How to escape the siren song. A
lesson for Odysseus and the CEOs or Recruiters of People
The
Odyssey, a legendary work shows us Ulysses receiving advice from the sorceress
Circe, to overcome the dangers on the journey back home. When he reached the
island of the Sirens, nymphs or sea deities, who enchanted the sailors with
their songs, he and his companions already knew what to do to avoid the danger
and destruction where the musical vocals, prodigiously attractive and hypnotic,
were conducting. Odysseus plugged his companions' ears with wax and had him
tied to the ship's mast. When the Sirens sang a beautiful chant and called with
persuasive voices to Odysseus, who, in utter ecstasy, tried to untie himself to
go to sea, his companions tied him more strongly to the mast of the ship. When
the island was left behind, the companions got rid of the wax plugs and freed
Odysseus. According to the myth, the mermaids, despised for not being heard,
took their lives by throwing themselves into the sea.
Odysseus
was lucky, received and listened to timely and prudent advice. What is it to
CEOs for human resource recruiters to sing the siren that can lead to
destruction? Can they be lucky like Odysseus to save himself from the mortal
danger of bad choice?
In
companies, employees are divided into groups: young and old; the point at which
you move from one group to another is debatable, but in our case, assume that
it is 40 years old (before someone at that age had a lot of potential in the
company). Replacement should be gradual so that a balance is reached, where the
contribution in talent, commitment, achievement and productivity of both groups
is equivalent (point E in figure 1). At point A, the talent of young people
could be wasted; in the B group the greater number of young people could
compensate the departure of experienced workers in the company.
What
happens when blinded by the myth around the "super powers" of the
millennials, decide to rule out many who have passed the forty and is located
at point D ?. It would be a wise decision if all millennials have the talents
attributed, if they all assume commitment and loyalty to the company by
matching or surpassing what former senior workers brought. At this point, far
from balance, a clear gap has been created that is explained both by the need
for generational change and by prejudices in favor of young people and at the
expense of so-called old people.
Now the
danger comes. The lack of prudence (they did not get waxed in their ears or
tied to the mast like Odysseus and his companions) gets that enthusiasm to
prevent them from seeing a notoriously damaging feature of millennials, lack of
loyalty. They only stay in a company to the extent that they meet their
personal and selfish needs, very few believe the story that the employee must
be unconditional and loyal to the company. They offer their services, their "talent";
if they pay them what they owe, in another case they go to the competition,
without any scruples. And if some knowledge, some vital processes are known
only by them, they will not give them and will leave in an uncomfortable
situation to the organization that they abandon. The volatility of the
contribution and commitment in every sense is constant, which is why it shows
an undulating line, which indicates that with the same speed with which they
are elected and contracted they go to another place.
Deloitte
in the 2016 Deloitte Millennial Survey found that "millennials generally
offer little loyalty to their current employers and many have exit plans in the
short term. The "challenge of loyalty" is driven by several factors.
Millennals are thought to be underutilized and think they are not developing as
leaders "(Deloitte, 2017: 2)
Deloitte's
annual survey of Millennials' famous generation showed that companies should
adjust how they encourage loyalty, otherwise they risk losing a high percentage
of their employees. Being people with many concerns, do not imagine in the same
job for a long time, especially if they have no chance of growth. 44% of
respondents said they expected to leave their current employer in the next two
years; And two-thirds would leave the organization by 2020. Only 10% are seen
in the same company within 10 years.
This
volatility of the millennial, as well as the contribution of his talent can
generate absurd situations such as having in a spreadsheet people perhaps
trained in the most modern management techniques (MBA, some with double or
triple degree) and without clutch with productivity , and results that are
lower than those achieved with the old collaborators and that supposedly have
less potential or real capacities (as shown by the dotted green line in Figure
3). An electric bulb of 25 W that contributes 250 lumen of brightness or
illumination, that operates continuously is preferable to another one that
offers 2000 lumen but sporadically, by sparks.
Loyalty
is directly related to opportunities for leadership development, job
flexibility, and sense of purpose beyond income. If CEOs are very restrictive
with former employees, why do they agree to be very lenient with this new
group?
This
lack of loyalty is a serious challenge for companies that employ many
Millennials, especially in markets such as the United States, where they are
now the largest segment of the workforce. When there are problems and solutions
are provided by employees or obtained from abroad, they can not be implemented
with millenillas, because some will already be gone, others will be with a mind
foreign to the interests and needs of the company; while the old employees, the
old discarded are no longer. The CEOs or recruiters who made the decision to
get rid of the old fell like children in the siren trap.
There
is no doubt about a fact: The CEO and / or recruiters who brought the
organization into this situation do not have the talent required to choose the
best contributors, therefore, they must be as far from the organization as the
"despicable old men " of which they were undone. That is, they lack
the sense of smell that is needed to choose the best that make a team champion.
Businesses
always face problems and solutions can come from internal or external staff
(consultancies, for example). In an MIT study conducted over a four-year period
by Malhotra, Majchrzak, Kesebi and Looram (2017) to determine how companies use
internal forces, including front-line employees, in finding new solutions to
the business challenges, interviewed executives who promote the internal search
for solutions.
Organizations
seek better solutions to their everyday problems, many encourage their
employees to use their experiences to develop new ideas and take a more active
role in the innovation process. This approach involves better contracting
practices, better products or services, better forecasts; Companies like AT
& T Inc., Google Inc. and Deutsche Telekom AG now practice internal
crowdsourcing, search for ideas and proposals within the organization.
When
external crowdsourcing is carried out, which involves asking for ideas from
consumers, suppliers and anyone else who wishes to participate, it is because
internal crowdsourcing is still not fully understood, which seeks to channel
the ideas and experience of the employees themselves. Internally, employees are
allowed to interact dynamically with co-workers in other areas, to propose new
ideas and suggest changes in management.
Many
large companies have a "background" of experience and knowledge
scattered in different places; Malhotra et. Al (2017) found that harnessing
internal cognitive diversity can open new and rich sources of innovation. Also,
internal crowdsourcing is a particularly effective way to engage younger
employees and people working front-line.
Companies
that resort to external crowdsourcing should solve several problems. The people
involved do not know the context and circumstances in which the organization
operates, and many suggestions will be unfeasible. Customer input will be good
descriptions of critical points and weaknesses, but do not help with ideas to
solve problems. In fact, the proposals require strategic assets that companies
do not have and can not afford. In addition, the problem of intellectual
property may arise, does the person who collaborates or the company own the idea?
The
inner groups are not as diverse as the external groups, and can not propose
radical ideas because they have a more localized knowledge; but ensures
viability and speed. Frontline employees have in-depth knowledge of viable
changes, given the circumstances of the company and current assets. It is true
that many solutions are patches or alternative solutions that satisfy
particular needs, but have a rapid impact on the market; and there is no
problem of intellectual property.
One way
to encourage creativity, the presentation of proposals is collaborative work,
which fosters innovation, empowers and increases morale and commitment.
Malhotra
et al. (2017) present in Graph 5 the advantages of internal and external
sources of solutions. This graph also suggests the need to act well in the
choice and attraction of talents. The dilemma of internal and external
solutions is as imprinting as the dilemma of young (millennial) and old (over
40)
Graph 5. Where to look for solutions?
Source: http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/developing-innovative-solutions-through-internal-crowdsourcing
The
fate of Odyssey is shared only by a few, guided by prudence, moderation,
justice and balance in human relations. When they hire people, for
unquestionable reasons regarding the renewal of people and the need to have
collaborators who are trained in the new technical and management tools, they
do not automatically exclude older people than millennial. In this way, they
avoid the loss of talent without being seduced by the siren song that is
represented by the blind and obsessive inclination towards the millennial and the
almost pathological contempt for the old (over 40).
An
irrefutable evidence that they are not mistaken, when they discard the old, is
that companies should be immediately in the top positions in their sector, a
situation that is not true in the vast majority of cases and is not empirically
demonstrable.
If
Odysseus lived in our time, the use of GPS, instruments and sophisticated
control mechanisms, would prevent it from crashing or encalle. If he does it is
out of foolishness or incompetence. Similarly, CEOs and recruiters have access
to theories, algorithms, hundreds of books with techniques and advice from
renowned experts, master's or doctoral degrees, powerful expert systems and
multiple mechanisms so that mistakes in the choice of type of employees and the
balance between the different groups (young and old), are not admissible. Like
the reckless Odysseus, they should go to the bottom of the sea.
References
Malhotra
Arvind, Majchrzak Ann, Kesebi Lâle, and
Looram Sean (2017) Developing Innovative Solutions Through Internal
Crowdsourcing
Magazine:
Summer 2017 IssueResearch Feature, May 31, 2017
Deloitte
(2016) The 2016 Deloitte Millennial Survey Winning over the next generation of
leaders
Odiseo
y las sirenas, febrero 2014
