Share what you know with millions of people
Focus is the best place to turn what you know into remarkable content
0
Can 'Old Dogs' learn new tricks in the workplace?
Organizations spend a lot of money on learning, training, and development. Much of that spend is focused on keeping our employees sharp - and up to date - with the technical skills they need to deliver most effectively. But some of it is on soft-skills - relationships, communications, conflict resolution, negotiations, collaboration, teaming, leadership, etc. Are there some segments of the workforce where this spend is simply wasted? Does a law of diminishing returns apply to soft-skills training - particularly when it comes to employees who are so deeply rooted in their ways (read "mature") that they will never ever change. Or will they/can they?
Events
- Dos and Don'ts of Small Business Marketing May 29 @ 11 am PT
- Lead Nurturing 202: The Next Generation May 31 @ 11 am PT
- The Tricks to Paid Media June 6 @ 11 am PT
- Display Advertising for Brand Awareness June 20 @ 11 am PT
Related Activity
10 Answers
I've sat on both sides of this question. First as an 'old dog' and secondly as an Executive Recruiter finding Sales & Marketing executives in the wireless technology space.
It's a complicated question, and like most real life questions, has more than one or two answers. I've known many seniors or boomers (defined as those over 45) who were more technology adept and knowledgeable than their millennial or Gen X working peers but who inherited the stigma of being rigid and inflexible by others in the organization. I think the youth obsessed culture we are part of is part of the problem and the rapid pace of new technology and social norms is a strong piece of the problem facing companies with a need to train and manage a diverse work force.
I think the question asked here is in itself biased and makes certain assumptions when Charlie Judy asks "Does a law of diminishing returns apply to soft-skills training - particularly when it comes to employees who are so deeply rooted in their ways (read "mature") that they will never ever change. Or will they/can they?"
My answer is rubbish. Just because somebody has grey in their hair it does not mean they are hampered in learning, doing or achieving. Take a look at the number of small business start ups over the last few years and you'll find boomers leading the parade, as they are in innovations in many technology, health and other segments of our economy. Measure somebody by what they can do and most importantly achieve, not just in years.
Totally! That is, if the "old dog" is a highly motivated, very interested, happy to be working kind of dog.
Actually many more mature employees have the savvy and tact acquired by experience that makes them more apt to use soft skills more deftly and more often. Employers should be leery of categorizing older workers as too rigid, etc.
One of the pluses of growing more mature is learning how to be diplomatic and engage others in a constructive, non-threatening way. That often happens over time and due to exposure to a greater variety of situations that comes with the passage of time.
That said, of course there are employees who not necessarily due to their age, but to the time spent in a particular culture, will not buy into the importance of and use of "soft skills".
Employers waste a tremendous amount of time and money trying to train their bad hires (they are not bad people) to behave as good employees. Stop doing that since it doesn't work. Employers see that training works for some new hires so they presume that the problem resides in the other employees, i.e., poor attitudes and/or work ethic, but the problem resides with hiring managers. Stop hiring employees who will not be successful after training.
If employees are dogs, many employers treat them as such, then they can be trained with the right rewards/punishments. However, employees are people not dogs and of course people can learn new ways of doing their jobs.
As a young engineer in the late 1970's I had creative solutions to many problems but my boss, who was born in 1912, took the time to explain to me why the ideas would not work. If I were inclined to presume that old people were incapable of trying something new, I would have concluded that my boss was intransigent and refused to listen, but I would have been wrong.
A better question is "Why don't the young pups learn from the old dogs since it is cheaper, faster, and wiser to learn from other peoples mistakes rather than from our own mistakes?"
I've been to many doctors in my life and the one comment I dread is, "I've never seen that before." Inexperience is not what it is cracked up to be. Yes, the inexperienced employees may work cheaper but the work product is what counts not the paycheck amount. This tidbit seems to escape many hiring managers.
Couldn't agree with Bill and Bob more. Although no expert on age discrimination law, I did cringe at the expression "old dogs" . I have also observed how pigeon-holing a group as "unteachable" deprives an organization of some of its best resources.
I also cringed at the use of the term "old dogs" -- because of the definition that those who are more mature "are so deeply rooted in their ways that they will never ever change". This definition implies that older workers feel entitled to remain as they are -- and it has NOT been my experience that boomers are the ones who bedevil everyone with a sense of entitlement. As an experienced worker, I see myself as someone who always wants to learn new things but who also has the tools to be a leader, mentor and teacher. If in fact my age group is seen as too old to change, the real question is -- what do we need to be doing to change that perception?
Rosamond, do you think that managers who are not that good at what the do hire people who will not know that they are not good at what they do?
It takes an A player to hire other A players while B players hire C players so they can feel like A players.
We help more than 50,000 employers to hire successful employees and the birth year of a new hire never seems to make much of a difference.
If we want to hire successful employees, we need to hire competent people who also have adequate or better job suitability, i.e., they have a talent for the job.
All good feedback...thanks for taking the time to provide it. I'm just curious: How many of the respondents thus far (Bill, Iris, Bob, Rosamond, Judy) are under the age of 45? You don't (really) need to answer that, but I suspect representation so far is pretty one-sided. I'd love to hear what the younger population says (or thinks - perception or otherwise) about how receptive the older generations are to learning new stuff. Sadly, that population is not represented on Focus because....well, because you have to be "mature" to be an expert. :-)
Wikipedia's definition of ageism: Ageism, also called age discrimination is stereotyping of and discrimination against individuals or groups because of their age. It is a set of beliefs, attitudes, norms, and values used to justify age based prejudice, discrimination, and subordination.[1] This may be casual or systematic.[2][3]
It's generally not a good idea to form opinions or base hiring and training decisions on stereotyping or assumptions. This is advice from an "old dog" who learns new tricks every day.
Peggy, enlightening comment.
Answer This Question