Gen Y

"Baby Boomers changed politics, Gen X changed family, Gen Y changed work, and Gen Z will change education." When Penelope Trunk wrote this on her blog last month, it caught my attention, and since that time a string of articles has been written supporting this theory about just how Gen Z will lead this shift. Last week Viacom and the Associated Press teamed up to release a new study evaluating how the education system is meeting the needs of today's 18-24 year-olds. While respondents skewed a bit older than members of Gen Z, we can already tell the tide is changing.

Looking at high school and college age students as "core consumers of education," the Young Adult Perspectives on American Education study found that this age cohort are generally optimistic that high schools and colleges can prepare them for the workforce, but they feel these educational institutions aren't adapting quickly enough to meet their changing needs. The result? More and more 18-24 year-olds are taking a less traditional approach to higher education through a combination of self-directed curricula, internships and self-teaching. Today's young people are more accustomed to figuring out what they like to do, and then with an almost innate entrepreneurial spirit -- figure out how to do it. They are rewriting the rules within the classroom and beyond, and the implications are not only impacting our education system, but will have a profound impact on the future workforce.

According to the study, today's young people are taking longer to graduate because they feel that, by combining school with work and internships, they stand a greater chance of finding a desirable job. Not surprisingly, they are also relying more on their own social networks of family and friends and less on community or religious institutions and high school counselors when it comes to making education decisions.

Earlier this month, Cynthia Gibson and Nicholas Longo released their new book, From Command to Community: A New Approach to Leadership Education in Colleges and Universities. In it, Cindy and Nick challenge the traditional notion of learning that is focused on the individual, in favor of a more collective leadership built on any number of individual actions that collectively contribute to the greater good. Fueled by technology, globalization and demographic shifts, the book calls on institutions to start thinking differently about leadership, and challenges institutions to create new opportunities for young people to apply their leadership in organizations and communities across the country.

Members of Gen Y who recently entered (or have "attempted" to enter the workforce) have found that despite their best efforts to do everything right in preparing, it hasn't helped them get a job -- and to further exacerbate things, they are finding themselves in huge debt without the ability to pay it back. My hope is that through a combination of new collaborative styles of leadership and new curricula that emphasizes teams and breaks down the hierarchical structures, that Gen Z will be even better positioned to take on the great challenges of their time and ours.

While it's clear that Gen Z will be taking matters into their own hands by finding new ways to get an education, how do you think "external" and environmental factors are impacting them? Are educators paying attention to this shift, and will they adapt accordingly? Only time will tell, but something tells me Gen Z won't wait for anyone else to figure it out before they do.

Often characterized simply by their “me-centric,” constantly connected ways, if you can catch Millennials with enough time in between a text or tweet, you might find a great deal of encouraging news about this rising generation. Millennials not only give to causes they care about, but they give generously – and, they’ll even roll up their sleeves and volunteer too. This is according to the second annual Millennial Donors Survey conducted by Achieve and JGA, and released earlier today.

The Millennial Donor Survey finds that of the more than 3,000 people (ages 20 to 35) who responded, 93 percent gave to nonprofit organizations in 2010, with 10 percent giving $1,000 or more. What does this mean for nonprofits? Millennials are giving, they’re giving generously, and if organizations aren’t focused on how to most effectively engage with these new donors – they won’t just be falling behind, they’ll have a difficult time catching up.  

It’s All About Face to Face

While organizations are all a flutter trying to lock in their short codes for SMS and text-to-give programs, the survey showed that Millennials actually respond best when there is an authentic personal connection as opposed to a blast email or text soliciting support. Of course, given that a large majority of Millennials are known to actually sleep with their phones, there are many assumptions that can be made about how they want to be reached. Yet, just as the survey showed last year, Millennials value personal contact over high-tech approaches.

When it comes to method of payment, Millennials prefer to give online, with 58 percent citing this as their preferred method. What may be surprising however is the discrepancy in how they use social media for communicating versus how they use it to give. Only a small number of Millennials donated via text (6%), Facebook (4%), phone (10%), and mobile apps (1%) – but none of those was heavily preferred. 

Trust is a Must

When asked to describe what motivates them to give, 85 percent of Millennials pointed to a compelling mission or cause, and 56 percent cited a personal connection or trust in the leadership of an organization. Friends and peers followed just slightly behind at 52 percent. Perhaps one of the more telling statistics to come out of the report was centered around the issue of trust. In fact, when making decisions to give, Millennials put such a value on trust that 84 percent said they would be somewhat or very likely to donate to organizations they can fully trust, and 90 percent would stop giving to an organization they could not trust. Transparency is a key factor in trust, as 70 percent said they trust organizations that report how financial support makes a difference.

Givers still Google

The survey showed that givers quickly turn to the Web for information about an organization as their preferred method – so, make it easy to find your content. Not only should you make the information easily accessible, but give them what they want and reach out on their terms.  In other words, once they reach you they want basic information and tools to take action whether that be giving or volunteering.   A surprising 65 percent want to find giving guides on individual websites explaining how their support will make a difference and 52 percent want to learn about specific volunteer activities.

Millennials Who Give More Volunteer More

Sure, Millennials are busy, but they’re nothing if not multi-taskers. The study found that when searching for the greatest indicators of volunteerism, organizations should look to giving levels. While 93 percent of survey participants donated money to a nonprofit, only 79 percent gave of their time – however, the more money people gave, the more time they gave, as well.  Just as in giving, the most compelling motivator for volunteering is also a compelling mission or cause at 84 percent while 55 percent said a friend or family member motivated them to volunteer.

But Wait, There’s More…

Over the course of the next couple of months leading up to the June 22 Virtual Summit on Millennial Engagement, we will be exploring these findings, dissecting them and making sense of what they mean for the future of fundraising and the future of our nonprofit sector. We’ll be providing tools to help your organization take a few strategic steps to strengthen and maintain relationships with Millennial donors.

We hope you’ll join us as we continue to explore this important space and breakdown common generational assumptions. You can download a copy of the full report here or simply flip through this prezi presentation we’ve pulled together with a summary of the key facts and takeaways. 

Last week I had the pleasure of participating in and presenting at the Council on Foundation’s Family Philanthropy Conference. Our time together in New York came to an end with an intimate and heartfelt conversation with Tim Shriver, board chair and CEO of Special Olympics. Just days after the passing of his father, iconic public servant Robert "Sargent" Shriver, Tim shared with us his take on what philanthropy means to him in the context of his family. His words were wrought with passion, especially as he was asked about his own children and what he hoped to pass on to them. Shriver said he believes, “we have failed at inspiring the big ideas of the next generation” and that we need to do more to create a “context of idealism” for our young people.

His words struck me, and as a “senior” member of the generation he’s referring to, I think he might have been too hard on himself and his generation. Growing up, Tim was surrounded by big ideas and idealism. After all, his father helped found and direct the Peace Corps 50 years ago, and his mother created the Special Olympics in the backyard of their home. These are the big ideas that inspired Tim and his brothers and sisters to follow in their parents footsteps. But not everyone’s parents are Sargent and Eunice Kennedy Shriver, and despite our parents or in some cases grandparents who were inspired to march on Washington or join organizations like the Peace Corps, many of the big challenges they were fighting for (or against) remain to this day -- not to mention the new ones that have been added to the mix. With that in mind, I say to Tim, don’t be so hard on yourself. The rising generation is inspired to fight the good fight – we just have a different way of going about it.

Perhaps we forget that it’s the Millennial generation who in large part moved social technologies into the mainstream – and are now moving them to mobilize around social issues through platforms like Facebook and Twitter. We were the first segment of users who discovered the utility of the technology and exploited it in ways that our parents would have never dreamed. Perhaps this quality of creative thinking when it comes to technology, comes from not being taught or forced into institutional thinking or traditional business cultures, but instead by living lives in a very open and transparent ways -- always searching for answers and willing to take risks. Something that parents like Tim allowed us to do.

One of the most retweeted messages from last week’s conference were Tim’s words, “you don’t have to do great things – but do small things with great love.” So, Tim and anyone else who might be reading this and feeling as though you failed at inspiring the rising generation – don’t be so hard on yourselves – we’re inspired. We’re going to continue to innovate and we’re going to continue to live open lives that defy traditional institutions and explore creative ways to come together in support of the causes that move us. And, even if they are a bunch of small disparate things that don’t add up to big national movements – we’ll do them with love, and then we’ll tweet about it.

They have trouble making decisions. They would rather hike in the Himalayas than climb a corporate ladder. They have few heroes, no anthems, no style to call their own. They crave entertainment, but their attention span is as short as one zap of a TV dial. They hate yuppies, hippies and druggies. They postpone marriage because they dread divorce. They sneer at Range Rovers, Rolexes and red suspenders. What they hold dear are family life, local activism, national parks, penny loafers and mountain bikes. They possess only a hazy sense of their own identity but a monumental preoccupation with all the problems the preceding generation will leave for them to fix.

The above is taken from a 1990 article that ran in TIME magazine about the then rising generation – GenX. Now, if you replace “zap of a TV dial” with “click of a mouse” and “hippies” with “hipsters” and “penny loafers” with “flip flops” it seems the more things change the more they seem the same. While such significant attention is being placed right now on the rising Generation of Millennials or Gen Y and how they are disrupting the workplace, disrupting technology and disrupting everything in between – it seems this is not an uncommon theme when we rewind history and take a look at how preceding generations characterize those who follow.

From last week’s NY Times Magazine cover story, What is it About 20 Somehings to a piece that a local Fox affiliate ran, Can Generation Y Keep America Great, or the release of the Beloit College Mindset List for the Class of 2014 – there really isn’t a description of “the Millennial” that serves as a distinct profile, despite all of the attempts at labels. The diversity of values, interests and personalities is as widespread among Millennilas as any other group -- and in fact most Millennials (dare I say, myself included) would fairly disagree with the generational descriptors as “not me!”

While generational profiles help us understand how to most effectively communicate across generations, to truly understand one another requires listening, not presuming. The environment, values and life experiences that surround us as we grow up help shape our life in more ways than we may realize. World events like wars and depression, or economic prosperity and technological advancements have a great baring on generations. Translated into the workplace this often means different values, ideas, work ethics, attitudes toward authority, and general outlooks on life.

That’s why today, we want to open up an experiment here on Social Citizens.  For as much as things can change from decade to decade, there is one constant – we’ve all been mischaracterized by the preceding generation.  Perhaps we’re more similar than different.  So, we’re asking individuals from all generations to weigh in on one simple question:

Which stereotypes do you think have been inaccurately associated with your generation? 

We’re interested in fostering greater understanding across generations and will continue this discussion in posts to come. After all, there may be more that unites us than divides us. Please weigh in below and stay tuned as we continue to address some of these stereotypes. We’ll be taking a deeper look at whether or not generational stereotypes are counterproductive – or if they might ever serve a constructive and positive role in our understanding of how different generations think, work and live.

A study released earlier this summer out of the University of Michigan, shows college students today have 40 percent less empathy compared to college students 20 to 30 years ago. Here we go again – broad assertions that Generation Y or the Millennials are less empathetic and more self centered than generations before us.  According to Sara Konrath, one of the study’s researchers, “Many people see the current group of college students—as one of the most self-centered, narcissistic, competitive, confident, and individualistic in recent history.” We could sit and challenge some of these stark generalizations – let’s face it, 20-30 years ago it was the 1980’s – not exactly the most altruistic decade, but I digress.

Today’s Millennials are volunteering at rates higher than generations before them.  They are joining together on land and online to raise money and awareness for causes they care about – from the earthquake in Haiti or the floods in Nashville to name a few recent examples.  They are at the forefront of developing new innovations that are solving some of our worlds toughest social problems, like the fellows I recently came across through the Unreasonable Institute. And, let’s not forget, some of the defining events of our young lives that have forever changed who we are (and I’d argue made us more empathetic) – Columbine, Oklahoma City, September 11, and Hurricane Katrina amongst others.  But rather than look at these life changing events that brought us closer together as a country and as a generation – the study suggests several factors that are behind the apparent reduction in empathy – in particular, increased exposure to violent media content, and of course, the overall use of social media.

Blaming social media somehow presumes that online relationships don’t require empathy, patience, or deep connectedness – and while it may be easier to have so-called ‘friends’ online, including those whom you never met or rarely talk to in real life, this presupposes that online relationships don’t take care and feeding. “The ease of having ‘friends’ online might make people more likely to just tune out when they don’t feel like responding to others’ problems, a behavior that could carry over offline,” Science Daily quoted U-M graduate student Edward O’Brien, who along with U-M researcher Sara Konrath and undergraduate student Courtney Hsing conducted the analysis, combining the results of 72 studies of American college students conducted between 1979 and 2009.  In my world, much of which is lived online – ‘virtual’ friends certainly don’t replace the need for real tried and true friendships.

If you want to truly establish a connection with another person, empathy is essential.  I guess the question for researchers (and for us) is, are we able to move beyond showing our compassion to others through the click of a button? On the one hand, there is something convenient about clicking a button that brings us into contact with a person (and this is certainly not limited to Gen Y). But on the other hand, perhaps the ease and convenience has disconnected us from the process of relationship making. Has all of this technology actually disconnected us from the process of getting to know one another, sharing life’s little secrets, and replaced it with measuring number of followers or retweets?

We should constantly be refining our skills to ensure our ability to remain empathetic – and I would love to find ways that social media can actually help enhance this. Are there new processes via technology whereby empathy can actually be developed or enhanced? Is this really just a “problem with kids today” or is this lack of empathy something that older generations -- especially those who live and work in the new social media culture are likely to be experiencing as well. Sometimes we are so caught up in blaming the kids and their technology, that we fail to notice the larger societal trends.

What do you think, is empathy on the decline – and is social media to blame?

While it seems carbonated beverage sales are sluggish at best - that didn't stop Pepsi from ringing in the new year with a new logo, a fresh outlook, and a dose of optimism thanks to a survey conducted by StrategyOne on behalf of the Pepsi softdrink.

The research, which is part of the ongoing “Pepsi Optimism Project” (POP) that explores the mindset of Millennials, found that the Millennial generation as a whole is generally very upbeat about the future.  Nothing really earth shattering for those of us who are familiar with (or happen to be part of this generation).

According to POP, members of the Millennial generation (born roughly between 1980-93) are more likely than their older counterparts to say they feel “excited” about the future.  In fact when asked to select words to describe how they feel, 81% selected “hopeful” and 65% chose “optimistic.” 

My first reaction to the new Pepsi campaign: well, I kind of like it.  I mean, the bright colors, the newly designed logo, the catchy tunes are all great - but I can't help but agree with Ryan Healy who points out in his recent post on the Brazen Careerist,  that despite all of their research, Pepsi may have missed the boat on what Millennials are really looking for. 

As Healy wrote,  if they had dug a little deeper, "they would have found an optimistic group of 20-somethings that happens to be very realistic as well. The realist in me does not want to see bright colors and sing along commercials proclaiming optimism for the future. The realist in me wants to see that Pepsi is doing something to help people out during these tough times. I want to see Pepsi cares about their consumers and that Pepsi is going to stand next to us optimistic Millennials and fight the good fight to get through the tough times."

The timing is certainly right for Pepsi - the ad  connotes a refreshing change - and the logo even has a striking resemblance to another optimistic campaign that revolved around an "O" not too long ago.  But, is this just feel-good hype or can a soft drink "change" a mindset too?

Our parents grew up with the Pepsi slogan, "Come Alive, You're In the Pepsi Generation."  That campaign of 1963 did something new - it played off of the feelings and lifestyle of its consumers, not as much on the product itself. So, how will Pepsi's new approach and connection with Millennials keep this generation interested and coming back for more? I'm not sure it hits the mark quite yet - how 'bout you?

Last week’s Barron’s weekly magazine featured a story on the New Faces of Philanthropy. As traditional charitable donors cut back their giving in this economic climate, new givers are moving in. Barron's profiles these Gen-X givers who want to make their charitable mark now, not when they're 50 or 60 years old.

• Giving is global. “In contrast to grandparents who might have defined “giving back to the community” as contributing to local churches, hospitals and schools, many younger philanthropists think the most compelling projects are overseas.”
• Gen X Millionaires doubled the size of giving by their parents and grandparents – in 2006 Generation-X millionaires (aged 28 to 42) gave an average of $20,000 to worthy causes.
• The new lens of giving is not just about ‘business models’ but about effectiveness.
• Philanthropy offers a meaningful legacy to generations that follow, but it's critical that younger generation's find their own footing in the world of giving.

In their book Millennial Makeover, Morley Winograd and Michael Hais look at the pictures of Generations X and Y painted by popular media. They suggest that the work ethic of the former is represented by the entrepreneurial “Joel Goodson” (Tom Cruise's character in Risky Business) while that of the latter is represented by the androgynously named, ideals-driven “Andy Sachs” (Anne Hathaway's character in The Devil Wears Prada). 

I posed a similarly themed question on Facebook and Twitter: “If Kurt Cobain is the [overarching] voice of Gen-X, then who/what best represents the voice of Gen-Y?” 

Generations are most often and aptly shaped by the events, the leaders, and even the trends of their time – but what’s in a name?  According to a recent study by Harris Interactive, 4,000 Americans aged 21 to 83 were asked what they thought of different generations.

It’s kind of interesting that Gen Y (or Millennials), Gen X, and even the Silent Generation had something to say – they all are yearning for a new brand that better represents them. In fact, Baby Boomers are the only generation that overwhelmingly agree with the label they’ve been given.

The Chronicle of Philanthropy recently posted information about the Department of Education’s request for feedback on proposed regulations regarding implementation of the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007.

Come again?

Basically, this new law forgives the remaining debt of student loan recipients who have worked as full-time “public service employees” for a period of 10 consecutive years while making their payments. In other words, you graduate, land a solid gig at a nonprofit, government agency, or other still-to-be-defined “public service” employer, and you won’t have to pay any more monthly debt owed after 10 years working there or remaining in the sector.

And in theory this sounds great. But to me, and roughly half of those leaving comments at the Chronicle, the benefits seem a bit greyer in practice. Certainly, any federally mandated incentive for public service is a good thing. But the devil’s in the details. And I start to think about my own situation.

I graduated without any real clear idea of what I wanted to do. And it took me a good three or four years to land my first “real” job. It was at a nonprofit, and I liked it. But after four years there, I was the victim of budget-induced layoffs. It took me time to find another job. And even though I prefer working for nonprofits, I needed to pay the rent (not to mention my student loans). And the next job I found was with a for-profit company.

I know my story isn’t necessarily the norm, but it’s not that atypical either. Ten years is a long time in the working world, and even if you want to stay in the same job or field for that long, it doesn’t always work out that way. And, in my case, I had already paid off my loan in that amount of time anyway.

So where does that leave things? Well, some of those commenting on the Chronicle article suggested cutting back on the number of years required to work, or offering exempt status from social security tax instead. Still others noted that the law only applies to federal loans, not personal ones. And what about those committed to service off the clock?

All valid points. And hopefully ones the Education Department and others will consider in implementing this promising new law. Incentivizing and rewarding those who choose to dedicate their time to helping others seems like a no-brainer. Let’s just hope they start putting some more thought into it.