There is a lot of talk about how young people entering the petroleum industry have a different value system than the older generations. I don’t dispute that they currently have a different set of priorities. What I differ with is the assumption that their value systems will not evolve significantly. The theory is that an adult’s value system will not change much without a serious jolt. However, life has a way of delivering major perspective altering events. And money always talks.

About a quarter century ago, when I was one of the youngsters, I was sent off to my first management course. The instructor emphasized that my generation, the baby boomers, had to be motivated differently. He lectured that since the baby boomers had grown up in a period of post World War II prosperity, they didn’t value job security like those who had suffered through the Great Depression of the 1930s. Boomers, it was said, had to be motivated by self-actualization.

Only a few years after I took that first management course, the price of oil plummeted. No longer were there frequent promotions and raises for young folks like myself. Terminations entered the picture. For the better part of 20 years, layoffs (reductions-in-force, right-sizing, or downsizing reorganizations) always seemed to be lurking in the background. The first couple of layoffs were relatively painless to the survivors as we saw deadwood being pruned. During the boom of the 1970s early 1980s, it was easier to hire extra people than to motivate the deadbeats to get their jobs done. When the underperformers were eliminated it was not damaging to morale. Then as the downsizing cut deeper and deeper, we looked around and asked ourselves, “If he got the axe, why not me?” Before long my generation in the oil industry placed a very high value on job security. Job security concerns motivated a lot of behaviors.

Self-actualization takes a back seat when lengthy unemployment is a major threat. In Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, self-actualization is at the top of the pyramid and falls in importance when more basic needs, like the ability to feed and clothe your family, are threatened.

Our children were not oblivious to the relentless onslaught of downsizing that worried their parents. For the duration of their childhood, the uncertainty of parental job loss was a constant background din. It is not surprising that many of them refuse to consider employment in our industry. Our children may be amongst the minority in their generation who place a relatively high priority on job security.

We baby boomers are now the older generation and are shaking our heads over the generations X, Y and Z entering our industry who do not value job security. Since these newcomers have only experienced boom times, their behavior broadcasts their personal sense of security. They believe that if they are not coddled by their current employer; they have abundant other opportunities. I recognize my younger self and see the cycle repeating.
While predicting oil and gas prices is notoriously difficult, sooner or later the hiring frenzy will slow. Companies are already beginning to fret about operating costs. Attractive job offers have increased the supply of students studying earth sciences and petroleum engineering. Companies are starting to become concerned that they may have lowered standards too far to fill their hiring quotas. Little to no pruning has been done of those new hires whose performance is less than satisfactory. Deadwood is accumulating. The question is, when will the pruning begin? For those who have never experienced a layoff, the housecleaning will come as a shock. If, as is most likely the case, terminations come at a time when employment opportunities are relatively scarce, job security will grow in importance for the younger generations.

One aspect of the new generation is significantly different. More and more women are entering the worldwide workforce in high paying, professional jobs. A frequently overlooked consequence of this is that young professionals entering the petroleum industry are increasingly married to other young professionals either in our industry or who have well-compensated careers in other industries. The incomes and future job prospects of the two partners may be about the same. Thus, if an employer asks one of the partners to transfer to a location where the other partner cannot obtain comparable employment, the proposition is not attractive.

In the past, there was greater inequality. Compensation and future opportunities for the male partner were better even if the wife was a professional. The economics were more likely to be in favor of accepting the relocation when the wife’s income was a smaller fraction of the primary male breadwinner’s and her ultimate prospects were much lower.

We are facing an interesting conundrum. More and more companies are global in scope and want top talent to be willing to move anywhere at anytime. At the same time, more of this same talent is part of a dual-career relationship in which relocation exacts an economic penalty. If companies make willingness to relocate a prerequisite for advancement, they will be sharply reducing the talent pool from which they can develop future leaders.

Employers must learn to better manage dual career couples. This is true whether both partners work for the same employer, different employers in the same industry or different employers in different industries.

Time alone will also impact the value system of this new crop of youngsters. While parenthood may be delayed longer than in the past, many will sooner or later take on the responsibilities of parenthood. There is nothing quite like the continuous responsibilities of parenthood to alter your perception of the world. Job security and saving for the future become more important. They will buy life insurance. Money talks.