Generation Game

The weekend paper had a multi-page spread about Generation-Y Singaporeans in the workplace and how their attitudes on life and work differ from previous generations. Given that the purpose of children is to rebel against their parents, I'm wondering where the story is.

Anyway, Gen-Y is loosely defined as those born roughly between 1978 and 1994 and is a simplistic progression from Generation-X (originally coined as a pejorative by fiction writer Douglas Coupland in 1991).

The key characteristics of Gen-Y are that they grew up with digital technology and now use it as part of their everyday lives, so mobile phones, video games, X-Box, Facebook, MySpace, SMS, IM, Twitter; all of which is supposed to explain the Gen-Y trait of seeking instant gratification. How it explains their penchant for using scooters in the office, getting Celtic knot tattoos, piercing their faces with metal bars and saying "Whatever" a lot isn't explained.

The Times had an vaguely amusing quiz to determine if you are a Gen-Y:

1. Do you have your own web page? (1 point)
2. Have you made a web page for someone else? (2 points)
3. Do you keep in touch with your friends via instant messaging? (1 point)
4. Do you SMS your friends? (2 pts)
5. Do you watch vidoes on YouTube? (1 pt)
6. Do you remix videos downloaded from the Internet? (1 pt)
7. Have you bought & downloaded music from the Internet? (1 pt)
8. Do you know how to download free (but illegal) music? (2 pts)
9. Do you blog professionally? (1 pt)
   
10. Do you blog as a online diary (2 pts)
11. Have you used MySpace at least 5 times? (1 pt)
12. Do you communicate with friends viz Facebook? (2 pts)
13. Do you use e-mail with your parents (1 pt)
14. Do you SMS your parents? (2 pts)
15. Do you share photos from your mobile phone with friends (2 pts)

Score yourself as follows:
0-6 points and you are a baby boomer
7-12 points, you are Gen-X
>12 points, Gen-Y

At about 13pts, I am a Gen-Y apparently, despite being ~15 years too old. My ever faithful partner in life scored as a Baby Boomer. Both reasonable results given the quiz covered use of digital technology, not wider attitudes towards work, politics, personal goals, and so on.

The end of the article included a list (gack! about as predictable as a montage in an action movie) of 8 ways to get the best/most from Gen-Yers:

1. Be Precise. Set concrete, aspirational goals to direct their ambition.
2. Boring is Bad. Work needs to be challenging and changing.
3. Constant Recognition. Feed them a regular diet of reinforcement and constant feedback. Do appraisals monthly or quarterly.
4. Group Therapy. Assign teams and leverage their desire for collaboration.
5. Work-Like Balance. They have lots of outside interests; get to know what they are and leave time for them.
6. Generation Why. Explain the big picture and what part they play in it.
7. No Bullying. Command-&-control leadership fails, use Emotional Intelligence.
8. Office Party. Make work fun and employee-centered.

Why make a big story about young people labeled with an ill-defined and disputed moniker? There's little Singaporean spin on the story and much of it could be a straight AP piece off the wire. It does play to young people as reassuring recognition from nasty authority types. Mainly it confirms what we already know, that young people are selfish hedonists who are a pain to integrate into post-industrial, commercial enterprises. It's called Generation-Next and ever will it be so.

Beep, screech, crunch, tinkle

It's a combination of sheet metal rumpling, glass tinkling and plastics shattering; the sound of a car crash is quite distinctive. It's also dramatic and fascinating and I'd be a liar if I said I didn't leap up and have a look out of the window when I heard it the other morning. Out on the main road, a taxi was mid U-turn across a dual-carriageway and a small black car had bumped into the back of it.

First rule of accidents: accuse the other guy before he tries to blame you. First rule of deciding who is really at fault: pick whoever was turning/changing lanes. In this case, the taxi was way out of line, starting from the left side of the road, turning across lane #2 to effect a U-turn is a dodgy manoeuvre requiring strict visual verification. The taxi driver looked like he'd swallowed a cigarette butt and was taking the other guy's ranting with glum acceptance.

But not so fast. I did say the horn was the first thing I heard. There's an old rule of aviation priorities: Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. It highlights that no matter what the crisis,the first job is to keep the plane in the air. Next is to figure out which way to fly and only then, if you have time, do you get on the radio. Obviously, with co-pilots you have more options but it works for motoring as well. In an emergency, you should be braking and steering your way out of trouble. If you have time for beeping the horn, then you are not yet in an emergency.

I reckon the driver of the black car saw the taxi start to pull away and turn, gave it some sound as a warning, but only braked when the taxi started to block his path. A defensive driver would have given himself more options and braked earlier. The light impact of the bump indicates how avoidable it was.

The taxi driver will likely take the full rap, and he'll be well out of pocket. The LTA has just allowed taxi fares to rise slightly but driving a cab is not a path to riches. The driver will rent the cab from one of the big firms for about SG$105 per day (£35). In a 12 hour shift, he'll use $40-$50 of fuel and take about $200 in fares, thus clearing about $40-$50 cash. Have an accident and he loses the fares and has to pay for repairs. A tough break in an occupation that has so many risks with little financial upside.

China's Unsung Heroes

There are already 93 million Chinese called Wang and the number's growing (the top 10 Chinese surnames are Wang, Li, Zhang, Liu, Chen, Yang, Huang, Zhao, Zhou, Wu). The problem is that Chinese names are traditionally 3 characters, starting with the family name, then adding 2 personal names. The Chinese Government controls the choice by publishing a list of acceptable family names. The resulting surname (or as seen in a recent e-mail: "sir name") shortage is causing confusion apparently.

The ministry's suggested solution is to allow double-barreled combinations. China Daily gives the example of a baby whose dad's surname is Zhou, the mother's Zhu, and who could therefore be called Zhou, Zhu, Zhouzhu or Zhuzhou.

Note that wives usually retain their own name but children would take the father's. We can now play the I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue game where we announce the arrival of Mr. Ng and Mrs. Sung with their son Ng Sung He Ro.

You don't need double-barreled names to have problems. Everyone one I know here has problems with romanised Chinese names, most notably in e-mail where I hear daily Long/Leung/Leong or Chee/Chie/Chea debates amongst people of all levels of Mandarin fluency. Worse yet, a Mandarin Seng is a Hokkien Sing so people pronounce the same name according to their language bias.

As far as I know, my company's e-mail always uses the Mandarin romanisation but that just means they may be called something slightly different and you can't tell. A minor additional confusion is that Westerners are shown as "<first> <last>", but for some reason, Indians are added "<last> <middle>-<first>", leaving their given name in the wrong place unless they complain to the Admin and have it switched around. It's no wonder business cards are so important and exchanged with almost Japanese levels of reverence.

My chief gripe is with Chinese who take a Western name as well. While Mike Tan is easy, it may be used in addition like TAN Kuan-Hiat Mike. So he might be "Mike" at work, "Kuan-Hiat" elsewhere but you still need to be able to spell the whole thing for e-mail. It can occassionally be fun such as a lady I worked with a few years ago: Ms. Heidi Ho. Strangely, I've never forgotten her name.

EQ & Employee Disengagement

I attended an in-house, company presentation entitled "Enhancing EQ" by an external HR consultant, ostensibly part of the company's EAP.

It wasn't a great presentation partly because the goal was to promote their business (rather than educate the audience) and partly because it's a huge topic. Having said that, I could summarize the 1 hour easily:

1. Obvious: We all have emotions / feelings.

2. Interesting: People have different emotions about the same event.

3. Crucial: Our sub-conscious plays a huge and often unappreciated role in our emotional responses.

Explaining #3 wasn't even attempted except via some trivial examples and given it is the main point, left me, and I suspect others, confused and unsatisfied. A double-whammy was that she managed to emphasise employee dissatisfaction without offering hope or remedy. At one point, when she asked what our emotional reaction to being fired would be, the room almost pulsed with a collective "woo hoo". D'oh!

This slow-motion train wreck of a presentation did contain one fascinating point, mentioned in passing, that a Gallup survey found Singaporean workers were amongst the worst for workplace disengagement. Now this needs investigating ...

The original Oct 2003 Gallup survey is for paid/registered users only.

The next best is a Singapore Commentator piece itself referring to a NY Times article (now unavailable) but adds some fascinating words on the Freudian psychology of bullying bosses (which is a topic all of its own).

Better, there is a Government reference in a speech by Ms Yong Ying-I, Permanent Secretary (Manpower) which is worth reading in its entirety, but for example, quoted:

... that Singaporean workers were among the least committed workers amongst the world's developed economies.

and

... some 12 % of Singapore's workers felt actively disengaged from their jobs. But this ISR survey goes further in concluding that the key driver for their lack of commitment was their disenchantment with corporate leadership

I liked the "we needed productive, disciplined workers" part. Disciplined? I think she was heading for "obedient" but missed for whatever reason.

Para #8 explicitly cites the danger of dissatisfied knowledge workers seeking employment overseas to find a conducive workplace. Ouch. This is dynamite stuff and very much on-message as far as I am concerned.

Para #16 lays into the school system, e.g.: "When the human spirit is dampened down, there can be no passion."

I give up on the excerpts; just read the whole thing. It's all true I tell you.