Millennials

Millennials are a hot topic. I’m not sure when we decided not to call them Gen Y anymore, but that now seems to be the thing. And I fully understand why it’s discussed a lot. There’s all these people coming into the workplace, they’re our leaders of the future, and I don’t understand them. I don’t know how to support or please them. That’s going to worry people.

Some of the articles and research should give you pause for thought. EY (and others) will report that millennials are more entitled than older workers, that they are less good team players. There’s some decent academic research behind that too. Which leads to opinion pieces on how to weed out these unholy characteristics.

But for each of those articles, I seem to read a contradictory one. Now, I am fully aware of the levels of confirmation bias at play here. As previously discussed, I like things simple. I will naturally be more persuaded and seek more articles that make life simpler. I know that. But since I have to get off the fence, why not aim for the softer landing?

And – with that in mind – it’s this or this kind of article that I find more convincing. Yes, millennials are optimistic, over-ambitious and naïve to an endearing/irritating degree [delete as applicable], but that’s a function of youth. Once we were like that too.

But there are some cultural aspects at play here. So it’s claimed that millennials want more feedback. You know what? They probably do. Communication is more instant. We all take great umbrage if a brand deigns not to tweet us back in 5 minutes. Do millennials want meaning and purpose in their work? I reckon they probably do. They’ve been force-fed that idea from the cradle, an idea that didn’t really have much meaning for previous generations. (And I’m not convinced that their behaviour backs this up; who do they most want to work for?).

For me, like this article, it’s being aware of differences. But being aware that there’s more that we all have in common than divides us.

Net Promoter Score

You know the question. You’ll have seen it many times. How likely is it that you would recommend our company/product/service to a friend or colleague? It’s the basis of the Net Promoter Score, and it’s something I’ve been working with a few times recently.

And, to be honest, I have some issues with it:

1. It’s an absolute scale: 0-10. So my 8 is given equal weight to everyone else’s, when my 8 is really a bit arbitrary. I don’t know that scoring 8 makes me “passive”, whereas if I’d gone for 9, I’d be a “promoter”. Arguably, I could be likely to recommend, score a 6, but be classified as a “detractor”. But, in aggregate, those effects will probably average out.
   (Myself I prefer to set up relative scales: “How important is x to you?” and “How well does y deliver x?”, then it’s the difference that is important.)
2. It’s an unlikely scenario. I like to think I’ve got better things to do than endlessly recommend companies/products/services. I take a small measure of pride in more sophisticated conversational gambits. And at its worst, it’s meaningless. How likely is it that you would recommend Virgin for your journey from Stockport to London to a friend or colleague? Well, I wouldn’t seriously recommend they try to find another way to get there by train.

But there’s some very useful aspects too.

• It’s simple, and it’s increasingly understood. Likesay, you know the question. And I have no doubt in Bain’s research that a high NPS score = better prospects for growth
• It can be used for employers, alongside the same question for customers/service-users. And that has the opportunity be very illuminating
• It’s not intended to just be a pure metric; it’s intended as an opener to further questions: what’s good, what could be better? It’s a good way to get a balance of the qual and quant, that I’m always seeking

There’s lots of good options for ways to conduct surveys; this is a tool to be considered for employers.