Dan Erwin

Recent College Grads: The Revolving Door and Parent Support

A survey of Generation-I, four year college grads between 22 and 26 years old, finds that they have little professional or geographic staying power. The study, fielded by Braun Research and funded by Adecco Group, was a telephone survey of 507 recent college grads. 

There’s plenty of research surrounding the validity of self-reporting, indicating that it is only moderately trustworthy. Still, a nationwide survey like this, can serve as a “pointer.” 

Intriguing findings:

Only 3% of recent grads said they’d expect to stay at any given job for more than five years. A job offer with higher pay, from a dream company or in a dream city would result in a move for more than 50% of grads. (I’ve always recommended that staying in the same job more than 3 years is nonsense and usually unwise. So I’d want to know what the survey meant when grads were quizzed about staying at any “given job.”) 

A striking 91% of recent would only continue working at a job they didn’t like for up to a year. In fact, 1 in 5 would only stay for three months before leaving a job they didn’t like. Salary, benefit and perk cuts, along with work that doesn’t fit their interests are killer reasons for these stats. 

Recent grads expect to stay connected to personal life—even at work. Certain activities will prevent grads from taking a job that they might be otherwise interested in. The list of important connections is highly reflective of the technology bent of the generation.

• 23% wouldn’t stay if personal phone calls are prohibited.
• 20% wouldn’t stay if they were not permitted to check personal emails.
• 15% wouldn’t stay if they were not permitted texting.
• 12% wouldn’t stay if they were not permitted to visit social media websites.

Nearly 30% of recent grads report that their parents are in some way involved in their job search process—and in some cases, very involved.

• 13% use parents’ personal network.
• 11% parents locate job listings for grads
• 9% parents rehearse job interview.
• 8% parents forward resume or cover letters for grads. 

More than half of recent grads report that parents help pay living expenses. The assistance is significant.

• 32% of parents help with cell phone expense.
• 21% of parents help with food.
• 20% of parents help with health insurance.
• 17% of parents help with rent.
• 17% of parents help with utilities.
• 13% of parents help with student loans.
• 12% of parents help with transportation. 

Students who graduate from college and are in that 22 to 26 year-old group are a very select group. It suggests that parents are very supportive of a huge proportion of college grads. I’m curious to know what you think about these statistics?

Flickr photo: U Chicago graduation

"Monkey Kabuki"

If you’re a history buff, happened to see “Inherit the Wind (1960) on a rerun, or are from Tennessee, you probably understand the reference to monkeys. The anti-evolution folks are at it again.

This is The Economist’s way of reminding its readers of the so-called “Scopes Monkey Trial” in 1925, where two of America’s greatest mouthpieces, Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan argued over evolution. In previous blogs, The market has spoken—conclusively—on climate change and, Is there something peculiarly American about the rejection of science, I opined on questions of science.

You’d think time would dim those issues, but instead, it gets worse. My wife, who happened to be a graduate of the bastion of evangelicalism, W-----n College in the 1950s, used to roll her eyes at the subject. On a few occasions, she informed me that evolution was a given in her science classes at the school. When I asked how they dealt with their theology, she smiled wryly and said something to the point of god instituting evolution as the means of creation.

Obviously, it was never a question of significance to her. But how time has changed elsewhere. It’s worse now than it was in the ‘50s.

As The Economist writes, the Tennessee legislature has passed another of those bills about science. Rather, about questioning the entire discipline. The bill in question required the state’s education system to encourage students to “explore scientific questions” and “respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about scientific subjects.” It passed by big majorities in both Tennessee chambers, and the governor declined to veto it. 

Though intelligent design and creationism are not mentioned, many are certain this is a back door, allowing teachers to introduce the subjects. I should say “reintroduce” those subjects. What is a bit surprising are the statistics about such bills. Since 2004, similar measures have been offered in 13 state legislatures. Only in one other state has the bill become law. Thankfully, Louisiana’s measure, which is law in the state, seems to have had no discernible effects. I say thankfully, because students who come to those conclusions will be limiting their future in science. That's especially true today, where the best vocational opportunities are in STEM careers (science, technology, engineering,and math). An engineering degree often requires an extensive science background in subjects of medical background, such as biology.

Flickr: photo by Doug888

Once More: What Do Managers Do All Day?

Austerity. Employee engagement. Social media. Crowd-sourcing. Entrepreneurial. Social networking. Restructuring. Innovative. Internet company.

Words come and go. The verbiage changes, but how has this changed what managers actually do?

In a recent conversation with a Gen-Yer, just 14 months into his first management job, he downloaded most of his day at my request. He uses different language than most of my exec clients. His context, an internet company, is a lot different than theirs: technology, small appliance, agribusiness, etc. Does that mean that the heart of what he does daily is different than what 45 year-old execs at old-line firms do?

For the sake of audience appeal and to desperately offer newness, I need to be able to answer my question with a big, detailed “yes.” There are a lot of new approaches to management: new frameworks, models and buzzwords. But does the heart of managing more traditional companies differ from the heart of managing internet startups today? Or is the new language just new hype?

The context is different
It took only a bit of reflection to realize that at the heart of what managers do, nothing has changed. Oh yeah, the context is quite different, as are the products. But whether you manage at Facebook, GE or General Motors, the heart of management is action.

Most of us know that the orderly reasoning about managing is intriguing, but fairly useless. Even with just a semester of business, you know the business language, describing how managers are supposed to work. A rational approach to management includes the following: planning, organizing, staffing, coordinating, recruiting, etc., etc. When managers step away from the work, most of them still use the terminology of management. But we all know those descriptions have a lot of fiction in them. Managing, like other experiences in life, is messy. Very messy.

The Gen-Y manager
Listening to that Gen-Yer’s talk about chairing a meeting of eight people where an important and controversial issue was to be decided, I thought about his frustrations. He’d gradually come to realize that managing is not what he expected. It’s all action: 10 to 12 hours a day.

Here are six conditions that are completely reflective of what he experienced. Only the conditions were formulated nearly 25 years ago. Not surprisingly, my young friend said that they were completely identical with his 2012 experience. This is a highly descriptive statement about what managers do and can’t do all day:

As a manager, you “cannot avoid acting.” At each moment of the meeting you are acting. Even letting things go constitutes an action—and with effects you may or may not want. So, you are always “thrown into action, independent of your will.

“You cannot step back and reflect on your actions.” You have to rely on your instincts to react and act in real time, even though you may reflect on the meeting later on and realize or wish that you had done things differently.

"The effect of your actions cannot be predicted.” There are too many paths that any action could lead to, so you cannot always depend on rational planning to find steps that will achieve your goals. Instead, you have no choice but to “flow with the situation.

“You do not have a stable representation of the situation.” Things in the meeting evolve continuously. At any moment, you only see fragmentary pieces. The overall pattern of the meeting is only discernible after it is over.

“Every representation is an interpretation.” Even after the meeting is over, your description of what transpired at the meeting will never be the only one. Someone else will read the meeting differently and so the facts will always be elusive—what one must work with is opinions and interpretations.

"Language is action.” Every time you speak, you are not merely stating the facts, you are acting. You are actively shaping and constructing a definition of the situation and trying to persuade others of the facts as you see them and the action s that you believe must be taken. The rhetorical nature of managerial action cannot be escaped and must be constantly attended to.

That new Gen-Y manager breathed a sigh of relief. He expected his job to be something different than what he was experiencing. It was liberating to talk through these actions. They were pragmatic. His practice is not so much about business hype, but what works.

The more you know and understand a situation, the easier it is to work in that situation. I rarely get stressed by a situation I understand. So, like my Gen-Y friend, I find this description liberating. I’m very curious to know what you think about it.

Note: The six points are from Robert G. Eccles and Nitin Nohria, Beyond the Hype: Rediscovering the Essence of Management.
Photo fm Flickr.com: by **Anissa**