Generation Y too "lazy & unfocused" to hire...

FATBALLZ

StevieJ wrote: »

Didn't anyone ask why it took you so long to do your job

Yes ironic this, had my annual review recently and was told I only got an 'average' rating because although I had absolutely no areas where I could improve, and delivered absolutely everything that was expected before my deadlines, if I wanted I higher rating I'd have to work 60 hour weeks. Apparently the people with the best ratings did this to dig their projects out of holes - well excuse me but the reason my projects weren't in holes was because I identified risks early on and sorted them so that everything went smoothly and I could leave on time in the evenings.

What I've found with 'generation X' is that they expect to be paid more, promoted and treated better because of their age, rather than results. I think this goes back to the fairly recent working practices where promotions and pay were based exactly on this principle.

StevieJ

FATBALLZ wrote: »

Yes ironic this, had my annual review recently and was told I only got an 'average' rating because although I had absolutely no areas where I could improve, and delivered absolutely everything that was expected before my deadlines, if I wanted I higher rating I'd have to work 60 hour weeks. .

It is just that your face doesn't fit, you need to be a bit more politic, some would have more colourful phrases to describe the process. I think a good idea would be to identify areas outside your job spec where you have contributed (the more the merrier) they don't have to take much time just look good on your review, this could even be at the expense of your main job (although not too much). It is not a bad idea, also, to be quite pally with the person doing your review

fc123

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

We've certainly had to adjust our selection processes. And remain willing to take the expense of churning rather than keep someone whose heart is not in it, despite superficial competancy.

But the new selection "hell days" seem to be working. We extended our selection centre to 3 days.

Made them inconvenient to get to for the candidates, opposite end of the country, short notice, etc. And now only spend half the time on competency and skill testing, and the other half of the time putting them in stressful situations where any answer they give will be wrong, just to test their personality, attitude, sense of entitlement and desire for the job.

Gosh....makes me glad to be S/E.

When we employed, I didn't ever have to do the above though....had some very smart, hard working Gen Y's too.

I am a Gen X. If I hadn't adapted and changed we would be on the dole now....we're not all 'set in our ways'....but I confess to knowing a lot my age who are. They are PAYE though......all the S/E poeple I know have adapted and changed to remain in business, those that couldn't/didn't are now PAYE or on the dole.

The main factory we use is owned by a baby boomer ....he is driving me nuts, it's like working with someone stuck in a 1960's type sitcom. We are going to have a spat by e-mail tomo over some dodgy pricing......it will be slow as he is on dial up.

SingleSue

DaddyBear wrote: »

What do they have to motivate them? Most of them will never be able to afford a house without a massive inheritence. The penny has probably dropped with most of them. Better off on benefits, and more time to play on the X-box and watch sky.

My kids motivation is me.....they know I will never accept them sitting on their backsides getting money off the state (despite me being on benefits currently). They also know it is the only way they will be able to attain their dreams of having a nice home, those little treats, holidays etc.

So, they work hard to get the grades so they don't get the nagging from me! :rotfl:

SingleSue

FATBALLZ wrote: »

Yes ironic this, had my annual review recently and was told I only got an 'average' rating because although I had absolutely no areas where I could improve, and delivered absolutely everything that was expected before my deadlines, if I wanted I higher rating I'd have to work 60 hour weeks. Apparently the people with the best ratings did this to dig their projects out of holes - well excuse me but the reason my projects weren't in holes was because I identified risks early on and sorted them so that everything went smoothly and I could leave on time in the evenings.

What I've found with 'generation X' is that they expect to be paid more, promoted and treated better because of their age, rather than results. I think this goes back to the fairly recent working practices where promotions and pay were based exactly on this principle.

I regularly worked 80 hour weeks, not through mismanagement of time but because I had the pride to finish a job which was supposed to take a lot longer than one work day. This then meant we could move onto the next thing and kept things more streamlined.

It also allowed me to do a normal days work, train others up and learn new jobs all in one day! My pace was absolutely frenetic (but never inaccurate, I am a begger for accuracy) they called me the one woman whirlwind, when I went on maternity leave, they had to take on 5 people to cover all that I did...that shocked them!

InaPickle

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

We've certainly had to adjust our selection processes. And remain willing to take the expense of churning rather than keep someone whose heart is not in it, despite superficial competancy.

But the new selection "hell days" seem to be working. We extended our selection centre to 3 days. Made them inconvenient to get to for the candidates, opposite end of the country, short notice, etc. And now only spend half the time on competency and skill testing, and the other half of the time putting them in stressful situations where any answer they give will be wrong, just to test their personality, attitude, sense of entitlement and desire for the job.

My God, is this normal practice for graduate employers nowadays? This seems horrible, and also to a point, possibly counter-productive for the employer as well as the potential employee. For example, the 'short notice': someone who is working and looking to change jobs might already have a commitment to work for their current employer without being able to take time off at short notice, yet might be a more than compentant, enthusiastic employee (but just can't make the interview as they don't want to drop their current employer in it). Surely a prospective employee would like to think that a prospective employee would show equal loyalty to them if they started to work for them, rather than run off at the sign of the first opportunity for himself?
Maybe that's unfair and it depends on how much notice is 'short notice', but it sounds quite harsh.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

InaPickle wrote: »

My God, is this normal practice for graduate employers nowadays? .

Probably not.

But we are in an industry that has some very challenging demands on time, travel and flexibility, and we need to see if people can adapt to those. Short notice in our case is a couple of weeks.

Anyone can perform in an interview for an hour or two. But that's not enough these days. Selection centres are designed to see if people can perform in circumstances that are challenging, and to weed out people that are not fully motivated to take the role.

The overall idea is to see how well they can deal with levels of stress that resembles the actual job. It's obviously far better for both the candidate and the employer to find out early, than after hiring the wrong person.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Desertfox wrote: »

Do you work in the oil industry Hamish?

No.

Not oil, not banking, and not property, but thats as much as I'll narrow it down.

InaPickle

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Probably not.

But we are in an industry that has some very challenging demands on time, travel and flexibility, and we need to see if people can adapt to those. Short notice in our case is a couple of weeks.

Anyone can perform in an interview for an hour or two. But that's not enough these days. Selection centres are designed to see if people can perform in circumstances that are challenging, and to weed out people that are not fully motivated to take the role.

The overall idea is to see how well they can deal with levels of stress that resembles the actual job. It's obviously far better for both the candidate and the employer to find out early, than after hiring the wrong person.

A couple of weeks is fair enough. When you explain it further, it seems much more reasonable.

Out of interest...which industry do you work in? (Subtext: am I ever likely to meet you or go to one of your 'hell days'? )

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

InaPickle wrote: »

(Subtext: am I ever likely to meet you or go to one of your 'hell days'? )

:rotfl:

Unlikely. But if you did, we're actually very nice. It's just intense, and highly stressed. Which is the point.