Commentary
To an older worker -- that is, over 40 -- a job means a paycheck, not prizes and treats
by S.J. SchwaidelsonI am a dinosaur. I firmly believe if you have a job, your first responsibility is to show up. On time. Ready to work. In the grown-up world of paychecks, that's what you do if you want to keep getting one. At least, that's what my parents taught me.
And that was the position we took with the boys. They managed to grow up. One's a blues man, the other's an engineer. Both are self-sufficient.
When our guys were little, my husband and I questioned the wisdom of handing out participation medals at an event. We were immediately rebuffed, told that all children were special, and all children should get prizes for trying. We suggested that made as much sense as handing out prizes for respiration.
I work in an environment where the median age seems to be under 30, and I can tell you that handing out all those prizes for breathing has created a generation of self-obsessed children who seem unable to enter into real-world responsibility without some sort of award system dangled before them. In my office, each month that you're a perfect-on-time-no-unexcused-absence person, you get a forgiveness coupon. This valuable chit can be used to remove a tardy arrival demerit that would otherwise go on your permanent record ... you know, the equivalent of a note from Mom to the school attendance officer.
Excuse me, but aren't you SUPPOSED to be on time?
The older workers (over 40, which isn't all that old in my book), who are used to being paid for doing work in a professional manner, are at a loss as to how to respond to this new state of business. It's not the prizes and sub-casual attire that stymie us oldsters; it's the casual attitudes.
Between the group planning office games and the treats and toys brought in by vendors, we've created a workplace-as-playground mindset. Work has to be fun now, not just a paycheck; the workers have to have a good time while they're here. I'm not suggesting that work should be a bad time, or even just a grind, but which is the priority: productivity or fun? And how did we even get to a place where we're questioning the priority?
In a tight job market where raises are scarce (or minuscule if they happen at all), perhaps doing one's job well really isn't enough to keep the next generation engaged. This is neither a partisan nor political issue; this is a cultural one. Kids coming out of school and into the worst economy in a generation still have expectations of high starting salaries and signing bonuses. These kids are not earning or progressing at the same rate as their parents and they're not willing to accept a lower standard of living that comes with a smaller salary. What seems to be missing is a sense of future growth. It's not all instant gratification.
We do all our children a disservice by reinforcing the idea that they are the center of the universe and that their personal joy, satisfaction and passion trump those of anyone else. We are not teaching them how to be part of a collective effort and we're not teaching them that work done well can bring both personal and salary growth in the future -- that one has to strive to reach those goals. Instead, we are teaching how to set themselves apart and to concentrate solely on their desires, which must be met now. We are teaching them to think so inside their own little boxes that the outside walls could collapse around them with little notice.
I'm O.K. with being a dinosaur. I think I'll continue to show up on time, do my job, and cash my paycheck. And if I'm real lucky, maybe a kid sitting near me will get the message. After all, the paycheck is the prize that lets you follow your dreams, indulge your passions and do all the really fun stuff.
In the meanwhile, as these kids start to have kids of their own, I have to ask: What are they going to teach them?
----
S.J. Schwaidelson is Minnesotan by marriage but a die-hard New Yorker by birth. She blogs at The Wifely Person Speaks.
Comments (14)
These types of articles are predictable and frustrating. In a slow economy, everyone wants to fling blame elsewhere. For the boomers, it means blaming it on younger generations.
Mrs. Schwaidelson is right: You are supposed to be on time to work, and yes, workplaces are becoming more casual. However, what if it is more a product of the employer? Employers are in a race to the bottom when it comes to wages. The least punctual and least productive workers are the cheapest. So, it would make sense that if the bottom line is the largest priority, low wages would attract lousy workers (it's easy to fake it in an interview). Why should a skilled individual waste their time hoop jumping? Skills are worth a price, that's capitalism.
Philosophical analysis is irrelevant though, because what Mrs Schwaidelson's co-workers do is none of her business (unless she is their immediate supervisor, of course). So why pontificate about work ethic? Jealousy probably. It's hard to be productive when nobody else is, especially if they are getting paid the same. She chooses to complain, rather than offer solutions. Why not ask her boss to spend the money devoted to "rewards" on improving wages for the best workers?
One thing is certain, we aren't going to get solutions from a conservative "dinosaur" who still defines herself via her husband (the Wifely Person? Seriously?) It's the boomers that got us into this economic mess. This is a blog post, not an editorial for a reputable news source like MPR
Dude, it's says "commentary" at the top of the page, not editorial.
I found the article enlightening, for one. Speaking as a young guy who has always fought against the "we're ALL special" mentality, it's nice to hear someone actually come out and say that it's as horribly bogus as it is. We're a generation of self-involved egoists because of this crap, and we need to start addressing it. Hopefully, my kids won't be a bunch of whiny brats like most of the people I went to school with!
The comment about blame is missing the point entirely. I think that this column really highlights the changes in the workplace over the past couple of decades and the differing expectations of workers, based upon how they were raised. Lower wage jobs have always been with us and always will, as long as we have a market-based economy. The point is not whether baby-boomers or millenials are better workers; because both have their strengths. It is a commentary on the inherent reward system that has been built into the most mundane and everyday tasks that were previously taken for granted. If a young (er) person expects a ribbon or a trophy for just 'being" then they are going to be sadly disappointed in the business world, which operates on Darwinian rather than than altruistic principles.
Fair point Rob, I was put off by the portrait and home page billing. That screams editorial, but you're right it does say "Commentary."
But you must at least acknowledge that every older generation has said this since the down of time (our parents say it about us, we'll say it about our children). It's frustrating folks jump to blaming a generation of workers (and hit the hard working with their broad generalization). Employment is a two-way street. Remember: Somebody had to hire those poor workers. Why not hold them accountable too?
What a bunch of myopic drivel. If the author can't see her place in the chain of each generation criticizing the ones that come after, then she must not have been paying attention when her parents said exactly the same sorts of things about her. Total cliche.
Dudes, please note: Not all of the people older than you are Boomers. Baby Boomers were born between 1946 and 1964. Late '60's through early '80's = Gen X. We are not the same.
@Nit Picker: True story. My folks are boomers, and I use them as the older generation bellweather, but you are 100% correct. Apologies.
@Albion: Your comment is very insightful. Do you think that if the workplace is (mostly) Darwinian, would the workers not have to adapt or be fired? I think that if employers don't demand professionalism, they won't receive it. Most people will do the least amount of work for the most reward (especially when raises are rare). The most bang for the buck is ingrained in our economy.
Therefore, as somebody who agrees that the economy is Darwinian, I see either an employer who isn't pushing their employees to be professional, or somebody who needs to the new status quo.
I don't feel either of those are addressed. I was lost in the seeming superiority behind the statement "If I'm real lucky maybe a kid sitting near me will get the message." To me, that translates that as "It should be this way because I'm older and wiser," and overshadows the idea of collective benefit of hard work by all. Apologies for being too harsh in my original post.
For some employers, employees are no longer an asset; they are a consumable. Many younger workers have not yet figured that out.
@Mike - Workplaces are Darwinian because life in general for most adults, I believe, is Darwinian. Employers have a vested self-interest in engaging employees, since, even in this economy, most companies wish to retain talent. What we are finding is that different generations are motivated by different rewards. Many baby-boomers see an intrinsic reward in just having a job with benefits, whereas millenials view employment as a collaborative process in which the company has to contiually prove that its worth working for. The fact that we have raised kids with these expectations is purely an observation not an indictment.
@albion: Right on. Very well explained, great point. I was being jumpy and defensive.
Were you guys all commenting on this essay while at your jobs?!
I work in an environment where showing up on time isn't important - as long as we're all in the office at a reasonable hour and do our 40 hours a week, not showing up at 09:30 on the tick isn't an issue. All the day jobs I've had since my first start in the workplace have been like this - I've never worked for a company who made a point of me showing up exactly on time, nor would I care to.
Maybe it's different for companies in the creative fields - I work for an advertising agency, and previously worked at start-ups and design studios. I (an as it seems, my employers) care little for on-the-clock punctuality as it's no measure for a job well done.
As someone in their late 20s, who is an only child, I find it offensive when people tell me "Wow, I would have never guessed you were an only child!" Not all only children are raised the same, just as not all of the younger generation were raised the same.
Yes, the younger generation tends to be a bit "needier" when it comes to things like dress code and hours, but what about all the research regarding how it improves efficiency? What about Best Buy's ROWE (results-oriented work environment) program? It has time and time again received high marks.
And I can admit, do I come to work every day at 8:00 am on the nuts? No. Do I leave at 5:00 ... no. Do I get all of my work done - absolutely. I work at 7am sometimes or even on Sunday afternoon.
The bottom line shouldn't be about who shows up on time; it should be about who's getting the work done. No matter what they're wearing or what time of day it is.
Expecting employees to show up on time may sound childish, but it is an important indicator of dependability, and that is important not only to employers but to co-workers.
Imagine if the scrub nurse didn't show up for your operation at its scheduled start time. We all know what happens when a wide receiver gets to where the ball was thrown a tenth of a second too late. I think you get the point.
Want to improve morale in the workplace? Set expectations high and reward those who meet them and weed out those who don't.
(Disclosure: I am the commentator's cousin, but I am not a dinosaur.)
Post a comment
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Terms and Conditions before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
