U2A1 & U2D1 - Advanced Searching Teachniques - please follow all instructions and read all attached documents. Due Sunday by 9pm. CST. My Field is Public Service Leadership

40 ProfessionalSafety MARCH 2012 www.asse.org

M any organizations are trying to manage a multigenerational workforce. Organiza- tions have begun to shift their focus from

the aging worker to issues related to a multigener- ational workforce (Sprague, 2008). In fact, many workplaces now employ four differ- ent generations of workers (Hart, 2008). As a result, companies need to holistically evaluate their workforces, as each group requires a unique approach to such issues as recruitment, compensation, expecta- tions, motivators, collaboration, learning styles and training. This article examines the differences between the generations and how understanding and appreciating them can help SH&E professionals im- prove communication and training.

Many Baby Boomers hoping to retire early lost that opportunity during the re- cent recession. Consequently, many will work until later in life to support their cur- rent lifestyles. The economic downturn also has affected Generation Xers who were hoping to move up as Baby Boom- ers and members of the Silent Generation retired. This leaves Generation Ys scram-

bling for whatever jobs remain (Elmore, 2010). These four generations of workers are now com- peting for and/or holding positions in the work- place, and may have to work with each other for as many as 10 more years (Elmore).

Rapid advances in technology and communica- tion have only increased the challenges of man- aging today’s workforce. In addition, the once definitive rules about how younger workers treat older workers and superiors have changed, and the roles of the boss and younger workers are continu- ally being rewritten (Matin & Tulgan, 2002).

A Look at the Generations Many workplaces employ workers who repre-

sent the four generations: the Silent Generation (or Veterans; born 1933 to 1945); Baby Boomers (born 1946 to 1964); Generation X (born 1965 to 1980); and Generation Y/Millennials (born 1981 to 2000). While most people understand a bit about these generations, many do not understand why “typical” members of other generations think and act as they do.

Each generation has unique characteristics, in- fluences, work ethics, core values, and respect and tolerance for others that affect how its members interact, communicate and learn in the workplace. SH&E professionals must understand and em- brace each generation in order to create a healthy work environment with effective communication, teamwork and training. It should be noted that each person is unique, has individual influences, ethics and values, comes from different cultures and countries, and may have been raised different- ly (e.g., by a single parent, by grandparents), so not everyone falls neatly into one of these categories.

Silent Generation The Silent Generation is also referred to as Tra-

ditionalists or Veterans. As Scheef and Thielfoldt (2004) describe, these individuals grew up follow- ing the Great Depression. As a result of the eco- nomic hardships they experienced, many in this group learned to be self-sacrificing; this resulted in

IN BRIEF Many workplaces have

employees from multiple generations. The varying ideas, values and experi- ences of the different generations can affect SH&E professionals’ ability to enhance collaboration, communication and training in the workplace. This article discusses the

four generations currently at work in many settings, identifies some significant differences and examines how safety professionals can modify approaches to improve training.

Tracey L. Cekada, D.Sc., CSP, is an associate professor in the Safety Sciences Department at Indiana University of Pennsylvania (IUP). She is a professional member of ASSE’s Western Pennsylvania Chapter and is the faculty advisor of the Society’s IUP Student Section. Cekada holds a B.S. in Safety and Environmental Health from Slippery Rock University, an M.S. in Environmental Science and Policy from Johns Hopkins University, and a D.Sc. in Information Systems and Communications from Robert Morris University.

Safety Management Peer-Reviewed

Training a

Workforce Understanding Key Needs & Learning Styles

By Tracey L. Cekada

Multigenerational

© IS

T O

C K

P H

O T

O .C

O M

/P A

L I R

A O

www.asse.org JANUARY 2012 ProfessionalSafety 41

presents conclusions that do not always align with an individual’s personal risk judgment. In some cases, the tool can conclude that a condition has an inherently higher residual risk than the risk as- sessor would prefer to characterize it. While some individuals may view this as a shortcoming, in es- sence this was the very problem intended to be re- solved by the tool.

Risk assessment teams can find it difficult to ac- cept that high or medium residual risks exist. This can lead the team to bring up factors that concern characteristics of the machine, environment or be- havior modification. The argument is that these “softer” factors reduce the risk; however, what they actually offer are considerations for whether to tolerate a residual risk.

Rather than use these factors to modify severity or probability, a better approach is to incorporate the factors as risk acceptance considerations. Table 5 identifies some of these factors and provides the rationale (pros and cons) teams should consider when determining how significant these factors are in a particular situation. It is impossible to know with any certainty or consistency how much these factors will affect probability or severity, so great care must be taken when relying on these factors in risk acceptance decisions.

Making Administrative Controls as Effective as Possible

Administrative controls in the form of procedure modifications, retraining, operator certifications, warning signs and PPE are often relied upon as a primary control for hazards having high sever- ity potential more frequently than safety engineers desire. As noted, this can be attributed to many factors, including the economic feasibility associat- ed with applying engineering solutions to the vast array of hazards. In many instances, the residual risk can be an accepted condition even in regula- tion and/or consensus standards.

This reality drives a deeper examination of which administrative controls are more effective than others. To determine which controls are stronger, one must understand how administrative controls

fail or succeed in preventing injury. People act as they do for various reasons:

1) People do what makes sense to them—at the moment.

2) People do what benefits them—if they think about their action.

3) People do what they have always done (rote). 4) People will do what does not make sense to

them if there are overriding consequences. 5) People just react without thinking (rote). 6) Nobody does anything if they think they will

get injured. When considering the mechanics of these be-

havior principles, it seems that individuals conduct personal risk assessments as they consider per- forming a task, and the conclusions of their per- sonal risk assessment govern all their actions. A personal risk assessment is not objective because people often are unable to accurately assess the correct probability of a given severity.

It may be that the benefits of the unacceptable ap- proach get in the way. For example, if taking a pro- cedural shortcut reduces the time needed to perform a task and increases break time, then this benefit could cause a worker to downgrade the probability of being injured. This becomes the dilemma of rely- ing on behavior-based controls. Human nature can distort an individual’s perception of probability. As a result, a person resolves the probability of the un- acceptable consequence to zero for that moment in time during which s/he performs the task (Lennon, et al., 2010; Crystal, 2010; Hosier, 2009; McMath & Prentice-Dunn, 2005; Williams, 2007).

Qualitative probability and severity estimations are based on personal experience, knowledge and personality traits. Because it is human nature for people to justify what they want to do, most will modify their perception of probability or their per- ception of severity. Some behavior management theorists postulate that positive, immediate and certain consequences have a stronger influence on behavior than negative, uncertain and future con- sequences (Daniels, 1989). This seems to have rel- evance when exploring why an individual chooses to take a shortcut. When a worker considers a

Table 6

Administrative Controls Success Principles to Shift the Personal Risk Assessment

42 ProfessionalSafety MARCH 2012 www.asse.org

been alive, Gen Ys have been connected through cell phones, laptops and similar devices. Further- more, these individuals expect to be able to com- municate with others anytime and anywhere (Behrstock-Sherratee & Coggshall, 2010). As a result, Gen Ys relish technology and the social interaction they receive through activities such as instant messaging, blogging, texting and e-mails. Members of other generations may view all of this communication as a waste of time.

Immediacy When a Gen Y sends an e-mail or text message,

s/he expects an immediate response (Beyers, 2009). However, the individual may place more value on the speed of response than on its accuracy. Other generations often view Gen Ys as impatient, when in fact they often are proficient multitaskers who can move quickly from one activity to another seamlessly.

Leadership Skills As Baby Boomers retire, Gen Xers will step into

leadership positions and will face the challenge of managing multiple generations. “Engaging leader- ship closes the generation gaps by sowing harmony instead of discord, cooperation instead of conflict, and understanding instead of bias” (Elmore, 2010). Effective leadership skills are critical in managing a multigenerational workplace. SH&E profession- als must understand generational differences and find ways to maximize each group’s unique as- sets. “Employers that provide ample opportunity for employee engagement at all levels have sig- nificantly fewer resignations, no matter what their age” (Elmore).

Effects on Training When preparing to deliver training in any envi-

ronment, the trainer must understand the learners. Who are they? How has their upbringing shaped their view of the world? It is not enough to sim- ply understand a group’s demographics (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity). SH&E professionals must un- derstand what is important to workers and how this drives their decisions.

For example, Baby Boomers have dominated the workplace for years and are comfortable in the cul- ture they created. They often view change as pain- ful but inevitable. Workers from generations with lower regard for rules may not respond well to a regulatory-driven class on confined space. Instead, the trainer may need to focus on showing them the value of safety training if there is to be actual ac- ceptance and change in the workplace.

Another key consideration is how students pre- fer to receive information. Generational upbring- ing plays a role in these individual preferences. For example, Gen Ys, having constant access to tech- nology, are more visually literate than previous generations (Stanford & Reeves, 2007). They are more comfortable with images and graphics than with text, often to the point of refusing to read a lot of text. They can merge text, sound and images eas-

ily, and they can transfer between the real and vir- tual world almost seamlessly (Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005). On the flip side, delivering computer-based training to members of the Silent Generation or Boomers who may be unwilling or unable to make this technological shift may prove fruitless.

Gen Ys also prefer to learn by doing. They like to explore and discover, by themselves or with peers. This approach to learning helps them retain and apply critical concepts in their learning environ- ment (Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005). Their social nature and need to be connected illustrates their preferences to work in teams in which they can help each other. Having Boomers work in teams may not prove as productive and effective.

Alternatively, Gen Ys are structured in terms of rules and priorities. Growing up overscheduled has driven a desire to have an agenda or plan to ac- complish all their tasks. Gen Ys also appear to be more socially driven in terms of affecting issues of importance to them (e.g., the environment). Given a choice of two projects, Gen Ys typically gravitate toward projects in which they feel they can make a difference.

By understanding such differences and how they affect training, SH&E professionals can develop better classes that most effectively reach each learner. Following are some key points to consider when preparing training for multiple generations.

Training the Silent & Baby Boomer Generations Older adults have learned via traditional learn-

ing methods. Unlike younger workers, they do not expect to be continually entertained and engaged in the classroom. They did not grow up with tech- nology in the classroom, nor did they have video games, CDs nor multimedia. Instead, they rely on their experience as a source of learning.

Thus, a trainer should tap into their experiences through activities such as discussions, simulations, case studies or problem-solving exercises. Small classes are particularly effective for these learners because such settings encourage them to share their experiences (Quinney, Smith & Galbraith, 2010). These learners also like to see the value in what they are learning, whether it is useful for them at work or at home.

This is particularly true when teaching these learners about new technology because they are typically resistant to strong technological change. A trainer must help learners recognize the need to know this new information or new technology and the value that it provides. Explain how what they are learning will affect bottom-line performance. Once this is clearly understood, these learners often can become interested in learning the new technology or content because it will help them better perform their tasks or handle routine work- place problems (Quinney, et al., 2010).

Training Generation X In the workplace, Gen Xers feel strongly that

they “don’t need someone looking over their shoulder” (Scheef & Thielfoldt, 2003). Yet, one trait

www.asse.org MARCH 2012 ProfessionalSafety 43

that drives these learners is their desire to receive continuous feedback from supervisors as a way to validate what they are doing. Similarly, this group is comfortable delivering feedback to others.

In the training environment, the trainer needs to recognize the significance of each learner’s contri- bution and should seek regular feedback from each learner. Provide appropriate feedback and summa- rize key points learned so that they clearly under- stand what they have learned and how to apply the information (Tulgan, 1997).

This group learns best in a casual, relaxed and comfortable environment, and its members like to have fun doing it. Find ways to engage and involve these learners (Prensky, 2005). The trainer should create a supportive, yet challenging environment. Use questions as learning tools by asking learners to generate and answer questions from each other and the trainer (Edwards, 2005).

In addition, a trainer should provide flexibil- ity with respect to learning methods. Incorporate small group discussions and teamwork into ses- sions, as these learners appreciate responsiveness and getting ideas from others. They also are more comfortable with technology than previous gener- ations, so they are comfortable in an environment that utilizes technology such as the Internet and multimedia.

Training Generation Y Gen Ys typically are skilled multitaskers who

prefer to learn through visual methods (pictures, sounds, videos), rather than reading text; or by using video to stimulate discussion (Myers, Sykes & Myers, 2008). They prefer to learn by discovery rather than being told, so one effective approach is to provide them with the fundamentals on a top- ic, then let them explore through simulation, role play, the Internet and other means, and allow them to draw their own conclusions.

This group is social, as seen in their use of com-

munication tools such as texting, blogs, wikis and social networking. They can learn well by working in groups or teams and sharing ideas. However, they are used to immediate response, so they like to receive ideas and feedback immediately. Similarly, these learners like to have a clear understanding of how they can apply what they have learned—and apply it immediately.

With their ability and desire to be connected to technology and information, these individuals are independent learners. Set them in motion and they will find the information they need to learn the rest (Hart, 2008). These learners are used to getting in- formation in short snippets. As such, they need to be given breaks every 10 to 15 minutes and asked to do something different—stretch, tell a joke or provide awards for correctly answered questions.

This is a demanding group that wants to be con- tinuously entertained. Training can be made fun by using nontraditional methods, such as incorporat- ing physical movement into the class and employing the learners’ multitasking skills through activities such as flipping between hyperlinked information in the classroom to online media. Incorporate train- ing methods that address their learning styles, too, as this group likes to learn by listening, seeing and doing. Table 2 (p. 44) summarizes the training ap- proaches that work best with each generation.

Conclusion SH&E trainers must understand what learning

activities are most engaging for learners today. With younger generations, it is not the technology that makes the learning engaging, but the learn- ing activity itself. The youngest generation likes to learn through discovery and experiences, so a lecture-type environment may not be the most ef- fective. However, team projects or an opportunity to share experiences with peers and build from that knowledge base, may enhance their learning.

Knowing and understanding generational dif-

Table 1

Major Generalizations of Each Generation

Note. Adapted from “The Flight of the Millennials in Higher Education,” by M. Monaco and M. Martin, 2009, Athletic Therapy Today, 14, 1, pp. 21-26; “Leveraging Generational Work Styles to Meet Business Objectives,” by N. Simons, 2010, Information Management, Jan./Feb., pp. 28-33; “Gaining the Edge: Connecting With the Mil- lennials,” by K. Smith, 2008, Air Force Journal of Logistics, XXXIII, No. 3 and 4.

Self sacrificing Committed Practical Optimistic Accept diversity Embrace diversity

Great Depression economy Booming economy Downturn in economy Kids contributed to family success

Strong home support Latchkey kids Coddled kids

Develop and follow rules Resist rules Rewrite rules Fight technology or use it inefficiently

Use technology Assume technology

Typewriters Use the PC Internet/portable technology Long term loyalty to company Loyalty to company Mistrust organizations Irrelevance of organization

Multitask Multitask fast Like structure

Independent workers Solve problems on their own Prefer work in teams Strong work ethic Hard workers Sense of entitlement

Argumentative Prefer getting along (community)

Feel you have to “do the time” before you can make demands

Demand flexible work schedules

“Live to work” “Work to live”—want flexibility in their jobs

44 ProfessionalSafety MARCH 2012 www.asse.org

ferences can help SH&E trainers create a more effective learning environment. Each generation has something unique to offer. The Baby Boomers provide knowledge gained over more than 30 years in the workplace, while younger generations bring

technological expertise, enthusiasm and energy. Recognizing and adapting to these traits can prevent a conflict between worker groups while enhancing communication and col- laboration, and leading to enhanced success in the training environment. PS

References

Behrstock-Sherratee, E. & Coggshall, J. (2010, May). Realizing the promise of Generation Y. Educational Leadership, 28-34.

Beyers, R. (2009). A five-dimensional model for educating the Net Generation. Educational Technology and Society, 12(4), 218-227.

Edwards, K. (2005, May/ June). Today’s new learners: Changing how we deliver education. The Executive, 12(3), 6-9.

Elmore, L. (2010, June). The workplace generation gaps. Women in Business, 62(2), 8-11.

Hart, J. (2008, Sept. 22). Understanding today’s learner. Learning Solutions Magazine. Retrieved Jan. 27, 2012, from www.learning solutionsmag.com/arti cles/80/understanding -todays-learner.

Knowles, M., Holton, E. & Swanson, R. (2005). The adult

in adult education and human

resource development (6th ed.). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

(2010). Information commons: Meeting millennials’ needs. Journal of Library Administration, 50(1), 27-37.

Lower, J. (2008). Brace yourself. Here comes Generation Y. Critical Care Nurse, 28(5), 80-84.

Matin, C. & Tul- gan, B. (2002). Man

aging the generation mix: From collision to collaboration. Amherst, MA: HRD Press.

Monaco, M. & Martin, M. (2009, Jan.). The flight of the Millennials in higher education. Athletic Therapy Today, 14(1), 21-26.

Myers, D., Sykes, C. & Myers, S. (2008). Effective learner-centered strategies for teaching adults: Using visual media to engage the adult learner. Gerontology & Geriatrics Education, 29(3), 234-238.

New Strategist Publications. (2004). Generation X: Americans born 1965 to 1976 (4th ed.). Ithaca, NY: Author.

Oblinger, D. & Oblinger, J. (Eds.). (2005). Educat- ing the Net Generation. Retrieved Jan. 27, 2012, from

. Prensky, M. (2005, Sept./Oct.). Engage me or enrage

me: What today’s learners demand. EDUCAUSE Re- view, 60-64. Retrieved Jan. 27, 2012, from

. Quinney, K., Smith, S. & Galbraith Q. (2010).

Bridging the gap: Self-directed staff technology training. Information Technology and Libraries, 24(4), 205-213.

(2004, Sept.). Engaging multiple generations among your workforce. Café Conversations. Retrieved Jan. 27, 2012, from www

. Simons, N. (2010, Jan./Feb.). Leveraging generation-

al work styles to meet business objectives. Information Management, 28-33.

Smith, K. (2008). Gaining the edge: Connecting with the Millennials. Air Force Journal of Logistics, 33(3/4), 52-59.

Sparta, K. (Producer). (2010, Jan. 8). The Workshop -

tions with Yvonne F. Brown [Audio podcast]. Retrieved Sept. 6, 2011, from www.workshopleadersresource

. Sprague, C. (2008, Feb. 13). The Silent Generation

meets Generation Y: How to manage a four-generation workforce with panache. White River Junction, VT: Hu- man Capital Institute.

(2007, Jan./Feb.). Access, consider, teach: ACT in your classroom. The Clearing House, 80(3), 133-136.

Tulgan, B. (1997). The manager’s pocket guide to Gen- eration X. Amherst, MA: HRD Press.

Training by Generation Training participants may be from several generations. How can SH&E trainers design an effective class for mixed-generation participants? Using various techniques, and being flexible and ready to adapt are important. Here are some tips:

Silent Generation learners, clearly outline and state objectives. For example, in a course on confined spaces, bring copies of the OSHA standard, review key definitions and terms related to the standard.

Baby Boomers, have an organized presentation, and find ways to draw on learners’ experiences, facilitate group discussion and incorporate case studies.

Generation Xers, bring in “tools of the trade” such as combustible gas meters and entry permits. Allow learners to explore and get their hands on these items. Demonstrate the equipment in use or visit a con- fined space for exploration. Incorpo- rate role play for entrants, attendants and supervisors.

Generation Ys, share digital media related to confined spaces (e.g., videos of disasters in confined spaces), explore fatality statistics online, direct them to related blogs or develop an electronic game (e.g., “Jeopardy”) on the topic.

Table 2

Training Approaches by Generation

Note. Adapted from [Audio podcast], by K. Sparta (Producer). Jan. 8, 2010, retrieved Sept. 6, 2011, from www.work

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.