Many SMEs now find themselves with four generations within the same workforce. While this can bring wide-ranging benefits and competitive advantages to the business, it can also lead to relationship challenges, making it difficult for leaders to unlock the potential of their diverse workforce.
Tina Benson, founder and managing director at Team Tactics explores why SME employers need to act to remedy these difficult dynamics and how they can build a more positive, cohesive company culture.
Difficult dynamics
While the accumulation of different perspectives, experiences and skills can bring great advantages for innovation, knowledge transfer and creativity, our research of 1,000 UK office workers shows some difficult dynamics at play in the four-generation workforce.
Gen Z appear to be struggling with their colleague relationships most. More than a quarter of these 18-27 year olds describe their workplace relationships to be negative, compared with just 16% of Millennials (aged 28-43), a fifth of Gen X (aged 44-59) and 13% of Boomers (aged 60-78).
However, Gen Z’s unusual inauguration to the workplace could be somewhat to blame. While some managed a few relatively ‘normal’ years in their first job/s before the pandemic hit, others started their first roles in the middle of madness, and some have only ever known work in the hybrid era. It’s possible that Gen Z is feeling disconnected from their more experienced colleagues, who had already established their footing in the workplace long before the Covid-induced shift.
Communication challenges
Our research participants were asked about the biggest sources of friction with their colleagues, and interestingly, ‘differences in communication’ was cited as a top issue for every generation. However, this was felt most widely by Gen Z, with almost three quarters (74%) saying communication was an issue with their colleagues.
While some differences in communication are natural between generations, it’s likely that pandemic working practices have widened the chasm between Gen Z and their colleagues. Today much communication still takes place over video call, when body language is less obvious or more easily misinterpreted. And, when workers do come into the office, it’s unlikely they’ll see the same selection of colleagues each time as hybrid working schedules chop and change. This combination of factors can lead Gen Z to feel less well integrated into the team. It’s important for leaders to act to proactively address these challenges before differences in communication evolve into confusion, misunderstanding and conflict in the workplace.
Creating a more positive, cohesive company culture
SME employers must take action to address these difficult dynamics before frictions become deeper, more problematic sources of tension. Proactive steps should be taken to build and nurture team relationships, and a large part of this relies on colleagues having a better understanding of one another as people.
Uniting colleagues behind a shared goal can be a powerful bonding experience. A more informal, neutral task outside of the realms of work, like a team building experience, is most effective at breaking down communication and hierarchical barriers. A CSR or charity activity can be particularly impactful, as it gives participants the added motivation of helping an important cause and making a real, positive difference. It requires every participant to do their bit so the team can collectively achieve the desired outcome.
Importantly, these activities need to be fun experiences that help to relieve tension and boost morale, but they’re also instrumental in helping participants learn more about their colleagues. They become better acquainted with their peers’ communication and problem-solving styles, as well as their interests and passions outside of work, which help to strengthen relationships in and outside of the workplace. The euphoric feeling of completing a task and making a positive change for a deserving cause brings colleagues together, creating meaningful, lasting bonds that transcend generational gaps.