A- A A+

Millennials want to change the world through their work

2 Comments
Rachel Kurzyp |  14 May 2017

Millennial and Boomer badger money-focused Senior Manager. Cartoon by Chris Johnston

Kids these days, am I right? We can't hold down a job, we expect to be promoted before we've proven ourselves and we put our career needs before the needs of an organisation.

We're the largest age group making up 37 per cent of the Australian workforce yet we're expected to sit down, shut up and wait our turn. What is it about millennials that has everyone scared?

When age discrimination in the workplace is discussed, people often try to justify the stereotype of young people being entitled, selfish and lazy as being based on generational cohort, not age. But for young Australians in the workforce, they are one and the same thing.

Ageism in the workplace isn't new. As a society, we've always discriminated against people based on age. We've traditionally believed that being 'old' means you are weak and out of touch and being 'young' means you're vulnerable and naive. However, recent structural, economic and demographic changes have created new types of ageism that are more subtle and widespread.

One notable change is the presence of two large, culturally distinct generations — millennials and boomers — in the workforce. As boomers are working longer, they are having to share the boardroom table with a new generation who are trying to get an economic foothold. This is where the negative perceptions start. Each generation views work and, therefore, approaches their career in a different way. Boomers often perceive millennials negatively because they don't understand their working style, while millennials want to experiment more at work and see boomers as a barrier.

This ageism debate almost always comes back to the way millennials use technology, however, the way young people behave today is not only a result of mobile phones and Facebook.

In the same way that boomers were shaped by the events of World War Two, young peoples' behaviour in the workplace has been influenced by their experience of the global economic crisis and political instability. Unable to influence some of society's biggest challenges, including income inequality, house affordability and unemployment, millennials feel they can have a greater sense of control and make a positive impact within the workplace.

But unlike boomers, young Australians want more than just technical knowledge. They want the ability to identify and solve global problems in the workplace. Specifically, they want to solve problems that the boomers and those before them created. And this is where the tension arises. Nearly 40 per cent of millennials believe that older senior management doesn't relate to younger workers and 34 per cent feel that their personal drive is intimidating to other generations.

 

"Millennials want to disperse power, not hold onto it. And for a workforce that's built on an authoritarian, rules-based approach, letting a large, educated, well-connected and socially conscious group have a seat at the boardroom table can be scary."

 

One young Australian, 23-year-old YMCA employee Anthony Secodulidis, sums up what's wrong with the current way we view young people in the workforce perfectly. 'There's a huge amount of interest in youth engagement but it's so much more than just providing a ping-pong table and some bean bags for your staff. Young people want the opportunity to be heard and to have hands-on experiences,' says Secoulidis.

But hands-on experience in Australia is hard to get. The current unemployment for 15 to 24-year-olds is 13.3 per cent and when combined with youth underemployment (those in casual or part-time roles wanting more work) the figure doubles. One reason young people are finding it hard to secure permanent work is due to ageism. Senior managers, who are often responsible for hiring, have a more positive view of senior workers than they do of millennials, believing they are friendlier, more competent and have higher moral standards.

Employers are also setting unrealistic requirements for entry level roles and aren't willing to provide meaningful training and development opportunities. The question then shouldn't be: How do we engage young people in our workforce? Instead, we should be asking: Why are we focusing on engagement and not the underlying issues?

Young Australians believe that business has the power to make a difference. And they want to make the world a better place through their work. But unlike boomers, millennials believe in inclusive, consensual and collaborative work environments rather than one that directly links accountability and responsibility to seniority. And here lies the problem. Millennials want to disperse power, not hold onto it. And for a workforce that's built on an authoritarian, rules-based approach, letting a large, educated, well-connected and socially conscious group have a seat at the boardroom table can be scary. Better to not let them participate at all.

 


Rachel KurzypRachel Kurzyp is a Melbourne-based writer and communications consultant with a focus on human rights and digital inclusion.

Cartoon by Chris Johnston

 


Rachel Kurzyp

Recent articles by this author


Comments

Comments should be short, respectful and on topic. Email is requested for identification purposes only.

Word Count: 0 (please limit to 200)

Submitted comments

Thanks for the thought provoking article Rachel. As you are no doubt aware, making generalisations about boomers and millennials is going to have advantages and disadvantages. I think it's important to stay aware that many of the good characteristics of millennials exist in boomers and vice versa because they are human characteristics that have existed in all cultures throughout history. If they didn't, society would be fairly dysfunctional. From my own recent career experiences, I would say bosses preferred to employ young malleable, ambitious millennials rather than older, experienced people who knew when they were "being taken for a ride" and were prepared to question directives from on high. These boomers were very willing to mentor the young - to share the power. They passionately believed in team work, inclusiveness, diversity and above all, the success of future generations. But I acknowledge my own experience is not replicated in all other workplaces. Personally, I don't think we should view the workplace through the almost passé marketing device of "baby boomers, gen X, gen Y, millennials etc" though I acknowledge it can serve some purposes, such as helping us to explain some social characteristics. I recently saw people close to me lose many thousands of dollars simply because a group of young, inexperienced (that's OK, we've all been inexperienced at different times) people swept into power in an organisation. They got rid of all the seniors who had any influence in the organisation. With that one gesture, they completely cut themselves off from many years of corporate history and good will. So sad.

Anne Shannon 17 May 2017

I am afraid I greatly empathise with the balanced and nuanced comments of Anne Shannon rather than the sweeping generalisations of the article. Regarding just one point, namely ageism, I can testify that "senior managers, who often are responsible for hiring, have a more positive view of senior workers....etc" is not the only situation encountered by people seeking work. A number seem to outsource their interviewing and selection processes to panels of employment consultants who are too young to know how to value senior workers, and who think their klnowledge is outdated (without any real test thereof), or that they just will not fit in with younger workers. Further, in my observation the phenomenon of "unrealistic requirements for entry level jobs" is not merely a prejudice of the hiring organisation but the result of a system that has produced far too many over-educated applicants to match the reality of the entry jobs available.

Dennis Green 19 May 2017

Similar articles

Budget's bank slug flouts the property precipice

3 Comments
David James | 10 May 2017

Banks logosThe $6.2 billion the government will raise through a levy on bank liabilities not only shows how out of favour banks have become, it is also, in effect, a de facto tax on property lending - a counterbalance to negative gearing and capital gains tax breaks. It is a tax on property lending because nearly all the banks' loans are mortgages for housing, or business loans secured with property. Of course the banks will pass the extra cost on to their customers, so it becomes a tax on borrowers.


Beyond fake news lies the fog of fake figures

6 Comments
David James | 02 May 2017

GDPFake news aside, increasingly, we live in a world of fake figures. There is a cliche in management that 'what gets measured gets done'. In public discourse that might be translated to 'what gets measured is considered real'. One obvious fake figure is GDP, which is taken as a measure of national wellbeing. In fact, it is just a measure of transactions. If money changes hands because something disastrous happens then GDP will rise. That is hardly an indicator of national wellbeing.


The language of exploitation in the online labour market

3 Comments
Daniel Nicholson | 24 April 2017

Deliveroo bicycle delivery personWhen you are in the business of exploiting people, language matters. A recently leaked document from Deliveroo is geared to emphasising that the people who deliver food for Deliveroo are and should remain independent contractors, not employees. In 2016, a Unions NSW report into the employment practices of gig-economy company AirTasker categorised the online labour market as 'unregulated Taylorism within a Dickensian marketplace where workers compete for bite-sized fragments of labour'.


Deconstructing the privatisation scam

12 Comments
David James | 04 April 2017

Melbourne airport parking ticketIt is increasingly evident how pernicious the privatisation myth is. Two recent examples have underlined it: the failings in Australia's privatised energy grid and the usurious pricing in airport car parks. Both demonstrated that it is folly to expect a public benefit to inevitably emerge from private profit seeking. The purpose of government funded public infrastructure is not to make profits but to lower the cost of doing business, sometimes called the socialisation of the means of production.


Penalty rate cuts are the result of thinking small

17 Comments
David James | 07 March 2017

Sign reads 'closed Sunday'Witnessing the debate over Sunday penalty rates, an intriguing pattern of thinking emerged. It can be characterised as a microcosm/macrocosm duality. Those arguing for lower Sunday wage rates demonstrate their case by talking about individual businesses, the micro approach: 'Many businesses would love to open on a Sunday and if wage rates were lower, they would. Unleash those businesses and greater employment will follow.' Superficially impressive, this does not survive much scrutiny.