Okay, so I want you to start by picturing a very
specific and I think very common kind of tension.
You're sitting in a totally standard corporate
conference room. You know, the fluorescent lights
are humming. And on one side of the table, you've
got a 21 -year -old intern. They grew up swiping
on iPads before they could really talk. their
primary language is memes. Exactly. And they
see a strict nine to five as like a loose suggestion
from a bygone era. And then sitting right across
from them is a 65 year old executive. This is
someone who, you know, started their career dictating
memos to a secretary. They remember when email
was this risky new experiment that probably wasn't
going to catch on. Yeah. So they're looking at
the same project, but they're seeing completely
different worlds. And the conventional wisdom,
I mean, especially online, since this is a recipe
for disaster. Total gridlock. Yeah. Misunderstanding.
Yeah. Culture wars. We're looking at a stack
of research today that suggests this friction.
It isn't a bug. It's actually a feature. If,
and this is a big if, you know how to use it.
And that's really the defining challenge of the
modern workplace, isn't it? Right. We are in
this historically unique moment. It's not the
standard generation gap. No. It's a time where
we have, what, up to five generations working
at the same time? And soon, I mean, with Gen
Alpha starting internships, we are staring down
the barrel of a sixth -generation workforce.
We're sharing the same Slack channels. All on
the same Zoom calls, using the same broken coffee
machine. It's a lot. Five generations. I mean,
you've got the silent generation, boomers, Gen
X, millennials and Gen Z all trying to move the
same ship. It is. And usually the conversation
just devolves into memes. You know, OK, boomer
versus the whole lazy Gen Z thing. It's good
for TikTok, but it's terrible for management.
Exactly. So today we're going to push all that
noise aside. We have a source that gives a real
tactical playbook for this. We're looking at
insights from Annalise Olson. who's a VP at HP.
And we should be clear about why we're listening
to her. I mean, this isn't some academic theory.
Olsen is what you'd call a lifer, right? Absolutely.
She has real street cred. She started out as
an intern 25 years ago and just climbed her way
all the way up to VP. Wow. And she's managed
teams everywhere, Europe, Asia, the US. So this
isn't just a snapshot. It's a longitudinal view.
Yeah. She's watched the culture morph from these
rigid hierarchies to the hybrid world we see
today. So she hasn't just studied the shift.
She's actually lived it. She survived it. That
context is so important because she points to
these shifts that aren't just HR policies. They're
about... operational survival. She says there
were two huge tectonic shifts in her 25 years.
The first one is, well, it's obvious on the surface,
but the details are really complex. The role
of women in tech and business. It's massive.
And what's interesting here is we're not just
talking in vague terms like empowerment. The
source material has some hard data from HP that
shows what real operational progress looks like.
Because saying you value diversity is one thing.
But showing the receipts is another. Right. So
lay those numbers on us. What does it actually
look like? like in practice. Okay, so 31 % of
tech and business roles at her company are female,
which is a solid number. Then you look at leadership,
their board of directors is 58 % women and ethnically
diverse. But here's the stat that really really
set out to me. What's that? Out of their eight
biggest global markets. Four of them are run
by women. So a straight 50 -50 split in their
major markets exactly and the takeaway for you
listening isn't just OHP is doing a good job.
It's that diversity has moved from being a compliance
thing, something you do to avoid a lawsuit, to
being a core business strategy. It changes how
decisions are made, how risk is assessed. It
stops being an initiative and it starts being
the actual operating system. Which flows right
into the second big shift she identifies, which
I think is maybe even more radical because it
affects absolutely everyone. She says the corporate
ladder, that image we all have in our heads,
it's dead. It's dead. Or at least it's been deprecated.
The old model was so linear. You get in at 22,
you climb, you get your titles. Corner office,
gold watch. Gone. She argues that the modern
career path is a zigzag. The zigzag. I feel like
that describes my entire life, but you know,
in a corporate context, that can sound chaotic.
Yeah, if I'm a hiring manager and I see a resume
that zigs and zags all over the place, I might
just think, unfocused. How does she frame this
as a good thing? She rebrands it as agility.
In this hybrid world, the real currency isn't
just climbing up, it's the breadth of your skills.
The zigzag lets you rotate laterally, learn a
new skill set, maybe you pause for a life event.
And then step back in, but in a totally different
department. Right. And she really hammers this
idea of flexibility. And not just work -from
-home flexibility, career flexibility. So why
does this zigzag model matter so much? Because
it completely transforms work -life balance,
which always sounds like a trade -off into work
-life integration. I see. So if you're a caregiver
or parent, the zigzag lets you stay in the game.
You don't have to quit. You just adjust the slope
of your climb for a while. That is the key right
there. In the old ladder model, if you had a
baby or a sick parent, you had to jump off the
ladder. You were out. Completely out. And getting
back on was incredibly difficult. The zigzag
keeps that talent and all that institutional
knowledge inside the building. which is so critical
when you're trying to keep five different generations
happy and productive. Okay, so let's get tactical.
You've kept the talent, great. Now you've got
a 22 -year -old and a 60 -year -old on the same
team. How do you actually get them to collaborate?
Olsen lays out three specific buckets of strategy.
The first one is something we've all heard of,
mentoring and sponsorship. with a twist. There's
always a twist. So it's not just the old person
teaches the young person how stuff works. Right,
that's the default. But she talks about this
catalyst program they started way back in 2017.
Paired early career women with senior leaders.
The goal was sponsorship, you know, giving them
a leg up. But the unintended consequence was
reverse mentoring. Ah, so the execs started learning
just as much from the juniors. The learning flowed
both ways. The seniors were getting insights
into digital tools, cultural shifts, stuff they
were totally blind to. And the demand is coming
from the bottom up. It is. In 2023, they launched
these mentoring circles just because Gen Z and
millennials were clamoring for growth. They had
200 people raise their hands instantly. That's
a huge signal. The younger generations aren't
checking out. They're not quiet quitting. They
are loudly asking for guidance. They're starving
for it. Which brings us to the second bucket,
training for empathy. Okay, I have to play devil's
advocate here for a second. I know some people
hear empathy training and their eyes just glaze
over. They think it's all fluffy HR stuff. And
that is such a dangerous assumption to make now.
The data Anna -Lee shares is rock solid. Diverse
teams are 12 % more productive. 12 %? And inclusion
drives 30 % better performance. This isn't just
about feelings, it's about output. If your team
doesn't feel safe enough to speak up, you miss
out on real innovation. So empathy is actually
a risk management tool. It absolutely is. And
HP has been doing this for a long time. They've
had business resource groups since 1978. This
isn't some new fad for them. Which takes us to
the third bucket. And this is the one I feel
gets ignored a lot. We talk about child care,
sure. But Olson highlights life stages support.
That goes way beyond that. Yeah, this goes beyond
the fun perks. This is about biology, family.
She mentioned some pretty rare examples like
specific programs for menopause and perimenopause.
And support for employees dealing with aging
parents. That's the one that's going to become
huge. We talk about the sandwich generation,
caring for kids and parents. Elder care is this
silent crisis for so many people. So why is this
a priority? Well, look at the number she's working
with. 21 % of their workforce is over 50. But
60 % of their executives are over 50. Ah. So
if you don't support those later chapters, you're
going to lose your entire leadership tier. You
lose the people with the most knowledge right
when you need the most. So it's really a retention
strategy for your most valuable player. It's
asset protection. Simple as that. OK. I want
to shift gears a little. We promised some myth
busting. We all have these generational stereotypes
in our heads. So I'm going to throw one at you.
And you use the source material to just destroy
it. Ready? I'm ready. Let's do it. All right.
Let's start with the youngest. Stereotype one.
Gen Z. The myth is they lack discipline, no work
ethic. They just want to be on TikTok. False.
But with a nuance. The research she cites says
Gen Z has a massive desire to learn. The friction
isn't about laziness. It's about cadence. Cadence?
What do you mean? They want timely feedback.
They want constant iteration. They don't want
to wait six months for an annual review. They
want collaboration now. Exactly. So it's not
a lack of work ethic. It's a demand for immediacy.
To a boomer manager, that can look like impatience.
To a Gen Z employee, waiting a year for feedback
looks like pure negligence. That's a great distinction.
Okay, next up. Millennials. The myth. They're
all job hoppers. No loyalty. Can't commit. Also
false, basically. The research shows the Millennials
are just as likely to stick with the company
as older generations were at that same age. So
we're just confusing being young with being a
Millennial. Exactly. The job hopping is more
a function of age, not generation. As they've
gotten older, their retention stats look pretty
normal. Okay, what about the forgotten generation?
Gen X. The myth is they're the middle child,
no X factor, not really changing anything. She
pushes back hard on this. She's like, look at
the New York Times, the Washington Post, major
institutions. The visionary leaders driving change
right now. They're largely Gen X. They're the
bridge generation. They're the translators. They're
fluent in the analog past and the digital future.
They are driving the bus right now. I like that.
All right, last one. Baby boomers. The myth is
they can't handle new tech. You know, the, I
can't convert this PDF trope. OK, this was my
favorite data point in the entire source. A microsize
survey showed that 50 % of boomers felt they
had the skills to meet the demands of AI. 50%.
That sounds OK, I guess. But what's the baseline?
Well, you compare it to Gen Z. The digital natives
deal only at 65%. Wait, wait. So the gap between
the kid who grew up with an iPhone and the executive
who started with a typewriter is only 15 points.
It's not a canyon. It's a crack. 15 points is
nothing. It proves boomers are lifelong learners.
They've had to relearn how to work every single
decade. Typewriters to desktops to laptops to
the cloud. They're actually the most experienced
adapters in the room. That is a profound reframing.
They've survived more tech shifts than anyone.
Precisely. They're resilient. Wow. OK, so we've
busted the myth. We've looked at the strategies,
but I want to talk about the future. Annalise
says by 2032, Gen Z will be a third of the entire
workforce. That is a huge demographic wave coming
right at us. It is. And what they want fundamentally
is to feel connected and understood. But Annalise
flags a massive disconnect here. She calls it
the EQ gap. This is the danger zone. The stats
are really stark. You've got 70 % of senior leaders
who agree that emotional intelligence or EQ is
vital. So they know it's important. They say
it's important. In theory. But only 45 % of Gen
Z employees say they actually see their managers
displaying it. Oof. That is a massive gap between
what leaders think they're doing and what their
youngest employees are actually feeling. Correct.
Leaders think an open door policy is empathy.
Gen Z is saying no. You're not anticipating my
burnout. You're not connecting with me as a human.
And that gap creates total disengagement. So
how do we close it? Annalise lists four qualities
of a great leader for this new world. Let's run
through them. OK. Number one is empathy. And
she's specific. It's the ability to listen and
just... have a pulse on the room, sensing the
emotional temperature. Okay. Number two. Transparency,
which is huge for younger generations, giving
the why behind the what. They want context. If
you hide the logic, you lose their trust. Makes
sense. Number three is collaboration. Right.
And number four, this is the one she really emphasizes,
adaptability. Why that one so much? Because of
this idea of the 100 -year life. We're living
longer than ever before, so our careers could
span. 60, maybe 70 years. A 70 -year career.
That's exhausting to even think about. That is
a lot of Zoom calls. It is if you try to sprint
it. But it means you're going to have so many
different chapters. You might lose a job, change
industries, pivot completely at age 55. So the
ability to remain curious and coachable, that's
the only real survival skill. You have to treat
your career like a series of startups, not one
long corporate gig. So wrapping this all up.
What's the big takeaway for you, for the listener?
We've gone from boardroom stats all the way to
the empathy gap. I think the main lesson is that
this multi -generational workplace, it's not
a cage match. It's a huge asset. But only if
you shift from that latter mindset to the zigzag.
And you have to realize that the soft skills,
empathy, EQ, collaboration, those are actually
the hardest currency now. They're the things
the machines can't replicate. Exactly. And realizing
your 60 -year -old coworker and your 20 -year
-old intern actually want the same basic things
that they want to learn, they want feedback,
they want to do meaningful work. It's true. And
I want to leave you with one final thought from
that 100 -year life idea. It's something to really
chew on. Let's hear it. If we are going to live
to 100 and work into our 70s or 80s, does the
whole concept of seniority based on age even
make sense anymore? If you can learn AI at 65,
reinvent yourself at 50. then maybe we should
stop thinking about aging out of the workforce
and start thinking about spiraling up. Maybe
the peak of your career isn't 50. Maybe it's
80. And if your peach is at 80, then no matter
how old you are right now, you are just getting
started. Peaking at 80. I kind of love that.
It takes all the pressure off. It changes the
timeline completely. It really does. Well, thank
you for zigzagging with us today. We hope this
gave you some tools to navigate your own team
a little better. Keep learning. And we'll see
you on the next deep dive.