Today’s workforce includes Generation Z, millennials, Generation X and baby boomers, each with unique priorities, world views and skills. These differences often cause workplace friction, leading many employers to consider generation-focused strategies to improve understanding and collaboration among teams. However, HR expert Laurie Ruettimann argues this is the wrong approach.
“Generational theory is super fun and interesting — it’s like Enneagram, it’s like Disc — but not rooted in any sort of science,” Ruettimann says. She references workplace experts Lindsey Pollock and Alexandra Levitt, who have explored generational theory in their work. “What I think they get to are life stages, and there’s absolutely research around who you are and where you are in your life stage and how that influences your point of view. But generational theory is just that. It’s just a theory. There’s not a lot out there when it comes down to how people work, who they are and what they need in this world.”
Instead of focusing on generations, Ruettimann advises employers to target strategies at expectations. She outlines three key pillars for managing these expectations: communication, performance and process. In this interview, she elaborates on these pillars and offers recommendations for establishing them within an organization. The following are highlights from the discussion. Some parts have been lightly edited for clarity.
Communication
Communication is the thing that everybody pays lip service to, but few do it well, according to Ruettimann. She outlines two keys that make the difference.
Humility. Effective communication begins with humility. Those who master it “don’t act like they have all the answers,” says Ruettimann. She cites the example of Robert Glazer, CEO of the global marketing agency Acceleration Partners. Glazer frequently writes about communication.
“He comes from a place of humility. He comes with a personality of curiosity,” Ruettimann says. “And that curiosity not only permeates how he operates but also permeates his executive leadership team.”
Communication is the pillar of work operations, according to Ruettimann. Smart leaders know this and model it. “If you think about every successful business that’s out there — small, medium and large — they’re having a two-way communication up and down the career ladder,” she says.
Trust. Ruettimann tells the story of what Spanx CEO Sara Blakely said to a young employee who was struggling with a project. The employee approached Blakely for direction.
“And Sara said, ‘I think you should do the job I hired you to do. Trust in your knowledge, skills and abilities; trust that you’re here for a reason, and take a swing,” Ruettimann recalls.
Blakely leaned into trust. She didn’t talk down to the staffer, spoon-feed her an answer or reassign the project to someone else.
“She communicated,” Ruettimann says. “She didn’t buy into this trope that, ‘Oh, what do millennials know? What do Gen-Zs know?’ She actually let the person take a swing and make a mistake. And I think when we buy into generational theory, we shortcut — we undermine — organizational performance.”
Employees need to know you have faith in them. They need to know you believe in their skills and experience and that they are safe taking reasonable risks.
“Nobody gets fired for an earnest attempt at solving a problem,” Ruettimann says. “What people get fired for — and where people don’t trust — is when somebody tries to do a hack or a shortcut, or they make assumptions without asking really good questions and come up with a solution that doesn’t work.”
Humility and communication are intertwined, but the bedrock of that is trust. “Organizations have to have a love language of trust. … And if you don’t actually believe that the world can be rooted in trust — if you’re a leader who’s cynical, who’s angry, who’s constantly thinking that people are trying to screw them — you’re never going to have a culture or an organization where you can do extraordinary things. It’s just not going to happen,” Ruettiman says.
Performance intelligence
Organizations often base performance decisions on data collected from one-on-one meetings, 360-degree appraisals or surveys of a handful of people, says Ruettimann. These approaches can be unreliable because managers can bring their own biases to those conversations. Ruettimann outlines a more effective approach she has implemented with her clients.
Go beyond traditional metrics. “Some of the best organizations I’ve worked with, from manufacturing to veterinary organizations to cybersecurity, have really tried to think through what metrics show performance — not just correlate, but are directly related to performance?” Ruettimann recalls. “How do they build that into a system beyond their core HR, beyond payroll? How do they really think about performance in a way that’s gathering intelligence that they’re collecting anyway, that truly means something?”
Ruettimann gives the example of a cybersecurity firm she worked with that examined data produced by its recognition program alongside data from its core HR performance systems.
“[They] started asking questions like, ‘Are the people who give and receive recognition the top performers?’” she says. The data showed that giving and receiving recognition were clear indicators of high-performing employees. The company adjusted its performance review strategy.
“They didn’t discard the data around the 360 feedback, but they pulled in recognition as another essential piece of data to really make sure that their performance intelligence was fair and they could quantify it and actually defend it,” Ruettimann says.
Examine internal networks. “Companies that I’ve worked with that have looked at who’s essential — who’s getting contacted, who’s solving problems, who’s using specific keywords and Slack chats to be helpful — to be the linchpin within an organization,” Ruettiman says. “They have found that people who are heavily networked within an organization — who are seen as people who are pillars, responsible leaders — their performances are through the roof.”
Define your organizational values. “What’s important? How do you know when someone’s doing well? How do you know when they’re thriving? What does success look like? What does that mean? Is it traditional revenue markers, revenue per employee?” Ruettimann asks. “Is it customer service, timing? Beyond that, what makes someone valuable to the organization? What makes them a leader?”
Call in help if needed. You don’t need to go at this alone. “The process exists out in the marketplace to have someone come in and help you understand the essence of your culture,” she explains. “What are the gaps? What are your blind spots? What are people doing that’s amazing that you’re not giving them credit for?”
Establish your goals. “Do you want retention to be better in your organization?” Ruettimann asks. “Do you want people moving faster through the ranks?”
Once you define who you are as an organization, you can identify what to measure so that you understand how people perform against those values. This is the hard work, she warns.
“It’s easier to throw up a system to buy something that’s $5 per employee per month and then implement that for a year and a half and then get frustrated and go on the journey again for new technologies,” she says. “We have to turn inward as human beings over and over and over again to understand who we are, what we want in this world and where we perform at our best.”
Process
For Ruettimann, process only matters if it works. She champions an evidence-based approach to HR that replaces bureaucracy with data and real-world results.
Assumption is not science. “Evidence-based HR is something we don’t talk enough about,” she says. “We have a lot of beliefs about management and leadership and employee motivation that’s actually rooted in pop culture assumptions and really bad unreplicated psychological studies — like somebody did a study with seven people once that talked about motivation and we heard about it on ABC News, and then we’re adopting that in our organization suddenly. There’s a lot of really woo-woo stuff that we take as science in the world of work.”
True evidence-based management is grounded in data. Smart practitioners know this and are deliberate and intentional with their approach.
“There are actually wonderful researchers and wonderful institutions who are focused on evidence-based management,” Ruettimann says. “ They all rely on data, but they all go slowly to figure out which data matters and which doesn’t. And I think that’s the really important part of this. The science has never been better, but the problem is we have to pay attention to it.”
Recognize! “Sometimes we look at a couple of key employees and think they set the tone and the tenor for an organization, but it turns out they’re not the right ones to look at,” she explains. “That’s where data can be helpful. When we’ve got a pool of one or two who are at the forefront of our minds and we make decisions based on that, we’re doing it wrong. The collective data that you have can be your ally in all of this.”
Some high performers are tough to see. They are solid contributors, but work quietly in the shadows. Ruettiman suggests paying attention to what staffers say about their peers.
“Who recognizes them? Often their fellow colleagues, which is why I like looking at recognition as a key indicator of maybe who’s respected by their peers, relied upon by their peers. And so recognition programs can be essential to performance,” she says.
Be curious, be brave. Data can be a help or a hindrance, depending on how organizations use it. Ruettimann counsels HR departments to step out of their standard process and exercise courage.
“We have a choice to make,” she says. “We can either let the technology just confirm what we already believe and give us a sense of confidence of what [we] think is right … or we can be curious and dig a little bit deeper, mine a little bit deeper, call in some experts to help us and really use technology not only to challenge what we believe, but to give us a new path going forward.”
Pair data with conversation. Data is helpful, but should be examined in conjunction with discussion, Ruettimann says.
“[L]ook at data, and take a look at action-based activity within an organization, but don’t forget to talk to people,” she says. “You can build a holistic view of who the humans are who are working for you and with you. You’re better off as a leader, you’re better off in a community and you’re definitely better off as an organization.”
The pillars in action
An industrial company implemented the pillars to improve traction across the organization. It updated its performance management technology and its processes for gathering and sharing information with work teams, including those at remote mining sites.
“[I]t wasn’t about pulling people together for cupcakes. They don’t have time for fake team building,” Ruettimann says. “But what they did was work consistently on sharing more organizational communication — what’s happening in the company, how it impacts them directly.”
Next, the company talked openly about performance management. “It doesn’t mean that you either have a job or you don’t, or you get a 3% increase or you don’t,” Ruettimann says. “[I]t could mean learning and development opportunities. It could mean opportunities for you to grow in ways that you didn’t know.”
The two-fold strategy worked. Employees began connecting in new ways, and leaders saw gains in productivity and revenue. Ruettimann attributes the success to the company’s commitment beyond the technology upgrade.
“Oftentimes, we’ll throw another new system at employees and hiring managers and leaders … but it doesn’t really add value,” Ruettimann says. “The human connection adds value.”
