Generational Worries

As the academic year comes to a close, it is a great time to step back and take stock of what succeeded and what failed. This year marks the end of my second year teaching undergraduates and my tenth year of teaching in higher education. This year I have some worries for my students and those who will be leading them in the future. Part of my concern comes from how faculty and students have come to interact; I now believe that higher education has veered off course and the result may lead to problems for students’ futures in the workplace.

I will describe two interconnected problems. The first links to how many have come to view the educational process and the second relates to generational differences. I think most see education as a gateway to a better economic life, and this idea has led to the association of education with the earning of the diploma; in other words, we have turned away from the concept of learning and made it about the end result of obtaining a document.

Generational differences may also exasperate some of the issues. One consulting organization has proclaimed “[m]illennials born between 1978 – 1987] have the reputation of being the toughest generation to manage….they are tech-savvy…self-centered…and they do not expect to pay their dues.”¹ While this may be true, I think it is important to state upfront that I think my students are good people with an appropriate level of intelligence and aptitude; when they decide to apply themselves, I have no doubt they can achieve their career goals. Unfortunately, the system is rigged by our attitudes toward education and the desire to make our students comfortable, which could be a response to the generational needs and desires. In effect, to meet the requirements of comfort and get them through to earn the piece of paper, faculty have become reluctant co-conspirators. 

Here are some examples that reveal what I hypothesize to be a conspiratorial collusion between faculty, students and their parents: 

• If the faculty member gives the requisite level of work for a course (rule of thumb: 2 hours of weekly outside class study time for each academic course credit), students complain and punish the faculty member with bad course evaluations. If one happens to work for a University where the shift toward treating the student and parent as a customer has occurred, student evaluations take on significant meaning to the faculty’s career; managing to the evaluations becomes essential and there is little choice but to align work with student expectations. This places faculty and students in a subtle collusion — “I will give you a good evaluation if you give me what I want: low coursework and a high grade.”  Or course, this is detrimental to students educationally.

• Similarly, if the faculty member sets high expectations and then “pushes the students” to reach that bar, he or she is again punished with bad evaluations. The outcome of this stretch toward higher learning and advanced critical thinking results in elevated student stress. Learning is not easy and students feel it. It is natural to resist and, therefore, as the stress levels increase, the target of any complaints is the faculty member — “he or she is not making it easy and, therefore, is a bad teacher.”  Once again the faculty member faces the dilemma of lowering the standards or suffering the consequences. The result is the same as in the previous example.

• The shifts above have brought about a belief that earning a degree rather than learning is the purpose behind higher education. This is not true, of course, but if a student enters the system believing this is the game, then his or her goal shifts toward doing the minimal amount required in order to finish; students begin by doing only the absolute minimum required (avoid any reading).  It also leads to disruptive behavior in the classroom. ("Why listen when I can text my friend?")

This sounds fairly ugly, doesn’t it?  As stated earlier, these are good people who have become trapped in a cycle of events that I believe harms them and, ultimately, organizations. The reason why it is harmful is because most organizations are not caught in this trap and all of the expectations that faculty are trying to enact are actually required in the organization that the student will eventually join.   

If my hypotheses are accurate, organizational leaders are left the task of dealing with these habits. Here are some things to consider as a means to integrate the millennials in the workplace:

• A first step is to understand the needs, desires, wants and plans of each individual, along with each person’s generation, and then respond accordingly.

•  Make sure the culture of the organization and its values are strong and clear. Culture is the “invisible hand” that governs acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. If it does its job, leaders will not be burdened with some of the issues described. For example, when and where “smartphones” can be used is of significant value. I have witnessed organizations where phone use in meetings is unacceptable whereas, at other places, attention is divided between the meeting and emails (just like in the classroom). Procedures and unwritten cultural rules can set the parameters for this and other kinds of activities.

• Establish career paths that permit the employee (i.e. younger generation) to understand what is needed to advance. Sometimes this knowledge becomes a wake-up call.

• Enable the interaction and sharing between all generations in the organization. It is possible to have three generations in the business; “team building” can help members understand how to deal with any individual differences.

To summarize, society’s attitude toward higher education has shifted; the concept of learning has been replaced by a specific purpose of acquiring a piece of paper that symbolizes education, but instead offers a false market signal. Today, students and their faculty are trapped in a cycle that focuses on comfort, when learning causes the opposite – change and discomfort. This leaves business leaders to work with the problem. One option for leaders is to focus on the culture and values of the organization, along with providing solid career paths. It is also necessary for the leaders to become knowledgeable of generational differences, particularly as it relates to needs, wants, desires and what motivates. 

All is not lost and the picture may not be as bleak as I have represented and, of course, it does not apply to all students; nevertheless, something is happening and it is not good. There are two starting places for a repair. First, students must realize “no pain means no long-term gain,” and each should seek challenge and risk the difficulty that learning brings. In addition, faculty must band together and in a united front require a certain amount of work and “raise the bar.” That is, education should not be about small incremental movements forward but dramatic advancements during a student's four years.

Please feel free to make comments.

References

¹ Multigenerational Characteristics, Bruce Mayhew Consulting, retrieved 10-27-12, www.nrucemayhewconsulting.com