it’s a mess. 

Global climate change is here, even though too many of us lived in complete denial about the scientific data that foretold where we would find ourselves today. The only miscalculation was that it would come around 2050 (not now).

Racism is still alive and well in the United States. Whether it’s police treatment of African-Americans, the rise of anti-Asian violence, the El Paso shooting where Latinos were specifically targeted, or the disparate treatment of African-American congressmen in the Tennessee legislature, just when you think things might be getting a little better, we get a reminder that it’s not going away anytime soon. Time and again, this country demonstrates that it is not ready or capable of having even a conversation about race. Just consider the political firestorm raised around the prospect of teaching critical race theory. 

The social division over gun control pits a minority of Second Amendment purists against those who are sick of the continuous stream of mass shootings. Boomers had to consider that possibility of a nuclear attack that fortunately never came.  However, Generation Z has to consider what to do if people armed with AR-15s come through the school doors shooting up anything that moves, -and this is real.  

And let’s not forget the onslaught against women and bodily autonomy. Another 70/30 issue where a hard-core political minority has managed to effectively threaten the autonomy of all women of childbearing age and younger. 

So who in GEN Z is up for the challenges of this era? Just when you think we're sliding into a void, let's pause to take a look at the GEN Z leaders that are emerging. In their short lives, they have already made their presence felt and changed the social and political landscape. 

• Malala Yousafzai, born in 1997, is a Pakistani activist for female education and in 2014 became  the youngest Nobel Prize laureate ever to be awarded that distinction (at age 17). For speaking out against the Taliban, she was shot in the head fighting for women’s right to receive an education. Today she leads the Malala Fund, a non-profit dedicated to making sure every girl has access to 12 years of education that is free of charge, safe, and high quality. 

• David Hogg (b. 2000) and Emma Gonzalez (b. 2000) were high school students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida in 2018 when a mass shooting took place, killing 17 people. Both went on to become advocates for gun control. David has organized and led national marches for gun control in Washington D.C. Emma co-founded a group called Never Again MSD, -another gun control advocacy group. 

• Autumn Peltier (b. 2004), a name that many people might not have heard, is an advocate for clean water and the environment. Starting at age eight, Autumn has spoken to the United Nations and other world leaders encouraging them to take action to protect our planet. 

• Justin Jones (b. 1995) and Justin Pearson (b. 1995), both democratic legislators in a republican-dominated state legislature interrupted the proceedings to raise the issue of gun control. This coming about a week after 6 people were killed in a school at the hands of a gunman with an AR-15. They were expelled for their actions, but they had the courage to put everything on the line to raise the issue of gun violence in America. 

• Greta Thunberg (b. 2003) led students in protest to bring attention to climate change. She has addressed (and shamed) the United Nations and other major forums for not addressing the global climate crisis and in essence, passing it on to the next generation to deal with. 

• Nadya Okamoto (b. 1998) founded a group (PERIOD) to provide menstrual equity for economically disadvantaged females, advocating for free menstrual products in schools, shelters, and other public spaces. She also advocates for policies that promote reproductive health care, including abortion rights. PERIOD has groups in over 40 countries and has distributed menstrual products to millions of people. 

What can we take from all of this? GEN Z may not have had the World Wars, or the Great Depression,-their challenges are of a different kind, but they are serious nonetheless. Their issues are about social justice, a world where children can be safe from mass shootings in their schools, racial equity, women’s rights, clean water, and the existential threat to planet earth.

We can stand in awe and appreciation of the GEN Z leaders that are taking their place on the national and world stage. GEN Z is turning out to be much more socially conscious. They recognize the impact humanity has on the environment. They don't carry around with the racial animus of previous generations, the do's and don'ts of (racial) social interaction. They accept the diversity of humanity, -not getting snagged on LGBTQ issues and social roles that have traditionally been placed on people. 

In my judgment, this generation is on the way to becoming the greatest generation the world has ever seen!

 

Generation Z: Are We Really Going to Leave the World in the Hands of GEN Z? (Part 1 of 2)

When we think about the greatest generation, we look back upon those Americans who were born between 1900 and the mid-1920s. This generation certainly took a beating with two World Wars, with the Great Depression as icing on the cake. 

 

In his book The Greatest Generation, Tom Brokaw wrote about his trip to Normandy to cover the fortieth anniversary of D-Day, the Allied invasion of Europe that turned out to be the beginning of turning the war around against Hitler. The war stories that are shared at gatherings are almost always about someone else. They rarely reflect on the bravery of the storyteller. It is hard to imagine a generation steeled by the challenges of those born in this period. 

 

The generational differences in our society are very distinct. Every 15-20 years, lines are drawn that outline the unique differences that define each generation. Related to employment and work ethic, to the way we communicate, to the ways we use technology, each generation has a distinct persona. 

 

It is also common to bash the next generation. Just as the subtle message embedded in The Greatest Generation implied that no other generation could ever be as challenged, the Traditionalists (b.1928-1945) looked with suspicion on the Baby Boomers (b. 1946-1964) and their anti-war sentiments, their rampant drug use, and over sexualized rock and roll music. Boomers did the same with the Gen Xers (b.1965-1980). Gen Xers were self-absorbed, materialistic, certainly not loyal to their employers, and they lacked the idealism of the Boomers (they were cynical by nature). 

 

Enter the Millennials (b. 1981-1996). Millennials were criticized by Boomers and Xers for being too entitled. Again, the themes of being self-absorbed and disloyal were bandied about. Because Millennials were so dependent upon technology, they seemed to lack social skills. This generation was also financially irresponsible with all of their student debt. All they seemed to care about was instant gratification. 

 

Now emerges still another generation; Generation Z. Generation Z The criticisms are a mixture of the oldies but goodies along with some new charges. This group is even more obsessed with technology and have even shorter attention spans. This generation has barely know life in the office (due to COVID), they are content to stare into their phones rather than engage with others, and on political apathy, -let’s not even go there. The majority are still living in their parent’s basements. Is it fair to say that our future is in doubt? How in the world is this generation going to take the reigns and lead us well into the mid-21st century?

 

Is this assessment legitimate though? Is it too easy to criticize each new generation that comes along, pointing out their differences and defining them as failures? Why do we feel compelled to make our generation seem like the better one and put the newer generation on their heels, -to make them feel like they have it somehow easier, or that they are cut from softer cloth?

Re-establishing Our Post-Covid Values

As workers are returning to work, the dust settles from COVID, and people have taken their masks off, what's different about the workplace? Society seems to be once again, regrouping and reforming, trying to re-establish whatever we think is the new normal. 

When we were working from home, staying out of social gatherings with friends, parties, celebrations, or simply not going out to eat, we were forced to live a different kind of life style. Some aspects were good for us. We ate out less, traveled less for work, and spent less money. We spent more time with our families and pets. Work was still something we did, but most of us will agree that it was at an easier pace. We certainly weren’t commuting for hours each week.  

On the negative side however, our social connectors were weakened. We missed birthday parties, graduations, weddings and funerals, Christmases and Thanksgivings, and backyard gatherings; the social rituals that remind of who we are and how we are connected to one another.

Now that we are back from Covid for the most part, putting the pieces back together, we have the opportunity to redefine what is important in our lives. We have agency to determine what our post-pandemic life looks like, what we value and want, and what is important and what is irrelevant. We have an opportunity to reflect on our lives and ask ourselves some questions:

• What brings me happiness in life? 

• How will I choose to spend my precious time in order to find joyfulness in life? 

• What activities will I stop doing? 

• Who will I stop associating with because they bring me pain and frustration?

• What is my relationship with materialism? Do I need ‘stuff’ to make me happy?

• Who do I care most about? How can I serve them?

In an organizational context, we’re also re-establishing our relationship with work and the organizations we work for.

 

• Am I going to work as hard as I once did?

• Is my time well-spent in this organization? Is my time meaningful here?

• Does this organization deserve me, my efforts, my sacrifices?

• Does my leader appreciate what I have done here? Is he/she even aware of what I’ve accomplished?

• Do I feel anything for my colleagues (those who are left)? Were we always just a transactional group?

• Will I ever again sacrifice a rare family moment or celebration because of work?

Covert Resistance to Change: Why logical change fails

Leaders, over time, will be at the forefront of many change management initiatives. The changes might be driven by data or a consensus that the market is no longer willing to consume the status quo. So change plans are created and implemented, and the reasons for the change are made clear, but still the organization seems reluctant to come along. If they do, they come kicking and screaming. How is it that a change so obviously needed predisposed to so much resistance?

The problem is that in spite of the logic of the business case for change, which is typically very strong, there are always covert processes that will get in the way. It is a phenomenon that OD practitioners usually pick up on early in their careers, but hugely frustrating for the leaders tasked with dealing with their front-line employees. 

We study change models, change theory, resistance to change, among other things, trying to arm ourselves with whatever we think will get people to move in a new direction, but like a lot of human dynamics however, it’s much more complicated than that. 

Any time a major change or initiative is presented, it immediately triggers subversive forces that can and will impact the journey. Robert Marshal wrote a very insightful book describing what he saw as every organization’s covert forces. These are both conscious and unconscious thoughts deeply embedded within the workforce, but if we fail to recognize and act on them, they will feed the powers of resistance. These include: political challenges, emotional reactions, cultural mindsets, psychology, and inspirational messaging. Because they are so covert in nature, therefore harder to qualify, we usually don’t pay explicit attention to them.  

As organizations, we are much more comfortable in the formal lane of logic and reason. We live here because it’s safe and defendable. We need to change because there’s a window of opportunity that’s closing fast…and here’s the data that makes my case… So while we make our best argument, -based on the logic of any proposed change, the OD practitioner needs to cast a wider net in the planning process. How is the plan going to accommodate the tacit, covert forces that will work against your change?  

• Politics. In the realm of politics and political forces, political scientists use this term realism.  In political theory, realism refers to the notion that people/groups/nations always operate or think in the context of power. When you are trying to understand why an actor acted in the way they did, or predict how they might react to your move, just view the action through the lens of realism. Any proposed organizational change then, will be examined by some groups or individuals within the organization in the context of what the changes will mean for them (and their power). Will they have greater control or power (or less control and power)? The question for change practitioners then becomes how to address and neutralize the power threat that many people are certain to pick up on.

• Emotions. In the realm of emotional dynamics, people confronting change feel real emotions. Again, we are so much more comfortable with reasoned and logical arguments that we want to step over emotions (as if they aren’t really a factor). The problem however, is that these emotions go underground and surface in other ways. Without addressing the emotional losses people feel (i.e. attachments to the traditional ways), it inevitably increases resistance. The OD practitioner should give people an opportunity to express their emotions to the change, whether that is within a team meeting, a focus group, or in a survey, just the act of expression of loss is helpful. These personal and individual emotional circuits are addressed in the Kubler-Ross and Bridges models, but often overlooked. 

So the challenge for the OD practitioner is to acknowledge the emotional blowback that is a natural human response to most proposed changes. How then does the change initiative give voice to the sense of loss that people will feel? When and where do we let people express their feelings of letting go of what was?

• The Vision (see-feel-change). In Kotter and Cohen’s The Heart of Change (2002), the authors point out that even though organizational planners might make a great case for change based on logic and data, they cannot step over the need for a vision that emotionally moves the employees. It is the vision of the future, where life as we know it today will become much better in the new way (i.e., it serves our customers better, it enables the organization to become more competitive in the market, or maybe it makes the workforce more efficient). In essence, you are grabbing the heart over the head. Regardless of the strength of your business case, the change effort needs to grab hearts.

• Covert mindsets. If you’ve ever been involved with constructing a change initiative, let’s say the adoption of a new software program, you inevitably run up against the wall of mindsets that say it can’t be done, it’ll never succeed, etc. These expressions of doubt are natural, but they are coming from mindsets that see the world as it is in its current state with no vision of where the future could take us or where the market is heading (and demanding change). 

Kurt Lewin’s concept of double-loop learning (DLL) is not only an OD practitioner’s tool, it is a change management strategy. DLL enables us to continuously examine and re-examine our assumptions. When the mindsets of resistance are forced to give voice to their assumptions, they also leave the door open to explore those assumptions. The assumptions can be examined, challenged, and hopefully changed when it is shown that the assumptions aren’t etched in stone. 

• Psychology. Lastly, the psychological reaction to change cannot be overstated. I can remember a time in my career when we had to introduce Computerized Physician Order Entry (CPEO) to the physicians at a community hospital. Healthcare had changed and we were actually somewhat behind the times, so there was no turning back or negotiating on this. Watching the physicians go through freak-show-worthy contortions to get out of actually doing CPOE was a study in human nature. Marshak describes this psychological state as a fight-or-flight mentality, and some physicians were so offended by the new system that they opted to retire or at least leave the organization (although there was nowhere to run).

This is a category that is the most difficult since we often don’t fully understand our own deep-seated emotional triggers. Trying to understand other peoples’ emotional triggers is even more mystical. The best we can do is help our leaders to become self-aware of their own emotional intelligences so that they can recognize what’s going on. If we can identify it for what it is, we can also dampen its impact on us. 

The value of Marshak’s work for OD practitioners on the undercurrents of organizational life is to raise up the reality that there is much more going on than meets the eye. Change is ever-present and it only seems to come faster and faster. Gone are the days of Lewin’s unfreeze-change-refreeze model, -there’s no re-freezing anymore. We are always in a constant state of motion. Planning and putting into action change plans need to take into account the covert processes that are in play. 

A Thousand Kisses Deep

The ponies run, the girls are young

The odds are there to beat

You win a while and then it's done

Your little winning streak

And summoned now to deal

With your invincible defeat

You live your life as if it's real

A thousand kisses deep

 

This (2001) poem by Leonard Cohen is about a man coming to terms with the impact of his life and the culmination of what it all means. 

 

When we’re young, and we’re making positive things happen, life is full of love, feelings of accomplishment, families, pride, maybe feelings of invincibility. 

 

But then we move over the arc of our lives; into the September of our years. Everyone who lives long enough will feel this common sense of time escaping from their life on earth. We become aware at some point that there are more years behind us than in front of us. In our reflections, we can’t but ask what we’ve accomplished, what we ever did that mattered, what our legacy will be. Did we lead our best life?

 

The years of our lives that we treasure the most are when our children were young, an abundance of love warmed the house, and the world was ours for the taking. The life we tend to see as our best life is a thousand kisses deep. 

Cultural Assimilation in Large Organizations: Levers of Change (part 2 of 2)

In the previous post on Cultural Assimilation, the point was to not only identify the challenge (cultural assimilation in large organizations), but raise up awareness around the multitude of change levers available to organizations (and OD practitioners).

 

Any strategy designed to integrate disparate organizational cultures that reside under one organizational entity will require numerous sub-strategies, not only put in motion in tandem, but sustained for years, if not longer. 

 

But what are these levers of change? Here are a few to consider:

 

o   Leadership vision – Let’s start with the CEO and the executive team. Whatever they are focused on, the organization will follow. The vision is not a one-time shout out in an email, but truly drinking the Kool-aid and exemplifying the new way continuously. 

o   Leadership communication – If a leader is talking about it, the employees will be talking about it. Cultural assimilation is an ongoing conversation in everything that is communicated. There is never an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ framing of groups within the organization. All leaders need to be educated to the communication themes and held responsible to exemplify the new cultural ideals. 

o   Leadership presence – leaders need to be out and about, not cloistered in the executive suite. Whether it’s leadership meetings or rounding or employee events, leaders set the tone. If they are not on point at all times, they are not helping the cause. 

o   Leadership development – the organization’s leadership culture should not be left to happenstance. Organizations that fail to tend to their leadership development opportunities will get what they deserve, -a leadership culture that is all across the board. The leadership culture will be that there is no discernible leadership culture. It is the wild west of leadership. 

o   Change management – Is there an official organization-wide change management model? Does everyone understand it and know how to put it in motion? Do leaders know what to look for? Do they know how to talk to resistors?

o   Performance management (PM) – unfortunately, PM has too often become a perfunctory HR process where no one seems to understand the strategic potential of an active PM model. PM is effective when it brings everyone together around common goals and objectives, rewarding those who support and meet those goals, -not rewarding those that are not meeting the goals.

o   Talent management/review – organizations can be all over the place on talent management, but when an organization reviews its talent, decisions are made regarding whether leaders are properly placed, if they can take on greater responsibilities, or if they should be moved out of leadership altogether. The criteria then, needs to be such that leaders who exemplify the characteristics of the unified cultural organization are rewarded, those that don’t, aren’t rewarded. 

o   Succession planning – succession planning in this context is different than talent management in that the former refers specifically to a vertical ascension to a critical role, with learning and specific experiences planned out for strengthening the bench. Within the context of cultural assimilation then, the level of change is to promote those who are ambassadors for the new culture, and consciously not placing those that aren’t ‘getting it.’

o   Talent acquisition – Another often overlooked lever of change is the ability to identify the characteristics that the new organization needs and sourcing candidates accordingly. How connected are we when it comes to sourcing key attributes among candidates? Flexibility, diversity, change/agility, collaboration, resilience, and communication to name a few. 

o   Rewards and recognition – For all employees, calling out those who are engaged in activities that promote the new cultural identity, celebrating their activities, writing about it in the company newsletter, etc. is another level of change. Acts of selflessness between departments and employees, new friendships, interdepartmental rotation assignments, quality improvement sharing ideas, are all opportunities to re-form the narrative. 

o   External branding – this is done to some degree, but probably on a shoestring budget. Examples could be signage, external communication, marketing, uniforms, community outreach and events; all represent ways to establish the new identity. 

o   Quality model – this missed opportunity gets lost in the dust, but one unified quality improvement model represents a new and common language for everyone.

o   DEIB – One common and unified strategic plan for promoting DEI&B standardizes an expectation and cultural brand to all current employees and potential candidates. 

o   Orientation – a standardized onboarding process sets the tone on day one. From the first moment an employee begins their employment, they are ready to be imprinted to the new way. The organization must seize this opportunity.

o   Onboarding – the way an employee experiences the first 1-12 months of employment should be universal across the spectrum. Is there a Mentor or ‘buddy’ connected to the new employee, helping to set a mindset oriented to the new ideal culture? 

o   Employee development – whatever the organization can afford to do with  investments in this lane, there is a huge opportunity to personalize specific messages across all entities. Within every learning module or event, there needs to be messaging that is reflective of the ideals of the new cultural way. 

o   Employee value proposition (EVP) – regardless of where an employee sits (geographically), they should know what the EVP is and that it is available to them (not just the mother ship). This is where the new cultural ideals and cultural assimilation meet. If the new organization has not identified their EVP, that’s a huge omission. If the organization has identified their EVP, but they aren’t aggressively rolling it out, they’re leaving food on the table. 

 

Cultural integration requires a conscious, deliberate, and sustained focus. In my experience, efforts to manage or guide culture is at best temporary in most organization, completely ignored in others.  

 

Two points to take away however, are that:

1)    there are many systems (strategies) within an organization to draw from and re-design, and

2)    any strategic plan to assimilate cultures needs to use most, if not all of the levels of change available. 

Cultural Assimilation in Large Organizations: Levers of Change (part 1 of 2)

Large organizations can experience incredible growth either organically or through M&As. Organic growth means that internal pressures can build until there’s an acknowledgement that new buildings and departments are needed, more FTE’s are needed, and processes need to be formalized. On the other hand, organizations that acquire this company and then that company tend to focus overwhelmingly on the mechanics of the assimilation. Looking for economies of scale by centralizing functions or eliminating duplicate departments is a tasty treat for executives in charge of the operational and financial changes. 

After a few years, people are left to wonder why the culture didn’t integrate along with the organizational changes. There’s a dangerous assumption that in time, acquired group A and acquired group B will ‘come around’ and feel like they are a part of the fold. There is a giant leap of faith that an employee of an acquired group will identity with the legacy (or acquiring) group. 

Unfortunately, all too often cultural integration gets lost in the noise of organization life. Even organizations that have the best intentions and acknowledge that their consortium of cultures need to start feeling connected as one, the ideals of organic assimilation simply don’t come to fruition. The newly formed organization is busy trying to capitalize on their new organizational capacity and power. 

Because little if any sustained attention (and resources) is devoted to cultural assimilation, acquired and merged entities feel as though they are simply separate and distinct cultures functioning under one name, but in name only.

Change theories try to address the mechanics of getting cultures to adapt to new changes. It is huge in healthcare with the frenetic pace of change that seems to hit this industry. So you have Kotter, Prosci, or McKinsey 7-S to name a few. Each requires a concerted effort to get into the minds of the employees that may be weary from so much change. How do we marshal employee excitement and energy to embrace the new thing?

The second part of change however, and this is right in the OD practitioner’s wheelhouse, is the often overlooked levers of change within the system. Think about a large organization that has grown quickly over the last 5-7 years. The mother ship has cobbled together an impressive quilt of businesses, but each merged or acquired entity hangs onto its legacy systems and processes. So you end up with these guys over here do it this way, and those guys over there have their own system…we just let them do their thing.

Cultural assimilation can pull from numerous levers of change. None of these levers alone are sufficient to move the needle very much. It is not a linear proposition, where you can implement one change for a few years, then when you feel like it is safe to poke your head up, implement the second change. You will very simply put, never get there with this strategy. 

What are the levers of change then? In the next blog article, I have identified 16 levers of change. There are probably organizational dynamics and systems that could be added to this list, but the main point is to draw out the vast arsenal of systems that the organization can draw from or coordinate in concert to affect cultural assimilation. The challenge might be more about a lack of knowledge and vision rather than tools and systems.