A post or two back, I suggested ways to put your intern(s) to work that millennials in their position might find challenging, exciting, and informative, and that you might find useful for your organization. Thanks to those who commented and emailed regarding the topic, I am back with a suggestion in a similar vein: Consider creating an in-house think-tank/workshop where new, millennial-style tech and outreach methodologies can be studied, researched, and reported on for consideration by your organization.
Considering the cost of consultancy fees and the proliferation of conversation, information, and opportunities for experimentation that exist online, it might be smart to consider hiring your own in-house team to do the thinking for your organization. A department like this would also be beneficial in that all of your research would belong to your organization, make for great blogging material, and your team would eventually be able to offering consultancy services/mentorships to partnering organizations.
You'll remember that last year, when word finally hit the mainstream media that there was an emerging generation (after we all had been talking about it in blogs and chat rooms long before) of young people who were hitting the job market, the conversation was framed in such a way that young, over-sensitive know-it-alls, tainted by the narcissistic influence of Mr. Rogers, would soon be entering the workforce, crushing it under the weight of winey unmanageability.
I must give equal parts credit for this idea to Mad Men, Penelope Trunk (of Brazen Careerist), and every millennial I've met who's great ideas have both inspired me and changed the ways we interact and consider ourselves productive:
- The plot of last week's Mad Men featured a coffee company looking for an advertisement that appealed to the way young people are in the early-60s (the time period in which the show takes place). The agency they were working with put two young people on the job to explain what young people like (and with the help of a SDS manifesto, they did just this), and they sold a new, innovative coffee ad.
- In this video, Penelope Trunk, rightfully, reminds employers that while millennials are bad at the 9-5 thing, they're great at overall productivity. For example, I get up at 8, start working at 9, and work on and off all day until around 11. I jog, get lunch, play with the cat, watch/listen to Current in between, hang out with my girlfriend for a bit, but inside of that 14 hour a day is a solid 10 hours of work. This sort of structure is perfect for research.
- And, of course, I am inspired by the friends and colleagues I've met in this field in particular who go to show that not-taking-no for an answer works really, really well by way of innovation and finding out what works and what doesn't in the field of connective technology and movement making. Know More, my go-to millennial tech heroes, would never have built such an amazing product if it weren't for not taking no for an answer. If Andrew Mason of The Point didn't so firmly in not taking no for an answer, we might not be thinking of new, innovative methods for fundraising and movement building.
Sure, there are difficulties with regard to making some millennials, millennials who embody the spirit we think of in the context of the "post-everything" generation, to work some jobs that make all of us, regardles of our generational title fidgety. But there's a golden opportunity when it comes to potentially putting young people to work finding new ways to reach out inspire, and resonate.
Does your organization feature a similar model? Have you found a way to circumvent costly consultancy fees? Are you finding different ways to put millennials to work that is productive for your organization? Please do consider letting me know in the comments section.
Comments
This Won't Work
When I discussed this with one friend who works at a larger organization, they acknowledged that this would be a smart idea, especially since every time they use a consultant, they they pay for information, even if it is the same information they're referencing from the last time they used a consultant. IE If the organization needs to know the best way to find mid-level-managers and then two months from now, they need a similar piece of information and they're asking a consultant, they pay for the same information twice, whereas if this was researched/archived in-house and managed centrally, once the information is there, it is always accessible and searchable (the benefits of research mixed with institutional memory).
And the organization would likely benefit considering they spend much more money on consultancy than they would if they hired someone to manage this project part time with the help of an intern or two.
However, organizations don't do what is smart, they said. They are, in this person's experience, unbelievably inefficient.
I thought this was incredible feedback.
--
Alex Steed
Writer, Doer & Collective Action Enthusiast
p. (802) 999-2050
w. www.alexsteed.com