Feedback Session 2-4 Future Leadership Requirements

Richard Northcote

All picked up on Richards comment that one of the key characteristics of Gen C is their willingness and capacity to change. They have become so used to technology-led work (communication) processes evolving, becoming obsolete and replaced, that they will bring to the workplace a different perspective than previous generations. Not only will they want to be up to speed quickly with the way things are done around here, they will also be happy to accept if that way changes, and will almost certainly be prepared to try to change things if they can think of a better (often lazier) way. Additionally Gen C can be a useful resource to cause change to be propagated through a company. Almost all had personal examples of communications (whether officially sanctioned or merely rumoured) having been transmitted much more quickly through informal (social) networking than could have been achieved through the usual hierarchical / cascade communications . (The downside of this is security if network boundaries become blurred, company-specific communications between peer group friends may be seen by friends outside the company, where their interpretation and propagation could have unwelcome effects. ) Additionally, Gen C appears to be much more aware that the consumer world is changing so rapidly, that they are much more ready than their Gen Y counterparts to accept that the industrial world must be changing too. As such they are less resistant to change, and helpful in persuading other bystanders that change is necessary. In summary, Gen C are great agents for change in a changing world.

So clearly there is a need to attract and to retain Gen C but in both activities Gen C will require a different company approach. Attraction of Gen C is about using different external communication tools to get the message out that your company is an attractive one to begin your career with. Companies need to be very conscious about who are their ambassadors into the universities from which they wish to recruit. These ambassadors need to reflect the image you are trying to project (young, dynamic, good looking, and with exciting career-so-far stories to tell). Gen C reps in the group noted that ambassadors should preferably have not more than two years of experience or it tells potential recruits that they too might get trapped. All agreed that attempting to attract Gen C with a high salary wont be enough, and that high salaries are anyway not really an option in todays process industry. Commenting on Richards view that Gen C now also need to be recognised not only for their achievements, but also for their potential, the consensus, including from Gen C representatives, was that Gen C are realistic, and will not necessarily expect this, although it could be a second order differentiator of two similar offers. Gen C reps felt that companies could, and should, take a role in modifying the expectations of Gen C as they go into the real world. Gen C would still expect to be recognised primarily for what they have achieved relative to their peers, however if nonindustrial employers are competing for Gen C recruits with approaches which claim to recognise potential, then industry will need to follow suit.

But if a company does manage to attract the best talent it must also then retain this talent (and this against the apparent desire by Gen C to want to move careers frequently, and that they, through their CV, are their own brand). All agreed with Richards opinion that in order to retain Gen C a company will have to demonstrate that they can continue to give talent both the development programme and personal brand-building opportunities to make leaving the company a less attractive option. Well-structured graduate development programmes are seen as a must for recruitment, and increasingly companies will need to show their talents that there are equally exciting and stretching development programmes on completion of these schemes (e.g. after the first 2 3 years). Additionally to formal programmes, companies will need to create informal learning opportunities such that Gen C recognises that every day at work is an opportunity for their own brand-building development. Additional corporate roles outside of their day job and reporting to someone other than their line boss within the hierarchy will become increasingly important (e.g. roles such as the company ambassador to a university) as Gen C demonstrate they are more comfortable with complex matrix organisations, dotted line structures, and multiple bosses than are their Gen Y bosses. It is in coordinating such opportunities that a talent management function can support the Line Managers responsibility for development of his talented reports. But the biggest risk for talent retention will continue to be an inflexible hierarchy and a boss who doesnt see his role as being to develop the talent reporting to him.

Several in the group highlighted Richards comment that the upper hand in career dialogue is increasingly held by the talent himself, and this will be more so with Gen C. It will continue to be the companys responsibility to enable the mobility of Gen C throughout the organisation, and to encourage their interaction with company seniors in order that they see the career role models which will inspire them to stay with the company. It is also then the companys responsibility to listen to Gen C as they put forward their own arguments as to which next job opportunity should be created for them so that they can achieve their ambitions. All agreed though that there will have to be, more frequently than at present, the hard discussion where a Talents ambition is greater than his capability, however, its envisaged that this will increasingly become less of a problem conversation Gen C will become familiar with seeking his opportunities elsewhere if the company does not listen (or agree) to his own view of himself. Making this easier for Gen C is the visibility of what other options there are available to him. Companies will need to have a much better understanding of the salary in the market for the skills of their talents, and will need to have (at all levels) a response, usually related to development opportunities, when their salary levels do not meet talents expectations. Mobility of Gen C is seen as no greater threat than today, although dual career considerations for talents with talented partners might be seen as an opportunity (to recruit a talented partner) as well as a threat. Finally a short discussion was held relating to the loss of friends when moving companies (and therefore changing networks) and the speed with which new friends in new networks could be acquired. The Gen C reps noted that friends were increasingly measured in terms of quantity and not quality and that quality friends would not be affected by a change of network.

Richards view that Leadership skills will remain the same in the future, but the tools by which the Leader uses these will be different provoked some discussion. At the highest level, all could agree that a leaders role will remain that of setting the direction for his organisation to follow, and then communicating this direction, and motivating followers to follow. (There was some disagreement as to whether a leader should get too involved in and how to get there or whether this should be left to the direct reports). It was clear that where every line manager is a leader of his team, and has the responsibility for developing talents in his team, he will need the skill to set appropriate targets in order to inspire his talents towards reaching the levels to which they aspire. But the main leadership skill underpinning all others, is that of communication, and there was no question that this will change when communicating with Gen C. The Leader will not only need to be familiar with a whole range of new communication tools (and it was agreed that no future leader will be able to entirely leave the deployment of his messages to other experts in these tools without developing some expertise himself), he will also need to establish a culture within his organisation, where such tools (channels) can be used, but where the valuable contributors of Gen Y are not marginalised.

Gen C bring with them the culture of the web, which we are led to believe is an increasingly individualistic (US-influenced) culture. If true, this could clash severely with the collectivist culture characteristic of mainland Europeans and reflected in many of their company cultures. But there are also examples of web-communities and movements which are very collectivist (open-source software, wikipedia, crowd-sourcing). Will European Gen Cs modify the extreme individualism to a more collectivist European model? Certainly each company culture will differ but all will need to accommodate both Gen Cs and previous generations. Which leads to an increasing need for the Leader to develop skill in segmenting this market (his employees) for his communications. Increasingly it will be far more possible than through the old hierarchical cascade communication routes, to target specific groups with tailored communications designed to cause a specific effect. Whatever the future company will look like, the old adage will remain that a leader can never communicate enough.