NBA owner blames team's struggles on "millennial culture"

This thread reminded me of a particular workplace training code of conduct course I had a couple years back. We normally have to take them every once in a while for a little more indoctrination for the company I work for(as well for them to cover their butts in the case of a lawsuit)

For most of these courses we just sit their, roll our eyes and don't bother trying to argue with the trainer on the latest PC propaganda and attitudes that we are supposed to follow in our workplace. Yes...typical generation "X" behaviour I suppose..."Oh Well Whatever Nevermind "....

This one though had us shocked, and quite a number started arguing with our instructor for once. We were told at one point that......We would need to take it easy, and have patience with a lot of the newer younger generation "Y" staff as they are a culturally different in some ways, and may not quite have or understand the same work ethic as we have.

There was about a 2.5 second pause before people started going nuts, tonnes of outbursts, several people arguing with the trainer at the same time etc. Funniest I remember hearing is some guy in the back yelling "Oh ! Fine then !! I'm going to do less then the minimal amount of work too !! Just call me a "Gen Y" as well !!".

To back things up, we were arguing that management/human resources were not only expecting but accepting as well, a lesser performance by any group or person in the workplace, regardless if the "fact" was real or not. Overall, it seemed just an absurd thing for us to be told, personally it was the first time I had heard that trait of Gen "Y"s .

a reply to: Falenor

You bring up a good point there, similar to what I was alluding towards. Regardless of "that one millennial I know who is fine," there are actual measures and policies being enacted to address the perceived issues with the newer generations.

It wont serve as any sort of solution, but these things are determined by other factors anyway. It will, however, exacerbate issues that may not have been all that problematic to begin with.

Because of this, the generalizations are actually an important topic in and of themselves. The exceptions are not particularly relevant as no change or "progress" is necessary. We have some millenials that are stellar employees, but the ones that have been let go have all been for stereotypical reasons, with predictable responses including everything from accusations of bigotry and racism to "lack of proper levels of encouragement during the day." (quoted)

originally posted by: Serdgiam
Regardless of "that one millennial I know who is fine," there are actual measures and policies being enacted to address the perceived issues with the newer generations.

Where are these policies be enacted and what are they?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Its happening in many business sectors, though currently only on "top levels." No links or sources, other than my words. Its up to you whether or not that is satisfactory!

The focus is on removing person to person interaction entirely, and a more generous determination of addressing client/customer grievances ("the customer is always right," on steroids). It also includes making moves to integrate the technologies to allow this to happen without any personal interaction whatsoever. Importantly, this is being implemented as SOP without alternatives, as opposed to offering choices. Its for this reason that I expect more problems than anything. There is more, but I'm guessing that my claims wont be seen as particularly legitimate without the Almighty Links.

I'm not completely against it, for the record, much of it is based on my own ideas that have since been completely bastardized. But, I do have my concerns for long term repercussions as well as the short term ability of "on the ground" employees adaptation. I also have the concern that as this becomes more widespread, it will make personal interaction even more foreign and difficult than it already is for so many.

I have my own ideas on the "proper" way to accomplish the same goals, but that isn't really "ATS discussion."

originally posted by: Serdgiam
The focus is on removing person to person interaction entirely, and a more generous determination of addressing client/customer grievances ("the customer is always right," on steroids). It also includes making moves to integrate the technologies to allow this to happen without any personal interaction whatsoever.

How is the introduction of technology and ensuring the customer is always right pandering to millennials?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Please. If it was just this thread I wouldn't have bothered. You want to piss on members. Come here. You won't find it that easy.

a reply to: Serdgiam

some of my own observations:

- The removal of face to face interaction is more about cost saving on the business side, and time saving on the customer side For me as a customer, it is far more convenient to make a payment via a web portal, than to have to call in, wait on hold, and deal with a person.

- "The customer is always right on steroids" results from the instant review world we live in. You live/die on your reviews (Yelp, Expedia, Google+, etc), and you have a very, very slim window of opportunity to negate a bad review from a customer. You either make it right fast (in their eyes), or get whacked with a scathing review that drives away more business.

- Personal interaction still exists. We are doing it now. Its just a different platform. I bet people said the same thing about telephones. I can imagine a crotchety old Sumerian guy complaining about how this new fangled "writing" will keep him from looking people in the eye when he sells them an auroch calf

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It isn't, at least not inherently. As I said.. I think it can, and should, be done without pandering of any kind.

My concerns could turn out to be nothing and I have no issue with that. But, capitalizing on the buying power of millenials is being done without regard to losing the business of other, aging demographics alongside other issues.

My point is that how this is being done, rather than the fact that it is, results in the "pandering" label and may end up being more detrimental than beneficial (or profitable).

a reply to: Serdgiam

Sorry, not seeing it.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I agree with your observations, BFFT.

What I am talking about will become more apparent in the next few years.

ETA: Think "everyone gets a trophy" version of customer service, etc. As I was told, if this isn't done, more loss is expected than alternative approaches. This would obviously apply more to very large, national businesses where higher management turnover versus profit is a viable consideration. There are a few of those around.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Serdgiam

Sorry, not seeing it.

I wouldn't think so. I didn't go into the "how," and you already hold an opinion on the subject.

I don't see agreement or understanding as a necessity.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I agree that their work ethic is very good. However, their trouble-shooting skills and conflict resolution skills are very poor. They tend to avoid, bail or get combative. They are just not going to go along, to get along in the work place or anywhere. Their commitment level to anyone but themselves is pretty low. Just look at how they "date".

a reply to: HoldMyBeer

I try not to generalize any group because frankly I see that type of behavior with all age groups. It really is dependent on the person.

a reply to: Serdgiam

I asked you the how and you basically said 'technology' and 'customer service'. That is not pandering to millennials. That is good business.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Good point. Could be a side effect of modern living.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Serdgiam

I asked you the how and you basically said 'technology' and 'customer service'. That is not pandering to millennials. That is good business.

Well, perhaps one of our disconnects is that I see pandering to millenials as good business. The issue comes further into the line of thought when determining how to pander to a specific demographic to, you know, get their money. Overall, this is manipulation, but it can be done in ways that exacerbate already present issues in order to open the wallets wider.

Lets take the previous example of removing personal interaction completely. From, say, a hotel front desk.

Now, offering options to those who would wish to bypass personal interaction certainly isn't an issue. In fact, its a great idea that can benefit the business and the customer in numerous ways.

But, some people still want that face to face interaction. Maybe they even use the bypass from time to time, but ocassionally want the "old-fashioned" service.

To clarify, in this scenario, the idea is to completely eliminate that front desk position.

I feel that presenting options in these circumstances is a good move. More importantly, the issues that arise may go beyond the "archaic" customer being disappointed.

a reply to: Serdgiam

I still do not see how this is pandering to a specific age group.

a reply to: intrepid

Yeah ok whatever. You planning on actually discussing anything related to the thread or did you just come in to taunt me?

a reply to: Serdgiam

You do know that statistical sampling says you are wrong right? Why don't you address my links on the first page instead of just pretending like you know better than everyone else?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Serdgiam

I still do not see how this is pandering to a specific age group.

The idea is to reform business models in order to appeal to what is thought to be "what millenials want."

I have my doubts you are willing to see what I am saying at all, but the intent as stated, is specifically to pander to millenials. I think many of the ideas will fall flat on their face, as they are based in generalizations that are not entirely accurate.

Just out of curiosity, where do you think I am coming from on this topic?