Listen Here

So what are always my main points about generations?

• There are differences between various generations.
• Sometimes these differences are blown out of proportion to their importance.
• Often these differences relate to career level rather than generations.
• Truly skilled managers rarely have issues dealing with a multi-generational workforce.
• Problems with managing certain generations often point to greater leadership issues.
• Generation Y can talk about whatever they want but businesses speak the language of action.

I hope you’ll take a listen!

1. NBC Universal, Inc.
2. PepsiCo Inc.
3. Nestlé USA, Inc.
4. Google, Inc.
5. Citigroup, Inc.
6. Procter & Gamble Co.
7. Johnson & Johnson
8. Grant Thornton LLP
9. AECOM Corporation
10. Merrill Lynch & Co, Inc.

Wow, these came out of nowhere, right? With the exception of Google, any of Gen Y’s parents could have been employed at any one of these places 20 years ago (and they might have made the top lists back then with the exception of AECOM). Why did this list resemble a lot of other lists of “top companies”? When I asked PayScale (who provided and analyzed data for Brazen Careerist) about the methodology, here’s what Dr. Al Lee, Director of Quantitative Analysis had to say:

We arrived at the methodology in consultation between Penelope Trunk/Brazen Careerist and the compensation/demographics experts at PayScale.

Our goal was to identify large companies that may be attractive to Gen Y job seekers who are college graduates.

Even though there are many excellent small companies, we focused on large companies (ones that employ more than ~2,500 bachelors graduates) because these are companies where many Gen Y workers may eventually find jobs.

The criteria were derived based on Penelope Trunks research and assessments into what Gen Y is looking for

Those criteria were: percentage of Gen Y employees, total cash compensation of those Gen Y’ers, gender balance and green score. When you leave out any company under 2,500 employees, you basically end up compiling a list of places that have the most Gen Y’ers with some very arbitrary quantitative criteria (Penelope Trunk’s spirited defense aside) to try to justify a ranking system.

In analyzing the results, Dr. Lee states, “Not all large companies in a industry are present [which] is telling. That Google and Yahoo! make the list, and Oracle and Microsoft do not, points out significant differences in corporate culture that Gen Y job seekers should be aware of.”

But is it really a corporate culture issue or is it something completely different? Let’s identify some alternative theories:

• A high percentage of Gen Y’ers could indicate a high turnover environment or an environment that is seeing senior leadership take retirement. They could also be growth with companies hiring Gen Y’ers into a lower talent pool. Either one isn’t necessarily a cultural boon for Gen Y.
• High compensation of Gen Y’ers could be in response to a crappy work environment. Take these big accounting and analyst firms that pay a good wage but burn their new employees out in a couple of years with 70 hour weeks. The high compensation keeps candidate quality higher out of college while not having to change their culture.
• Gender balance on a macro scale means little to the equality or flexibility of environment. Looking at women in leadership roles (who are both indicators and often spur equality where it matters) in the company would give a closer estimation at least.
• I’ve talked with skepticism about green business and I have to believe that this is more of the same. Being green and having a good green score is more marketing than moral at this point. Especially when you are looking at a company like P&G that talks a good game but still spews tons of toxic pollutants into our air every single day.

The most surprising thing to me is that this is such an old school and broken way of evaluating companies and their value to their potential employees. What I fear and speculate happened is that Brazen Careerist asked PayScale what criteria they have measured in the past and limited themselves to that criteria for any internal analysis. If one were to think about the best data to use to evaluate the best fit for Gen Y, would they come up with these four? I just have a hard time believing that.

In short, what does this list of companies mean for Gen Y’ers? Either we in Gen Y are closer to having the same wants as every other generation (I’ve found these companies on other top lists across the entire workforce) or it is completely wrong and doesn’t mean anything. Neither one of these outcomes has to be what Brazen Careerist wanted.

Note: I am a member of Brazen Careerist and have been featured on PayScale’s blog.

Why I STILL Don’t Like Job Hoppers

1) If an applicant worked for less than a year at his last 3 jobs, why should I think he will stay at my company any longer?

2) The cost spent on an employee is considerably higher in the first year then in subsequent years. If the employee leaves in the first year, I have not recouped my investment.

3) It doesn’t matter how great an employee is, even the best ones don’t start truly contributing until they have been with the company for at least 6 months. For most employees it usually takes 18 months.

4) The best employees become heavily involved with important projects and/or have strong client relationships. When they leave it creates a huge crisis. It’s too risky to have a job hopper working on anything important.

5) Job hoppers are generally weak of character. They have little sense of responsibility and commitment. They are more focused on themselves than on the people and things around them. They jump ship at the smallest irritation or when the company across the street offers them a few extra pennies. The best employees are responsible by nature. They are more outwardly focused. They care about the company, their co-workers and clients. A responsible-minded employee will contribute at least 150% more in productivity than an employee who cares only about himself.

6) It’s a pain in the ass to refill positions. If you are an employee, find yourself a good company and stay with them long term. Even if it’s a mediocre company, do the best job you can and show your future employers that you’ll do what it takes to be successful.

If you are an HR guy, it’s your job to carefully weed out job hoppers. When you interview, make sure you understand each applicant’s reasons for leaving for each of his or her positions. If the reasons were not the applicant’s fault or if the applicant happened to work for some unusually horrible companies then take that into consideration. Otherwise, if the applicant is a job hopper in the true sense of the word, stay far away. Your company will thank you.

For more quick tips on hiring, see Carvin’s Rules for Hiring the Best.

Copyright 2006 B. N. Carvin

The best part about this post isn’t the actual content of the post or the commentary, it is the comment section where one commenter has already thrown around the “entitlement” attack on Gen Y. As I have always said to Gen Y haters, I hope you enjoy recruiting a smaller and smaller portion of the job sector as people of your target demographic start retiring and buying RV’s. And what is so radical about asking for jobs that are fulfilling or meaningful? Working a boring 8-5, pushing a pencil around at your desk while you wait for the generation of old timers who are more likely to be punching the clock than making any meaningful gains on your business isn’t an option.

Until HR monkeys figure this out, my job is going to stay pretty easy. Knowing the parts of the job that attracts Gen X and Y and making it accessible for them is much easier than being stubborn and letting the next generation of the workforce pass you by.