Major factors that influence employment decisions of Generation X consulting engineers

The consulting engineering industry has been left at a significant disadvantage in recruiting and hiring Generation X engineers because they have not adapted their recruiting methods or management practices to meet the demands and expectations of young engineers. Meredith, Schewe, and Hiam (2002) have pointed out that the career search for Generation X is delineated by: (1) looking for opportunities, recognizing that they will not be with one company for life, and (2) motivation to increase job skills as they look ahead. A primary driver for career decisions of Generation X is the notion of a "portable career," recognizing that movement is necessary to enhance marketability and avoid stagnation (Lancaster and Stillman, 2002). Although Generation X has been examined in the literature, engineers as a subset of Generation X have not been a focus of concentrated research.

This research study was ultimately pursued to help engineering recruiters from small engineering consulting firms better grasp the unique challenges involved with young engineers and the employment decisions they make. The motivation for selecting and investigating the research problem stemmed from the primary researcher's experiences as a consulting engineer, as a manager of consulting engineers, and as a member of Generation X. The coupling of research, perspective, and experience were viewed as a tremendous potential to shed light in an area that is neither well understood nor appreciated.

The importance of setting a new course of research to create understanding of the recruiting phenomenon was especially important because so much of what had been written about improving recruiting for consulting firms had been based on the opinions of senior members of the consulting engineering profession. Age, technology, and cultural differences between generations were often ignored or assumed not to exist. Although the literature addresses Generation X in contrast to other generations (Lancaster and Stillman, 2002; Meredith, Schewe, and Hiam, 2002; Zemke Raines, and Filipczak, 2000), the isolation of consulting engineers has largely been untouched by more rigorous research. So much focus had been given to discussing the effects of the problem on the consulting engineering industry from antidotes, opinions, and speculations that few stopped to ask, "Who are these individuals we are trying to recruit, and why can we not appeal to them?"

The Research Question and Approach

The main question that was examined through the research study was: What characteristics, attributes, and experiences were the influencing factors for Generation X engineers in their decision to choose employment in the consulting engineering profession?

For the purposes of the research study, Generation X was defined as individuals born in the United States between 1964 and 1980. Prior to this study, we were unable to find any research that focused on the problem of recruiting consulting engineers as seen from the engineers' perspective. The study developed major themes through a qualitative research effort, and then through a sequential quantitative survey identified major factors that influenced the participating engineers in their employment decisions. The research provided an important first step in developing future investigations to generate theory concerning decisions of engineering professionals relating to career path choices.

This research approach included the following attributes:

* A rigorous approach to the analysis of data collected through interviews and a quantitative web-based survey;

* Use of Grounded Theory (Strass and Corbin, 1998) to guide the rigorous construction of themes and data analysis capable of being replicated;

* Targeting a sample group of Generation X engineers in the consulting engineering profession who had recently made their initial employment decision;

* Focus on producing themes to provide a foundation for drawing practice implications and guidance.

The research focused on members of Generation X who were employed as engineers by consulting engineering and consulting architectural/engineering firms in Lynchburg, Virginia (see Exhibit 1). The boundaries of the research were set to provide an in-depth investigation of a particular group of engineers within a confined geographic area; however, the research approach was specifically developed so that the findings could be plausibly applied to represent the larger population of Generation X consulting engineers throughout the United States.

The paradigm model used for the research was a two-phase mixed method dominant-less dominant design (Creswell, 1994), with the dominant qualitative phase occurring first, followed by a quantitative survey in the second phase to provide validation of the results from the qualitative inquiry. The qualitative portion of the study was intended to be an inquiry process used to build major themes. The goal for the quantitative phase of the study was to provide supporting data for the validity of these major themes.

The primary researcher's experience allowed him to have intimate firsthand knowledge of the research problem and its context. According to A. Kaplan (Miles and Huberman, 1994, p. 144), "Explanations are always open; they depend on certain conditions and are partial, approximate, indeterminate in application to specific cases, and typically limited to specific contexts." In the qualitative portion of the study, the research depended heavily upon and benefited from the researcher's firsthand knowledge of the consulting industry and of Generation X. The quantitative portion of the study was developed to limit bias and add credibility to the findings from the first phase of the study. In effect, a rigorous research approach provided a basis for more credible findings than those discovered in previous literature.

Research Findings

During the research, numerous conversations and interviews were used to gather data and to develop a holistic appreciation for the perspective of recruiting from Generation X consulting engineers. Exhibit 2 identifies a summary of the major themes that emerged from the research data. Following Exhibit 2, we expand discussion of the themes in detail with the Generation X participant comments provided in italics. The themes have been supported by the analysis of the research data (interviews, quantitative survey). These themes had a direct impact on participants' employment decisions to pursue/accept work in the engineering consulting profession.

Generation X Engineers' Sense of Identity within the Engineering Profession. The research data revealed that the participants had a strong sense of identity that resulted from being graduates of engineering programs. They were very willing to identify themselves according to the engineering stereotypes that society had created for them, and did not seem eager to redefine normal definitions of what being an engineer means. Unlike the standard cultural stereotype that young Americans demand individuality, the participants exhibited a comfort level with being associated with a larger set of the population (other engineers). The research was not able to reveal if this was because of the ease which participants could quickly assume a professional identity, or if this was a psychological feature stemming from a lack of experience and confidence in handling "real-world" situations. The desire to seek out existing stereotypical definitions for themselves was further exemplified by the participants strongly identifying themselves according to the university where they received their undergraduate engineering degree. In particular, this phenomenon included the idea that being an engineer made it acceptable, perhaps even preferable, for being skilled at analytical thinking such as mathematics and science while struggling with writing and literature. ("Your strength as an engineer is math and science and your weakness is in English. Engineering just matches your strength and weaknesses.") The researcher noted that if students desired to become engineers because of their math and science skills, then it would be natural that they would later expect an engineering job to entail those same math and science skills. ("I was always good at math and science. Someone told me to try engineering.") When the researcher asked if there were other reasons that the participants decided to study engineering, one of them stated, "When you are in high school, no."

The interviewees extended their stereotyping by grouping non-technical professions. The participants demonstrated a belief of arrogance that engineers were intellectually superior to those with liberal arts or business backgrounds, and they made disparaging remarks about non-engineers to intentionally stress the differences in individuals along stereotypical guidelines.

Job Selection Considerations Beyond Financial Compensation. Prior to graduation, each of the participants had preconceived notions of what an engineering job would be like. These included options such as engineering sales, manufacturing, and product design. Their images of employment were based on a combination of college curriculum, Dilbert(C) cartoons, internship employment experience, and photographs from brochures, among other things. While the participants had a unique set of wants, needs, and perspectives that led them to the consulting industry, they also, like everyone else, wanted to have a job that they looked forward to going to everyday.

The participants expressed a strong desire to work with and to work for individuals who had common technical backgrounds (i.e., electrical engineers wanted to work with and work for other electrical engineers). This desire seemed to be related to the strong identification that the participants had with being engineers. ("I don't want somebody who has no idea what I do telling me how to do my work.") They also felt it was highly desirable to work for a manager who could relate to them on a technical level. ("They've got your same major. They've got your same degree, things like that. That makes a big difference.") Also, working closely with a mentor who had a similar technical background was considered to be very positive. The participants expressed a negative reaction to the idea of working for or closely with individuals who had business, finance, or liberal arts backgrounds. This related strongly to the interviewees' negative comments about non-engineers. The participants' strong preference to work with individuals of similar technical background applied equally to both peers as it did to supervisors.

All the participants mentioned geography as a factor in their job search. This did not mean they would not work in a location outside a set of geographic limitations, only that they did not actively seek work outside of those limitations. The main reason for applying geographical limitations seemed to be primarily based on being close to family and friends.

The young engineers desired long-term employment and job security in a place where they could settle down for a few years and try to live like "normal adults." ("I wanted to go somewhere and know I was going to be there and settle down. I didn't want to be job hopping or moving." And "[Recent graduates] like to go somewhere where you can get your stuff out and throw your boxes away.") One participant mentioned the benefits that an employee receives for long-term employment. ("It's an investment of your life and your time. You work here five years, you accrue vacation. So, you want to go somewhere where you can meet those milestones, you know. If you leave then you've lost that four and a half years and you're starting over now on the seniority level.") The research noted that Generation X engineers viewed long-term employment as a period of time extending between two and five years.

Important in job selection was an availability of a variety of assignments in which to learn new skills. The participants were concerned about being constrained to a very specific range of activities that would hinder their learning and advancement. Additionally, they were concerned about becoming bored with doing the same thing every day. ("But I think that I am very much attracted to the variety (offered by consulting firms) because nothing is ever the same. It's always different. It's a challenge. I think it's better than sitting behind the desk designing the same thing for thirty years.") The desire for variety of assignments seemed to be a significant reason why the participants were excited to learn about opportunities in the consulting profession. ("That was kind of my conception about what engineering was ana then I interviewed with [engineers from a consulting firm] and I realized that there was a whole different world out there as far as engineering was concerned.") Prior to learning about the work that consulting engineers did, the participants assumed that engineering work was focused on a small and narrow set of assignments.

Although the participants were concerned about becoming bored with performing simple tasks, they were at the same time worried that their employer's expectations would be too high. ("It helps if the people you work for are realistic about your abilities. You come out of school and you are in consulting, let's face it, you can't do anything. Basically, you need to be spoon fed.") The interviewees expected some type of on-the-job training and time to learn about the workplace prior to becoming fully engaged in the work of the company. ("We assume that you are going to ease us into things. I knew that coming out of college that I wasn't going tobe able to specialize in what I did, not coming right out until I had some exposure to it.") The interviewees wanted to be mentored and be given projects with very high chances of success so that they could gradually learn engineering skills. The participants did not want to be placed immediately in a situation where they would be forced to deal with others face to face in business relationships, whether it be a traditional sales job or on a project basis. Young engineers expected to be given realistic challenges that were well suited to their skill level; in particular those that would help them develop fundamental skills used in the profession. Some of the participants indicated that, during the interview process, they came to believe that consulting was a profession in which they could hone their technical skills before being forced to interact directly with clients.

The participants expressed concern about how their first job would impact their future occupations. Despite their youth, in their selection process they considered the potential availability of future opportunities in particular specialized fields. This meant that they did not want to be limited when it came time to move on to other employers. They wanted to choose a distinct career path, rather than have an employer choose it for them. They also wanted to be in a position where they would someday be given opportunities for advancement into management as a line manager or a project manager. The participants had very strong desires to gain meaningful experience so they could be marketable in the future. ("If you aren't learning anything then you have to go where you can be taught, if you didn't learn at all before you got here.") While none of the participants accepted their first job with the idea that it would be short-term, they also knew it was very likely that they would have multiple employers throughout their careers.

Interview and Recruitment Experience. The participants spoke about the importance of the job interview experience. They felt it was important to be respected as an individual and not just another interviewee. When the interviewer was familiar with their resume and background and took the time to get to know the interviewee, the participants expressed a strong positive reaction. ("When I came here I was overwhelmed by how much attention they paid to the interviewee, which I hadn't seen anywhere else. I had interviewed at three or four other consulting firms and it was kind of quick, 'You're in the way, let's get you out of here so I can get back to work.'") The job seekers were turned off by interviewers who were unfamiliar with the seeker's resume and by those who treated the interview as a nuisance. ("If they interview you and treat you like a number, then that is pretty discouraging.")

The participants also evaluated how well the interviewer "sold" the company. They felt that if the interviewer was not excited about their job, the participants themselves would not be excited to work there. They expected the interviewer to be knowledgeable about the company as a whole, as well as the detailed nature of the job for which the participants were interviewing. The participants seemed to be able to create a comfort level by understanding the overall types of the work that the company did in addition to the specific job description itself.

Another element of the recruiting process that influenced job seekers was the physical nature of the on-site interview at the company's location. It was considered a positive influence if the setting looked like a place where professionals would work, and this included the behavior and interaction of the company's employees. This was related to the young engineers' desire to work in a "clean" office environment rather than in a factory setting. ("That is another side of consulting that I liked: coming to a clean environment and working and I felt like industry was dirty.")

Companies that performed on-campus interviews received considerably more attention than those companies that posted job openings only in newspapers or on the Internet. The students focused their job search toward on-campus interviewing, and the majority of efforts to learn about jobs or companies revolved around university-provided career planning. Students relied upon on-campus recruiting programs to help them find jobs, and only after that process was unsuccessful did they turn to other sources.

Personal Freedom, Privacy, and Work Hours. The participants expressed concern about the amount of personal freedom and individuality they would be able to maintain once they become employees. They expressed a general distrust of management personnel and the policies they might inflict upon the employees. This distrust seemed to stem from various sources of the media and popular myth, but no specific sources were cited. The concerns that were mentioned included monitoring of email and phone calls. They thought that time clocks were used primarily to keep track of employees ("Time clocks are there to work against you.") and were viewed as a tool for the benefit of management's control over the workforce. ("If you are not professional enough to keep track of your time, you shouldn't be working, period.")

The participants were very interested in making sure that they did not work too many hours. Part of this was because they did not want to be cheated by the company and because they had interests and hobbies that they wanted to pursue outside of work. ("You want to have time to do your own thing." And "After their senior year (of college) they don't want to work 60 hours a week.") They wanted to limit their time at work to 40-45 hours a week, with exceptions given for certain projects that would provide them with meaningful experience. ("It depends on your definition of overtime. An hour or two extra isn't really ....") The young engineers especially disliked the idea of working overtime that was a result of the company not hiring more employees or because it would make more money for the company's management. The participants were interested in having the free time to pursue their own interests and activities. They did indicate, however, that they would willingly work overtime on two conditions: one, if they were compensated for overtime through additional income or comp time, or two, if it would enhance their learning opportunities. ("I don't expect you to watch me to make sure I'm here for exactly 40, and I'm not going to watch the clock to make sure I don't run over 40 exactly. It might be a situation where we expect you to work some overtime and its not going to be compensated, but if it gets atrocious, like you're working 70 hours a week, then we might look at some sort of comp-time plan.")

Job Selection Considerations Beyond Financial Compensation. A surprising theme that was discussed concerned the willingness of the interviewees to seek out positions where they could learn skills that would help them long-term in lieu of pursuing short-term financial gratification. In fact, the participants viewed professional growth as being more important than salary, at least early in their careers. ("Well, of course you have to have enough [money] to support yourself, to live the way you want. After that, it's pretty much, "Where do I get the experience? Where do I get a variety of things to do? How can I grow?") Very few of the responses given during the interview were focused on achieving short-term wealth, promotions, or high-visibility positions. Discussions on salary indicated that starting salaries were important, but that the starting figures were tempered with expectations for future earnings. ("Salary is really a short-term thing. You look at potential for future salary.") The participants did not believe that there would be a strong correlation between starting salary and future salary, because they believed that companies would pay them substantially better as their experience and skills increased. ("I would rather go somewhere where I can get the experience to make myself marketable and worry later about the dollars.")

A potential bonus incentive plan was not considered to be an important reason to accept a job. The participants expected to be paid fairly for their effort, and thought that a bonus should be something extra. ("I think that a company should come out and pay their employees good money, I mean not outrageous, just good money so they can take their mind off of salary and actually doing the work and advancing.") The participants were only interested in considering an initial starting bonus if the starting salary was considered fair and appropriate. ("Salary would probably be prominent unless you were looking at different firms and the bonus was the make it or break it between them." And "I don't think you look at anywhere just for the signing bonus.") The participants were unwilling to consider accepting a smaller starting salary in order to get money up front as a bonus. In regard to the idea of starting salary and bonuses, the young engineers did have an understanding about the cost of living as it differed based on geography, population density, and urban versus rural living. Cost of living was considered to be a very important factor in how young engineers evaluated job offers.

Interest in Consulting Engineering as a Profession. What seemed to generate the most interest in graduating students toward consulting engineering was the potential for assignment to a diversity and variety of projects. They liked the idea of working on multiple projects that have relatively short life spans because it increased the number of opportunities for them to learn new skills. The opportunity to be challenged in different areas was considered a good way for them to learn a large set of job skills while preventing them from getting bored with their jobs. ("That is what appealed to me, too. Diversity mainly.")

The participants were intrigued by consulting (after they learned about it during the interview) because the profession gave young engineers the opportunity to work for a few years before making decisions to specialize in design, sales, or management. The participants did not feel that other job opportunities offered the same type of future choices for career specialization. They made this determination either during the interview (as they learned about the consulting profession) or came upon this realization after they were employed as consulting engineers. The young engineers felt that a generalized learning experience on their first job would allow them to make better decisions on their career as they pertained to their own unique set of job skills and interests.

The participants found it favorable that there were a large number of consulting firms in various locations across the country. ("If you work in consulting you can go work anywhere that you want.") Even though the participants used geographical parameters during the search for their first job, their belief that they could find future employment in many diverse locations was important. Some of the interviewees noted that initial jobs in which they were interested seemed less appealing after the interviewees considered how the limited number of employment opportunities might negatively impact their ability to find future employment.

Implications and Guidance for Engineering Managers

The themes that emerged from this research are just a small part of the puzzle concerning Generation X employees. The themes cover a wide range of considerations, including geography, salary, mentoring, diversity and variety of work projects, access to recreational activities, and workplace environment. There is no simple equation that can be developed to reduce the findings into a neat, easily understandable explanation of employment decisions; however, there are several implications for engineering managers concerning the recruitment and retention of engineering talent from Generation X. Members of Generation X have a unique set of wants and needs that have to be addressed by employers if recruiting is to be successful for a limited talent pool. It would be a mistake to assume that there is a strong correlation between the behavior and attitudes of previous generations and that of Generation X (Meredith, Schewe, and Hiam, 2002; Lancaster and Stillman, 2002; Zemke, Raines, and Filipczak, 2000). It is, therefore, imperative that this generation be understood if effectiveness in recruitment and retention are to be realized. Exhibit 3 provides a summary of the important implications for practice suggested from the results of the study.

One of the most important pieces of knowledge gained from the study was that salary was not the most important influence on members of Generation X. They have a high degree of understanding of quality of life that differs significantly from previous generations. They have no desire to climb on the corporate ladder and to wait their turn in line; instead, they demand constant learning experiences that will develop their skills sets. Where previous generations measured job security by longevity, members of Generation X measure it by the quantity and quality of skills they possess. Not only do they believe employers should provide fair financial compensation, but they also expect mentoring, training, and career growth opportunities. This is consistent with what has been cited in previous literature on Generation X (Lancaster and Stillman, 2002; Meredith, Schewe, and Hiam, 2002; Zemke Raines, and Filipczak, 2000).

It might be assumed that management systems within many consulting firms are being driven toward achieving external client satisfaction while maximizing profits (this is, after all, the mainstay of service companies); instead, they often deal with how to handle workloads with a labor pool that in many ways lacks the skill set required to meet industry standards, building codes, and client demands for modern building systems. These problems have largely come about from the difficulty that engineering firms have had in attracting talented young engineers.

By developing a deeper understanding of the perceptions of young people, the industry can begin to modify itself to become more attractive to young talent-talent that can use computer and technical skills in work processes that will provide for more elegant and technically superior solutions to design problems. Additionally, by differentiating the ability of young people to casually deal with rapid technological changes and their ability to analyze large amounts of information, new management systems can alter the work processes themselves to better suit Generation X employees to ultimately provide increased client satisfaction and greater profitability. Business leaders and executives commonly cite attracting and retaining talented employees as their top priority. The depletion of talent in consulting engineering firms puts the industry at risk in terms of providing services in the larger construction industry. This has forced management systems within consulting firms to streamline work processes by overly simplifying problem-solving techniques, reducing technical solutions, and relaxing quality standards in order to meet the demands of the construction boom of the past decade. Recruiting and retaining young engineering talent will be critical for the future success of engineering consulting firms.

Research data and personal experiences provide supporting evidence for the difficulty consulting firms are facing in recruiting young engineers; however, most of the emphasis on improving recruiting efforts have been inward-looking ideas that fail to consider the reasons why young engineers do or do not choose to enter into the consulting profession. Many suggestions found in industry trade publications appear to be based on intuition, opinion, or guesswork, and authors rarely present real evidence that they have successfully figured out how to attract and hire young talent into the consulting engineering profession.

The literature references cited in the study showed that recruiting is the biggest problem in the profession. Let us ask, "Does the biggest problem get the most attention and the best resources in order to be solved?" Is the answer, unfortunately, that managers view it as somebody else's challenge to overcome? If there is only one practical significance of the study, it will be to cause managers and executives to take notice that the problem may be nothing more than the recruiters' lack of understanding of and attention to what young engineers want in a job.

The study showed that young engineers have a multitude of desires and expectations they bring along with them to the job search. Whoever presents the best match of opportunities to meet these desires and expectations obviously has the best chance of hiring these individuals. If the candidate is unaware of the consulting profession's opportunities, then the likelihood of hiring the candidate is remote.

The study showed that having interesting work, learning experiences, diversity of assignments, career growth, and having a mentor were important factors in addition to salary and geographic location. Salary and geographic locations are not easy to change, but the other factors could be controlled variables if management systems were modified to make them a priority in their recruiting efforts, the processes of work flow in the organization, and as part of the performance review of employees (especially younger engineers, but mentors as well). Making these kinds of changes would allow consulting firms to make reasonable promises to candidates and then actually follow through on them.

Consulting firms must first consider what is important to candidates before modifying their recruiting message. When seeking a new client, doesn't a firm consider what a client is looking for? Shouldn't the same hold true for recruiting candidates? After firms understand the marketplace (hiring young engineers), they should then consider what they have to offer to meet the desires and expectations of candidates. In addition, they should communicate their strengths in light of the Generation X expectations.

We have identified four specific areas that can be targeted by practitioners to increase the probability of success in recruiting younger engineers. These areas include:

* Marketing material: brochures, on-campus advertisements, Internet, newspapers;

* Intern engineers: ask what they desire and expect;

* On-campus interview: literature, opening and closing interview dialogue;

* Office interview: create a positive professional experience for candidates.

Marketing Material. Assume that the Generation X engineering audience knows nothing about what consulting firms do for clients. Firms must consider the reader's response to the organization's presentation of itself. Marketing is not simply bragging or creating a perception of what a company wishes it could be, and Generation Xers will know the difference (Meredith, Schewe, and Hiam, 2002). Companies should try to communicate a meaningful message to candidates that relates to their wants and needs, not those of the company. Firms must show they are a place where candidates will want to work. Marketing is not as simple as making the information available; it is about communicating a message to a particular audience. Generation Xers are consumer savvy and despise over-hyped ad campaigns that use modern cliches such as "opportunity," "creative companies," and "dynamic work environments." They've already heard it. They want specific information about jobs and projects, salary, and perks (Canon, 1991; Lancaster and Stillman, 2002; Meredith, Schewe, and Hiam, 2002; Zemke, Raines, and Filipczak, 2000). These are definitively difficult to provide with a marketing effort, but giving at least some of these details will help catch the eye of marketing targets. Also, members of Generation X strongly desire a place where they can maintain their own unique identity and not get lost in a large company. They would likely take notice of companies whose marketing efforts stressed that employees remained unique individuals.

As was discovered during the research, those students enrolled in engineering disciplines with strong ties to the manufacturing industries (such as mechanical and electrical engineering) were less likely than civil or structural engineers to have knowledge about the consulting industry. If you are trying to recruit engineers from these backgrounds, be prepared to explain what consulting engineering entails.

Internship. If a consulting firm hires intern engineers, it should listen to them about what they want as full-time employees. They should consider whether or not the intern anticipates that his or her full-time employment would fulfill some or all of his or her desires and needs. Company representatives should ask what the intern is looking for in a full-time job and work with them to put a program in place that will make the candidate look forward to working at the firm as a full-time engineer. If the organization is hoping to make the intern an offer for full-time employment, it should already be dealing with what the candidate expects as a full-time employee. Training, diverse assignments, and mentoring cannot be postponed until the intern is hired; the company must put forth the effort prior to the interview if it expects to have the candidate's interest. Organizations cannot operate with the expectation that interns will consider their part-time employers as the top choice for full-time employment. That is not how Generation Xers think. They will use internship as a training ground to move on to another company that will treat them better unless given a reason not to leave.

The research revealed that intern employees do not have a strong sense of loyalty about returning as a full-time employee. You can almost guarantee that graduating students will explore the job market, regardless of whether or not they believe their intern employer will make them an offer for full-time employment. Members of Generation X consider long-term employment to be in the range of two to five years; your intern may have already worked a substantial part of the time they want to at your company. Talk to your interns about this long before graduation, or you may find that before you can even make an offer, they have accepted a job elsewhere. Treat interns like regular employees: find out what motivates them and what the company must do to retain them.

On-campus Interviews. When a firm has a chance to get a face-to-face meeting with a candidate, the firm should remember that they are selling as much as they are buying. While a company is evaluating the candidate, the candidate is evaluating the company. This is the ideal time to find out what the candidate wants and expects. Ask questions. Listen. Take notes for future interviews. Find out what their interests are and what classes they enjoyed. Talk with the candidate about those interests and see how they relate to what your company offers. When candidates' desires become clear, recruiters can begin to advertise what a company has to offer that will fulfill those desires. Mention interesting projects you have done, or better, talk about the ones you are currently working on and the ones they might get to work on if they are hired. Generation Xers want a variety of interesting projects that are exciting as well as entertaining. Many (if not all) interviewees will interview with multiple companies. Is the company trying to be like everyone else or trying to be different? Knowing the factors that influence employment decisions of young engineers should allow recruiters to prepare discussions for what younger engineers will want and expect in an employer.

Office Interviews. Before the candidate shows up, they should be sent as much information about the company as possible. Make them feel that they know what your organization is about. When candidates come to visit, have your notes ready. Have multiple individuals talk about the benefits of your company that will interest the young engineer. This includes paying attention to the candidate, putting forth a professional appearance, and being prepared to discuss the candidate's experiences (be familiar with their resume). Introduce them to potential peers and managers who have similar backgrounds and experiences. Let them meet their potential future boss so the recruit can begin to build a relationship. Let the future supervisor talk about his or her expertise so the recruit can anticipate how much he or she could learn. Generation Xers want to work in modern, flexible environments. They will not want to use eight-year-old computers or drafting tables. Put those away. Show them your most up-to-date equipment and how you incorporate technology into your design efforts, especially computer hardware and software.

Consulting engineering firms have already realized they are a buyer in a seller's market. Consulting firms must compete against one another as well as other industries when it comes to attracting engineering talent. Consulting firms have a lot to offer potential employees, and by using the findings in this study, they will be able to capitalize on the advantages that consulting engineering firms have to offer to Generation X engineers.

Conclusions

Generation X employees will dominate the change in how business is performed in the next 20 years. This research begins to explain how the mindset of the Generation X employees differ from previous generations and how organizations must rethink their recruiting and management strategies to encompass the wants and needs of the individuals they so dearly desire to employ.

The approach used in this research was developed to deal with the particular issues regarding Generation X employees. There is no doubt that the employment decisions of Generation X employees are significantly different (and more demanding) than those of the previous Baby Boom Generation who will soon be retiring from the workforce. As was determined by the review of past literature on recruiting of Generation X, there is a tremendous amount of work that must be done before organizations fully understand and appreciate the unique set of skills, ambitions, and interests of members of Generation X (Lancaster and Stillman, 2002; Meredith, Schewe, and Hiam, 2002; Zemke, Raines, and Filipczak, 2000).

The themes developed during the research effort will be useful to both academic and practical based research that tries to better understand the engineer as a candidate for employment. Although this research was focused on a narrow area of geography, age, and academic background in order to sufficiently ensure a rigorous study, we might speculate extending the results to the wider population of Generation X engineers.

This research was developed with the primary goal of providing data to the consulting engineering industry that would benefit its recruiting efforts. It has been well established that the recruiting (and retaining) of skilled employees is the single greatest challenge facing the consulting engineering industry. Until the consulting engineering industry is shown actual evidence that will help to modify recruiting and management processes, bias and misunderstanding will dominate the thinking that goes into how consulting firms recruit, hire, and manage their young engineers. This study and the resulting implications for practice provide an important step for enhancing effectiveness in recruiting and retention of Generation X engineers.