The Generation Myth

How to Improve Intergenerational Relationships in the Workplace

Michael J. Urick

• Publisher: Business Expert Press
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781949991123
• Topic: Negocios y empresa
• Subtopic: Gestión de recursos humanos

Many assumed characteristics of generational groupings are actually "myths, " meaning that generational stereotypes are not accurate across all members of a generation.

This book explores the Generation Myth by highlighting the complexity of the "generation" concept beyond simple age-based groupings and suggests that the over reliance of generational stereotypes in workplaces and society can lead to less than optimal interactions and even conflict.

Several successful strategies are presented throughout to help improve intergenerational relationships.

CHAPTER 1

A History of Uncertainty

When U.S. Senator John McCain passed away in 2018, his one-time political opponent, former president Barack Obama, began a written statement by stating “John McCain and I were members of different generations, came from completely different backgrounds, and competed at the highest level of politics. But we shared, for all our differences, a fidelity to something higher…” (Pennell 2018). This statement illustrates just how pervasive the idea of generational differences has become. President Obama could have opened his statements by listing a number of differences between himself and Senator McCain including, most notably, their differences in political ideology. But, seemingly, their differences in generation were more salient in how President Obama differentiated himself from the late senator. Such a salience possessed by an individual who has held the highest elected office in the United States is mirrored throughout our society.

As an informed society, we presume that we know a lot about generations; yet much of what was known from past theorists has been forgotten. This chapter begins with a reintroduction of how generations were discussed decades ago from a sociological perspective and then suggests that the original complexity of intergenerational phenomena has been overly simplified with time; hence, the need to further examine the “generation myth.”

Mannheim’s Perspective

Karl Mannheim’s work has been extremely influential in the field of sociology (Pilcher 1994). Though many of his influential works were written in the 1920s, most were not widely published until after his death in 1947. According to Mannheim (1970), a generation is an illusion whereby an “identity of location, embracing related ‘age groups’ in a historical-social process,” creates a “gestalt” (Mannheim 1970, p. 382). I take “gestalt” to mean “oneness.” Individuals and society might perceive oneness within a generation and believe that the collective characteristics of a generation apply to all individuals who they perceive to be members of a particular grouping. This definition of generation emphasizes a common location in terms of an historic time period, as well as having a collective consciousness (whereby generational members share similar understandings and interpretations of the world around them—more on this concept later in this book; Joshi, Dencker, and Franz 2011). However, it also suggests that generations are not strongly defined. In fact, Mannheim refers to them as “illusions,” and perhaps this is an acknowledgment of the variations within a generation that are likely to exist.

Other sociologists were influenced by Mannheim’s initial concept and support his definition in their research. For instance, sociologist Dr. Jane Pilcher (Pilcher 1994) states that the term “generation” is used for making sense of the differences that exist between members of various age groupings and, along with professors June Edmunds and Bryan Turner (Edmunds and Turner 2002), notes that cultural change is reflexively created and reinforced through such groupings. From this perspective, thought leaders help to provide a generation with its own unique philosophy, which ultimately leads to changes within society as the ideals and philosophies of prior generations lose sway. Such societal changes can thereby reinforce individuals’ concepts of themselves as members of a particular generation. In other words, some individuals who identify with a particular thought leader, her or his values, and the cultural shifts seemingly brought about by this person (or persons) are likely to consider themselves to be part of a particular generational group.

However, it is possible that not all people of a same certain age define themselves by the same generational label. Though useful, Edmunds’ and Turner’s view (Edmunds and Turner 2002), which explains how a concept of generation is reinforced, does not consider whether (or how) some individuals associate with a generation if they disagree with or are unaware of the ideals that are stated by the generation’s thought leaders.

Not identifying with a generation makes sense when considering Mannheim’s initial theory. Though it is labeled a gestalt and Mannheim suggests that generations possess a collective consciousness, he also alludes to the fact that individuals of particular age groups (i.e., generations) also show great uniqueness. Therefore, individual traits are often overlooked due to the illusion of oneness within a generation.

Oversimplifying “Generation”

The popular discourse on generations serves to conceal the fact that much extant research (at least within the realm of scholarly business research) has not examined generational phenomena under the guidance of a clear and distinct “generation concept.” That is, the way that researchers have defined a “generation” has varied over time and between researchers. Though attempts have been made to clarify and better define what the concept of generation represents (see Joshi, Dencker, and Franz 2011 for example [and more on their approach in the next chapter]), most business research falls back on examining the differences between age cohorts in the workplace. Unfortunately, this approach is often taken by popular press publications and common daily conversations that surround the topic of generational phenomena, including President Obama’s statement at the beginning of this chapter. It is quite possible, though, that “generation” is a more nuanced and distinct concept, as Mannheim hints. A purely age-based concept is clearly not what he suggests in his references to time and location, as well as the perceptions of a “gestalt” (i.e., considering the illusion of oneness or sameness) among members of a generation.

Pilcher (1994) states that Mannheim’s initial concept has been so overly simplified that the idea of “generation” is now cloudy and ambiguous. When concepts become too simplified, their usefulness diminishes. Cloudiness in generational understandings has significant implications for researchers and, perhaps even more importantly, for both the workplace and society. On the research side, researchers who study “generations” could actually be studying different phenomena, though they may be labeling them similarly. For example, one researcher might use the term “generation” to analyze differences between members of particular age groupings, while another researcher might use the term to describe a group of employees who were hired into an organization at the same time (i.e., a generation of employees to enter an organization), and a third researcher might use the term to describe how people within a family relate to each other (i.e., lineage). All of these potential meanings of “generation” are noted by organizational researcher Aparna Joshi and her colleagues (Joshi, Dencker, and Franz 2011; Joshi, Dencker, et al. 2017) and have been leveraged by scholarly researchers (albeit some more than others), but only the first (i.e., a strictly age-based approach) has been, as of yet, widely used in the popular press.

This approach is problematic because the ultimate role of academic research is to inform the public about important phenomena from a scientific perspective. If academics cannot agree on, or at least clearly specify, what a generation is, it is unlikely that public knowledge (which should be influenced by academic research) will also have a concrete grasp on the concept of “generation.” Similarly, if an academic’s definition is unique from the common societal understanding of “generation,” that person’s research results might not be well received by a nonacademic audience.

The cloudiness of the term “generation” is problematic, not just for researchers and academics, but also for business people in the workplace and for society as a whole. Employees who must attend training related to generational differences might not have the same understanding of a generation as fellow participants. In a sense, this could lead to training attendees speaking a different language from the training facilitator. The same issue might occur when individuals read publications on generations without the same definition as the one that the author assumes. In both cases, having a number of competing meanings for the term “generation” weakens the usefulness of the term and the phenomena that it represents. Even more troubling, the overuse of differences and stereotypes to describe somewhat arbitrary age-based groupings to discuss generations (as has been done often in popular discourse) can create an abundance of problems. Some of these problems are discussed in the next section and later in this book.

Use in the Discourse of Popular Culture

The term “generational differences” has become buzzworthy within the United States and throughout the world, as interest at a superficial level on generational phenomena has seemingly continued to rise. Improving the quality of intergenerational interactions at work is so important that many organizations feel the need to offer employee training in this area (Society for Human Resource Management 2005). Many practitioner-oriented publications have focused on the issues of generations in workplace contexts. One example of an important issue that has arisen is that, as older employees continue to work longer instead of retiring and younger employees join the workforce (and are sometimes expected to quickly assume leadership or decision-making roles), members of various generations need to communicate and function effectively together (Zemke 2001). A quick search through a bookstore or Amazon.com on mainstream popular publications related to generational differences, especially those directed toward working professionals, shows evidence that generational concerns are a significant issue.

When reading through the titles of these books and other articles on generational differences, I’m often struck at how many refer to conflict or views that members of particular generational categories behave problematically in some way. Note that many of them set up an “us versus them” conflict or power struggles to influence us to expect generational differences when we encounter someone from another generation. Some of the most extreme cases include titles that reference “age rage” or note that members of younger generations are “strangers.” Most of these titles focus on assumed differences that have not been academically confirmed. In essence, we are spreading lies or half-truths and setting up our culture to assume that intergenerational conflict is inevitable. Some stereotypes that I have heard of, though that are not necessarily “proven” by academia, seem to stress the differences between groupings, as shown in Table 1.1. Note that the purpose of providing such a chart is not to show my own agreement with these descriptors, but to merely show the ways in which generations have been popularly discussed. Also, while I include birth years from the cited references, these may vary depending on if you read a different reference.

Table 1.1 Popular stereotypes of generational groupings

Generation label and approximate birth years	Typical descriptors
Veterans/silents/traditionalists/mature (1922–1943)	Respectful of authority; work is an obligation; likes structure; follows rules; respects experience; distrust in technology; nonforward thinking
Baby Boomers (1943–1960)	Focused on career; self-absorbed; unchanging; conservative
Generation X (1960–1980)	Disrespectful of leadership; independent; the forgotten generation; careers are an irritant
Millennials/Generation Y (1980–2000)	Demanding of respect; comfortable with change; technology-focused; creative; entitled
Generation Z/Makers (born after 2000)	Entirely dependent on technology; prefers security and...