As director of program development at The Environmental Careers Organization, Kevin Doyle knows a thing or two about job searching. In this recurring column for Grist, he explores the green job market and offers advice to eco-job-seekers looking to jumpstart their careers.
Environmental employers are losing their 'boomers, and some are worried sick about it. They know that an inevitable competition for limited talent will follow the equally inevitable wave of retirements that will crest and break as the baby boomers age. Numerous studies put the percentage of environmental professionals and managers who will soon be eligible for retirement at close to 50 percent -- and even higher in some fields. Federal, state, and local government agencies will be particularly hard-hit.
The simultaneous loss of thousands of experienced environmental professionals is, of course, a big problem. But here's a very different concern:
What if the expected retirees don't retire? What if the aging environmental workforce keeps aging-in-place, while a smaller-than-expected group of young professionals is brought into the workforce and a larger-than-needed cadre of new talent is left waiting in the wings? What if I run out of phrases-with-hyphens?
Well, we don't need to ask "what if?" -- it's clear that a whole lot of aging environmental professionals aren't going anywhere anytime soon. And don't call them aging either, thank you very much. Haven't you heard that 50 is the new 40? 'Boomers are young and vibrant! They're "with it"! They're learning exciting new 21st-century concepts, like "saving money" for "retirement without pensions."
So used-to-be-young 'boomers, still-feel-like-they're-pretty-young "Xers," and actually-are-young "millenials" are going to bump into each other in the hallways for many years to come. Perhaps it's time that we get to know each other a little better.
A serious guide to the generational divide is Laura Bernstein, president and CEO of VisionPoint, an innovative national training firm headquartered in Des Moines, Iowa. Bernstein co-authored Generations: Harnessing the Potential of the Multigenerational Workforce [PDF], an influential white paper that maps the generational terrain. Her firm helps employers find competitive advantage through the skillful management of diversity.
Bernstein notes that before we can work together more productively, it's useful to describe the mental models that partially define us in the eyes of others. Naming the generations and exploring some of their characteristics and differences can "highlight how employees of different generations can stereotype and misunderstand one another's actions and intentions."
In the spirit of greater understanding at your environmental workplace, take a look at the two tables below. See anyone you know?
| Generations at a Glance | |||
| Generation | Date of birth | Characteristics | Stereotyped as |
| Traditionalists | 1925-1942 | Hardworking and dedicated, respectful of rules and authority, conservative and traditional | Old-fashioned, behind the times, rigid/autocratic, change/risk averse |
| Baby Boomers | 1943-1960 | Youthful self-identity, optimistic, team player, competitive | Self-centered, unrealistic, political, power-driven, workaholic |
| Generation X | 1961-1981 | Balanced (work/life quality), self-reliant, pragmatic | Slackers, selfish, impatient, cynical |
| Generation Y | 1982-2002 | Fast-paced/multitasking, fun-seeking, technology-savvy | Short attention span, spoiled and disrespectful, technology-dependent |
| Generational Differences in Key Workplace Dimensions | ||||
| Traditionalists | Baby Boomers | Generation X | Generation Y | |
| Work Style | By the book -- "how" is as important as what gets done | Get it done, whatever it takes -- nights and weekends | Find the fastest route to results; Protocol secondary | Work to deadlines, not necessarily to schedules |
| Authority/ Leadership | Command/ control; Rarely question authority | Respect for power and accomplishment | Rules are flexible; Collaboration is important | Value autonomy; Less inclined to pursue formal leadership positions |
| Communication | Formal and through proper channels | Somewhat formal, through structured network | Casual and direct; sometimes skeptical | Casual and direct; eager to please |
| Recognition/ Reward | Personal acknowledgement and compensation for work well done | Public acknowledgement and career advancement | A balance of fair compensation and ample time off as reward | Individual and public praise (exposure); opportunity for broadening skills |
| Work/Family | Work and family should be kept separate | Work comes first | Value work/life balance | Value blending personal life into work |
| Loyalty | To the organization | To the importance and meaning of work | To individual career goals | To the people involved with the project |
| Technology | "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" | Necessary for progress | Practical tools for getting things done | What else is there? |
At one level, these generational capsule descriptions are a fun parlor game. They give older professionals a chance to complain about "kids these days" and younger ones the opportunity to roll their eyes at the technological illiteracy of the people who are allowed to sit above them on the organizational chart. And perhaps we can all agree that any generation that produced Kevin Federline has a lot of explaining to do.
Bernstein reminds us, however, that the reality for managers and workers is no game and that the stakes are high. For the first time in memory, four generations of employees are attempting to work together at the same time.
Serious conflicts can arise out of generational boundaries over work style, authority, communication, and technology. Differences over workplace loyalty may emerge as particularly difficult to navigate because the generational gaps are so large. Moreover, the issues raised by the new generation gaps come at the same time that we are struggling to integrate our gender, race, ethnicity, and class differences.
Bernstein writes that the question before us is no longer, "Will we have a diverse, multigenerational workplace?" We do. The question now is, "Are we prepared?" It's not at all clear to me that the leaders of our environmental, conservation, and sustainable economy workplaces are prepared for the challenge -- or even sufficiently aware of it.
Have a question for Remake a Living? Send an email to , or post a comment below.
Kevin Doyle is the national director of program development for the The Environmental Careers Organization in Boston. He is coauthor of The ECO Guide to Careers That Make a Difference: Environmental Work for a Sustainable World and The Complete Guide to Environmental Careers in the 21st Century.
Why won’t Lisa Jackson/Nancy Sutley visit a mountaintop removal site?
Comments
View as Flat
algertha Posted 5:27 am
11 Jan 2007
While I have heard Boomers going from 63 to as far as 64; I have never heard Xers coming as early as 61. I've been hearing it starting in 65, maybe.
Also, I've been doing some reading and I understand the term baby boomer, but how did the term Generation X come to be?
Thanks!
Permalink
Kevin Doyle Posted 7:41 am
11 Jan 2007
To Grist readers of all generations, I have questions of my own. Do you see yourselves in these charts? Do you see your friends and co-workers? Your parents? Your children? Are Boomers really self centered and power driven? Are Xers really cynical slackers? Do the Millenials really have short attention spans?
Write and tell all!
Kevin Doyle
National Director,
Program Development
The Environmental Careers Organization
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[19]='\"';l[20]=' 103';l[21]=' 114';l[22]=' 111';l[23]=' 46';l[24]=' 111';l[25]=' 99';l[26]=' 101';l[27]=' 64';l[28]=' 101';l[29]=' 108';l[30]=' 121';l[31]=' 111';l[32]=' 100';l[33]=' 107';l[34]=':';l[35]='o';l[36]='t';l[37]='l';l[38]='i';l[39]='a';l[40]='m';l[41]='\"';l[42]='=';l[43]='f';l[44]='e';l[45]='r';l[46]='h';l[47]='a ';l[48]='
Permalink
LauraBernstein Posted 8:58 am
12 Jan 2007
Permalink
bellemichelle Posted 9:14 am
12 Jan 2007
Permalink
willa Posted 11:56 am
12 Jan 2007
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:29 pm
12 Jan 2007
On the other hand, a fair number of them are kind of cute ...
Having been born in AD 1955, I in fact do not see the Boomer personality in me at all, least of all the competitive and self-promoting aspects. I identify most of all with Gen X, especially the importance of harmonizing work and life. I indulge, when I am being thoughtless, in the stereotypes of the Boomers and Gen Y. But there is always a warm spot in my heart for old-timers, and all who preserve traditions. (Which are not to be confused with mere conservative ways of thought.)
Generally, I think I get along well with persons in all age groups, and can have high-quality conversations with all of them, though the content may differ. It is people in my own age group who are most likely to elicit stress, unpleasant competitiveness, frustration and anger. That does not happen frequently, though, I am pleased to report.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
willa Posted 2:19 am
13 Jan 2007
They tell us there are more different careers than ever, but if you aren't a doctor (or other scientist) or a lawyer, and also aren't willing to get an MBA and take a soul-sucking corporate job, I'm not sure what the options are, exactly. Be brilliant and get paid to be a writer or an artist or something, although that's not something one can choose to do, really.
This all leaves one very obvious general field that would be a good use of a solid liberal-arts education: teaching. I enjoy teaching, but I don't enjoy the stories I hear from people my age looking for academic jobs; the market seems to be pretty saturated with bright, capable people who will never be brilliant researchers or consultants or authors (so are unemployable by big universities) but would be good teachers at small liberal arts colleges. Teaching below the college level requires a higher tolerance for children, and for crappy working conditions, than many people (including me) seem to have.
We were all told, when we were encouraged to pursue a balance between work and life, that we didn't need to know what we were going to do when we grew up, that we could get a degree from a good college and then write our own tickets. That's just.not.true. The jobs I've had since graduating from one of the nation's top colleges: barn manager/"working student" (ie, apprentice) to various horse trainers (including some very, very good ones, but still not much of a career); retail employee for a Mexican tile importer; and executive director/maid of all work for a nonprofit organization. The last one seems like it'd be a career option, but the "maid of all work" thing isn't really as sarcastic as it might seem; working for a nonprofit should be rewarding, and sometimes is, but it's also backbreaking and soul-sucking a lot of the time. So I'm in grad school, and it is interesting, but mostly because I'm a big nerd and I love school, and not as much because I actually sense that I'm becoming more employable.
So, is it just me (and everyone I know)? Or is this general gen-X malaise actually general?
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 6:40 am
13 Jan 2007
Willa, here I am at my advanced age and I still haven't figured out how to make a living. I knew from high school I wasn't going to be part of "the establishment" and I never have been. I've worked in the nonprofit world, for minimal pay because it gave me the opportunity to do what I was passionate about, but at the expense of providing well for my kids (being a single mom and all that). I've had two books published (still working on the third), along with scores of articles, I've traveled and taught and offered workshops, published three newsletters (which I'm still doing), started an organization in Vermont, edited other people's writing and none of this has been lucrative. I've been lucky to be able to pay the bills. I feel that I have no marketable skills because much of what I do, including designing my own newsletter, is self-taught, so no degrees to back up my name. If I had been willing to live in a city I know I could have made my way up the nonprofit ladder but I'm a country girl at heart. So being true to myself and my passions has meant that money is always an issue. It sucks but then I've never had a job I didn't love. I have achieved my goal of being respected by people I respect, having worked with folks like Thomas Berry, Brian Swimme, Randy Hayes, Fritof Capra, Kirk Sale, Peter Berg, David Brower, David Dellinger, for example.
Ideally my work and private life were seamless. I used to say my work is my life and my life is my work. Now I've moderated that a bit mainly because for three days a week I work in a small, locally-owned natural foods store. It doesn't pay much but it fits my values, my co-workers are fun, and the customers are great. Plus I get to do a certain amount of educating on things like climate change, gardening, using herbs, stuff like that on pretty much a daily basis at the store. I get to laugh a lot and have fun and that feels good.
I'll probably never retire in the conventional sense of the word, but then I've never really "worked" in the conventional sense either. (My social security check won't amount to much, unfortunately). I feel like I'm an aging ageless woman who is passionate about the Earth, can't get the Earth out of her mind for even one day, and can't shut up (talking or writing) about it either. Like most grist posters I don't really fall into any of the above categories. I never have and hopefully I never will.
My youngest son was born in 1981. After high school he decided he wanted to be a photographer and so I encouraged him and he went to a great photography/film school and graduated. He very talented but is currently driving for Fed Ex. He has also sold shoes and built pool tables. He has yet to earn a living from his art, but he is a photographer regardless. It is how he sees the world which is a real gift. He has opened my eyes (and others') to totally unconventional beauty which is so important, I think, in these times of a degraded environment both natural and urban. It was because of this opening that I was able to absolutely fall in love with the city of Athens, not just the ruins and the ancient aspects of it but the rundown dilapitated parts of it, the lack of anything natural not placed there by humans, the traffic and chaos and noise. And under it all, under those ancient marble streets I could sense Gaia still, which was a real surprise and a real gift because it provided a necessary hope, if that makes any sense.
Anyway I often wondered if I did Colin a favor by encouraging him to follow his dream rather than steering him into something that would allow him to make a "real living". Maybe in a practical sense I didn't, but despite his frustrations he learned so much about who he is and how he sees the world that he never would have found out in computer science, for instance.
So Willa that malaise you speak of isn't just generation X, it's general. In a recent conversation with Brian Swimme (for my newsletter, Gaian Voices (which I'd be happy to send to anyone who contacts me with their mailing address), he said, "I believe that all humans know in a deep ineffable way exactly what is required of us. Even down to being called to do very specific things. We don't get a printout or specific instructions but we do know what gives us a deep sense of joy, and that's what we're supposed to be doing. However discouraging it can be, laced right into the discouragement is this sense of power that comes from contacting the deepest energies of the universe." Good advice. But it takes strength and commitment to put into practice. So don't give up or give in!
Permalink
willa Posted 1:13 pm
15 Jan 2007
I seem to spend my life learning about things, which is great, but it prevents me from ever becoming especially good at doing anything in particular, you know?
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:55 pm
15 Jan 2007
First, you need to have a certain true, sincere affection for your subject. Actual knowledge of the subject is not unimportant, but is secondary. There is nothing wrong with being a "co-learner" with your students. Indeed, that makes for exquisite educative experiences. But the love must really be there, from the beginning.
Secondly, you will need to have figured out some issues, regarding Authority, Justice and Discipline.
My own model for an ideal teacher had been Anna, played by Deborah Kerr, in "The King and I," singing "Getting to Know You." Boy was I wrong.
On the other hand, strictness, when enlightened, generally goes over well.
The toughs, the scoff-laws, the mischievous types, the lay-abouts, the questionable-business-types-on-cell-phone, present problems which are easily enough resolved. Either you get them to stop being disruptive; or, you get them to leave the classroom; or, you slowly bleed to death, a martyr's death. Real easy. But don't be afraid, one of the A students will surely run up and put an Aeneid under your head.
Worse are the careerists, who are in fact disciplined, law-abiding students, but who naggingly demand ever stricter regulations, grade-wise, intending always to improve their own grade.
And worst of all are their overly defensive, overly competitive parents. Of whom, the less said, the better. Beware of parents!
So, SMLowry, not only because I am a lover of fine photography myself, you will always worry and doubt, but you did the right thing, to encourage young Colin. If you had urged him to go into law school or business school, and put aside his art, you would now be full of remorse, and rightly so.
And on another note: I would love to receive your newsletters.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink