Generational Differences
in Supervision
Marie R. Kerins Ed.D. CCC-SLP
Dede Matrangola M.S. CCC-SLP
November 18, 2011 San Diego, California
American Speech-Language Hearing Association
Objectives
• Attendees will be able to articulate generational
differences among those discussed.
• Attendees will be able to identify their own
“generational” biases when communicating with
advisees of a different generation
• Attendees will be able to articulate findings that
support and/or refute current generational biases.
Kerins, M.R. & Matrangola, D., 2011.
How do we define
generation?
• A method for categorizing and classifying groups of
individuals
• Helps explain patterns of behavior based on “agelocation” in history (Howe & Strauss, 2000; Strauss &
Howe, 1991)
• Experience the same national catastrophes, shared
music, movie stars,etc.
• Lends itself to a “collective mindset”
• Generational images are also “stereotypes”
Kerins, M.R. & Matrangola, D., 2011.
Across the Generations
Silent
Generation
1925-1945
Baby
Boomers
1946-1964
Gen X
1965 1979
Millennial
1980-2001
Gen Now
2002 -
Kerins, M.R. & Matrangola, D., 2011.
Perspective
• Beloit mindset – just for fun
• What year did you graduate college?
• http://www.beloit.edu/mindset/
Kerins, M.R. & Matrangola, D., 2011.
Your supervisees this year may
have graduated college in 2010
•
Young women's fashions have never been concerned with where the
waist is.
•
Brides have always worn white for a first, second, or third wedding
•
They have no idea why we needed to ask "...can we all get along?”
•
Text messaging is their email
•
"Google" has always been a verb.
•
They have never heard anyone actually "ring it up" on a cash register
•
A coffee has always taken longer to make than a milkshake.
•
They don't remember when "cut and paste" involved scissors.
Kerins, M.R. & Matrangola, D., 2011.
Generational Characteristics
• strict
collegial
standards
• “we
generation”
• trust in
government
and authority
• rebellious,
questioned
status quo
• self worth in
job
• driven and
dedicated
• seek bottom
line
• balance
home and
work life
• demand
clear
expectations
• techno-savvy
• respect must
be earned
• consumers
• demand
immediate
feedback
Kerins, M.R. & Matrangola, D., 2011.
Silent Generation
• loyal
• submissive
• trust in
government
• strict
standards
• commitment
• consistency
Kerins, M.R. & Matrangola, D., 2011.
Boomers
• comfortable
• nurtured
• competitive
• rebellious
• educated
• work-centric
• adopted technology
• may not use as
readily
• prefer face-time to
remote practices
Kerins, M.R. & Matrangola, D., 2011.
Gen X
• grew up with higher
divorce rates
• mothers in workforce
• work well independently
• resourceful; selfsufficient
• mistrust institutions
• work-to-live
• less committed to one
employer
Kerins, M.R. & Matrangola, D., 2011.
Millenials
• multi-taskers
• enjoy being
connected
• visual/shorter
attentions
• respect must be
earned
• collaborators
• like very clear
expectations
• balance work and
home
Kerins, M.R. & Matrangola, D., 2011.
What does this mean for
supervision?
• American Speech-Language Hearing Association
(2010, Jan.). Designing ASHA’s future: Trends for the
association and the professions. Rockville, MD: Author.
• American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2000).
Responding to the changing needs of speech- language
pathology and audiology students in the 21st century: A
briefing paper for
academicians, practitioners, employers, and students.
Rockville, MD: Author.
• American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2008).
Knowledge and Skills Needed by Speech-Language
Pathologists Providing Clinical Supervision [Knowledge and
Skills]. Available from www.asha.org/policy.
Kerins, M.R. & Matrangola, D., 2011.
ASHA’s Future Trends report
•
1. Generational Impacts
•
2. A Diverse Future
•
3. Clinical Population Outlook
•
4. Technology Marches Forward
•
5. Financial/Economic Caution
•
6. Global Directions
•
7. Expectations for Social Responsibility
http://www.asha.org/uploadedFiles/Designing-ASHAs-Future.pdf
Kerins, M.R. & Matrangola, D., 2011.
Knowledge and Skills in Clinical
Supervision
• professional growth and development of the
supervisee and the supervisor are enhanced when
supervision or clinical teaching involves self-analysis
and self-evaluation. Effective clinical teaching also
promotes the use of critical thinking and problemsolving skills on the part of the individual being
supervised. (p. 3) Technical Report
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2008). Knowledge and
Skills Needed by Speech-Language Pathologists Providing Clinical
Supervision [Knowledge and Skills]. Available from
www.asha.org/policy.
Kerins, M.R. & Matrangola, D., 2011.
II. Interpersonal Communication and
the Supervisor-Supervisee
Relationship
A. Knowledge required:
• 3. Understand how differences in age, gender,
culture, social roles, and self- concept can present
challenges to effective interpersonal
communication.
• 5. Understand differences in communication
styles, including cultural/linguistic, generational,
and gender differences, and how this may have
an impact on the working relationship with the
supervisee.
Kerins, M.R. & Matrangola, D., 2011.
II. Interpersonal Communication and
the Supervisor-Supervisee
Relationship
B. Skills needed:
Recognize and be able to address the challenges to
successful communication interactions (e.g.,
generational and/or gender differences and
cultural/ linguistic factors).
Kerins, M.R. & Matrangola, D., 2011.
After several “generational talks” a
survey was constructed
• Question: Who are our current supervisors and do they
view their supervisees through a generational lens?
• 19 Questions
• Demographics
• Communication Mode Preferences
• Expectations
• Personal/ Professional Boundaries
Kerins, M.R. & Matrangola, D., 2011.
Respondent Demographics
• N= 84 respondents out of 178 e-mailed surveys, 7
were bounced back; return rate was 49%
• Settings: 42.2% schools, 31.3% hospitals, 15.7
outpatient, 6% SNFs, 13.3% other
• Years supervising: 1-3 years 34.9 %, 4-6 years
13.3%, 6-8 years 13.3% and > 8 years 38.6 %
• 76% supervised a generation different from theirs
Kerins, M.R. & Matrangola, D., 2011.
Who Was our Sample?
Millenial
, 18.1
Boomer
, 26.5
Gen X , 55.4
Kerins, M.R. & Matrangola, D., 2011.
Self Assessment in
Supervision (Wright, 2011)
Boome
r
Gen X Millenial
Definition
4.8
0
6.7
Can explain and discuss key
supervisory issues-Understands
0
8.9
6.7
Integrates supervisory knowledge and
skills with limited proficiencyDeveloping
19
22.2
53.3
Applies knowledge and skills with
consistency- Competent
42.9
57.8
26.7
Demonstrates and applies knowledge
and skills with high degree of
consistency and effectiveness- Skilled
33.3
11.1
6.7
Especially skillful: highest consistencyMaster
Kerins, M.R. & Matrangola, D., 2011.
Selected Questions from
Survey
•
There are many differences in students today compared with
my experience as a graduate student
•
The supervisor/student relationship should be strictly
professional with communication being primarily work related.
•
The student’s first step of clinical problem solving should be to
try to investigate the problem on his or her own.
•
Students should communicate with their supervisors in person
or by phone rather than by email or text as a primary means.
•
The supervisor/student relationship is most effective when they
can be friendly and share personal interests.
Kerins, M.R. & Matrangola, D., 2011.
There are many differences in students today
compared with my experience as a graduate student
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Boomer
Gen X
Millenial
Agree
Disagree
Kerins, M.R. & Matrangola, D., 2011.
The supervisor/student relationship should be strictly
professional with communication being primarily
work related.
80
70
60
50
Boomer
Gen X
Millenial
40
30
20
10
0
Agree
Disagree
Kerins, M.R. & Matrangola, D., 2011.
The student’s first step of clinical problem solving
should be to try to investigate the problem on his or
her own.
80
70
60
50
Boomer
Gen X
Millenial
40
30
20
10
0
Agree
Disagree
Kerins, M.R. & Matrangola, D., 2011.
Students should communicate with their supervisors
in person or by phone rather than by email or text as
a primary means.
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Boomer
Gen X
Millenial
Agree
Disagree
Kerins, M.R. & Matrangola, D., 2011.
The supervisor/student relationship is most effective
when they can be friendly and share personal
interests
70
60
50
40
Boomer
Gen X
Millenial
30
20
10
0
Agree
Disagree
Kerins, M.R. & Matrangola, D., 2011.
How did they rank reason for
supervising students
Ranked Items
Millenials
Generation X
Baby Boomer
Materials
shared from
coursework
4
3
3
“Pay It
Forward”
1
1
1
Tech Savvy
skills
5
4
4
New
2
Perspective on
Caseload
2
2
Assist with
caseload
5
5
3
Kerins, M.R. & Matrangola, D., 2011.
Some Conclusions
• The further one is away in age the greater the
difference in their experience; both worldly and
graduate experience
• The perceived differences influences how one
interprets others behaviors
Kerins, M.R. & Matrangola, D., 2011.
Conclusions
Boomers
• rate themselves higher on self-assessment scale
• feel communication should be professional yet are split
in how communication should occur (e-mail vs. inperson)
•
seem less likely than their Gen X and Millenial
counterparts in expecting students to solve the clinical
problem on their own
Kerins, M.R. & Matrangola, D., 2011.
Conclusions
Gen X
• is the largest group of professionals that are
supervising our graduates and they see
themselves as skilled supervisors overall.
• They also see being friendly and personal in
supervisory diads as important but less so than
either Baby Boomers or Millenial supervisors who
also indicate higher levels of agreement than Gen
Xers with keeping the relationship strictly
professional.
Kerins, M.R. & Matrangola, D., 2011.
Conclusions
Millenial
•
supervisors clearly see less differences between
themselves and their supervisees.
• Interestingly, they have the highest % agreement
among the three groups in that the
supervisee/supervisor relationship should be strictly
professional,
• yet they also reported the highest percentage in
agreement that it is important to be friendly and
personal.
Kerins, M.R. & Matrangola, D., 2011.
Our Lens Changes Our View
Kerins, M.R. & Matrangola, D., 2011.
Texting
as a writing skill + or -??
Texting
Medical Charting
•
Pt is a 62 y/o ♂ s/p R CVA c
LUE weakness and ∆ MS
•
PEARL and no SOB.
AAM I need 2 return
something so I can meet u
at the main entrance @ 3
•
PMH significant for
HTN, NIDDM & GERD.
•
XLNT, c u then.
•
PTA level was I @ home.
•
BFN
•
•
CUL8R
Maintain NPO pending MBS
to R/O aspiration.
•
Where u want 2 go 2day?
•
I’m @ the mall. Wanna
join?
•
Kerins, M.R. & Matrangola, D., 2011.
Opposing Views
Millennial
Kerins, M.R. & Matrangola, D., 2011.
Opposing Views
Gen-X
Kerins, M.R. & Matrangola, D., 2011.
Opposing Views
Boomers
Kerins, M.R. & Matrangola, D., 2011.
Opposing Views
Silent Generation
Kerins, M.R. & Matrangola, D., 2011.
Q&A
Kerins, M.R. & Matrangola, D., 2011.
References
• Elledge, D., Hasselbeck, E. Hobek, A., Combs, S. Raisor-Becker, L.
Creaghead, N. (2010). Perspectives on preparing graduate students
to provide educationally relevant services in Schools. Perspectives
in Higher Education.
• Jukes, I., McCain, T., & Crockett, L. (2010). Understanding the
digital generation: Teaching and learning in the new digital
landscape. Kelowna BC: 21st Century Fluency Project Inc.
• Lemke, A. & Dublinske, S. (2010). Designing Asha’s future: Trends
for the association and the professions.
http://www.asha.org/uploadedFiles/Designing-ASHAs-Future.pdf
• McCready, V. (2007, October). Generational differences: Do they
make a difference in supervisory and administrative relationships.
Perspectives in Administration and Supervision.
Kerins, M.R. & Matrangola, D., 2011.
References
•
Pletka, B. (2007). Educating the net generation: How to engage
students in the 21st century. Santa Monica: Santa Monica Press
•
Prensky, M. (2001,October). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the
Horizon. (available www.marcprensky.com/writing/.
•
Strauss, W. & Howe, N. (1991). The history of America’s future 15842069: Generations. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc.
•
Strauss W. & Howe, N.(1997). The fourth turning. New York: Broadway
Books.
•
Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the net generation is
changing your world. New York: McGraw Hill.
•
Twenge, J.(2006). Generation me. New York: Free Press.
Kerins, M.R. & Matrangola, D., 2011.