Category Archives: demographics

The Rise of ‘Side Gigs’

Have you ever taken a stroll through your company’s parking lot and noticed an Uber decal here and there on some of the vehicles? It may be that the employee drives for the ride-share service during nights or weekends, and if so he or she is far from unusual: Nearly a third of all U.S. workers (32 percent) have a “side gig” — a job outside of their regular work hours — to supplement their income, according to a CareerBuilder study released today.

Side gigs are prevalent throughout the workforce, the study finds, although women are more likely than men to have them (35 percent vs. 28 percent) as are workers younger than 35 (41 percent to 27 percent). African-American workers (46 percent) and Hispanic workers (40 percent) are more likely than Caucasian (29 percent) and Asian-American (26 percent) workers to have a “side hustle.”

Selling Amway or performing some consulting work after (or even during) work hours has long been a way for Americans to supplement the take-home pay from their regular job, but the ease of downloading an app such as Uber, Instacart (which lets you sign up for jobs delivering groceries and the like on your own time) and TaskRabbit have made it easier than ever to find side gigs. Plus, record-high levels of student debt and stagnant wages are also contributing to the allure of side gigs.

“While we continue to be at what is considered full employment, the quality and pay of jobs isn’t always what workers want, causing them to seek out new ways to supplement their full-time income,” says Rosemary Haefner, CareerBuilder’s CHRO. “We’re no longer in a world where there’s just one employee-employer relationship. It’s easier than ever to download an app that allows you to drive around passengers, pick up babysitting gigs or sell your unwanted furniture, and employees are willing to take on these extra responsibilities for cash.”

Although they’re more common among relatively low-paid employees, the appeal of side gigs spans all pay levels: One in four workers making more than $75,000 annually hold side gigs as do 19 percent of those making in excess of $100,000. Thirty five percent of workers making less than $50,000 and 36 percent of those making below $35,000 are working side gigs.

Money is not the only attractant for side gigs — dissatisfaction with one’s regular job is also a factor. More than eight out of 10 of the 3,696 full-time workers (82 percent) who participated in CareerBuilder’s survey say they’re not in their dream job, and 33 percent of those workers have side gigs. With that said, most of those with side gigs (67 percent) say they’re not looking to turn their side hustle into a regular full-time job, while 42 percent say they’re more passionate about their day job than their side gig (32 percent).

For employers, the reality of employees with side gigs would seem to be a bit of a double-edged sword: Working a job on the side leaves less downtime for the employee and could lead to greater stress and exhaustion, not to mention distraction. Then again, the nimbleness and initiative required for successfully managing a side gig could ultimately lead to a more-valuable employee, not to mention the chance to pick up more skills that can be applied to one’s regular job. Regardless of the ultimate impact, this is clearly a trend that isn’t going away anytime soon.

The High Cost of Caregiving

You may or may not be familiar with the story of Kristian Rex, a New Jersey man who cares for his elderly father, a former boat captain who once had “arms like Popeye” and who now — thanks to a debilitating stroke — is unable to perform basic, daily routines such as shaving himself. As shown in a recent award-winning commercial (for Gillette, no less), Rex Jr. must perform these and other tasks for his dad, and he does so with care and grace, as any good son would.

Many of us will find ourselves in Rex Jr.’s shoes one day, as the number of elderly in the U.S. continues to grow. In fact, an estimated 40 million Americans already serve as family caregivers and of those, 24 million juggle those responsibilities with holding down a job (Rex Jr. is a bit of an outlier, as women make up the majority of caregivers for elderly parents.) Nearly one in five adult children provide care for at least one elderly parent at some point, according to Boston College’s Center for Retirement Research. These caregivers spend an average of 77 hours per month with their parents, the Center finds, or the equivalent of about two weeks of work. Caregiving also exacts a mental and physical toll on health, with women caregivers reporting more pain and significantly higher out-of-pocket costs for their own healthcare, a study by the Center for Retirement Research finds. The study also finds that both male and female caregivers say they’re more depressed and suffer from poorer health because of parental care.

Many employers recognize the burden that caregiving employees shoulder: A new survey by the Northeast Business Group on Health (undertaken in partnership with AARP) finds that more than three quarters of the 129 mostly large employers surveyed agree that caregiving will grow in importance to their companies over the next five years. Respondents cited increased productivity, decreased absenteeism and reduced healthcare costs as the top drivers that would make a compelling case for investing in benefits that would make them “caregiver friendly” organizations.

“Family caregiving is an issue that affects the vast majority of us,” says AARP Chief Advocacy and Engagement Officer Nancy LeaMond. “We are either caregivers now, have been in the past, will be in the future or will need care ourselves.”

Fewer than half of the companies surveyed have programs or benefits designed specifically for caregivers, such as caregiver support groups, subsidized in-home back-up care for those being cared for, or counseling services. For those that do make such offerings available, communication appears to be an issue, with most saying their employees are only “somewhat” or “not very” aware of these benefits and services.

Plenty of compelling reasons exist for employers to get serious now about offering — and communicating — these services.

“The implications of this trend are significant not only for workplace productivity but for employee population health and healthcare costs,” says Dr. Jeremy Nobel, Executive Director of NEBGH’s Solutions Center. “Caregivers tend to abandon their own physical and emotional needs and employers need to plan for how to respond.”

A Costly Skills Gap

How much does it cost the average company when open job positions remain unfilled for 12 weeks or longer? Almost $1 million a year, according to a pair of CareerBuilder surveys released today. The surveys, which were conducted for CareerBuilder by Harris Poll late last year and from Feb. 16 to March 9 of this year, found that the average cost HR managers say they incur for having extended job vacancies is more than $800,000 annually. Nearly 60 percent of the employers surveyed report that they have job openings that stay vacant for 12 weeks or longer.

We’re not just talking those hard-to-fill computer science jobs, either. “The gap between the number of jobs posted each month and the number of people hired is growing larger as employers struggle to find candidates to fill positions at all levels within their organizations,” says CareerBuilder CEO Matt Ferguson. “There’s a significant supply and demand imbalance in the marketplace, and it’s becoming nearly a million-dollar problem for companies.”

Indeed, a supply imbalance appears to exist for a variety of occupations, including truck drivers, marketing managers, web developers, industrial engineers, sales managers, HR managers and information security analysts, CareerBuilder finds.

Two in three employers (67 percent) say they’re concerned about the skills gap, and more than half (55 percent) say these extended job vacancies are hurting their organizations. Forty-five percent say they lead to productivity loss, while 40 percent say they cause higher employee turnover, 39 percent cite lower morale, 37 percent mention lower quality work and 29 percent say the vacancies leave them unable to grow their business.

Not everyone agrees the “skills shortage” is real; some economists (and our HREOnline Talent Management columnist and Wharton School professor Peter Cappelli) argue that the real culprit is a reluctance by many employers to pay for the sort of workplace training programs that were commonly offered in the past. Nevertheless, plenty of other surveys also show that employers in a range of industries are contending with hard-to-fill positions, including the manufacturing industry. In fact, given President Trump’s stated desire to “make America great again” by, in part, bringing manufacturing jobs back to this country from overseas by imposing tariffs on foreign-made goods, some manufacturers are trying innovative ways to “grow” their own talent by reaching out to high schools and community colleges to ensure they’ll have talent on hand and won’t be caught short.

Pay Equity for Lower Ranks Only

We’ve been focusing, along with the rest of the media, on gender pay equity and wage gaps for some time now. (Witness searches on  this HRE Daily site and our magazine website, HREOnline.com, alone.)

But this latest study from the Academy of Management that’s going into the February issue of the Academy of Management Journal shows something we’ve never reported on: the fact that women managers foster pay equity between the genders, but only for low-ranking employees.

The study, based on actual manager-subordinate reporting relationships in 120 branches of a large U.S. bank, takes into account two different approaches to combatting pay inequity. One consists of pay formalization, which seeks to minimize personal biases by mandating the use of detailed written rules to determine compensation. The other, less formalized approach, looks to the increasing number of female managers in the workforce, and the power they wield to set pay.

According to an email I received on the study:

“… both formalized and less formalized approaches to pay equity come into play in each locale, with employee annual bonuses being awarded on a highly formalized basis but branch managers, almost half of them women, having considerable leeway in determining employees’ base salaries. Thus, [researchers had] a rare opportunity to compare the efficacy of formalized and less formalized approaches in achieving pay equity between men and women workers — specifically, how this is affected by manager gender.

“Unsurprisingly, the paper finds little or no gender gap in the formalized segment of pay — that is, in the amount of annual bonuses, standards for which are spelled out in detail by the company. In contrast, there was significant gender inequality in the less formalized component of pay, base salaries, which constituted the lion’s share of compensation, with greater imbalance occurring on average under male managers than under women.”

Yet, in the words of the study,

“Concluding that female managers redress inequality is incomplete because once organizational level is taken into account, it becomes evident that female managers only reduce inequality for employees at the lowest-level organizational position of teller.”

So … as the study paints it, controlling for a host of relevant factors, female tellers in branches headed by women had base salaries that were about the same as those of male tellers; yet, female tellers in branches headed by men had base salaries about 7.5 percent less than male tellers.

In sharp contrast, women’s wages for all other positions ranged from 4 percent to 13 percent less than those of men holding the same job, regardless of whether the branch was headed by a man or a woman.

What accounts for the fact that women branch managers eliminated the gender pay gap for female tellers but not for higher-status female employees? Does this confirm the “queen bee” effect, which contends that women who have been successful in male-dominated contexts try to keep other women from getting ahead? Mabel Abraham of the Columbia University Business School, the study’s researcher and author, answered this for me:

“Any suggestion that this is a queen-bee phenomenon would be purely speculative. It just as likely is a matter of women showing an extra measurer of concern for lower-income workers. The value of the research lies elsewhere — in highlighting a nuanced approach for organizations in striving for gender pay equity.”

What are employers and their HR leaders supposed to do with this new information? In Abraham’s opinion:

“In order to develop appropriate strategies for reducing gender pay inequality, organizations must concurrently consider the potential role of both female managers and the level of the employee they oversee.”

What to Expect from Gen Zers

As 2016 winds down, I can only guess at the number of surveys I’ve seen that are connected in some fashion to the subject of millennials. Let’s just say, for argument’s sake, the figure has to be in the hundreds.

thinkstockphotos-605751628Well, could we soon be in store for something similar when it comes to Generation Z?

For now, I’ll just leave that question hanging. But we’ve already seen a fair share of Gen Z predictions and reports over past 12 months, with the latest coming from 8×8 Inc., a provider of SaaS-based enterprise communication tools.

That study, titled “Rogue One: How Generation Z is Going to Bring Balance to the (Work)Force,” surveyed 1,000 full- and part-time Gen Z, millennial and Gen X workers, and found that the work preferences of Gen Zers may, in many ways, align more closely with Gen Xers than millennials. More precisely, the findings suggest that Gen Zers are less tech-dependent than millennials and more similar to Gen X when it comes to adopting high-tech devices and apps in their personal lives. Millennials, the study revealed, are more likely to use wearables (39 percent), connected appliances (35 percent) and virtual reality (24 percent) than Gen Z or Gen X.

What’s more, Gen Zers (200 of the respondents were classified as such) value face-to-face communication more than any other generation, with an emphasis on effectiveness over convenience—a major shift from how millennials prefer to work.

As 8×8 Inc. CMO Enzo Signore explains …

“We found that while millennials have encouraged the workplace to become more technologically advanced and remote-work friendly, Gen Z will bring more balance to the workplace through face-to-face communication and tools that will help them communicate more effectively. We believe this will start to have an impact over the next 12 months.”

That conclusion certainly appears to run somewhat counter to the images of teenagers who can’t seem to take their eyes off of their smartphones.

Most of us, of course, are just beginning to ponder the question: What can we expect from this next wave of workers? So to deepen my own understanding (and hopefully yours as well), I figured who better to ask than Bruce Tulgan, founder of consultancy RainmakerThinking Inc. and an expert on generational diversity issues.

Tulgan says he prefers to define Generation Z as those born between 1990 and 2000 and in the “second wave” of the great millennial cohort. As he explains …

“Gen Zers were small children on 9/11/01. They graduated from high school and [maybe] went through college or university during the deepest and most protracted global recession since the Great Depression. They are entering the workforce in a ‘new normal’ of permanently constrained resources, increased requirements placed on workers and fewer promised rewards for nearly everyone.”

As a whole, he adds, millennials embody a continuation—and Gen Z, perhaps the culmination—of the larger historical forces driving the transformation in the workplace and the workforce since the early ’90s: globalization, constantly advancing technology, the painfully slow death of the myth of job security, the accelerating pace of everything and more.

In many ways, Tulgan says, Gen Zers represent a whole new breed of worker. “Advances in information technology have made them the first generation of true ‘digital natives,’ ” he explains. “They learned to think, learn and communicate in an environment defined by wireless Internet ubiquity, wholesale technology integration, infinite content and immediacy. They are totally plugged in—through social media, search engines and instant messaging—to each other as well as anyone and everyone, and an infinite array of answers to any question at any time.

This second-wave millennials, Gen Zers, will usher in the final stages of the great generational shift.

So what can we expect from this second wave when it comes to institutions?

Tuglan predicts that Gen Zers will never see established institutions as their anchors of success and security. Instead, he says, they will be most likely to turn to their most reliable anchors growing up: hand-held super-computers, proximately powerful grown-ups, and the ability to construct a unique identity—a personal brand—that they can wield in public (mostly on social media) and revel in privately.

The latest study’s findings about Gen Zers being more “balanced” than, say, millennials, “certainly [underscores] the case that interpersonal relationships and in-person communication play very important role[s] for [them],” says Tulgan.

Guess we’ll begin to find out soon enough if these predictions come to pass in today’s (and tomorrow’s) workplace.

Trump Win Good for Biz Women??

Not one for post-election posting here, but this LinkedIn piece by Sallie Krawcheck caught my eye. As a woman watching and dv496065aweathering the campaign, and now the transition to a Trump presidency, I wanted to make sure as many women — and men — as possible saw it too.

Her premise that “Donald Trump as president of the United States could just be the best thing that has happened to professional women in a long time … huh? what?” is right in Krawcheck’s wheelhouse. She’s the CEO of Ellevest, a digital investment platform for women; chair of Ellevate Network, a global professional women’s network; and author of Own It: The Power of Women at Work, to be released in January. As she puts it,

“We’re awake now. That’s because it’s all out in the open: the Billy Bush conversation, the recent New York Times OpEd on “bro talk on Wall Street,” even the light sentence for Brock Turner.  And while as a mother and an aunt, I hate it, I hate it, I hate it that we haven’t made more progress for younger women, this does represent an odd form of forward motion: We can’t really deal with an issue until we fully understand the issue.”

It’s a compelling piece and worth the read, whatever your gender or persuasion, political or otherwise. This new Trump era, ushered in by stepped-up conversations about the treatment of women, comes with “some proof that we can’t rely on others to fight this battle for us, and so we must redouble our efforts,” Krawcheck says. “… I’m hearing from more and more women that we must ‘put on our big-girl pants’ and do this ourselves..”

And it’s not like women don’t have the resources, she adds. “[W]e control $5 trillion of investable assets, we direct 80 percent of consumer spending, we’re more than half of the workforce. We’ve got a lot of power.”

Krawcheck’s list of what to do to claim and use that power is impressively detailed, and long. Just some of her many suggestions — some we’ve heard and written about, some we haven’t — include mentoring and sponsoring other women, amplifying what other women say in meetings, pointing out to others when they interrupt other women or ignore them in meetings, pointing out when the words they use to compliment men (“aggressive” or “go-getter”) are used to put down women and refusing to work at the company that doesn’t “get it” on making the work environment one in which you can be successful.

She also bangs the political drum some, post-election, suggesting women start donating to female candidates whose views line up with theirs, and start running for office and encourage other women to run for office.

And the financial-independence drum:

“[D]oing all that we can to be in financial control feels more important today than it did [before the election]. It’s important that we break the old gender norms of ‘the man manages the money; I manage the household.’ That leaves us retiring with two-thirds the money of men … but living five-plus years longer than they do. …

“[P]lease get yourself a financial plan and invest.”

All politics and election furor aside, Krawcheck gave me some serious things to think about. If any of this gets you thinking about new approaches to help the women in your organization claim their power and succeed, then all the better.

Yet More to Know About Millennials

We’ve certainly seen our share of divergent reports about millennials in the workplace.

483717656-blue-collar-millennialWe’ve all seen and read the ones suggesting they’re a privileged generation with a less-than-stellar work ethic and an eagerness to jump ship on the smallest of provocations.

More recently, we’ve seen research that disputes those reports, such as one study from Project Time Off, mentioned in an HREOnline story on this demographic by Senior Editor Jack Robinson just last month. That study finds many millennials not only want to contribute and stay with their companies, but are putting in extra time — some even being referred to as work martyrs — to prove themselves as committed, loyal employees.

As Katie Denis, a senior director of the U.S. Travel Association, puts it in that story:

“People really do have this deeply ingrained assumption that it is an entitled generation, [but] if you look at the totality of their experience, you see something very different. Millennials do have a desire to grab a job, hold a job, prove themselves.”

Just late last month, an emailed release from the newly launched Levo Institute, a website run by and dedicated to millennials, introduced me to another often-overlooked faction of millennials: blue-collar millennials — more than 80 percent of whom say their employers are not providing them with the tools needed to appropriately scale their careers.

They want very much to work and stay with their companies; they just need help.

“As blue-collar workers make up 20 percent of the U.S. workforce,” the report states, “Levo’s study found that nearly 15 percent of its respondents are actively working as full-time blue-collar employees,” which is significant considering millennials will make up 75 percent of global talent over the next seven years. It goes on:

“Additionally, while nearly 60 percent of the millennial generation graduated from a four-year college, the perception is often that hiring a younger worker means lack of core professional skills, such as [energy and commitment], communicating effectively and working in teams.

“As the economy has continued to add [blue-collar] jobs in construction, manufacturing and transportation over the years, these findings are particularly important, especially as millennials [in these jobs] are not experiencing companies taking a vested interest in their development.”

In many cases, millennials are saying no to four-year college degrees altogether to avoid the miseries of having to pay off huge student loans for a significant chunk of their working lives, according to this story in the New York Post. They’re also pulling down some of the biggest salaries and best benefits while their fellow four-year graduates take up residence in their parents’ basements.

And there are plenty of four-year graduates turning to trades too. According to the Post, there were an estimated 1,000 who got in line in July in New York City for applications as apprentice plumbers.

Answering the Cancer Call

It’s nice to see efforts continuing at a healthy pace to help employers and employees deal with one of the scariest threats to corporate 508254750-cancerhealth — the growth of cancer in our aging workforce.

The latest initiative is an impressive one, a program introduced recently by the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York through which it now collaborates with employers to simplify the whole process for their working cancer patients to get the help they need. New as the program is, it already has six employers signed on for this collaboration, including CBS Corp. and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

Through the program, called MSK Direct, each collaborative partnership is customized to the individual employer’s and its employees’ needs. A customized menu might include initial evaluations or second opinions, the options to immediately begin cancer treatment and support services such as counseling.

“Cancer care is extraordinarily difficult to go through, but accessing it in a time of distress shouldn’t be,” says Wendy Perchick, senior vice president of strategy and innovation at MSK. “MSK Direct is a prime example of our commitment to our mission, which includes making all aspects of our experience, care and services more accessible, seamless and beneficial to as many people as possible. In the face of a cancer diagnosis, we want patients, their family members and their employers to feel certain they are in caring and highly capable hands.”

Let’s face it, she and others say: The number of cancer diagnoses among working Americans is only going to climb as baby boomers continue to keep working out of a sense of purpose, but also out of necessity, whatever the cost to health, welfare and sanity may be.

As this story in HRE by Julie Cook Ramirez less than a year ago confirms, the number of people continuing to work with cancer diagnoses is now close to 15 million. And though there are a lot of positives around that for those employees (a sense of purpose, distraction away from their diagnosis, the list goes on), there are many challenges they bring to work as well, including diminished physical capabilities and stamina, and some mental impairments as they undergo chemotherapy.

The story also details things HR professionals can do to make such a devastating time for an employee a little more navigable, such as reworking their schedules, making a special effort to go over all benefits till they’re sure the patient understands and basically just being there to answer all the questions they may have.

As the numbers grow, so grow the costs. This post by me in 2014 put the price tag for employers at about $19,000 annually per 100 employees in lost work time and medical treatments, according to research from the Integrated Benefits Institute. (IBI President Tom Parry confirmed for me that these are still the latest figures.)

Numbers aside, let’s face it, there are a whole lot of us baby boomers in the workplace probably in a good bit of denial about what lies ahead. Many of these boomers’ employers might also be happily sharing in that denial as they continue reaping the benefits of older employees’ work ethics and knowledge.

But let’s also face the inevitability. None of us are getting any younger. And as workers age, health problems at work grow. As one friend, a seemingly ageless practicing family doctor in Seattle who likes to backpack, power walk, participate in medical missions abroad … and who’s just been diagnosed with breast cancer … put it, “No one ever told us boomers that life after 50 becomes a journey of loss — loss of our own health and loss of loved ones to the loss of their health. They should have told us this.” (And she’s a doctor!)

At least some employers are now facing this reality with their unstoppable boomers and helping them through the obstacle course that is cancer, however they want to be helped.

For some tips on how this might be done at your organization, and some immediate steps you can take to increase the value of cancer-care benefits and services you’re providing, consider this report — High Value Cancer Care: Guidance for Employers — that the Northeast Business Group on Health put out just last week. Here’s the news statement as well.

Roughly, as Dr. Jeremy Nobel, executive director of NEBGH’s Solutions Center, lays it out:

“Understanding what high-value services to look for when evaluating sites of care; making sure patients have access and coverage for seeking expert second opinions whether via health-plan-recommended specialists, a Center of Excellence or third-party second-opinion services; and encouraging employees to educate themselves about the benefits of palliative care and to request it early in the treatment process are all important steps employers can take right now.”

I guess I might only add that leaving them in the driver’s seat on directions to go and care to pursue, honoring their journey with the dignity they deserve, is a must.

Women’s Disparity, Dearth in STEM

When I was 10 years old, my father put a microscope/chemistry set under our Christmas tree — not for either of my studious siblings, 538088903-women-in-sciencebut for me, the nutty little gymnastic tumbler who rarely stopped long enough to observe much of anything, let alone how the world worked.

Years later, when I asked him about it, he told me he put that there because he sensed in me the inquisitiveness and intuition of a future scientist, like he had become and his father before him.

I never lived up to his hunch, though I did love math, and I certainly chose an inquisitive career. But I’ve often wondered what stopped me. Was there something in me or my environment that never allowed that chemistry set to become more of a beacon than a toy?

A new study from the University of Washington, Why Are Some STEM Fields More Gender Balanced Than Others? suggests there well may have been, a force that persists to this day, and one that could account for the varied representation — as well as the under-representation — of women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics careers.

According to the study’s report, the most powerful factor driving this disparity and dearth is a “masculine culture” that makes many women feel like they don’t belong.

Granted, the masculine force in my case was completely encouraging, but was it the rest of my world around me — the lack of female role models in scientific jobs, the other stuff I was given to play with, the general expectations of what drives women onward and our perceptions of the fields that seem so out of reach?

Lead researcher and author Sapna Cheryan, a UW associate professor of psychology, says maybe so — maybe all that and more:

“Students are basing their educational decisions in large part on their perceptions of a field. And not having early experience with what a field is really like makes it more likely that they will rely on their stereotypes about that field and who is good at it.”

She and her fellow researchers analyzed more than 1,200 papers about women’s under-representation in STEM fields and, from those, identified 10 factors that impact gender differences in students’ interest and participation in STEM. Then they winnowed the list down to the three factors most likely to explain gendered patterns in the STEM fields — a lack of pre-college experience, gender gaps in belief about one’s abilities and that most powerful one, that masculine culture that discourages women from participating.

Cheryan isn’t the only one taking the declining, diverging number of women in STEM careers seriously. On Thursday, Accenture and Girls Who Code released their joint research finding that the share of U.S. women in technology jobs will decline from 24 percent to 22 percent by 2025 — “a new low over the next 10 years, despite so much focus recently on closing the gender gap in tech,” says Accenture’s report. In the same token, it states:

“[I]nterventions to encourage girls to pursue a computer-science education could triple the number of women in computing to 3.9 million, growing their share of technology jobs from 24 percent today to 39 percent in the same time frame.”

I’ll never forget my interview a few years back with Colleen Blake, one of our 2013 HR’s Rising Stars.  At the time, she was the senior director of global people operations for San Jose, Calif.-based Brocade Communication Systems Inc.

A busy mom, but with a rich past in information technology and science, she was also passionate about encouraging women in STEM careers. Her company, in fact, realizing its own deficits in that area, asked her to be its liaison and mentor for women pursuing those fields.

As she recalls, Brocade leaders “had approached me when I returned to work [after her daughter’s birth] and said, ‘Colleen, we have this problem encouraging women in this field.’ To be tapped on the shoulder like that felt like a real sign for me, that I was meant to do this — not just for me, but for my daughter as well.”

It does kind of baffle the mind that, with so much attention to the problem and with crusaders like Blake, we’re getting worse, not better. What this means for you, I can’t pretend to know, though creating better support systems for women in tech does come to mind. Perhaps it’s best to leave you with two cogent quotes from the Accenture release. The first, from Reshma Saujani, founder and CEO of Girls Who Code:

“Despite unprecedented attention and momentum behind the push for universal computer-science education, the gender gap in computing is getting worse. The message is clear: A one-size-fits-all model won’t work. This report is a rallying cry to invest in programs and curricula designed specifically for girls. We need a new mind-set and willingness to prioritize and focus on our nation’s girls, and we need it now.”

And this, from Julie Sweet, Accenture’s group chief executive for North America:

“Dramatically increasing the number of women in computing is critical to closing the computer-science skills gap facing every business in today’s digital economy. Without action, we risk leaving a large portion of our country’s talent on the sidelines of the high-value computing jobs that are key to U.S. innovation and competitiveness.”

Couldn’t agree more.

Millennials: Not So Entrepreneurial

Earlier this month I wrote about some surprising research that suggests many millennial workers defy the slacker stereotypes and are apt to be workaholics.

ThinkstockPhotos-485914233Here’s another surprise: It turns out that millennials are shaping up to be less entrepreneurial than previous generations, too. That defies not only the general preconception about this generation, but the millennial self-image as well.

Add these findings together and we may be getting a glimpse of the future: Millennial workers, if treated right, may turn out to be more industrious and loyal to their employers than anyone imagined.

The entrepreneurship data came early this year in a study by the Small Business Administration that didn’t get as much attention as it deserved. Credit goes to the Economic Innovation Group and EY for highlighting the data in September along with results of their own survey of millennial workers. (Hat tip also to the Washington Post’s Wonkblog for reporting this first.)

millennial-entrepreneursSBA economist Daniel Wilmoth’s study, published in February, used Census data to look at self-employment rates by age for three generations: millennials (born after 1981), Gen-Xers (1963-1981) and baby boomers (1944-1962). In short, he found that self-employment rates declined for each succeeding generation (see graphic above) .

“At age 30, less than 4 percent of millennials reported self-employment in their primary job in the previous year, compared with 5.4 percent for Generation X and 6.7 percent for baby boomers,” Wilmoth writes.

Of course, self-employment isn’t quite the same as entrepreneurship. And each generation grew up in different economies, with different technology. And we don’t know what may happen as that generation ages. But I think this research provides persuasive — and surprising — insight into millennial workers.

Those of us who  — ahem — happen to be in an older generation may not be the only ones surprised. Millennials might be as well. The Economic Innovation Group survey found that 55 percent of millennials surveyed believe their generation is more entrepreneurial than those that came before.

And 62 percent said they’ve considered starting their own business. But 42 percent said they can’t afford to take that step.

Little wonder: It’s well known that millennials have higher student-debt loads that previous generations did at comparable ages, and that their entry into the job market often was hampered by the Great Recession.

So it’s not unreasonable for employers to be optimistic about millennial workers. They may not turn out to be the job-hopping, disengaged, self-centered population some have imagined. If nothing else, this number from the Economic Innovation Group survey should be encouraging: 88 percent of millennials agreed that “hard work is an important factor to get ahead in life.”