Much previous research has shown that success in international work is a function of an individual’s’ “Global Mindset” (Guy & Beaman 2003, 2005). Peter Senge describes global mindset as “deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations, or even pictures or images that influence how we understand the world and how we take action” (The Fifth Discipline, 2006). An individual’s global mindset governs how they perceive things in the world and take action.

The Global Mindset model distinguishes three broad categories of mindset:

• Ethnocentric Mindsets take the home country as the basis for beliefs and evaluations, holding that their own culture and values are intrinsically superior to those of others, to the point even of assuming national superiority. It might be characterized by the expression: “the sun never sets on the British empire.” This type of mindset is effective when there is a need to standardize operations around the world or to protect the company’s intellectual property.

• Polycentric Mindsets are ones that adapt well to cultural differences and are effective at bridging the gap between home and host culture and company objectives. The polycentric mindset entails accommodation or assimilation with the foreign culture, sometimes even to the extent of “going native”. It might be characterized by the expression: “when in Rome do as the Romans.” This type of mindset is appropriate when there is a need for intense focus on the local market or regulatory situation.

• Geocentric Mindsets are ones that seek universals and commonalities across cultures and are effective at tying diverse groups together toward a common goal. A geocentric orientation implicitly assumes that a universal set of values govern human interaction, downplaying the importance of cultural differences. This mentality can best be summed up by the famous words of John Lennon, “Imagine all the people sharing all the world.” This type of mindset is appropriate for individuals who work at a global level, responsible for integrating the ideas and practices of different businesses and functions into a unified approach.

Different types of mindsets are best suited for different types of international assignments. With respect to international work, Paula Caligiuri and others have claimed that an individual’s global mindset is directly related to his or her effectiveness depending on the nature of the job. In his view, ethnocentric individuals tend to excel in environments that call for significant standardization of methodology or technology, while polycentric individuals thrive in situations that require considerable sensitivity to local conditions, and geocentric individuals excel in positions that require identifying commonalities and integrating different approaches. Hence, the role or job the individual is to perform is vital in determining the type of individual needed for the assignment.

A key role for Global HR is to understand the type of mindset required for each international assignment and to assess individuals to find the best fit based on the person and the job. Nothing can be surer of failure than to select the wrong mindset for the job. Imagine assigning an ethnocentric individual to an intensely local situation. The individual will be frustrated due to a lack of understanding of the environment, and the local team will be irritated at what they see as the arrogance of home office to have sent such a narrow-minded person. Similarly a polycentric individual sent to standardize and protect the interests of home office may be unable to achieve the objectives because of a deep empathy for the local people.

What type of mindset do you have? Do you know what type of mindset each of your international workers and expatriates have? Are you actively managing this aspect of your business?

One of the biggest challenges in working across cultures is clearly language. It never ceases to amaze me that, in the effort to save some money, companies often choose to do translations of corporate documents in-house using local staff. But translation is a discipline of its own and just because someone speaks the language doesn’t make them a good translator. In fact, often the opposite is true!

Consider these anecdotes from Gary Ferraro, The Cultural Dimensions of International Business (2005):

• An American airline offering service to Brazil advertised its “rendezvous lounges” in its business class section. They failed to realize that the word rendezvous in Portuguese refers to a room for illicit sexual encounters.

• The American Dairy Association’s successful ad “Got Milk?” was unfortunately translated in Mexico as “Are you lactating?”

• An American ink manufacturer attempted to sell bottled ink in Mexico through their advertisement that they could “avoid embarrassment” (from stains) through their brand of ink. However, the Spanish word used for “embarrassed” was “embarazar” (a “false friend”) which means to become pregnant. People thought the company was selling a contraceptive device.

These very embarrassing situations can easily be avoided through good translation services using native speakers, not someone who learned the language in school. It is only a native speaker who can understand the subtle messages that are being conveyed by the use of one word or phrase over another. And forget automated translation tools, such as Babelfish. While it’s a theoretically interesting concept, and many people have been busy for many years in the field of artificial intelligence trying to figure this out, the field of machine translation is still in its infancy.

HR should help the business identify the types of skills needed for different types of activities. For example, the ability to speak the language is clearly important for sales and marketing activities, whereas it is less important for a highly technical positions where the individual will be working with internal staff. Tying competencies and abilities to individual assignments (project-based on regular) — not just to specific job roles — is fundamental to working successfully internationally.

Tammy Erickson has recently posted a couple of interesting blogs about the challenges we’re currently seeing in the multi-generational workforce.

As we know, Gen X’ers are not thrilled with corporate life. They tend not to trust institutions in general and resent the Boomers’ confident assumptions about life. Here are Erickson’s 10 Reasons by Gen X’ers are Unhappy at Work:

1. X’ers’ corporate careers got off to a slow start.

2. X’ers witnessed adults in their lives being laid off from large corporations.

3. Most corporate career paths “narrow” at the top.

4. The economy started to slow just when they entered the workforce.

5. The pesky Gen Y’s are impossible to manage.

6. X’ers are surrounded by a love fest between the Boomers and Gen Y’s.

7. X’ers are the most conservative cohort in today’s workforce.

8. Many X’ers’ are not as comfortable with technology as everyone seems to thinks they are.

9. Boomer colleagues are annoying.

10. Parenting pressures are at a peak.

In, The Baby Boomer - Generation Y Love Fest, Erickson talks about the challenges and successes with multi-generational mentoring. From her research, she is finding that Boomers and New Mils (Gen Y) actually enjoy and mutually benefit from working together. Obviously through their 30+ years of work experience, Boomers have accumulated a lot of experience and want to share their knowledge and pass on their learnings to the future generations. The New Mils are eager to learn and and don’t feel the need to figure everything out on their own, to prove something to the world. They are thirsting for knowledge, and the Boomers are thriving on giving it!

As a result, Gen X is being squeezed out — caught in between these two. Of course, the reality is that most Gen X’ers prefer it this way. They are very independent and not particularly interested in getting involved with mentoring others. They believe they have had to learn things the hard way and so should others. Still, it’s obvious that some may Gen X’ers may find themselves in situations where their direct reports are being mentored by their superiors!

As the saying goes, “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.” HR should think about various ways to set up and organize mentoring programs, such as pairing Boomers and New Mils together. Trying to force Gen X’ers to participate in such programs may only force them out the door. Provide options and let people self-select the when, how, and who. The best mentoring occurs with both individuals have opted to work together on their own, rather than when they have been “assigned a mentor” by HR.

Fons Trompenaars and Charles Hampden-Turner have become very popular in the business world for their cultural model and Culture Compass — a tool that evaluates the aspects of an individual’s cultural profile and preferences and compares them to another national culture. The goal is to uncover differences so that individuals can learn and be coached in the different ways of working before starting a new assignment in a foreign environment.

Trompenaars’ model distinguishes culture along seven dimensions:

• Universalism versus Particularism describes the differences between rule-oriented cultures and relationship-oriented cultures. Universalistic cultures feel that rules and obligations are paramount and set the bar for how all people should act. In contrast, particularistic cultures are those who believe that individual circumstances and relationships are more important than general rules. They tend to see themselves as pragmatic and flexible, often arguing “it all depends.” Particularistic individuals often seen universalistic people as rigid and overly disciplined. Universalistic people tend to see particularists as inconsistent, arbitrary, and “playing favorites.” Clearly the opportunities for cross-cultural conflict and misunderstandings are ripe in this domain.

• Individualism versus Collectivism, like Hofstede, highlights the differences between individual-oriented cultures and group-oriented cultures. Individualistic cultures are those that prize personal achievement and recognition over those that favorite teamwork and group recognition. One has only to look at American culture, which is highly individualistic and competitive, in comparison to the group-oriented Japanese culture to see the strong cultural differences in this domain. In fact the Japanese have a saying, “the nail that sticks up gets hammered,” demonstrating the importance of not sticking out in group.

• Neutral versus Affective describes cultures that are very affective/expressive versus those that are more neutral in displaying their emotions. While there are clearly strong personality characteristics along this dimension, there are also significant tendencies between cultures. The Latins (in particular, Italians and Spaniards) are known for their expressive passionate behaviors in comparison to the British and Japanese who are much more reserved in their reactions. We also see considerable variation within national cultures, such as the expressive New Yorkers and the reserved Mid-Westerners in the United States.

• Specific versus Diffuse covers cultures where the assignment of responsibilities is specifically designated and accepted by individuals versus those cultures that take a more varied approach in determining who is responsible for what. Clearly the challenges for the global project manager are fierce in this domain. The German manager who has laid out a project plan with specific assignments for his/her French team members is often surprised and confused at the perhaps protracted and verbose approach that may be taken in completing their assigned activities.

• Achievement versus Ascription refers to the situation in which individuals are granted status based on their own individual achievements (compare the views of Gen X and the New Mils discussed in an earlier post) or based on the role that they have been given in the group, such as the father or mother in a family or the president or director in an organization. Highly individualistic cultures tend to also be achievement-oriented cultures, such as the United Status; likewise strong collectivist societies are also often ascription-oriented cultures, achieving their status based on their role, such as the Japanese.

• Sequential versus Syncronic describes cultural tendencies to do things in a sequential fashion, one thing after the other, or synchronic, working on multiple things simultaneously. Anyone with children these days recognizes that this domain is one in which we see not only differences across national cultures but also across generations. The New Mils (or Gen Y) are a good example, with their focus on the integration of information and technology, with 20 windows open on their computer, chatting with 10 different friends, while twittering and sending SMS text messages to several others.

• Internal versus External Control refers to what cultures believe about the amount of control they have over their environment. Do the individuals control the environment themselves or are they controlled by it? The differing perceptions cultures have in this dimension can affect what we often think of as “work ethic.” If an individual feels they are truly controlled by the environment, then they are less likely to exert themselves and try to change things as a opposed to an individual who believes they can change the environment and circumstances through smarter and harder work.

What sort of cultural differences have you experienced either nationally or internationally and how do you feel such differences impact the workplace? What can HR and company leaders do to help avoid cultural conflict and misunderstanding?

Another very effective model for understanding cultural differences in the workplace is in the pioneering work done by Geert Hofstede. Based on extensive empirical surveys and statistical analyses, Hofstede calculates scores for different cultures and classifies them along five major dimensions:

• Power Distance Index (PDI) defines the extent to which less powerful members of the group accept that power is distributed unequally (such as in the family, in business, in political institutions). In the family, the level of power distance in a culture begins with whether children are raised to be “obedient followers” or to demonstrate “individual initiative.” In business, levels of inequality determine such things who reserves the conference room, who presents the problem, who leads the discussion, and who takes the minutes in the meetings.
  

• Uncertainty Avoidance defines a group’s tolerance for ambiguity and the extent to which people feel comfortable or uncomfortable in unstructured situations. Uncertainty-avoiding cultures tend to be more emotional, believe in one absolute “Truth,” and attempt to control their environment by implementing strict laws, rules, and safety measures. Some European companies, such as as France and Germany, demonstrate a high degree of uncertainty-avoidance which can be seen in the strict employment laws and termination conditions you see in those countries, as compared to Denmark and the UK, for example.
  

• Individualism versus Collectivism defines the extent to which individuals are inte­grated into groups. In collectivist societies people are integrated into strong, cohesive groups, often extended families. In individualist societies, the ties between individuals are loose, and people are expected to look after themselves and their own immediate families. According to Hofstede’s evaluations, China has the lowest score overall for individualism which demonstrates their strong group orientation — a phenomenon which may also have been influenced partially by the years of communist rule.
  

• Masculinity versus Femininity refers to the distribution of emotional roles between the sexes from very assertive and competitive, typical male values, to modest and caring, typical female values. “The women in feminine countries have the same modest, caring values as the men; in masculine countries they are somewhat assertive and competitive, but not as much as the men, so that these countries show a gap between men’s values and women’s values.” The Scandinavian countries show the lowest overall rating for masculinity demonstrating a strong equality between the sexes these countries.
  

• Long-Term versus Short-Term Orientation defines the extent to which a culture tends to take a shorter or longer term view of the world. The values associated with a long-term orientation are thrift and perseverance, whereas those associated with a short-term orientation are respect for tradition, fulfilling social obligations, and saving face. The Asian countries overall demonstrate the highest long-term orientation scores, with China and Japan at the highest. Clearly, the difference between these countries and Wall Street’s focus on quarter-on-quarter earnings is a source of potential conflict.
  

Hofstede’s work on intercultural interaction strongly suggests that success working internationally is largely influenced by the degree and types of cultural differences between the individual’s country of origin and their country of destination. Evaluating the scores of individual countries on each of these dimensions and comparing them to an individual’s home country can point out key differences and hence potential areas of conflict and adjustment for individuals working internationally. HR can better support the development of the global workforce by facilitating these types of analyses and identifying appropriate intervention and development strategies to ensure more successful international work.

Edward Hall’s contextual model provides an effective approach for explaining many of the differences between cultures. The issue of context is certainly one area where much communication goes awry, creating surprise and confusion over where the miscommunication occurred and why. Hall distinguishes cultures along two axes:

• In contract, in a low-context culture many more things are “explicit” in the environment because members of the culture come from a wide variety of backgrounds and traditions. In low-context cultures, people tend to have many loose connections of a shorter duration. Because of its heterogeneity, such cultures can change significantly from one generation to the next. Some examples of low-context cultures are the US, UK, Canada, Denmark, and Norway.

In general, individuals moving from one type of culture to another have to adapt and be more flexible in learning new ways of working than individuals moving to a different culture, but with the same type of context. For example, language issues aside, workers moving among France, Italy, and Spain (all high-context cultures) have an easier time adapting than individuals moving from the US to China (low- to high-context cultures) or from Italy to Canada (high- to low-context cultures). Individuals from high-context cultures expect there to be underlying differences between cultures and so tend to be more attuned and ready to see and work with the subtleties that lie beneath the surface.

In contrast individuals from low-context cultures moving to high-context cultures often can’t believe that there are so many unwritten rules of conduct and ways of interacting. In this situation, low-context culture individuals need to hone their intuition and learn how to look for differences that may catch them by surprise and create that embarrassing “foot-in-mouth” situation. Individuals from low-context cultures must learn to listen and ask questions, rather than attempt to work out a solution independently.

The following chart attempts to lay out some of the major differences between low-context and high-context cultures that affect the business environment:

It should be obvious what areas are ripe for cultural conflict when individuals from high- and low-context cultures come into contact. One area in particular is the decision-making process. The logical, linear thinkers quickly become frustrated by the intuitive, relational thinkers and neither ends up valuing the perspective that the other individual brings.  Another area where I’ve often seen a lack of understanding between cultures is in work approach and style: individuals from low-context, individualistic cultures who are very task and results-oriented versus those individuals from high-context, collectivist cultures who are focused on building relationships and “saving face” in group settings. Add to these, language differences, geographical distances, timezone changes, and organizational barriers, and it’s no surprise that cultures come into conflict and progress suffers because of misunderstandings.
Understanding, accepting, and learning to work with these differences is fundamental to being successful in a global environment. HR needs to broaden its focus on diversity beyond the traditional focus on gender, ethnicity, and generational issues. HR needs to fully embrace global diversity, fostering understanding, acceptance, inclusion, and leveraging of cultural differences to enhance team productivity, organizational effectiveness, and overall business performance.

Many different cultural models have been developed over the years — all with the goal of more effectively explaining and understanding cultural differences between groups of people. The three most well-known models are those of Edward Hall, Geert Hofstede, and Fons Trompenaars.

• Edward Hall, an American anthropologist, is most known for his research on the cultural perceptions of space or proxemics — the study of the human use of space within the context of culture (e.g., how close or far way people stand or sit from one another). While serving in Europe and the Philippines during World War II, Hall observed that the way different cultures define and organize space can lead to serious failures of communication in cross-cultural settings. His book, Beyond Culture, published in 1977, talked about the “unconscious culture” that shapes our thoughts and feelings. His concepts of high-context and low-context cultures describe the amount of information either implicit (high-context) or explicit (low-context) in the culture.

• Geert Hofstede’s landmark book Culture’s Consequences, originally published in 1981 and completely updated in 2001, analyzed cultural differences across 50 countries, synthesizng these differences into five major dimensions: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity, and long-term versus short-term orientation.

• Fons Trompenaars‘ best-selling book Riding the Waves of Culture published in 1998 took a similar approach to Hofstede, evaluating how different cultures respond to different management approaches. He synthesizes cultural differences into seven dimensions: universalism versus particularism, individualism versus collectivism, neutral versus affective, specific versus diffuse, achievement versus ascription, sequential versus synchronic, and internal versus external control.

It doesn’t really matter which cultural model you ascribe to, but it is important to understand the differing dimensions of culture in order to appreciate how they play out in the workplace. Failure to understand the influence that culture has on business can lead to miscommunications, misunderstandings, costly marketing blunders, lawsuits, and a general undermining of corporate goals.

Clearly an important role for HR is in helping the business to understand the various aspects of culture and how they affect day-to-day business and the productivity and effectiveness of our interactions. Focusing on the different dimensions of culture can help to target training and development opportunities in areas where they are more likely needed. For example, an American project manager, assigned to manage a global project with team members in Japan, needs to learn about indirect styles of communication, the importance status and hierarchy in group dynamics, and the role of the group in day-to-day interactions. The German sales executive working on a big deal with a large French financial institution must understand the importance of building relationships and coalitions and getting everyone on board “before the big meeting” if he hopes to close the deal sometime in this century. Being aware that these differences exist, and then targeting specific training and coaching activities can ensure that individuals working across cultures will have greater success in reaching their goals.

In subsequent posts, I’ll talk more about the specific skills that individuals need to be successful in a global context, as well as individual business processes that need to be localized for global success.

Last week I introduced the four dimensions of the Evolving Multi-Dimensional Talentforce and talked about the first dimension: multi-generational differences. This week I’d like to talk about the second dimension: multi-cultural differences. There are significant cultural aspects that influence how people interpret and respond to events, define and act in the workplace, and in general determine how we do business. These cultural aspects include such things as differing styles of communication, multiple ways of making decisions, and various approaches to engagement, commitment, diversity, ethics, and so on.

Culture (from the Latin cultura stemming from colere, meaning “to cultivate,”) is defined in Wikipedia as:

[1] patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activities significance and importance; systems of symbols and meanings that lack fixed boundaries, that are constantly in flux, and that interact and compete with one another.

[2] Different definitions reflect different theoretical bases for understanding and evaluating human activity; manifested in music, literature, lifestyle, painting, sculpture, theater, film, etc.

Geert Hofstede defines culture as “the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes one group or category of people from another. This stresses that culture is (1) a collective, not an individual attribute, (2) not directly visible but manifested in behaviors, and (3) common to some, but not all people”.

Analogies used to understand cultural differences have brought such images as “peeling an onion” — carefully removing layer after layer until getting to the core — or “the iceberg” — because many cultural aspects are below the surface and hence not readily seen. The first and most obvious layer of culture that we can see above the surface involves language, food, buildings, monuments, dress, fashions, art, etc. These artifacts are symbols with meanings from a much deeper level. The next layer of culture entails the norms and values that the culture holds, the mutual sense of “right/wrong”, “good/bad” that individuals share. Some of these are written and formally codified in the laws and social controls of a culture, while others are informal, learned early in childhood, and passed down through the generations. Finally, at the deepest, innermost level of culture, invisible and unconscious to human perception, are those aspects of basic human nature that control how we interpret and respond to various situations. For example, our sense of time and space, our focus on family and relationships, our view of status and hierarchy. These sometimes subtle aspects of culture are more difficult to understand and appreciate, making them ripe for misunderstanding.

• Extent to which individuals are independent versus interdependent
• Expression of individualistic intentions versus more collectivist, group behaviors
• Belief in a more egalitarian versus hierarchical status
• Degree of aggressiveness versus accommodation to others
• More direct versus indirect styles of communicating
• Feelings of neutral versus more affective relationships
• Specific and closed relationships versus multiple and diffuse relationships
• Orientation toward tasks and getting things done versus building relationships and rapport
• Appreciation of universalism versus particularism
• Degree of risk tolerance versus more conservative approaches
• Short-term versus long-term planning horizons
• Mono-chronic versus poly-chronic sense of time
• Differences in sense of personal space (called proxemics)
• Tolerance for and acceptance of versus resistance to change
• Receptivity versus resistance to diversity
• Acceptance versus resistance to new ideas

If this seems like a lot to absorb, it is! Understanding and working effectively with cultural differences is one of the greatest challenges we have. So much is invisible, not obvious, and very different from our own way of thinking and acting that we find it hard to fathom, believe, and work with.

In their fascinating book, Developing Global Executives, McCall and Hollenbeck (2002) contend that working globally is difficult because it combines complexity from two different dimensions: business complexity with cultural complexity. As business complexity increases, managerial abilities must also increase. Naturally, it requires much greater leadership skills to manage a large number of diverse functions, products, suppliers, business units, locations, etc. Likewise, as cultural complexity increases, facility in dealing across cultures must also increase. The greater the difference between geographies, languages, customs, values, habits, etc., the greater the skills the individual must possess to effectively work across cultures. Combining these two dimensions – an increase in business complexity with an increase in cultural complexity – creates an intensely complex global environment, requiring more highly developed global management abilities.

Hence, we see the importance of HR’s role in developing global executives. We have tended to focus our managerial development activities around more concrete skills such as business acumen, professional speaking skills, financial management, etc. In the increasingly global world we live in, we must spend as much if not more development effort on understanding cultural differences and learning how to work with them. In subsequent posts, we will explore this important multi-cultural dimension of the modern talentforce and how HR can help improve the productivity and effectiveness of cross-cultural work.

In designing effective HR service delivery strategies for the Multi-Generational Talentforce it’s important to keep in mind that there is no single solution. The overall theme needs to be one of flexibility and choice. Certainly, programs such as cafeteria-style benefits and buy/sell vacation days appeal to all generations in the workforce at different stages in their work/life and career. Generic reward and recognition programs, such as employee of the month, have little appeal with such a diverse workforce. It’s clearly best to have a combination of generic programs and services for the entire population, as well as targeted strategies that appeal more to one generation than another.

While the Veteran population tended to work for one employer throughout their entire work career, Boomers have tended to move through three to five different employers by the time they are of retirement age. By some predictions, the Gen X’ers will have between five to 15 different employers, while the typical New Mil employee will work with 15 to 20 different companies throughout their career. This increasing job movement is a key characteristic of the modern workforce, and so HR’s role in retaining high potential and high performing employees should be one of extending the employees’ stay with the company for as long as possible.

Following are some suggested service delivery strategies that can be targeted to each workforce segment to bring greater employee engagement and higher retention.

Veterans:

• Meaningful part-time work leveraging their skills across the broader population
• Mentoring programs where they can transfer their knowledge to the younger generations
• Health, wellness, and fitness programs to keep them active and involved
• Shared office space, computers and Internet access, as available

Boomers:

• Steady, part-time work as they transition slowly out of the full-time workforce into retirement
• Mentoring programs where they can transfer their knowledge to the new generation of leaders
• Retirement planning, financial consulting, travel and vacation planning services
• Heath, wellness, and fitness programs

Gen X’ers:

• Cross-functional teams and projects that address a specific problem in the business
• Full health and welfare benefits coverage across multiple employers
• Extended onsite services, such as day care, dry cleaning, dentists to help with work/life balance
• Flexible work schedules, remote work, and time off earned through hard work

New Mils:

• Rotational job assignments and special projects that are interesting and appealing
• Support for social networking and virtual communities to foster engagement and collaboration
• Support for community services, both time off for the employee and involvement by the employer
• Broader onsite services, such as gym, massage therapists, hair cuts to support work/life balance
• Flexible work schedules, time off, reward/recognition preferences such as cash awards or time off

What service delivery strategies have you employed that have been particularly useful in managing the multi-generational talentforce? Please share them with the rest of us!

Yesterday I talked about the Multi-Generational Talentforce — Veterans, Boomers, X’ers, and New Mils — that has become a core characteristic of today’s modern workforce. Today I’d like to suggest some developmental and mentoring strategies specifically targeted to each generation that can enhance employee engagement thereby bringing greater retention and productivity to the workforce.
There is no question that one-size-fits-all management strategies are obsolete. With the plurality of the workforce we simply do not have the option to treat everyone the same. Of course we should treat everyone fairly and consistently, but people believe they are different and hence want to feel they are receiving personalized treatment. The mass personalization era we are in (what made Starbucks such a sensation — “everyone can have their coffee exactly as they like it”) means that HR needs to develop strategies and programs that employees can use as they want or need them.

Veterans have a strong view of authority and expect a fairly structured work environment. They have a deep sense of company loyalty and are used to hard work and sacrifice for their job. Many are looking for part-time work so that they can stay involved with their careers and earn some extra cash in retirement. Some important developmental and mentoring strategies for Veterans include:

• targeted learning programs, such as computer/technology training and communication skills
• cross-functional teams where they can mentor other employees, thereby leveraging their expertise
• organized work environment where position and seniority are valued and respected

Boomers function well in environments where they can make the rules and call the shots. They are rebellious, driven and fiercely career-oriented, thus activities and assignments that further their career development are most important to them. While strongly individualistic, they believe in a consensus management approach. Some important developmental and mentoring strategies for Boomers include:

• targeted learning programs, such as communication skills and teamwork
• cross-functional teams where they can lead and mentor other employees
• harmonious work environment where opinions are heard are they feel they are part of the process

Gen X’ers are looking for a casual, friendly work environment where they can learn and further develop their skills. They are skeptical of authority and not easily impressed; they mistrust institutions and reject senseless rules. X’ers are self-reliant, individualistic, and pragmatic wanting to be involved in the business and to feel like they are making a difference. They also expect flexibility and freedom to make their own decisions within their realm of responsibility. Some important developmental and mentoring strategies for X’ers include:

• targeted learning programs, such as technical and functional training to increase competencies
• cross-functional teams and rotational assignments where they can demonstrate their expertise
• collaborative work environment where people contribute based on the competencies they bring

New Mils (of Gen Y) are effective in an unstructured, but supportive and highly social work environment. They will rewrite the rules, if given the chance, and are looking for personalized work and multiple, interactive, simultaneous relationships (”multi-tasking on steroids”). They get bored easily, have high expectations of themselves, and place high demands on others. Some important developmental and mentoring strategies for New Mils include:

• targeted learning programs, such as technical and functional training to increase competencies
• cross-functional teams and rotational assignments to provide variety and simulate engagement
• interactive work environment where they can work on multiple activities simultaneously

Categorizing generations and building strategies targeted to each worker segment is not intended to stereotype people, but rather to point out general tendencies to help HR better target their development and mentoring programs for the greatest effectiveness.

What strategies and approaches have you found helpful and effective in managing the generational differences now a core characteristic of the modern talentforce? Please share your thoughts!

References and Additional Readings

Effron, Marc, Robert Gandossy, and Marshall Goldsmith (Editors). 2003. Human Resources in the 21st Century. John Wiley and Sons.