The politics of workloads.

Gen Xers are protective of their lifestyles and, in a backlash against vanished company loyalty, are determined to avoid working too hard or too many hours. The most-asked question in recruiting interviews this spring, both with about-to-be college graduates and most candidates under 35, was "What kind of commitment (time and intensity) are you looking for?" There's no blushing or beating around the bush. Xers expect to be told exactly what the job requires and what the hirer expects. Managers who can't or won't, usually because they're mortally offended, answer with great detail and lose the potential stars. The fortysomethings may not know how good the job market is, but younger workers do. That brings up a vital question: Who's going to do the work if an increasing percentage of the workforce fears overwork more than unemployment?

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Every time I talk with HR folk about the politics of workloads, they speak historically. Time was when people doing the same job had relatively equal workloads. That's not true now. Employees know who does what and even the Boomers think they should be doing lessor at least no more! After the sacrifices of the early '90s, isn" t less work the reward of a booming economy? They don't suffer in silence. The hot job market allows for a bold approach. It's not just in downsized, reengineered companies, either.

At a recent meeting of university development officers, the buzz in the hall between sessions was all about how to work fewer hours and downsize workloads. There were the usual Boomer jibes at Xers because the latter were loath to attend any function after hours-even if it meant forgoing opportunities to cultivate important potential donors.

The problem of limited commitment, and, consequently, uneven workloads is one that's growing in importance for managers. One thing hasn't changed: It's a nearly universal axiom that the most productive employees will be rewarded with more responsibility and more work. The Boomers relished this, the Xers resist. But will those whose workload increases, even if they agree, be rewarded with more money? Human resources people engage managers in border wars over this issue, and the former swear they are losing. Although managers who can control who gets what raise could give top performers extraordinary raises and average performers nothing, they are loath to do so unless an indispensable employee produces a written job offer for significantly more money. Why? In today's job market, managers fear their old dependables are almost as marketable as the stars even if they aren't quite as cutting-edge overall. They're right. We see lots of job orders from headhunters with handwritten comments suggesting that top management wants someone who's dependable, even more than someone who's technically state-of-the-art. The typical direction to the headhunter is, "Do not present anyone under 40." The outcome is that available money is used as glue, not as a reward for productivity.

Employees known to be hostages to their jobs because of convenience, benefits, or long habit get the smallest increases-even if they're good producers-because managers are willing to gamble they'll never leave. The dependables will be given as much work as they'll tolerate. A manager who believes Fred has no intention of going anywhere will regularly burden Fred with an extended work week. At some point, the disparity between what Fred produces and what he is paid may spur him to action. However, the managers I talked with are gambling on an economic downturn, which would mean they need not worry about Fred bailing out.

A marketing director in a Fortune 100 consumer products company said, "There's a lot to be said for a downturn--a small one--just enough to flash 'job security' on people's mental screens. It would clear up half my turnover problems."

Why don't bosses even the workload by giving more work to the less productive, increasing their hours? It's a risky strategy. The manager who must get results now prefers to rely on Fred who will produce. Other workers may lack the skills or simply can't be forced to get the job done on time. They should be fired, but HR folk tell me they won't be unless they develop attitude problems.

They'd be too hard to replace, and managers seem to believe that "half a loaf is better than none."

Underproductive employees are clever and successful. That's how they survive. Here's an example: Two strict nine-to-fivers always schedule vacation days in the busiest season. If denied vacation, they call in sick. They produce sniffles and physician's notes. They promise to change, improve, work more quickly, whatever the manager wants to hear. One manager told me he understands the game perfectly "When people feared for their jobs they worked harder. Now it's payback time."

Managing the recalcitrant is hard work. Pulling better performances out of the slackers who must be coached and warned is harder than cajoling the better performers to do more. Most managers find the latter a more productive use of time, anyway. Documenting poor performance takes oceans of time. Even the most resolute manager begins to plan around such people, further letting them slide. This is especially true if the slackers are long-term employees. Of course, others resent it, but they're often so busy they have little time to seethe or protest.

Where will it end? Not in protests or complaints, younger workers do not argue or confront, they flee. It may be three to six months before a new employee knows enough about the job to be certain he/she is overworked. It's a few months after that before he/she works up enough outrage to question the boss and a month or two while the boss stalls. By then, it's easy to move with no resume damage.

HR folk tell us that departmental reorganizations are as often attempts to solve the workload problem as they are responses to changes or downturns in business. A senior vice president for a growing food products company has helped the marketing department reorganize three times-always redistributing the workload. She's seen three slackers depart without severance because they were finally confronted with the choice of more work or departure.

None of this will comfort you as you work weekends. This is the larger issue for managers: Who is responsible for job analysis and reallocation? The slackers know that more HR departments are just as overworked, if not more so, than those they seek to help. Most tell me they're in a flat-out recruiting mode. One HR vice president has even pressed his benefits manager and staff into doing initial interviews. A manager in need of HR's consulting services may get quicker results by turning the task back to subordinates. HR may be able to help, but if it's a question of waiting months for their help, even an outside consultant may be better.

There are no guaranteed formulas; pick a theory you like and adapt it. What are the nonessentials of the job? Who does too much and who too little? Instead of letting the slackers unbalance the workload, make everyone responsible for job analysis. Unless you as the manager make work allocation a priority, turnover will rise, and not just among the young. I've been hearing more and more about a workplace subset called the Wrinkled Xers. These are older workers who, having been through a downsizing, have taken vows never to make an emotional commitment to an organization again. They talk the talk, but they're as quick to move to another job as Xers. They give no information; they simply vanish.

A bank director who thought he had solved his workload problems by hiring only 40-plus candidates was surprised by how quickly they left when forced to take on more work and hours than they wanted to. He concluded that they'd been "contaminated" by younger workers.

Finally, the grapevine is still a good indicator of who's doing what and with what kind of satisfaction. It will also help you sort which rewards motivate which employees. You may be able to give time off to some and more money to others to equal satisfaction. Unlike the early '90s, most people feel free to shout their wants and needs since they rarely fear for their jobs. You can learn more there than you can from a formal or informal survey. If you go through a reallocation process and it's successful, the grapevine will let you know. If not successful, learn why and try again.