Mary Crane & Associates : Read Mary Newsletter

Mass Career Customization

Mass Career Customization

You may know them as Millennials. I prefer to describe them as the “T-Ball Generation”—a reflection of the fact that, as a generation, today’s young adults grew up playing a game in which they could not fail and were awarded a prize just for showing up. It’s the generation comprised of young men and women born in or after 1982. And, as every employer knows, the T-Ball Generation is now entering the workplace.

From an employer’s perspective, one of the key characteristics of the T-Ball Generation is their absolute belief that they can and should explore as many work options as possible. Any employer who does not create a work environment that fosters this desire for personal and professional growth is likely to see massive turnover. If you are a manager concerned with how you will attract and retain the very best of the T-Ball Generation, grab Mass Career Customization, by Cathleen Benko and Anne Weisberg (2007).

According to the two authors, today’s employers must quickly get comfortable with the fact that many of their youngest employees are not interested in climbing the corporate ladder. Because Boomers, as well as generations that preceded them, sought to scale these ladders, the T-Ball Generation’s attitude reflects a major cultural shift. Benko and Weisberg write about a confluence of factors (a shrinking pool of skilled labor, changing family structures, increasing numbers of women in the workplace, changing expectations of men at work, emerging expectations of Generation X and today’s T-Ball Generation, and the increased impact of technology) that is about to force employers to develop an increasing number of career options that will encourage employees to develop unique career paths more in line with the needs of their personal lives.

Does this sound like an expansion of what has commonly been known as “flexible work arrangements”? Don’t be fooled, the authors write. Developed over the past decade or so, flexible work arrangements have represented corporate America’s attempt to respond to the variety of wants and needs workers have increasingly brought to the business environment. However, because flexible options have traditionally focused on short-term personal situations without also addressing long-term career implications, many such arrangements have failed. Virtually everyone in the workplace—the person granted flex-time, his or her peers, and management in general—view flex-time options as “one-off exceptions.”

Benko and Weisberg present some interesting data, all of which suggests that no one is particularly pleased with traditional flex-time options. Consider the following:

The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants reports that accounting firms have been aggressive in implementing flex-time arrangements. Yet, within the industry, the two most cited reasons for employee attrition still include working conditions (schedules, hours, assignments and work-life issues).

Although many Fortune 500 companies have implemented flex-time policies, the turnover rate for women continues to exceed that of their male counterparts. The authors note that women have historically cited work-life balance as a major cause for leaving. They also cite a 2006 study that indicates men are now more likely than women to cite work-life balance as a major factor in choosing one employer over another.

While 96 percent of law firms offer some form of flex-time, only 4 percent of lawyers actually take advantage of these programs at any one time. Could it be, the authors ask incredulously, that 96 percent of lawyers have no interest or need for a flex-time option?

(If you are interested in exploring why your organization’s flex-time options may not work, make sure you read “Straight Talk About FWAs: What Many Seem to Know But No One Says,” beginning on page 67.)

In place of ad hoc flex-work policies, the authors urge employers to begin to focus on “mass career customization.” These policies are “mass” in that they apply to every employee of an organization. They are “career-focused” in that they pertain to how individuals build their own careers. And they are “customized,” allowing individual employees to develop career paths that are relevant to their personal needs.

Benko and Weisberg maintain that “mass career customization” is a unique approach to career development. It requires an ongoing collaborative effort with managers and employees all subscribing to a culture that embraces career options. It recognizes the need to meld the motivations of the business entity with the desires of the individual over time. Employees are encouraged to customize their careers by selecting options within four dimensions that most closely match their career objectives.

Among the four dimensions outlined are the following:

Pace – How quickly is an employee expected to progress to increasing levels of responsibility and authority?

Workload – What is the quantity of work performed in units of hours, days/weeks, pay cycles, or months?

Location/Schedule – Where, when, and how does the work get done?

Role – What are the categories of employee positions, job descriptions, and responsibilities, ranging from individual contributors to organizational leaders?

If mass career customization is going to work, according to Benko and Weisberg, both employers and employees must incorporate the theory’s framework into regularly scheduled goal-setting and performance review practices. The authors maintain that when mass career customization becomes part of an organization’s culture, managers and employees participate in more robust discussions regarding individual employee’s career ambitions and life needs. Additionally, members of the organization recognize that those ambitions and needs are likely to change over the course of a lifetime.

Is mass career customization a panacea? I can’t guarantee that. I do know, however, that today’s workforce is increasingly non-traditional. I further believe the demand for talent will outpace supply for years to come. Expectations that individual employees will join an organization with the intent of climbing the corporate ladder will quickly become an out-moded form of thinking, I suspect. Recognizing that individual employees may take unique paths to the top may well be the way of the future.