Why Every Generation Is Asking for Dignity at Work with Angela R. Howard

One. So oftentimes I see companies provide all these great perks, but they don't create a safe environment for their people. Or their leaders are toxic leaders who are creating horrible experiences day to day. Angela, welcome to the Future Work podcast. Gosh, it's really great to have you here again. I'll say. Gosh, we've known each other, what, for three or four years now. I guess I feel like it's been longer. I think it was like mid Covid that we had our first podcast. You were on my podcast for the first time, so. Yeah, yeah, no, I remember it well. And so much has changed since then. And you've made such amazing. I don't want to say progress, because you're already making progress, but impact on culture and on the way corporations and people within those corporations work. I know you have an upcoming book that's exciting. What's. What's the title of that book again? Yeah, it's called the Kids Don't Want to how to Create the Workplace Every Generation Has Been Waiting for, which I think is going to, like, tie right into some of the conversation we're having today. So I'm excited. Yeah, well, let's talk about that. Because, you know, today's workforce and leadership. Are the challenges we're seeing really signs of a crisis, or are we witnessing a larger culture, cultural reckoning, I'll say, that organizations just can't ignore anymore? Yeah, I mean, kids don't want to work, the kids don't want to work, the kids don't want to work. And I mean, it's meant to be kind of a parody. Right. It's kind of a nod to, I think, some of the cyclical conversations we've had across history around workplace and generational differences. And honestly, I think focusing on the generational divide is a distraction. You and I talked a little bit about this in our previous conversations, but I think we're talking more about our reckoning at this point where there's an intergenerational shift and movement around changes to work in the workplace. You talk about things like AI and the introduction of that into our lives and how we work and in particular, how leadership needs to change in the context of AI really taking over management responsibilities. Now we have to be more intuitive and we have to use more human skills to really evolve work. And what I worry about is that we're kind of using AI as a crutch for that. So I do think we're seeing a reckoning and some changes coming. Well, who's the reckoning between, though. I mean, a reckoning is usually between two forces. And you talk about generational. I, I come from, you know, I'm a, I'm a boomer. In fact, I'm an early boomer, which means I'm really over the hill. But it, I remember when I was entering the workforce, or was a young man before I went into the workforce, and you got to go back 60s, early Vietnam era, a lot of change in society going on. Totally different than we have today, but just as big. Yeah, bigger. And my dad would comment, oh, you guys don't know how to work. Like, we had to work. Yeah, he was a depression era kid that suffered through and fought through World War II, and so his idea of work was radically different than my idea of work. And yet we all ended up okay. So is this really a reckoning or is it just a natural process of the older generation always looks at the younger generation. You guys aren't as. You didn't walk 10 miles in the snow on your bare feet to get to school. All these old ridiculous stories that you hear but are true. How do we reckon that? Yeah, I mean, I hear what you're saying because you're absolutely right. I mean, there is a. There's actually a Reddit thread that if any of you are interested, there's newspaper clippings from like 1863, like going all the way back. Newspaper clippings. The kids don't want to work, everyone's lazy, nobody wants to work anymore. Like, we've been through this story over and over again. Although I think we're talking about there's been some differences and it's all about progress. Right. Each generation is looking to advance and progress. I would argue, though, that we've been asking for similar things since the beginning of time. You and I talked about the ancient Egypt and the first strikes that happened. Everything is centered around dignity and respect and things like fair pay and caring about the people we employ. So what the book is about is what are those common myths that have seeped into every generation that we need to start debunking to get ahead of this conversation? Because if we're going to do this every generation, how much time are we wasting? How much harm are we doing, potentially generation to generation? Let's get to the basics about what we need to fix at the root. Well, you know, it's funny, in my generation, we said what I think is being said today. We wanted work and what we did to have meaning. That's right. Okay, so I don't think that's changed what we want. Yep. I think what we. The reckoning needs to be that how do we actually do it, actually give work and that part of our lives balance and meaning effectively. And with AI coming along as it has, is that constructive or disruptive to the achievement of that meaning? Yeah, I would say there, you know. Well, I'm going to push back a little bit because this is something I've been reckoning with with myself when it comes to this conversation about culture and movements and shifts that we're seeing. I think what we're seeing this generation, which is a little bit different, is I actually want to de emphasize work. I want work to have less meaning in my life because I want the social systems around me to actually benefit my life and work as a piece of that. We have Gen Z caring less about work. I struggle with this concept because I think work is stepping in where there's a gap or a void. And we have to be looking at other social systems and structures to be questioning why do we put so much of our identity into work? Well, question then. What would those social systems be that would remove the identity of work and yet still allow the progress, material progress, intellectual progress, et cetera? All labels of progress, not just economic, exist. What would those social institutions be and who would provide them and who would pay for them? Yeah, great, great question. Yeah, you gotta have an answer for that. I have an answer. I have an idealized answer for that. Okay. Okay. Well, that's, you know, all utopias start with the ideal, right? Yes, that's right. And what I. So I want to be clear, you know, de emphasizing work is a. It is an idealized concept. Right. Because we, we lean on work currently, at least in this country, for things like health care. I have to interrupt. I want to say de emphasizing work is an idealized concept so long as the replacement is better than the emphasis on work and productivity. Yes. You have to have a better thing, not just a different thing. Agreed. So, yes, we're de emphasizing work. We have to have these other social systems like I mentioned, that are stepping in. So for example, we've spent a lot of time over the last, I'd say five to 10 years focused on things like belonging and community and building community within the workplace. Unfortunately, we also have a loneliness epidemic that is happening. So people are leaning so heavily on the workplace as their source of community. I don't think that's healthy. I think we should go back to other social systems where we build a community, a friend group community, or, you know, your Local church or your local community center. You know, those types of things need to be in place in order, in my opinion, for it to be well rounded. If you are only leaning on your workplace as a source of community, that's a, that's a challenge. Well, when we use the term community, and I would, I don't want to say argue, but I would challenge the use of the word community in the singular. Because if you look at communities, let's go back to Neanderthal times. I can do that real easy. But let's go back to the times of Neanderthal times. Community was a family group or an expanded family group that came together for one purpose. Safety. Security. We'll say security more than safety, because food security as well as physical security, etc. Okay, so what is the definition of community today and the purpose of community today? Is it food security, Is it safety? Is it. Or is it just feeling like you belong to something, but you're. Don't you have to really define a specific community with a specific belief system that a specific ambition and goal to be happy within it. And if you can't define that, of course you're going to be lonely. You don't know what you want, correct? Yeah. And so this is the challenge. I mean, if we talk about loneliness epidemic, we're really talking about a community that provides social support, emotional supports. And so again, we've been building this idea of culture and community into workplaces, which I think is needed. It absolutely is needed. And I think we've leaned a little bit too heavily on it. The same thing when it comes to things like health care, childcare organizations are building these things into their systems because people are saying this is needed for me to fully show up at work. But shouldn't our government be providing these things? So it kind of, it surprises me how, how absent employers are in these broader conversations because it does impact the way they build workplace culture and the experiences at work. Well, you know, I would argue, number one, I would argue I don't trust government. You know, what are the most feared words that you'll ever hear? I'm from the government and I'm here to help you. So I fall into that category because I think there's more waste and less progress in government than any other institution. It doesn't matter which government or whose government. I just think in general that's not a good solution. But I do think that employers or groups getting together independently, cooperative insurance groups that can lower the cost of health insurance for people are much more effective than where they're self insured are much more effective and much more cost effective than our commercial groups and certainly the government. So that's a solution in that particular, particular problem area, maybe needs to be explored much more aggressively. Yeah, I don't know. Is it an employer's obligation and maybe it's an obligation really to their shareholders for performance purposes. Is it an employer's obligation to provide these things though? Or do we look at it as if you want to win the war for talent and talent is where you win the war in a commercial sense? Aren't you protecting your shareholders interests first by providing these benefits to the people that work within the company rather than the people first that want to work there? Because the economic benefit of it is, I think, very high. I know in our own company we provide a wide range of benefits right down to gym memberships and such, specifically to win that war for talent. And God, I, I love our team. Maybe that maybe that's a smaller or a private company issue as opposed to a large public company issue. I don't know. Yeah, I mean, when I think about the, the mixture of like, what, what does it mean to create that like, competitive experience? Are you familiar with Maslow's hierarchy of needs? I'm sure you are. We're going to nerd out for a little bit. But it basically says you need to satisfy one thing to move to the next. So oftentimes I think what happens is, so you've got like physiological needs at the very bottom, right? Like these are the things, these are the obligations we have to people we're employing. And then you move up the pyramid. At the very top is things like self actualization, feelings of belonging, you know, all these things that we talk about. But you have to satisfy one thing before you move to the next one. So oftentimes I see companies provide all these great perks, but they don't create a safe environment for their people. Or their leaders are toxic leaders who are creating horrible experiences day to day. So it's kind of an eye roll to provide, let's say, I don't know, even something like, you know, VTO or PTO or you know, whatever, whatever perk you're. Well, let's put it in simple terms. If you're the owner of the manager of a company and you're an asshole, no matter if you give them a gym membership or not, you're still an asshole and it's still a lousy place to work. Exactly. But I think people are realizing, employers are realizing that the Management style being too much of an asshole doesn't work. It doesn't work and you can't get things done. Everybody leaves. So hopefully through self selection processes, that type of management is slowly going away. Because toxic managers, there's toxic employees too. Sure. It's not just toxic managers, there's toxic people that get in companies and when there's a concentration, then the whole company becomes toxic and implodes somehow. Do you think changing, shifting paths a little bit. Do you think part of the challenges we're dealing with are our educational system setting the wrong expectations or what career success really looks like for the current generation or for the younger generation? What is career success itself and are our educational institutions a traditional path on that? Oh, real simple. Get an MBA from Harvard and you're set for life. Really. I know a lot of those people that are miserable. So what's that role? I think there needs to be a closer knit conversation between workforce development and the education system. I see a big disconnect right now where first and foremost the workplace in particular ends up at the tail end of change, period. And I would maybe even say the education system follows that lead and then they're not talking to each other. So the, the velocity of societal change, change that change that we need to evolve and to create the right skill for the next generation is just the flywheel is stuck in places. And I think that we need to have more connection. So those two things speak to each other because I think there's a lag. You know, it's interesting, when I was in college, I had a hard time in college. I was kicked out of my first college, I went to or asked not to return at least. And I had a hard time keeping focused as a young person. A lot of stuff going on. But one of the concepts that I came to, and I think this might be today too, is that I looked at college, I looked at my professors and I looked at everything that's going on. Geez, all college is doing is teaching me how to work for somebody else. If I want to go to get a job at IBM, college is great. But if I want to go out and create things on my own and do things on my own, the traditional education in the colleges that I were attending, which were high quality liberal arts schools, wasn't going to help me. It really didn't set the right foundation. And when I look at all my friends that have graduated from various of those schools, man, what a mix and sometimes mixed up group of people. There was no foundation there. So today Maybe career expectations are that are set through our educational institutions. Even the recruitment of their recruitment efforts to bring people in. Just look at television ads for various colleges. The expectations they create are sort of narcotic. Yeah, yeah, I think there is, there's a huge, there's a huge gap between the conversations happening between the two institutions. And to your point, I think you talked earlier about like employers getting together in a collective way to talk about, you know, skills of the future or foundational skills that we need to be teaching. I mean, again, AI, we're going to probably mention it a million times today because, because it's such a source of velocity when it comes to skills and what skills are going to be needed. It's not about learning AI or like building an AI strategy. It's like it's actually incorporated into everything we do now. So that's a very different skill set. And things like human skills, leadership skills, those things are sorely under taught or preparing students for the workforce. Well, you know, you use the word student, which is, is, is one of my favorites. We tell people in business, whether they work in our company or just across the companies and industry, that we know that in order to succeed, they must become the best student of their industry. That's right. We have changed that. We now say that because of AI, in order to succeed, you must become the best teacher in your industry. Oh, okay, teacher, you're gonna have to teach your agents, your AI agents how to actually do things well. And as a result of that, you must be a superior student yourself. You really need to know if you're going to be a professor instead of just a student. You need to know the subject matter better. So everybody, in order to make AI work inside of a company, you have to tell AI what to do. It's no different than any other teammate. You have to manage them and educate them. And I think that there's a. Oh, it can do this, it can do that, it can't do anything without you. That's right. Okay. And so elevating people's thought process to becoming teachers of AI agents as part of their job description rather than just producers of product, intellectual or physical, I think is an important trend shift that we're going to have to pay attention to. And I don't know that large companies have gotten there yet. I think they're still trying to figure out how to cut headcount by doing redundant, getting rid of redundant work rather than grow themsel by using AI correctly. And I don't think a lot of them, I Think a terrible mistake, but that's me. And it takes you to family owned businesses versus large corporations. What are the value differences that you see that will these changes, this reckoning happen? Will it happen in business from the bottom up or from the top down? You mean in regards to family owned business businesses versus yeah, yeah. I mean if you look at the total number of people employed in the United States, just use the US as an example. The great majority of them are in companies of less than 50 employees. The great majority of those are family or private investor owned. So let's, let's call them family or private investor owned businesses. If 60 or 70% of all employees, then we're talking about mass here work for those kind of companies. Do those companies lead or do they follow? Where's this reckoning going to come from? Yeah, that's a great question. I think the, I don't know if it matters. There's nuance to your point about how these two groups of companies operate. But I do think the expectations around employment, regardless if it's a private company, a family owned business, a large corporation, I think it follows the same, the same reckoning, which is you have a movement of people. Again, I talk about this intergenerational change that I think is at the core of the reckoning. It's not just one generation. Everyone's at asking for something different. And there's things happening around us that are creating velocity around that. I do think smaller companies are going to struggle for talent potentially. I mean, I'm, I'm just going to guess that maybe the, the ability to adopt AI effectively might be a little bit slower in these cases with these small. Why do you think that? Why do you want, what's your foundation for that thought process? I think just what I've found with some of the clients that we worked with is smaller. You know, organizations tend to hold on to processes tighter. You know, I think thinking about like things like loyalty within a family owned business in particular. Right, things like loyalty. Super, super important. This idea of like we're a family here becomes like a part of the indoctrination. It's actually one of the myths in my book that I feel like we need, we need to get rid of is this idea that your employer is your family and in some cases it actually is. So it's an interesting makeup of kind of the way the culture is built and how, how the organization grows or changes over time. When we talk about family owned businesses, we know that the third generation is like a reckoning itself, right? Where there's kind of this tension between the old and the new in succession. So I think there's just, there's additional dynamics that make it a little bit harder to change over time. It's funny, one of our other companies is a medium sized enterprise. It's technically, you'd call it family owned. I think of it more as privately owned on a close basis. But my view as a leader from a values point of view is that before I make an offer to someone of employment, I have to be think about what's the most important element of employment for most people initially and it's job security. Job security. They need to be able to depend upon that employment so they can create their own family, establish their own career. So I always think, are we able to make this offer with the surety that we'll be able to sustain this position so that this person and their family will be secure? It's a responsibility of an employer to think that way. In my view, that's one of our, our particular values. I don't know that corporates feel that way. I don't, I don't know that Citibank really says that when they do a job search through Randstadt and sift through 10,000 CVs with an AI system and then they let 12,000 people go on the next quarter. So I think family companies are small to medium enterprises, probably more medium enterprises. Companies with revenues between 25 and $150 million. So they're real established companies. I think they're probably some of the earliest adapters to change because they care about the employee. And they may not all be family, but sort of familial type values or fraternal values, paternal values, at times maternal all come into play because you're very close with people, you're close to the workings. I know one of our solutions to the youth employment issue is we ensure that a minimum of 10% of everyone in the company is an intern. That's great. Yeah, that's a great way to about a 60%, 65% ratio of input turn staying long term and permanently with the company. When they graduate college, they stay with the company. It's not internship for credits, it's internship as a career path is one thing we think is. But anyway, I guess family values, you know how those tools are they going to be part of that reckoning? Like I said, who's going to move first, which type company? Yeah, I, I mean I, I challenge that just a little bit because you know, I think family values can be weaponized within a workplace. I think they can be used to deteriorate the culture quite often. Like I mentioned, the idea of, the idea of loyalty is, you know, it has to be a two way street. I think you're doing it right? I think you're doing it. I don't think, I think that that that street starts with a company, not with the employee. And so that's just a balance I think to create the progress and I keep saying the word velocity but like the speed to change or the speed to progress because if you stay in this place of loyalty to a person or a group of people, it really does stunt the ability for progress to happen and for tough decisions to be made. Because sometimes even of course with all the right intent and structure around treating your people well and like humans and with dignity and respect, sometimes you have to make tough decisions to ensure the business runs or progresses. And that could be the, the asshole, the asshole that you, you hired who you really liked. And the vibe check was great. But you know, over time they. Floating definition, isn't it? Yes, because I always like to say like culture is the worst behavior at your company and sometimes we don't monitor that enough because we are close to people or there's a subjectivity around, around it. Well, how the great majority of people do work for smaller and mid sized companies. So how do you really make a and ensure and monitor that the workplace is healthy and that the productivity, culture, purpose, anything you're trying to connect to more deeply stays in sync. How does one do that and compete, thrive, grow, provide security to people? What's the magic rule? Yeah, I wish there was just one magic rule. It's a system and I would say it's connected to your values. You mentioned values earlier. I think those need to be fully embodied, top down, bottom up. And that includes how you hire. It includes how you talk about performance, how you coach. It includes accountability and who gets fired and who gets to stay within the organization. It's how you talk about yourself to the marketplace. So it is a full like human operating system that exists. Will the impact of AI or will AI's impact same thing I guess redefine what a healthy workplace looks like? I think so will it define. I think it will be a part of the definition because it's going to free up I think a lot of human potential and our ability to more effectively lead. So I think right now there's, you know the traditional definition of leadership has a lot to do with management. It's delegating, it's Managing projects, timelines, all of that can be done by AI now. So what human potential do we have to step more into? Human centered leadership where leaders are sensing the signals around them, they're building relationships so they can create more support for their people. I think it's going to be a big part of hopefully how successful we can be. Well, I just feel there's a distinct difference between a leader and a manager. Oh yeah, but most people are managing right now. Yeah. A manager can become a leader or a manager could be a natural leader. The newest intern joining a company can be a leader, can be a natural leader and exhibit those qualities. But I think they're different roles that are played between the two. So let's move away from managers and the tasks that AI can help managers with and on things and make their work more efficient. And let's go to leadership vision values, things of that nature. How do you define and the role that leaders will play in the future under this new hierarchy that includes an added level of non sentient intelligence helping everybody to operate everything. What's your thought there? I think leaders are going to be a key element of helping people metabolize change adaptation over time. I think there's kind of a futurist element when it comes to leadership that we need to tap into again. But these are skills that we don't teach in the MBA program necessarily. We've been teaching a lot of management skills and MBA programs and education. We haven't been talking about how do you sense the signals around you to make game time decisions, how do you adapt and what has changed management look like. At our recent event we had a speaker talk about change metabolizing change and how that's so different than like the linear change management structures we've been talking about for decades and decades. So it's a lot more adaptive leadership and I think it's specifically around creating equity where you're not talking about blanket solutions but you're learning about people, their motivations, their aspirations and you're adjusting support to give them what they need to do their jobs well. We have so much to do, don't we? Yes, we do. You do. But it's funny, I think I was mentioning my own experience in college and sort of the good, bad and ugly of it overall. But one thing that in the middle of college I realized and I, I had to explain this to my dad when he got kicked out of the first college that decisions, decisions I had made have consequences and that if I'm because I had a negative consequence to the decisions that I'd made as a young man, and understanding how to make decisions and how to weigh the consequences of decision should probably be one of the most diligently sought after programs in any educational environment can exist. And so I would say that my own view to. My question to you would be that decision making and learning how to make decisions with every tool you have, including AI and all the brilliant people, loyal people, loving people around you, is probably the path to success. Yeah. I also would add, and this is right in line with what you're saying, but this idea of collective intelligence is Borg. Huh? Nothing. Old Star Trek. Old Star Trek thing. Collective intelligence. Yes, I agree. I agree. It's. It's funny. We, we've become a quasi native AI company, Elbert Alliance Virtual. And so we have what we call alliance intelligence. And there ain't nothing artificial about it because it's all people driven using AI, classic AI tools. It's that we're teachers of AI systems, not people using it to just do tasks. We're teachers of AI systems. So I think that that will be a fun evolutionary process so that. Well, Angela, we're running along here and I love chatting with you forever. Oh my gosh, you always bring so much to the table and I know your new book is going to be fantastic. And you also have a Cultural Impact Lab meetings that you're expanding. They're very successful. I know in, in the Chicago area, you're expanding those other cities now. Yeah, yeah. We're looking to bring it on the road. So the Culture Impact Lab has been a gathering of hundred leaders, particularly around workplace culture change, and we're looking to expand it out to other cities in 2020. I've seen some of the leaders that you interact with from major global companies and every major global port publication is carrying an impact on what you're doing. So keep it up for all of us. Thank you. We'll love to see what you do next. Appreciate that. Thanks, Frank. Take care. Take care. If it's impacting the future of work, it's in the Future of Work podcast by All Work Space.