CHAPTER 6

It’s Not Authority Issues, It’s Respect Redefined

I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stifled. I want all the cultures of all lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible.

—Mahatma Gandhi

To rise to a leadership position is a difficult, time-consuming venture. It is a coveted position of respect, influence, and prestige that relatively few hold. A similar journey, although more inevitable, exists when holding a tenured position or building expertise in a field. Becoming a leader or tenured individual transforms a person in both positive and negative ways. For example, we admirably gain the ability to manage situations of increasing complexity and scale. But for many, these positions can also create a false sense of security in our expertise and position. We become confident in what we have always known, what has gotten us here. We let our house become stifled, navigating unexpected situations without considering what’s happening outside in the present moment. As is commonly said, “What got you here won’t get you there.” Instead, a high-performing leader or tenured individual is someone who demonstrates a balance between their honed expertise and their ability to absorb new and alternate ways of thinking.

Managing this fine line effectively is an expectation of today’s incoming talent for . . . well, everyone. Today, respect is not given solely because of the demographics we can easily put on paper—age, level, role—but is given for what you authentically contribute every day. Where simply being in a leadership position or having tenure once garnered respect, today it is compounded with an expectation to be transparent, vulnerable, and open to others’ thoughts. While this may seem disrespectful, preposterous, or even dangerous, in this chapter I will explain how these behaviors will continue to grow and can be used to everyone’s advantage.

One Coin, Two Sides Model: Authority Problem or Respect Redefined?

For this particular stereotype, the observable behavior is that millennials question or challenge people equally. Whether they feel comfortable to voice new ideas, challenge others’ thoughts, or skirt the chain of command to meet a need, modern talent acts as though level or tenure are not too relevant. From a traditional perspective, this can be perceived as not having respect, or as lacking a sense of decorum for hierarchy, tenure, or elders in general. From a modern, top talent perspective, they are redefining respect to focus on experience and a concept I call “coversity,” not simply on time served. They are acting from a broader mindset concerning equality. Table 6.1 summarizes the observable behavior, the two sides, and the supporting beliefs.

Exploring the Traditional Interpretation: Authority Issues

Some scenarios that are perceived as disrespectful to authority occur when younger talent:

› Invite leaders to lunch or to coffee just to get to know them

› Speak to leaders without the knowledge or interference of their manager. For example, after asking their manager about promotion guidelines and not getting a good answer, going directly to the one-up or two-up manager to discuss.

Table 6.1 One Coin, Two Sides model for authority issues vs. redefining respect interpretation of modern behavior.

Source: Invati Consulting

› Suggest ideas openly to leaders or more tenured individuals, especially when no feedback was requested. For example, at the end of a town hall meeting, when open for Q&A, someone who has only been with the company for a month asks a tough question.

› Expect a conversation that results in compromise when it comes to desired work and communication styles

› Do not assume they will have to assimilate to the existing culture

› Question leaders’ or more tenured individuals’ offered advice, approach, or opinions. This can often sound like, “But isn’t it true that . . .” or “Things should be this way . . .” or fact-checking rather than taking the individual’s word for it.

From a traditional perspective, growing up and throughout adulthood, giving respect was based in a command and control world. A few figures held the keys to shaping strategy in the workplace and for society at large. Communication was controlled more tightly by these same figures. The common saying at the time exemplifies the leadership environment: “When I say jump, you ask how high.” We respected leaders solely because they were at the top. Some of those leaders may have been the underdog and gotten there through grit and determination. Some leaders may have been given their role through family ties or the “who you know” network. Regardless of their path, they were at the top and therefore deserved respect. Leaders and tenured individuals had power—the power of position, the power of influence, the power of knowledge. That meant that they did not need to prove themselves or change their style. Servant leadership wasn’t yet an existing concept.

Boomers, as they came of age, rocked these concepts significantly. Let’s take a brief journey through the evolution of management styles over the last century.

Recall that our current work structure primarily emerged post–Industrial Revolution and mass manufacturing. As national and multinational corporations evolved, something had to be done that hadn’t been done before: manage processes and people at larger and larger scales, across larger distances. The manager role evolved to keep step, as did experimental styles of management.

In the early and mid-1900s, the focus was on numbers that defined profit and productivity, also known as “scientific management.” Scientific management has evolved into a variety of work management practices today. To put it simply, at the time, work was divided into small, easily controlled tasks, where no single frontline employee knew the big picture of how all the pieces fit together. The big picture was knowledge limited to the manager’s role. In corporate workplaces, there was a significant distinction between those who attended college and those who did not. At this time, it was common for leaders and managers to withhold information and to strictly control strategy—there was no reason or incentive for everyone to be involved. If anything, it was seen as a threat. Information was on a “need to know” basis. In this world, there was no room for everyone challenging everyone else—it was mostly characterized by the lower levels grumbling to themselves or through unions or other groups. To get to strategic levels was a clear privilege.

But after some time, as organizational development studies evolved, it became apparent that people’s productivity was not solely governed by numbers. Precise measurements of movement to get tasks done and segmenting tasks down to the “dummy-can-do-it” level made people less productive than if they had autonomy and creativity. At the end of the day, the people closest to the work were more apt to understand ways to improve it, in contrast to the managers and leaders who were further removed. In the US, since the 1960s, young boomer managers and leaders began to experiment with managing styles that empower employees. As more millennials and generation Z join the workplace, the influence of the Internet continues to push for open management styles instead of the traditional command and control style.

In addition to the historical command and control management style, as mentioned in chapter 1, diversity in the workplace has changed significantly throughout recent history. Older generations grew up (both in childhood and in the workplace) in an environment surrounded by others who were more often similar to them than not. Immigrants and females were expected to “assimilate” in the workplace and respect was given accordingly—those that did a great job of assimilating were more likely to be noticed and recognized. For example, women who entered male-dominated workplaces in droves often changed their style to mirror the style of men in order to succeed. Art Kleiner, in his book The Age of Heretics, explains the gap and reigning mindset of those times: “In the back of their minds, the managers who hired these people no doubt expected them to be grateful—for these were groundbreaking efforts. Like immigrants, the increasing black and women staff were expected to dig in, work hard, find ways to assimilate, and gradually melt into the existing ambience of the company. In other words, as all immigrants found wherever they settle, the game was rigged against them. The hard part was learning to assimilate the constant belittling of their identity: ‘Stop moving your hands that way. Stop making those kinds of jokes. Dress like the CEO dresses. Act like the finance manager acts.’ When everyone comes from a similar culture, these restraints are learned from childhood, but for women and members of ethnic minorities, corporate culture was thoroughly alien. They would become aware, as only an outsider would become aware, of every slight detail of the prevailing ambiance of the white male organizational culture.”¹

It’s only recently that significant changes have occurred. It was just in the 1960s and 1970s that many gender- and race-related issues came to the forefront and affirmative action began to emerge. Considering how recent these changes are and that most leaders today are of the older generation, the natural tendency is discomfort with diversity. An Ernst & Young study in 2013 supports this conclusion. When comparing all three generations, boomers received the lowest scores by all generations, including ratings shared by fellow boomers, with only 12 percent saying boomers are the best at “diversity” and 16 percent at “inclusive” leadership skills.² It is this type of approach that leads many corporate cultures, especially as one gets higher up, to feel like an old boys’ club. Those that ask, “Why do we need to pander to young people’s expectations?” are clearly a part of the command and control perspective and less likely to exhibit inclusive leadership styles.

In summary, in the past, the perceived tie between increased profits, increased productivity, and a sharply hierarchical structure was much clearer than today. There was also a difference in diversity that affected hierarchy, where work that received recognition was more narrowly limited by ethnicity and gender. The gap between college educated (managers and leaders) and non-college educated (frontline workers) was much more evident across industries as well. For all these reasons, the older perspective is that one should not expect leadership or tenured individuals to flex their approach and answer challenges. One should respect the chain of command when meeting needs and accept the answer “no” when a superior tells you. What other beliefs and societal norms do you feel influenced this perception of hierarchy and respect?

Exploring the Modern Interpretation: Respect Redefined

In stark contrast, millennials grew up in a time of transparency, equality, and globalization, all furthered exponentially by the advent of digital technology. In a rapidly evolving world of highly cognitive work and innovation/strategic goals, it’s more beneficial than ever to promote idea flow and knowledge sharing among all levels and roles. In fact, the very notion of diversity is changing and therefore, we must reexamine our concepts of hierarchy, respect, and equality in the workplace.

For millennials, there wasn’t a time when we didn’t know what was happening behind closed doors. A lot happened to affect our opinion of leaders and those in power. Events in US history were all transparently shared, including the Monica Lewinsky and Enron scandals, the housing bubble, and more. The advent of cable television, followed by the Internet, increased access to world events and leaders like never before, and in turn, increased expectations of transparency, feelings of mistrust, and questioning of authority in all generations. As a result, millennials don’t share in older generations’ tendency to respect elders solely for age and tenure. We ask for proof from people who thought they no longer would have to provide that proof. If a leader or tenured individual is threatened by having to explain an opinion or approach, it may be perceived as having something to hide, or as having a weak argument to begin with.

In addition to trust issues, millennials have grown up in a time where diversity is so constantly present, where the majority is the minority, where learning about cultures around the globe is highly accessible, that they assume diversity exists everywhere and have a decreased barrier to accepting macro-differences. When we grew up, because of digital technology, we were constantly surrounded by alternative ways of thinking and people challenging one another, regardless of who was an actual off-line expert. The Internet is the great equalizer. We have grown up watching emerging voices, many who were initially anonymous, gain followings and make an impact, only to find out later what they looked like, their age, gender, and so on.

Consider the example of a friend of mine. He was a teenager who loved watching World Wrestling Federation (WWF) in high school. He wanted to make some side money, so he assigned himself an official e-mail address of a journalist at a WWF reporting website. He started writing articles, gained a following, and got paid for a few months before the website realized he was a teenager! His age didn’t matter to his followers though. They respected his voice. This example showcases how powerful the Internet has truly been: it has removed the innate barriers we have to judge people by the characteristics we can see (ethnicity, gender, age, etc.) and instead allows us to focus on everything below the surface.

Top talent millennials do respect tenure and age, but they also have a broader view of respect that includes valuing all perspectives regardless of characteristics like age, ethnicity, and gender. As Time magazine’s political columnist, Joe Klein, says, “Diversity has been written into the DNA of American life; any institution that lacks a rainbow array has come to seem diminished, if not diseased.” Modern talent assumes that macro-diversity exists and is embraced in the workplace. If it doesn’t exist, they automatically sense the unproductive, disengaging, unattractive old boys’ club and focus on other workplaces instead.

With this lens in mind, respect as defined by millennials and generations beyond is based on authentic transparency and leadership that isn’t what I call a “pale, male, and stale mindset” but reflects the broad diversity represented by consumers and talent. We expect these leaders to be promoted based on micro-differences in strengths and weaknesses and real experience, rather than favorites and tenure. While millennials and later generations may need to be coached on the value of time-built expertise, a balance should be struck and diverse, alternative ways of thinking encouraged. Because the influence and reach of the Internet is global, this shift in definition is global as well. Modern talent asks questions and voices thoughts to leaders and tenured individuals just as they would a peer.

Leveraging a Broader Definition of Respect to Build a Modern Organization

Where respect was once given based on level, tenure, and age, respect is given today for ongoing authentic contributions that stand out. In essence, respect is not given by millennials to roles or positions, but to actions and behaviors regardless of position. Many organizations are experimenting with new structures, such as flat or circular organizations (the so-called “holacracy” championed by the online shoe and clothing outlet Zappos, where individuals are managed through peer-to-peer relationships instead of hierarchy). Before pursuing these larger changes, there are three fundamental interventions to consider: promoting coversity, attitudes, and social media presence.

Modern talent holds the belief that the best workplaces are successful because they embrace people’s micro-differences. They are more innovative, more creative, more able to serve their customers when they do not try to put people in boxes based on macro-differences or when they do not have too many similar people in the workplace. To embrace micro-differences, there is a need for another critical shift in the workplace. Instead of focusing on embracing diversity through diversity training and affinity networks, I encourage focusing on creating a culture based on a new concept I coined: coversity. Coversity programs are those that intentionally bring diverse people together around a common challenge or topic to explore their differences and enable acceptance.

In contrast, diversity programs, as we have traditionally defined them, focus on dividing people to create silos of support based on their macro-differences: those traits we can see such as age, ethnicity, and gender. In other words, putting people into boxes. The very term “diversity” is divisive and comes from the latin verb diverte, which meant “to turn aside” and eventually evolved to mean “separate.” Diversity promotes isolating people by identifying separate groups: the women’s network (are men allowed?), the millennial network, the Working with India (or other country) cultural training, and so on. It’s based on the idea that by putting together all the people who share the same macro-trait, they will somehow learn how to collaborate and assimilate with the people outside the network or training program.

If we are truly trying to create inclusive environments, what we need is coversity. The prefix “co-” implies togetherness, partnership, equality. Combined with “-versity,” it implies that, while we are different, we are equal and we can partner together. Instead of a millennial network, it’s having a generations network, where people of all generations can come together and converse, connect, and collaborate.

Is there a benefit to gaining support from like-minded people? Absolutely. Inside of the coverse, there are like-minded people who may group together to create themes and patterns to explore. But deciding where the divisions start, at what level, is critical. Currently, because the first level of division is the macro-difference, we have little to no time or space to share what we learn to those outside the network. When I was part of an Asian network, one of the goals that made the network worthwhile was the support and ability to confide in other Asians. However, what was equally important was the ability to share Asian culture with non-Asians and to create acceptance around differences in recognition methods, feedback skills, work ethic, leadership skills, and so on. Although it may have even been a part of my work plan that I was a participant in the network, it wasn’t on my Caucasian colleague’s work plan. As a result, there wasn’t a priority for him to understand how to work with me. A joint ethnicity coversity group would have been much more useful, where we could have openly discussed recognition methods and the other topics. Then, we could have had subgroups for individual support.

Consider having a gender network, where people can talk about gender-related issues together. I once encountered a women’s network that had developed an extraordinary leadership program. It was done so well that men started attending just to get the same training! Let’s put the focus on the common topics both sides struggle with. Currently the champions of women in the workplace say the biggest challenge is bringing men into the conversation. That’s understandably difficult when you blatantly call something a women’s network (basically putting up a “no boys allowed” sign!). Within a gender network, on the other hand, subgroups for women or men or transgender individuals can exist for support.

In addition to networks, the idea of coversity can be applied to formal diversity training. For example, it is much more effective to have an unconscious bias training instead of groups like Working with India or China or South America and so on. Unconscious bias addresses the overarching behavior gap of acting on biases we hold that we aren’t consciously aware of. These biases may conflict with our conscious values and, by bringing these biases to the conscious level, we can change our action. Because we are training at the topic level, we are promoting coversity. Again, it is still important to understand the specific cultural norms of a country. In this example, that would look like learning about unconscious bias, followed by specific, shorter training on cultural norms of a country. But giving a training without that context promotes the idea that everyone from that country is exactly the same and promotes a negative, silo-based version of embracing diversity.

Coversity is about exploring together the differences in perspective, experiences, thought, communication style, strengths and weaknesses. The goal of building a coverse is to bring to life the traits below the surface. From a millennial perspective, that is how things are organized on the Internet—dividing people by topics and interests instead of physical traits. It’s what we are used to. The Internet removed the human barrier of judgment based on macro-diversity. What conversations are we missing out on because we promote diversity instead of coversity?

In addition to building coversity through new affinity networks and training programs, leaders, managers, and tenured individuals need to shift their concept of respect. Consider the following changes to redefine respect in the modern world:

› It’s not personal, it’s engaging. It is important to recognize that the act of asking a question is not personal. It’s not a personal attack on your position, your level, your expertise. Rather, you have said something that made them want to engage, learn more, or contribute to your thought.

› It’s a challenge to improve your management capability. If you are a manager, and someone circumvents the chain of command because they weren’t satisfied with your answer, it is a sign that you need to give better answers. (It may be a hard truth to swallow!) You may not be used to providing detailed answers or coaching into softer areas like career development or team collaboration. Yet that is a primary focus for enabling employees to get everyday work done in our strategic, highly cognitive environment. If you don’t have the ability to communicate well when asked questions in these arenas, individuals who report to you become disengaged enough to want to go over your head.

› It’s an enabler. If you are a manager, and someone simply seeks out leaders to get to know them, you should encourage it. Accelerating one’s knowledge of the business’s strategy, relationships, and culture can only help one become more productive and engaged.

› Stop assimilating. Start growing. Lastly, do not shy away from different cultural (ethnic, gender, age, etc.) ways of thinking. It’s okay for everyone to stop assimilating. As we learned from Alex Pentland, the best work comes from consciously finding and integrating new ideas. To be an effective leader, embrace the possibilities offered by integrating new ways of thinking into your honed expertise.

Thirdly, along with building coversity and shifting attitudes, the next step to embracing the new definition of respect is to start authentically and transparently contributing. Where businesses were once local, they are now global. Where businesses once controlled their image, the perception is now crowdsourced via social media. A connected, transparent, socially accessible leader garners respect more easily than the invisible, command and control, behind closed doors leader. Similarly, for tenured individual and managers, there are benefits to being more transparent.

This doesn’t necessarily mean having thousands of followers on Twitter or spending hours on social media. The Social CEO study found that “many CEOs who don’t participate in social media are actually communicating with employees through company intranets (50 percent) and making themselves visible to external constituents on their company websites (62 percent). We find that CEOs are finding ways to be social without being active on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.”³ Whether you are the CEO or the company subject matter expert, it’s not necessarily the tools you use that are important in this case. What’s important is that you are using something and that it is you who is using it. Many leaders have PR teams crafting messages for them. This is the very definition of inauthenticity and greatly takes away from the impact of a vulnerable message.

Consider sharing thoughts on the following topics:

› Openly sharing strategy justification, meaning, and impact

› Asking for feedback through questions

› Sharing your personal challenges and your ways to overcome them

› Sharing how you became an expert and why it is important to you or a passion of yours

By communicating transparently, you empower others on their own journeys, you inspire others, and you gain their respect through good old-fashioned honesty. The Social CEO highlighted the many benefits executives have found by their CEO’s participation in social media. The report states that 78 percent found that participation has a positive impact on company reputation, 75 percent say it is a good way to communicate with employees, 64 percent say it helps to find and attract new customers, and 72 percent say it keeps the CEO in touch with what’s happening inside the company.⁴

In summary, the key intervention here is to kill the concept of the old boys’ club and leadership solely based on command and control. The world is too diverse, too cognitive, and too transparent today to tolerate it. The idea that someone, as a leader, feels most comfortable conversing and practicing in pale, male, and stale environments where their years of building political, bureaucratic relationships prevails is against all ideals of what makes a leader effective today. An effective leader today is someone who can break down superficial, visible barriers such as gender, race, and age and connect deeply with their audience, be it consumers or employees. It’s okay if employees talk to leaders more openly and directly; in fact, it may be a key part of keeping leaders agile and able to make effective decisions. Similarly, tenured individuals need to be able to apply their expertise across a large and diverse organization. Being open to alternative ways of thinking helps one be agile and open to coaching and working with a diverse range of people. By shifting culture toward coversity, attitudes toward respect, and practices toward transparent contribution, we can embrace and leverage the modern expectation of building a culture that has authentic respect for every individual.

Tales from the Trenches

To learn more about what these ideas look like in practice, here is an example of a training and affinity network based on the concept of coversity and a story of a social CEO.

By shifting the approach to building coversity by bringing together diverse participants to converse on common challenges, the training program was much more powerful than a traditional diversity training.

Summary: From Authority Problems to Embracing Coversity

In this chapter, we learned that millennials skirt hierarchy and treat relationships more equally than previous generations. Millennials believe micro-differences (the differences below the surface) matter more than macro-differences such as age, gender, and race. The nature of digital technology has created new rules for who is respected based on ongoing authentic contribution and grit instead of age, level, tenure, or other accolades. Instead of feeling threatened, those with tenure and leadership roles can use this level of feedback to continue to personally grow and influence others.

To leverage the power of micro-differences, we found that even before experimenting with brand new organizational structures, other changes can be made. We talked about embracing the concept of “coversity,” in which people are brought together by topic and can then further subdivide based on macro-differences, or our traditional concept of diversity. Coversity helps us bring together people who are different to converse, connect, collaborate, and ultimately generate new ways of thinking. It enables us to consider that we can be different, but equal—we don’t have to be mired in an us vs. them mentality, but instead focus on how there are differences on an individual level. We shared stories of women’s networks, Asian networks, and unconscious bias training as examples.

We also talked about attitude shifts for tenured individuals or those in leadership positions. These attitude shifts range from not taking questions or challenges personally to embracing opportunities to stay in touch while growing established expertise. Lastly, we discovered that social media is a new way to establish transparency and “relatability” and gain feedback in the large, multinational organizations of today, whether used internally with employees or externally with customers.

Through our examples of Generation University and Virgin’s use of social media, we saw the power of embracing a new idea of respect, based on openness instead of hierarchy. In a time of rapid change, if you stayed with what served you well in the past you could fail easily. Having millennials challenge you with their natural tendency to respect everyone equally is actually a gift. Like each of the other four stereotypes we discussed, it’s possible to view and harness this trait as a strength—it’s just a matter of what lens you choose to look through.

How Modern Is Your Culture?

How well do you think your organization is meeting modern talent needs? Read each statement and place an X in the appropriate column, then sum up your score. We have stated “my company” for the focus of each statement, but feel free to replace with “my immediate work group” or another community if it serves your purpose better. The assessment can also be found online at themillennialmyth.com/resources, where you can compare your answers with other readers.

If the majority of your X’s fall in the strongly disagree or disagree columns, your organization is leaning toward a traditional perspective that is at risk of disengaging modern talent. You may want to see where you can make some changes through reviewing portions of this chapter, trying the 10-Minute Champion ideas below, investigating our online resources, or reaching out to us for further help.

10-Minute Champion

What can you do to shift your organization toward a modern culture? Consider championing the following ideas in your work group, intended to take no more than 10 minutes each.

Reverse mentoring. Consider something you are about to do. Ask a lower level or, conversely, a tenured employee to give you feedback on the idea or approach. For a more in-depth initiative, consider championing a reverse mentoring lunch ’n’ learn. Pair tenured individuals with less tenured individuals. Ask tenured individuals to share a current challenge and get feedback from their partner. Rotate after a set time.

Appreciate micro-differences. The next time someone has a differing work style or point of view than you, spend 10 minutes discussing where their style or point of view came from. Intentionally try to put on their lens by asking questions like “How has this style worked for you in the past?” or “What experiences have led you to believe this point of view?” The tone should be curious and collaborative rather than confrontational.

Create a coversity conversation. Create your own coversity group by discussing a 10-minute, interest-based topic around lunch where everyone can voice ideas. Topics could be gender relations, leadership styles, introvert/extrovert/ambivert, or anything that’s relevant to your particular work environment.

Build a social media presence. Whatever your company’s social media presence is today, consider duplicating it. This could mean a Twitter account, where you spend 10 minutes crafting an insightful tweet, or a LinkedIn account, where you contribute regularly to a LinkedIn group. It could be an internal network such as a subject matter expert group. Challenge yourself to post insights about your work, challenges you are having, and resources you find.

Create your own idea. Feel free to create your own ideas about creating connections between individuals, regardless of macro-differences.

Add your idea and view others’ ideas on the 10-Minute Champion at themillennialmyth.com/resources