WELCOME TO THE BIRCH GROUP, LLC

 

"We help our clients reach their full and untapped potential!"

 

ab seal horizontal large resized 600

 

 

 

Subscribe via E-mail

Your email:

Download DISC & Values Study

Browse by Tag

Follow Me

Blog posts from our team and clients. Thank you ALL for your generous contributions.

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

HOW TO HAVE A GOOD DAY EVERYDAY

 

Have you ever wondered why some people get up in the morning with a song in their voice and a skip in their step?  You know the people I am talking about, always looking for the good in others and believe that there is a silver lining in EVERY cloud.  How can these people be so darn positive all of the time?  “Look the sky is falling!”… “Oh no, it’s a shooting star!”

Ed Foreman, a gentleman who owns EXECUTIVE DEVELOPMENT SYSTEMS, a company out of Waco, Texas believes that you can have good and successful daily living by living one day at a time.  It’s how you feel about yourself that will direct your attitude on a daily basis.  If you can have one good day and multiply it by seven, what do you have?  That’s right…a good week.  Let’s multiply that good week by 52, now what do you have?  That’s right…a good year.  Ed has identified an EIGHT STEP DAILY MENU FOR LIFE, consisting of:

  1. WAKE UP AN HOUR EARLY EVERY DAY:  Do you realize you will have gained nine – 40 hour work weeks per year by waking up one hour early every day for a year.  Do that for six years and you have just gained an extra year of 40 hour work weeks.
  2. UPON AWAKENING READ OR LISTEN TO SOMETHING POSITIVE:  It’s a known fact that your alpha state of receptivity is at its peak as soon as you awaken, so what you hear or read will influence your thought process for the day.
  3. GO FOR A WALK AND BE THANKFUL:  Walking will increase the blood flow to the brain and being thankful for what you have on a daily basis will help you put the true challenges of your day in perspective.
  4. DAILY STRETCHING:  Stretching limbers up the body and increases the blood flow to all of your limbs.
  5. EAT BREAKFAST:  It is a proven fact that people who eat breakfast are less likely to gain weight.   You should eat breakfast like a “King,” lunch like a “Prince” and dinner like a “Pauper.”
  6. LEISURELY DRIVE TO WORK:  Don’t participate in a Mario Andretti type race to work.  Take an easy leisurely drive and do not allow other drivers to influence your day by setting you off in the wrong direction.
  7. MIND CONTROL RELAXATION:  For 15 minutes a day practice a mind control relaxation technique where you sit and meditate while controlling your breathing.  It has been said that this can equate to taking a two hour nap in the middle of the day.
  8. I AM TERRIFIC:  Any time someone asks you how you are, respond with a vibrant… “I AM TERRIFIC!”  If you do this regularly, especially during stressful situations, you will soon begin to notice a reduction in stress levels resulting from external influences.  Accepting that you have little or no control over outside influences in your life, allows you to control situations as opposed to letting the situations control you.

These are Ed Foreman’s EIGHT STEPS TO HAVING A BETTER DAY, WEEK, YEAR AND ULTIMATELY LIFE.  Another element to always remember is that worrying is nothing more than negative goal setting or the misuse of your imagination.  Keeping all of this in mind, have a wonderful and terrific day everyday!!!

Carl Messina, Director of New  Business Development

BIAS IN THE HIRING DECISION

 

Many organizations have regretted the hiring decisions that they have made in the past.  There are significant downfalls to an organization for hiring the wrong people for the job that they were hired for, often times a drain on the organization’s bottom line.  They include:

  • Employee disengagement
  • Lack of creativity and innovation
  • Inability to develop an effective succession plan
  • High turnover

We all know how costly these situations can be.

Since the recession, America has seen a flooded candidate pool, yet companies continue struggling with poor hiring decisions.  Why are we unable to make the best hiring decisions?  The answer is BIAS.  Attracting candidates has become much easier, but screening out those that didn’t meet the needs and culture of a particular organization is a much more difficult task.  This challenge required is that we must look at each key position objectively and eliminate any bias that keeps us from hiring the very best candidates for that position.

As Steven Covey, the Management Guru, stated, “We see the world from our eyes, not as it really is.”  All of us are influenced by how we value experience, knowledge, economics, aesthetics, altruism, power and transition.  When we interview a person who sees the world differently than us, bias can play an unknowingly important role in our decision making process.  Neither right or wrong, nor good or bad, biases are simply a reflection of our own personal viewpoint.  Oftentimes this personal viewpoint is unknowingly injected into the hiring process even when it is totally irrelevant to a specific position or even the organization itself, creating a barrier that may prevent us from selecting those truly superior performers. 

Although laws keep us from acting on our own biases as they relate to gender, age, nationality and sexual orientation, there are still personal biases that enter into the decision making process.  Other biases that hinder our decision making process are experience, education and intelligence.  However, people bring other talents to the job including their passions, beliefs, personal skills and behaviors that can mean the right talent in the right jobs can make or break an organization, even when the product offers some of the brightest stars available.

We have found that one of the most important skills is personal accountability.  Most organizations do not have an awareness of its importance, nor a way to quantitatively measure it.

Effectively measuring a prospective candidate’s behaviors, motivators, personal skills and acumen necessary for a particular position can help your organization attain its full potential.

The good and the bad news for Connecticut business

 

describe the image

The good news for Connecticut businesses is, the recession is easing.  The bad news is, people who have stayed in their jobs throughout the bad economy due to economic fears of losing their incomes and not being able to support their families, and those that felt they were maltreated during the recession, are polishing up their resumes.  Some experts believe that up to 80% of American workers are thinking about or are actually seeking new jobs.  The negative impact to many companies may be considerable.  From what we have seen in the past six months, employers have begun to implement programs to retain some of their most talented and key employees, including executives, managers, future leader and those who work on the front lines.

As turnover is rapidly increasing, many employers are preparing for additional employee turnover in the coming year.  Once employers recognize that if key employee retention is a problem, even with an unemployment rate still hovering at 8%, the situation will intensify when more jobs become available in the marketplace as the economy continues to improve.  Astute employers will implement those actions necessary to retain their key talent.

According to a survey completed OI Partners in Hartford:

  • 90% of employers are concerned about turnover of high-potential employees
  • 72% are concerned about losing sales and service employees
  • 60% worry about middle-management turnover
  • 45% are concerned about losing their senior level executives

Workers with the highest rates of turnover include operations and production workers, sales and marketing personnel, accounting and finance staff and information services.

Companies need to implement training programs, business coaching, enhanced benefits, financial incentives and well thought out succession plans, sooner rather than later to retain their top talent.

For those companies that will be filling vacated positions, it will be even more imperative that they hire “the right people for the right jobs” so that new employees’ cultural fit and learning curves will be greatly enhanced.

Don't let your organization's workforce become your competitors' "catch of the day."  Be prepared, don’t let this inevitable scenario erode your bottom line.

 view-our-press-release

 

 

Behaviors and Motivators Statistical Study

 

 

John BirchCPBACPVABehaviors and Motivators Statistical Study
Hartford High School’s Academy of Engineering and Green Technology
January 2012

OVERALL:            Starting during the fall of 2010 and running through February 2011, The Birch Group, LLC and Target Training International, LTD, donated a combined DISC and Workplace Motivators on-line assessment, including associated DISC Team building training, to all of the students enrolled in Hartford High School’s Academy of Engineering and Green Technology.  The value of this donation was approximately $78,000.00.  The Birch Group worked with Hartford High School to create a process where students could go on-line and complete their own individual assessments.  The Birch Group then printed the assessments, organized by grade and presented them to the students in a series of seminars held at Hartford High School.   It should be noted that this is the first time that an entire student body was offered this program/opportunity.  In total, 263 out of a possible 368 (71%) students elected to participate in this program/opportunity.

Participants vs. Entire 2010-11 Student Body

Grade

Participants

Total Students

Percentage

10

112

130

86%

11

72

130

55%

12

79

108

73%

Total:

263

368

71%


BEHAVIORS:       Initial analysis indicates that the behavioral profiles are significantly different from national averages compiled over years of substantial data capture and analysis.  The following tables exhibit behavioral styles by grade and the total student population that participated.

The following table explains the four basic behavior Styles:

D I S C  TENDENCIES

“D” – Dominant

To Dominate

“I” – Influencer

To Influence

“S” – Steady Relater

To Serve

“C” – Cautious/ Concise

To Comply with Standards

 

DISC Behavioral Profile Breakdown for Student Participants (December – 2011)

Behaviors

Dominant

Influencer

Steady Relator

Cautious/Concise

Total

Natural

Adapted

Natural

Adapted

Natural

Adapted

Natural

Adapted

Natural

Adapted

Grade Ten (10)

43

30

20

38

23

23

26

21

112

112

% of Total

38%

27%

18%

34%

21%

21%

23%

19%

100%

100%

Grade Eleven (11)

19

18

17

25

19

16

17

13

72

72

% of Total

26%

25%

24%

35%

26%

22%

24%

18%

100%

100%

Grade Twelve (12)

26

19

18

24

20

15

15

21

79

79

% of Total

33%

24%

23%

30%

25%

19%

19%

27%

100%

100%

National Average

19%

N/A

32%

N/A

35%

N/A

14%

N/A

N/A

Variance

14%

N/A

-9%

N/A

-10%

N/A

5%

N/A

                               


The most notable variance amongst behavior styles compared to national norms was among the high Dominant, “D,” behavior style, which registered 14 points higher than national averages, indicating that 33% of the Academy of Engineering and Green Technology’s study participants are bold, aggressive, results oriented and are high risk takers.  These individuals strive to be leaders as the primary psychological need of the high “D’s” are to control and dominate.  The importance of this finding, as it relates to an educational setting, is that the high “D’s” are restless, impatient and find it difficult to pay attention for long periods of time, especially if they perceive the subject matter to be boring.   However, if the high “D” student becomes interested in the subject matter and the proper learning environment is created for them, they can become hyper-focused and will work diligently to achieve the objectives that they have set for themselves.  The “D’s” have strong egos and are extremely averse to losing.  They love to win, often at their own detriment.  The good news is that police, fire departments, corporate boardrooms and entrepreneurial enterprises are heavily populated with “D” behavior styles.

One hypothesis regarding this statistical abnormality is that inner-city students begin developing “D” behavior styles at a young age to cope with the hardships and violence that they are faced with daily.  Further research at other inner-city high schools may shed additional light on the development of the high “D’s.”  Although other city schools have been approached to continue this study, most principals are reluctant due to the time demands of trying to get their students on par with suburban schools.

The Influencers “I’s” represent 21% of the study participants compared to the national norm of 32%, possibly reflecting the high “I’s” not enrolling in an engineering program as it requires a significant amount of study and effort with relatively less time for socializing.

Another interesting variance relates to the number of Steady Relaters, “S,” 24% of study participants, relative to the national norm.  The “S” typically represents 35% of Americans and characterizes the backbone of American business and industry.  They are usually quiet, unassuming, born listeners and true team players, calling very little attention to themselves.  In short, those introverts can be a “teacher’s dream,” but often get lost in the typical classroom setting, particularly if the teacher is trying to get the more boisterous “D’s” to behave and/or focus.  The stereotypical engineer and technician are often an “S” behavioral style.  Teachers typically have either an “I” (Influencer) or “S” behavior style.  It appears that this phenomenon is the flip side to the large number of “D’s” at the Academy of Engineering and Green Technology, meaning that the high “S” behavior style may not be conducive to success in the harsh realities of an inner-city environment.

The Cautious/Concise (“C”) behaviors represent 22% of the study participants which is 8% higher than the 14% national norm.  An explanation could be that the engineering curriculum is perceived as being more difficult than other programs offered at Hartford High School, thus a larger number of the more serious students may be attracted to an engineering related program, a reverse form the high “I’s.”

Regarding adaptive “mask” styles, high “D” students in all grades appear to be heavily adapting to fit the culture at Hartford Academy of Engineering and Green Technology, largely moving towards the high “I” category in order to get along and get attention from school mates and teachers.  This movement has the potential to place additional stress on the students.  There is also some movement regarding adaptation amongst the students towards the high “C” behavioral style, more than likely as the result of the need towards increased study time and the need for considerably more preciseness and perfection in an engineering related program.

Values Motivators:

Individualistic: A passion to achieve position and to use that position to influence others.

Theoretical: A passion to discover systematize and ana­lyze; a search for knowledge.

Utilitarian: A passion to gain return on investment of time, resources and money.

Social: A passion to eliminate hate and conflict in the world and to assist others.

Traditional: A passion to pursue the higher meaning in life through a defined system of living.

Aesthetic: A passion to add balance and harmony in one’s own life and protect our natural resources.


Overall, the highest percentages of study participants showed Theoretical (30%) as their highest value/motivator, followed by Social (21%) and Individualistic (20%).  The lowest values/motivators were Aesthetic (1%) and Traditional (4%).  The study indicated that the highest second value/motivator point was Theoretical, at 21% then followed closely by Social and Individualistic both at 19%.

However it is apparent that each class is unique in what motivates them to perform.  The current senior class (Grade 11) is weighed heavily towards the Theoretical, with the other motivators dispersed somewhat.  The current Grade 11 students (Grade 10) have a higher cluster towards the Individualistic and the Theoretical motivators.  The high percentage of Theoretical, key to continued higher learning, could very well indicate that the current Grade 11 students could have a much higher degree of success in pursuing a college degree and finishing their programs.


The following charts display the values/motivators by grade:

 

Grade 10 (now Grade 11) has a much higher potential that the other grades relative to their individualism and their theoretical (thirst for knowledge) For both males and females that have Individualistic in their top three (3) values, we see a higher percentage of Juniors and Seniors with Individualistic influencing their purpose and direction in life. Aesthetics decrease from grade 10 to grade 12, most drastically in females moving from 56.5% to 27.8% in their senior year, possibly because as they prepare to graduate from high school, other values become more important in order for them to achieve success.

 

FEMALES

Grade/Motivator

Aesthetic

Individualistic

Grade 10

56.5%

37.0%

Grade 11

41.9%

45.2%

Grade 12

27.8%

61.1%

MALES

Grade/Motivator

Aesthetic

Individualistic

Grade 10

38.3%

64.1%

Grade 11

34.8%

50.0%

Grade 12

31.0%

71.8%


ENTREPRENEURS:                 Analysis indicates that the student body at Harford High School has 56 (21.3%) student participants that exhibit those behaviors “D” along with Individualistic and Utilitarian values/motivators in either the first or second positions, the strongest profiles for serial entrepreneurs.  Of the high “D” participants:

Future Entrepreneurs (High “D”)

Grade

Individualistic – 1st

Utilitarian – 1st

Utilitarian – 2nd

Individualistic – 2nd

Grade 10

10

6

3

5

Grade 11

5

4

4

2

Grade 12

2

6

5

6

Totals:

17

14

12

13

Grade

Both Individualistic and Utilitarian Combined

Grade 10

3

Grade 11

2

Grade 12

4

Total:

7

           


According to prior work done by Bill and Ron Bonnstetter, these findings may indicate that in Engineering and Technical curricula, these students may become bored easily.  Hartford High School may want to initiate a program similar to the Junior Achievement Program to prepare those students at an early age to pursue studies and careers geared towards entrepreneurialism.

This study should be continued in other inner-city schools.  However there are several obstacles that are difficult to overcome in getting inner-city schools to participate, including:

  • Time is of the essence in bringing standardized test scores on par with suburban high schools.
  • In an amphitheater setting, students become restless.  Therefore, DISC training for students does not work well with more than 50 students, demanding that for 300 students, the facilitator would need to run at least six (6) sessions.
  • Getting “drop-out” data is difficult, as there is considerable relocating in the inner-cities, meaning that student may say that they are going to other schools, but in all actuality are dropping-out.  Therefore, many schools have little or no “drop-out” data, and what they do have is extremely unreliable.

Conclusion:           Students that have participated in this study should be made acutely aware of the importance of the gift that was given to them.  Armed with information about themselves and others, they are now in a position to be able to adapt to various situations and people, understand the needs of other people, communicate with and interact more effectively with others and realize how people perceive them when they are just being themselves.  Teachers can play a large role in reinforcing the fact that behavioral modifications are a key element in goal attainment.

Previous studies show that the large majority of teachers have either a high “I” or high “S” or a combination of the two, strongly influenced by the high Theoretical motivators.  We have also found that many teachers teach to “what they are,” and are often attracted to students that are most like them behaviorally.

Schools by definition are designed to the high “S” and “C” behavioral styles, meaning that those with “S” and “C” behavior styles have the opportunity to flourish, particularly in engineering or STEM related learning environment.  We need to be able to recognize those with “D” and “I” behavior styles and make an effort to find a place for them in the classroom  and on learning related teams, if not, we are doing a disservice to over 54% of the population.  The educational system must understand that these students are talkative, daydream, are bored easily and have relatively short attention spans.  A strictly lecture driven classroom will not be the ideal environment for these students to thrive.

Significant data collection and analysis of both behaviors and motivators has been conducted by TTI and the Kean Foundation regarding college level engineering students.  Although testing needs to continue in other inner-city schools in order to establish a national base-line, if we can establish a correlation between high school and college students, we will be able to predict which students will most likely drop out of high school, which students are most likely to pursue a degree in engineering/STEM and which students are most likely to switch majors within the first two years of college.  To validate our initial findings at the high school level, school administrators will need to ensure that data regarding drop-outs are maintained and shared.

It is widely recognized that if the United States economy is going to thrive in the 21st Century, engineers and technologists will play a significant role.  Efforts must be enhanced to ensure that students of all behavioral and motivator styles become interested in pursuing educations and careers in the STEM disciplines, as each style has inherent talents or “gifts” that they bring to the table.

VALUES / MOTIVATORS BREAKDOWN

 

 

GRADE TWELVE (12)

 

Total

"D"

"I"

"S"

"C"

Totals

 

First

Second

First

Second

First

Second

First

Second

First

Second

 

Individualistic

3

12%

6

23%

6

33%

6

33%

3

15%

10

50%

2

20%

1

19%

14

23

 

Utilitarian

2

8%

8

31%

3

17%

4

22%

8

40%

3

15%

3

15%

0

16%

16

15

 

Traditional

2

8%

2

8%

2

11%

0

0%

0

0%

2

10%

0

4%

1

11%

4

5

 

Theoretical

4

15%

4

15%

1

6%

4

22%

2

10%

3

15%

6

30%

5

21%

13

16

 

Social

9

35%

4

15%

4

22%

4

22%

6

30%

2

10%

3

21%

4

19%

22

14

 

Aesthetic

6

23%

2

8%

2

11%

0

0%

1

5%

0

0%

1

1%

4

14%

10

6

 

Totals:

26

100%

26

100%

18

100%

18

100%

20

100%

20

100%

15

100%

15

100%

79

79

 

GRADE ELEVEN (11)

Total

"D"

"I"

"S"

"C"

Totals

First

Second

First

Second

First

Second

First

Second

First

Second

Individualistic

0

0%

2

11%

3

18%

2

12%

3

16%

2

11%

2

20%

4

19%

8

10

Utilitarian

5

26%

7

37%

1

6%

1

6%

2

11%

7

37%

3

15%

3

16%

11

18

Traditional

2

11%

3

16%

0

0%

3

18%

2

11%

2

11%

0

4%

0

11%

4

8

Theoretical

4

21%

3

16%

9

53%

3

18%

6

32%

2

11%

8

30%

5

21%

27

13

Social

4

21%

2

11%

1

6%

6

35%

3

16%

2

11%

2

21%

5

19%

10

15

Aesthetic

4

21%

2

11%

3

18%

2

12%

3

16%

4

21%

2

1%

0

14%

12

8

Totals:

19

100%

19

100%

17

100%

17

100%

19

100%

19

100%

17

100%

17

100%

72

72

GRADE TEN (10)

 

Total

"D"

"I"

"S"

"C"

Totals

 

First

Second

First

Second

First

Second

First

Second

First

Second

 

Individualistic

10

23%

4

9%

2

10%

2

10%

4

17%

5

22%

7

20%

3

19%

23

14

 

Utilitarian

6

14%

4

9%

1

5%

4

20%

3

13%

3

13%

2

15%

3

16%

12

14

 

Traditional

1

2%

4

9%

0

0%

3

15%

1

4%

3

13%

0

4%

3

11%

2

13

 

Theoretical

10

23%

10

23%

12

60%

6

30%

5

22%

4

17%

11

30%

7

21%

38

27

 

Social

11

26%

10

23%

4

20%

1

5%

6

26%

4

17%

5

21%

5

19%

26

20

 

Aesthetic

5

12%

11

26%

1

5%

4

20%

4

17%

4

17%

1

1%

5

14%

11

24

 

Totals:

43

100%

43

100%

20

100%

20

100%

23

100%

23

100%

26

100%

26

100%

112

112

 

                                         

 

The Cost of Employee Disengagement

 

Are your key employees fully engaged? 

If your answer is no or you are unsure, consider the cost of disengagement to your organization, and to your bottom line.  Per a recent study by Gallup International:

  • In 2008, the typical employee was disengaged from their work approximately two hours per day

  • By 2011, the typical employee was disengaged approximately four hours per day

  • One disengaged employee can bring down the entire team's productivity by 30%Coach John Birch, CEOand Founder

These are frightening statistics in the global economy where our client's expectations require that "we need to get extraordinary results from ordinary people."   There are many reasons for the spiraling levels of disengagement amongst the workforce, including fear over the current economic environment, too much time spent on the social media, mismanagement, and a lack of feeling appreciated.  Another recent study indicated that because of the economy, many people that are unsatisfied in their current positions have stayed in their jobs even though they are no longer satisfied there.  Actually, four out of five employees are either actively seeking new jobs or are thinking about leaving when the economy picks up. Either scenario is ripe for stress related issues, further disengagement and cost. 

Again, can you afford to let this issue affect you, your employees and the direct cost to your bottom line?  If not you may have to take action.  There are several ways to correct disengagement.  The first is to improve employees' motivation.  This can only be accomplished by thoroughly identifying the underlying issues that are affecting your disengaged employees, a difficult process as you have to look at your organization from the outside looking in.  You may find that either you or your management team is creating a less than satisfactory work environment for your employees to grow, or your organizational culture may be stifling creativity.   If either of these situations is present, you may need either coaching or formal training. 

What we often find is that an organization's hiring practices are outdated and that the "wrong people are hired for the wrong jobs."  The fall-out from these practices result in high turnover, lower engagement, less than satisfactory productivity, poor customer service and overall organizational malaise, especially if your disengaged employees have key positions.  If you find yourself struggling with these issues, you may need to take steps to enhance your job matching process in order to replace those disengaged employees with the "right people in the right jobs."

The keys to effective Job Matching are:

  • Understanding the Key Accountabilities of the Job
  • Letting the Job Talk
  • Eliminating Bias from the Hiring Process
  • Creating the Ideal Candidate Form

Previously, the hiring process mainly consisted of collecting resumes, interviewing, and background checks.  Often, people were hired primarily for their technical skills, allowing bias to creep into the interview and hiring process.  Today, companies need people who not are proficient technically, but also fit into the organization's culture.  Effective Job Matching should be based on a candidate's education, certification, salary expectations, behaviors, motivators, professional skills, acumen and experience.

When hiring, keep in mind that your candidates are three dimensional, and that the hiring manager should examine all sides of the candidate to ensure a good fit for the specific job.

MOTIVATORS “Lack of advancement negates professional development”-NOW I HAVE HEARD EVERYTHING

 

http://news-releases.uiowa.edu/2011/june/061011employee_turnover.html


University of Iowa study finds employee training might actually increase turnover-

--“Lack of advancement opportunities negates benefits of professional development programs.”

Please follow the hyperlink to an article referring to a study from June 2011 at the University of Iowa.  Just when you thought you heard everything…  Although it is true that if an employee does not see any career advancement opportunities in the organization, and the market place for new employees changes dramatically from the buyer’s market it is today, then employees will start picking their heads up and testing the marketplace.  However in this marketplace, not many are looking to be the new person on the bottom rung in an organization. 

When the economy shifts, any training, development and learning that employees received will be remembered and appreciated and should create new opportunities in the existing organization which ideally lines up with the newly acquired skills and better developed employees.  
 

First of all, let us not forget that it was not employees who started the unbelievable lack of loyalty to their employers, it was the other was around.  Call it right sizing, off-shoring, outsourcing, laying off…whatever you want.  To me it is a lack of company loyalty and employees paying for bad business decisions made by employers.  One of the fantastic changes that is coming out of this development, the genx ers and a lousy economy is that diversity, learning and development are really becoming important components of our compensations plans.  This is fantastic. 


To say that people would leave because they have no career opportunities is not a stretch at all, as a matter of fact, it is so obvious I am not sure why we call it a “finding in a study”.  Aren’t the professional development programs designed to, among other things, provide new opportunities for growth within companies and organizations.


Furthermore, please let’s not forget that I can find studies that I would actually call “studies” that prove GenY ers are more motivated by learning and professional development that from Salary.  They still will need opportunity for growth of course.  That takes care of itself.  The motivated GenX ers, while they are seeking work and life balance, will develop and market their growing value propositions to the existing companies.  Employees who did not grow and develop and take advantage of company offerings will lose opportunity and attrition out.  Wallah-growth opportunities for fully developed genx ers who are familiar with and comfortable with their changing and growing value proposition.  Who benefits?  The company, the employees, the customers, the vendors and the shareholders.  Who loses? The companies that do not pay for learning and development and the employees too lazy to take advantage of these offerings.


It has been proven that professional development costs usually return something like 500% ROI.  I guess that is only if you do NOT work at University of Iowa.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
All Posts