Bridging the Generational Divide: Mentoring in the Hybrid Work Environment

24 • IIBEC Interface December 2023
Feature
Bridging the Generational
Divide: Mentoring in the
Hybrid Work Environment
By Nichole Thomas and Kevin Palma, RWC,
LEED AP, BECxP, CxA+BE
This paper was originally presented at the 2023
IIBEC International Convention and Trade Show.
ON MARCH 11, 2020, the World Health
Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic
after more than 4,000 deaths worldwide. Two
days later, on March 13, 2020, President Donald
Trump’s administration declared a nationwide
emergency due to the pandemic. The next two
years were plagued with shutdowns, mask
mandates, and product shortages. While the
construction industry was deemed essential,
the negative impact remained significant.
Many employers required employees to work
remotely to prevent further spread of the virus,
while others struggled to retain employees
at all. The shift to remote work resulted in
what we now understand as the hybrid work
environment. The new hybrid environment
further highlighted the differences between
workforce generations, while also revealing the
common thread of values between those same
generations. These highlights and revelations
created a critical opportunity to reflect on
mentoring through a positive feedback loop, to
reconsider the approach to building a healthy
mentor/mentee relationship, and to leverage
technology in support of mentorship.
THE HYBRID WORK
ENVIRONMENT AND THE
GENERATIONS WITHIN
The hybrid work environment is generally
understood as a combination of being able to
work unconstrained hours in unconstrained
places with the level of constraint being
determined by individual employers. The
understanding of this environment is welldescribed
and depicted as a “2×2 matrix that’s
organized along [a vertical and a horizontal axis:
place and time]”1 (Fig. 1). The shift to remote
work, with the additional freedom of when and
where to complete that work, limited in-person
contact and created challenges for collaboration
and mentorship.
Further complicating the challenges are
the unprecedented five generations currently
within the workplace and the individual
work characteristics of those generations. A
generation is defined as a group of individuals
with shared experiences at similar ages. For
example, those born between 1965 and 1980,
Generation X, experienced and were influenced
by events and trends such as the impeachment
of President Nixon, the fall of the Berlin Wall
and the Soviet Union, corporate downsizing,
increasing divorce rates, and the introduction
of computers. As a result of such experiences,
Generation Xers are generally more likely to be
cynical, to be self-reliant, and to think globally.
Such traits often expand into the workplace and
influence their preferred environment, along
with their interpretation of various situations.
These preferences exist for each generation in
the workplace and contribute to the challenges in
collaboration and communication.
In general, work characteristics are
understood to define an ideal work environment.
The oldest and least currently represented
generation is the Traditionals, also known as
the Silent Generation. Born between 1925
and 1945, the group is stereotypically defined
as being practical, patient, hardworking rule
Interface articles may cite trade, brand,
or product names to specify or describe
adequately materials, experimental
procedures, and/or equipment. In no
case does such identification imply
recommendation or endorsement by the
International Institute of Building Enclosure
Consultants (IIBEC).
December 2023 IIBEC Interface • 25
followers, with their work characteristics defined
as preferring to work fewer hours in a consultant
or advisor role. Following the Traditionals are
the Baby Boomers, born between 1946 and
1964 and stereotyped as being optimistic,
cooperative, ambitious, and hardworking to the
point of being labeled workaholics. Their work
characteristics include a preference for face-toface
interaction and for a culture that emphasizes
recognition and added value. Generation X has
been typecast as being skeptical, self-reliant
risk takers. Generation X’s work characteristics
include preferring a clear separation between
their work and personal lives and a culture
of autonomy. The fourth and currently most
represented group within the workplace is
Millennials, born between 1981 and 2000 and
stereotyped for being conscious of health, social,
and environmental issues, as well as technology
savvy, with their work characteristics defined
as a preference for collaboration and a culture
of actionable feedback. Lastly, Generation Z,
born between 2001 and 2020 and associated
with being inclusive, diverse, optimistic “digital
natives,” is currently emerging in the workforce.
Generation Z’s work characteristics are described
as a preference for a diverse and inclusive
workforce that embraces a culture of flexibility.
While workplace challenges remain present
between the various generations, research
indicates that the focus should be shifted from
these stereotypical differences to the common
values and attitudes that exist among them.
Costanza et al.2 indicate that there are very few
differences in work-related attitude among
different generations. Basically, each generation
is willing to commit to their organization and
work when company values align. Additionally,
Dimock3 emphasizes that there is more of a
continuum across generations, not a threshold:
“The youngest and oldest within a [generation] may feel more in common with bordering
generations than the one to which they are
assigned” and “generations themselves
are inherently diverse, complex groups, not
simple caricatures.” Overall, an individual’s
preferences are based on a variety of internal and
external influences; therefore, deviations and
distributions within and across generations are
expected.
MENTORING AND THE
POSITIVE FEEDBACK LOOP
The purpose of mentoring is personal and
professional growth. Growth is facilitated by
feedback, and feedback is provided through a
positive loop (Fig. 2). The positive feedback loop
creates outputs that accelerate a cycle of growth.
Like a map directing a reader and the compass
orienting the user, growth will be limited or not
occur without a positive feedback loop. As an
example, a mentor may assign a challenge that a
mentee accepts. The mentee works to complete
the challenge, potentially asking questions along
the way, and submits the work product to the
mentor for evaluation. Once the work product
is evaluated, the feedback is presented to the
mentee and any revisions are completed. The
final work product for this challenge and the
lessons learned along the way are then utilized
to inform the completion of the next challenge
accepted by the mentee. This approach provides
Figure 1. A matrix illustrating the hybrid work environment. Figure courtesy of Seal Building Enclosure LLC.
26 • IIBEC Interface December 2023
an opportunity for a mentee to test their abilities
with minimal risk to the company and provides
an opportunity to evaluate where the mentee
is in their development. If this approach excels,
reciprocal mentoring occurs throughout, and
the mentee also has the opportunity to be the
mentor.
HEALTHY MENTORSHIP
Before successful mentoring can be achieved,
a healthy relationship between a mentor and
mentee must be built upon a foundation of
trust, respect, commitment, accountability, and
evaluation of results.
Trust is the foundation of successful
mentorship, as it allows for a significant level
of vulnerability, which opens the lines of
communication. Brené Brown, in her 2010
TEDxHouston Talk, “The Power of Vulnerability,”4
describes vulnerability as “the birthplace of
innovation, creativity, [and] change,” all of which
are driven by open communication. When an
individual feels safe to be vulnerable, asking
for help and sharing thoughts, ideas, and
interests create opportunities to deeply connect.
Additionally, admitting to a mistake and failing
at a task no longer produce fear, but rather an
opportunity to grow. As a result, trust increases
and there is a willingness to communicate
truthfully and openly. This open communication
builds the foundation of trust and establishes the
basis for the mentorship positive feedback loop.
Now that the foundation of trust has been
cast, the relationship extends to building mutual
respect. Respect at a base level should be given
to each other. Listening, understanding, and
acknowledging individual strengths reinforce
that respect. To further build upon respect
requires commitment and accountability. The
mentor’s day-to-day actions must reflect the
requested actions of a mentee and exceed
the expectation regularly. No comparisons
between the mentor and mentee should be
drawn, but rather respect for the individual
value added should be given.
With a strong foundation of mutual
trust and respect continuing to build,
the door opens to further personal and
professional growth through commitment,
accountability, and evaluation of results. The
growth initiates with acknowledgement and
commitment to the mentoring relationship.
For the mentee, the primary commitment
is to overall company goals and excelling
at the completion of assignments with
quality as the focus. For the mentor, the
primary commitment is to guide in the
personal and professional growth of the
mentee by consistently being available as a
sounding board and safety net. Once these
commitments are agreed upon, both parties
share the responsibility of holding each other
accountable. The ability to do so requires
open and clear communication to consistently
evaluate the approach, progress, and work
product from completing commitments.
Without this dialogue, the positive feedback
loop may be broken, resulting in stagnation of
growth and negative impact on both internal
and external business relationships.
TECHNOLOGY’S ROLE
The emergence of the hybrid work environment
coupled with the five generations currently
working creates a healthy mentorship challenge
as, traditionally, the relationship between
mentor and mentee has predominantly been
developed, grown, and sustained in person. Now,
teams of mentors and mentees must discover
alternative solutions to overcome this challenge.
Assistance with overcoming this challenge has
become technology’s role. In general, since the
older generations have not grown with (as have
Millennials) or been native to (as has Generation
Z) the digital environment, the Millennial and
Generation Z workforce has a unique opportunity to
help teams more seamlessly transition to workstyle
flexibility. Further opportunity exists for the oldergeneration
mentors to embrace this paradigm shift
and grow by allowing for reciprocal mentorship
from their mentees, which accelerates overall
commitment and accountability and therefore
contribution of service to a mentor and team.
Modern technology allows us to be in constant
communication with our colleagues through
technologies such as chat rooms, virtual meeting
spaces, mobile video calling, active document
tagging, and digital task management. Each of
these remote–communication approaches allows
for real-time interaction in support of mentorship,
similarly to in-person mentoring, with the
possibility of a condensed time commitment.
While technology is improving daily, some
tasks are best completed in person. Gratton1
suggests that there are four productivity drivers:
energy, focus, coordination, and cooperation.
Each driver will be affected by changes in working
arrangements. For example, there would be a
challenge in a mentee completing in-depth field
work with a remote mentor over digital platforms
as the time, coordination, and cooperation would
be extensive and essential to complete the
assignment. Overall, the challenge of this type
of in-depth field work would be best completed
together face-to-face. Conversely, completing an
office-associated task, such as a report, would be
most efficient within a quiet, comfortable, and
more isolated environment, such as a remote
office. These examples illustrate the importance
of evaluating each task or goal and deciding
the method of knowledge transfer, mentorship
needs, and the most favorable and efficient work
environment. The positive feedback loop occurs
virtually through the assignment of tasks with
remote review and discussion to evaluate results.
Background
Russ, Kevin, and I met in September 2016. After
interviewing with them for an entry-level building
enclosure consultant position, I was successful in
Figure 2. The positive feedback loop. Figure courtesy of Seal Building Enclosure LLC.
December 2023 IIBEC Interface • 27
joining their team in Texas. Shortly after I joined,
both Kevin and Russ became my mentors.
While Kevin was assigned as my primary
mentor, Russ was consistently available in a
secondary role. Based on our birth years, I am
a Millennial and align more traditionally within
the understanding of that generation. Kevin,
based on his birth year, is a Millennial; however,
he aligns with a microgeneration born between
1977 and 1985 called Xennials. Xennials have
hybrid work characteristics between Generation
X and Millennials. Overall, Russ predominantly
aligns with Generation X.
The Positive Feedback Loop
The overall approach to achieving the positive
feedback loop evolved throughout my
mentorship. At entry level, Kevin and Russ
typically worked through the various consulting
deliverables with me, creating a basis for the
“What, Why, and How” approach to providing
comprehensive project solutions. As my
knowledge and experience progressed, they
would more simply request my assistance
with a task, and once I provided the draft
deliverable, they would complete an internal
review. Depending on the assignment and how
to maintain efficiencies, the internal review was
either completed in person, through digital
markup, or in real time, utilizing digital
meeting platforms.
Trust
Mentorship with Kevin began on a day trip to
Dallas my first week of work for a client meeting.
He was so authentic that he broke the rigid
formalities of boss/employee, mentor/mentee
relationships and created a collegial dynamic.
He seemed to discard any stereotypes that he
may have had of me, including ones regarding
race, gender, and age, by simply taking interest
in who I was. From there, we saw how our values
related to work aligned, which is consistent with
the findings of articles referenced earlier. Kevin’s
genuine interest in my identity, individuality, and
values allowed me to feel comfortable enough
to share some of my other interests and passions
with him that were unrelated to the profession,
such as music. Kevin utilized this knowledge of
my interests to inform the mentoring approach
for concepts related to architecture, construction,
and consulting. He would make references to
jazz improvisation, which takes cues from an
understanding of music theory and the existing
context to create a one-of-a-kind piece. He drew
parallels to this improvisation and consulting by
highlighting how consulting needs to consider
cues from an understanding of architecture and
construction within an existing context to create
a solution that is unique and responsive to the
project’s goals.
Respect
In building our mentoring relationship, Kevin
learned that I value time management for
efficiency and organization, while my knowledge
of the building enclosure was limited. He
acknowledged my strengths and identified ways
in which I could contribute to the team, which
made me feel confident and respected despite my
lack of experience. His willingness to acknowledge
my talents, accept who I was, and collaborate with
my differences established a mutual respect and
reinforced our mentor/mentee relationship.
Both Kevin and Russ regularly followed
through on their commitments and did not ask
of me anything they would not do themselves.
My respect for them grew when I watched them
perform the same level of task I was expected
to, despite being the overall leaders of our
team. The two of them were not just on time for
meetings and site visits, but early. They worked
just as hard and stayed just as late as the rest
of the team. They both lived by the principle
that “leaders eat last.” Watching them conduct
themselves in that manner increased my trust
and respect for them, including their position
and responsibility as mentors.
Besides watching Russ and Kevin excel at the
types of assignments I was expected to do, what
contributed to my immense respect for them
was that they both demonstrated their respect
for me by challenging me. Immediately after
I joined the team, they challenged me to use
my talents to develop the Bluebeam standards
that were intended for use throughout the large
organization. It was a daunting challenge, but the
two of them believed I could do it. I trusted their
judgment because I respected them, even if I had
doubts about my own capabilities. I also trusted
that I would have support from both of them at
any point if I needed it. The assignment took over
a year to complete and gave me a more in-depth
understanding of large corporate dynamics. As
a result of frequent and consistent feedback, my
skills in Bluebeam became well developed and I
gained additional influence with my internal and
external clients.
Commitment, Accountability,
and Evaluation of Results
Throughout my mentoring relationship with
Russ and Kevin, the primary focus for me has
always been a quality work product. Kevin and
Russ, though they never verbally made the
commitment, would always make themselves
available immediately or soon after I contacted
them. As a result, I would leverage technology
to contact them in high-stakes situations,
which allowed us confidence in that approach
moving forward. This allowed me to confidently
provide clients with solutions and learn in a
real-time problem-solving situation. After any
correspondence with clients, we had an internal
discussion to confirm my understanding of
the approach moving forward (Commitment/
Accountability). I would take those lessons and
recall them in new but similar challenges. After
a while, my mentors would allow me to take the
lead with client meetings and site visits. They
would provide real-time corrections or additional
support (Accountability/Evaluation of Results).
Eventually, after demonstrating that I had a
proficient understanding of building enclosure
concepts (Accountability/Evaluation of Results),
there was confidence in my conducting these
meetings and site visits alone moving forward
(Growth).
In the process of mentoring, I held Kevin and
Russ accountable for their commitments as well.
With a less formal approach to the mentoring
relationship, I was comfortable articulating my
expectations to them, such as senior review
MENTORING CASE STUDY
Approach: ………………………………………… Personal Narrative by Nichole Thomas,
reviewed by Kevin Palma
Mentee: …………………………………………………. Nichole Thomas, Born 1990, Millennial,
Ideal Work Environment: Remote
Primary Mentor: ……………………………………. Kevin Palma, Born 1983, Millennial (Xennial),
Ideal Work Environment: Hybrid
Secondary Mentor: ………………………………… Russell Raymond, Born 1972, Generation X,
Ideal Work Environment: In-person
Mentorship Relationship Duration: ……….6 years
Industry Profession: ………………………………Building Enclosure Consulting
28 • IIBEC Interface December 2023
approach and deadlines, along with discussion
of the various options of building enclosure
concepts for similar conditions. While growth
was necessary, these challenges have been met
through capitalization of technology efficiencies.
CONCLUSION
Bridging the generational gap to achieve a
successful mentorship is no easy feat, but it is
possible because each generation has a common
thread of values. Instead of generalizing based
on characteristics and stereotypes, best practice
is to approach mentorship on an individual level
and establish a foundation of trust and respect.
Trust and respect open the door to growth when
combined with commitment, accountability, and
evaluation of results. Together, they produce
a positive feedback loop in which growth is
accelerated from the lessons learned. In the
safety of engaging within a positive feedback
loop, mentors and mentees can confidently
rise to challenges and grow personally and
professionally. The mentor/mentee relationship
is even more complicated in the hybrid work
environment, where there is less overlap of time
and place between individuals. Technology is
an essential tool to overcome the challenges
presented by the hybrid work environment.
It allows us to be in constant contact with our
colleagues and offers an opportunity for younger,
emerging professionals to provide reciprocal
mentoring. Despite technology bridging the
physical space between individuals, there are still
situations when in-person collaboration is more
productive than remote work. It is important
to evaluate each task or goal when deciding
the method of knowledge transfer, mentorship
needs, and the most efficient work environment.
The positive feedback loop is an effective
approach to mentoring and contributes to
growth. The success can be attributed to
commitment toward the approach, personal
values, and philosophies. Remember, as Kevin
would say to me, “Don’t only try to positively
influence the world around you. Be open to
the world around you—the people, places, and
cultures positively influencing you.”
REFERENCES
1. Lynda Gratton, “How to Do Hybrid Right,” Harvard
Business Review, May–June 2021, https://hbr.
org/2021/05/how-to-do-hybrid-right.
2. David P. Costanza, Jessica M. Badger, Rebecca
L. Fraser, Jamie B. Severt, and Paul A. Gade,
“Generational Differences in Work-Related
Attitudes: A Meta-analysis,” Journal of Business and
Psychology, no. 27 (2012): 375–394.
3. Michael Dimock, “Defining Generations: Where
Millennials End and Generation Z Begins,” Pew
Research Center, January 17, 2019.
4. Brené Brown, “The Power of Vulnerability,” filmed in
Houston, Texas, in June 2010, TEDxHouston video,
https://www.ted.com/talks/brene_brown_the_
power_of_vulnerability.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
NICHOLE THOMAS
Nichole Thomas is a
graduate of Prairie View
A&M University’s School
of Architecture. She has
experience working with
well-respected
architecture firms in the
Houston area and has
been involved in various
aspects of the design
and construction
process, including
drafting, specification writing, construction
administration, sustainability, and building
performance evaluation.
KEVIN PALMA, RWC,
LEED AP, BECxP,
CxA+BE
Kevin Palma, RWC,
LEED AP, BECxP,
CxA+BE
co-founded Seal
Building Enclosure LLC
in 2021 with 14 years of
experience in the
building enclosure
consulting, architecture,
and construction
industry. He has
provided building
enclosure consulting
and project management services for both new
and existing building projects throughout various
market sectors. His areas of technical expertise
include design review, detailing, assessment, and
construction administration of below-grade
waterproofing, air barriers, cladding, horizontal
deck waterproofing, glazed curtainwalls, glazed
storefronts, coatings, and roofing. Palma
graduated from Ohio State University with a
Bachelor of Science in architecture, and from the
University of Illinois with a Master of Architecture.
Please address reader comments to
chamaker@iibec.org, including
“Letter to Editor” in the subject line,
or IIBEC, IIBEC Interface,
434 Fayetteville St., Suite 2400,
Raleigh, NC 27601.
1/3 V EDITORIAL
AD REQUIRED
1119089_Editorial.indd 1 21/11/23 1:06 PM