Interviews with David Blackman and Yvonne SImons

   I wasn't sure that one of my interviews would come through so I reached out to a backup interview, and now of course both answered so I'm taking their most relevant answers to our reading this week.  

   First is David Blackman. 

 David is a health care executive, working in clinic and hospital operations and he earned his graduate degree at USC.  Blackman came to our attention during the elections as someone very involved in party politics so we interviewed him both at his party's convention (DNC in Charlotte) and again on election night. 

  This week we read that humans are motivated by four needs:  The need to acquire (assets, money, etc.), bond (friendship with other) comprehend (learn new things) and defend (neutralize any threats to themselves).  Do you think it's possible for an organization to meet all four of those needs and if so, how?

In past generations, a traditional company focused on one, or perhaps two of the four needs as discussed in the question.  The need to acquire is a given – people expect a reasonable remunerative arrangement for the work performed.  The company provides compensation so that the individual can in turn acquire assets and knowledge to acquire the necessary instruments of survival and security in life.  The other focus over the generations has always been on defense, albeit from the company point of view and not the individual.  From the beginnings of organized work efforts and collectives working to deliver products and make a profit, a defense strategy has always been part of the effort.  For the company, the goal was to stay in business and fight off competition.  For the individuals, these learned defensive strategies could generally be assimilated into one’s personal life.   

Many sociologists believe that it was not until the 1970s in this country, that the issues of bonding and comprehension began to take hold.  Initially, these traits were discussed as new, but in fact they were thousands of years old.  Asian cultures used these human needs for collective good in farming, warfare and industry.  So when the Japanese auto industry started to sell small cars in the United States and the quality was exceptionally high, companies started to notice, and then quickly adopted them to US work sites. The idea of thought sharing became a hallmark of companies as well as the start of the work shift “team yell” which was adopted by WalMart in 1974 simply because of the Japanese success with this simple technique.  Gradually, bonding and learning became far more important to US companies that the other two needs.  The path to success was immediately seen as all four needs being met concurrently.  Millennials know of no other way to run a company.  To them, it is not even a question. 

So, the bottom line is that it is not only possible to meet all four needs; it is a critical necessity to do so.  Without assimilating all four needs into the work force, there may only be hit and miss successes in the organization.  Millennials recognize this, and being the most transient of all work generations, will not stay with an organization that does not understand this. 

Have you ever had an instance where someone in your organization who was identified as a rising star but they became disengaged and washed out.  What went wrong and did management take steps to re-engage the person?

 

Yes, I have experienced many instances of “rising stars” with personally competing “falling expectations” in the tow.  In retrospect, the traits seen in these individuals are really not rare and are quite typical.  Usually the amount of the rise and speed at which is happens is consistent with the unachieved expectations. 

Millennials, as all other generational groups, need mentoring and time to hone skills, acquire an understanding of the political issues of the organization and season their abilities to rise to a top level of performance and skill.  The reality of today’s work force, however, is that time is far more critical of an issue than in years past.  Pressure on senior executives to perform on a quarterly basis rather than yearly as in years past, leads persons to want to move to the top as soon as they can to prove their ability and demonstrate their talent.  The urgency of performance “rubs off” on all individuals in an organization. 

As the Statewide Director for Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield in Nevada, I had a nursing executive who had exceptional clinical skills.  She demonstrated these skills immediately and in a daily fashion was able to point out critical clinical quality failures at hospitals and physician offices.  Her Corrective Action Plans, issued to hospitals, were based on what I would consider to be the most exceptional command of clinical indicators I have ever seen, far better than almost all physicians I have worked with.  She was deemed promotable and a desired staff person very quickly by senior clinical executives at Anthem headquarters.  However, I became aware of a drawback in her background.  Although her clinical skills were exceptional, her personal interrelationship skills were not.  It was difficult for her to speak at a level that was not, in some cases, demeaning to her audience.  She came across in social situations as aloof or haughty, when in fact she was just being herself.  She was promotable and a valued staff member, but not without significant training that I knew would be difficult for her. 

In the end, I realized that all factors need to be considered from the outset when judging the work performance of an individual.  Too often, managers and executives see the most visible, the most apparent and begin to formulate an image of the person based on the first encounters.  Only when work becomes more in depth and encompassing do some apparent weaknesses start to show up.  After this experience, I began to test all direct reports for all necessary skills.  From the first day of work for a new hire, I would assign work that at times was far away from the most pressing so I could determine quickly all aspects of the individuals work performance.  This has saved me countless hours and days or worry and enormous amounts of work.  In a few cases, it has also given me the ability to see that a promotion may not be in the best interest of the company.

I also interviewed Yvonne Simons, assistant news director at WBTV in Charlotte.  I asked her about the challenges of managing Millenials and keeping them involved and engaged.

 

 What are some of the differences you see in managing Millennials and managing Boomers?

  Millennials like to watch the clock, balance their private time with work.. and for many, work is a very secondary place in their hearts.  They want to be recognized for trying ... even if trying hard does not result in good work.  I find boomers to be more work oriented... sometimes to their detriment.  They can be workaholics.   They can over work and be hard to get them to file for overtime they actually earn.  (Which has legal implications for TV stations.  We don't want to get sued!)  Boomers can have trouble "getting it done" on individual projects because they are looking for perfection.   Millennials can be hard to get them to do the hard work, because they find virtue in being fast... but not necessarily thorough.  It's dangerous to categorize individuals by age, though.  I've worked with Millennials with great work ethics and boomers with crappy work ethics.  

Do you find Millennials are too eager to move up the ladder without having a proper foundation of training and education?

  The difficulty in the workplace is that Millennials see what experienced employees have earned and want parity way too early.  Boomers see the aggressive behavior of Millenials get rewarded and sometimes resent the "hotdoggers" because they can grab attention in the newsroom.  Managers have to be present and not reactive in the day to day operations.   Giving good work it's public due, no matter what the age of the employee is helps.  It's also important not to pit them against each other, because that will just  explode.  The most difficult thing for me is to get millenials to get past a 9 to 5 attitude about the job.  They don't want to be informed, as a group, outside of the work day.  If you ask them if they've read the paper or watched a cable or network newscast,  they want to be paid for spending that time on "work"  even if it's really the expression of good behavior on the part of
being a good journalist.  If you require employees to watch newscasts, read periodicals and the like, then you have to pay them for that time.   Boomers find this ridiculous because they recognize that the act of journalism isn't a 9 to 5 job, but a habit of being curious and informed at all times,  very frustrating at times.