Less generational thinking, more appreciation for age differences

Workforces in Western countries are getting older and more age-diverse. This, in combination with rapid digital transformation, often leads to generational thinking - often critical and frequently undifferentiated. And thinking leads to talking, and talking to acting. In today's society and media, almost everyone talks about their experience with people from other generations. What we and organizations tend to ignore is that this has negative effects on communication, team cohesion, etc. and eventually performance. Even if organizations want to consciously address the 'generation gap'.

We got the opportunity to talk about this issue with BlueSky Thinking for their Podcast ‘Digestible Academia’, which is available on Apple Podcast, Spotify, and amazon music. Kerry and Chloë, who I had the pleasure with, also published two posts about it: Gen Z Vs Millennials – Is Thinking In Terms of Generations Problematic?  and How Can We Encourage Intergenerational Collaboration?. The following is a brief (well...) outline of the conversation.

Why we should stop talking about generations: First, we need to understand where ‘generational thinking’ (i.e., comparing people of different ages) is coming from. Two main theories from the Fifties and Seventies have shaped our understanding. The 'Generational Cohort Theory' (Mannheim, 1952) explains differences in values and behaviors between people that are born at different times, shaped by historical events of their time. And the 'Social Identity Theory' (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) illustrates how people form their identity as being part of a group (or not).  For sure these theories have helped us to appreciate that people are different (in this case, based on what generation someone belongs to). Not necessarily!

It’s good that we have tools at hand that simplify our people management (e.g., older people are more likely to have physical impairments that come with age). And the very same tools lead to stereotyping, biases, exclusion (e.g., baby boomers struggle more with technology, or Gen X are less happy to change at the workplace, or Gen Z are lazy, etc.). Why is this? A social identity can be very closely linked to social categorization. As explained by the 'Social Categorization Theory' (Taijfel & Turner, 2004), we separate people into groups that are based on visible characteristics. As we see someone, we categorize this person based on his/her gender, skin color, clothes or age. Regardless of their true individuality.

In addition to other studies, there is a solid meta-analysis on this by Martin Schröder (2023). In summary, generations are a myth rather than a measurable fact. Traditionally, the statement is, that there are generations, meaning that you can explain people's attitudes by their year of birth. Regardless of how old they are (that would not be a generation effect, but an age effect) and when you ask them (that would also not be a generation effect, but a period effect). However, if these age and period effects are taken into account, hardly any generational effects remain. So you can explain people's attitudes by their age and you can explain people's attitudes by when they were interviewed. But you can hardly explain people's attitudes by their year of birth as a generational categorization. And in this respect, there are no generations. For more details, follow Martin’s great website.

Here is an example to illustrate this. There has never been so much part-time work in Western countries. There are various reasons for this (e.g. there are more women in the labor market than before), but the 'lazy' Generation Z is not one of them. Yes, it is true that young people today are making more conscious decisions about their work-life balance. But it is also true that never before in history, so many employees have worked part-time before retirement than today. In other words, what we are seeing here is a period effect. Instead of comparing different generations, we should compare today with yesterday.

Why age differences should be appreciated: What we tend to ignore with a ‘generational view’ (or at least that’s how we follow the public discourse), is that age diversity, as all sorts of diversity, can have substantial benefits. Yes, we are aware that diversity can also have negative aspects. And that we as a society and employers struggle to find good solutions when it comes to diversity and inclusion. Here we would like to highlight some challenges that are worth understanding better, in order to do justice to an age-diverse workforce.

• Communication styles: Communication styles are likely to be different. Some may prefer formal communication (e.g. ,emails, meetings), while others lean towards instant messaging and collaborative platforms, or face-to-face interactions. Based on different exposure to digital technologies throughout their life, younger workers can be expected to be more fluent with all the different channel available. Based on motivational and cognitive differences, older employees are likely to prefer meaningful interactions, compared to transactional ones. Such an understanding can be important in terms of communication, how age-appropriate feedback is given or how meetings are structured.

• Technological proficiency gaps: Same goes with technological skills. From research, we know that the experience with the technology is more important than the age of the user. In other words, experience erases age-differences. Younger people tend to have more general experience with technology and are 'braver' in their use. As a result, older employees are likely to have more difficulties if they lack experience with certain digital tools. But not per se because they are old.

• Leadership expectations: People of different ages have similar needs for fulfillment (e.g., relatedness / belonging, competencies / agency, autonomy) overall. Leadership behaviors that supports these (and other) needs are important, regardless of age. In other words, a lot of what is suitable for one age-group (e.g., creating a workplace that allows for autonomy, peer support, etc.) is ideal for many age-groups. Given that there are motivational differences across the lifespan, some employees may expect participative leadership, while others may prefer top-down approaches. But by the way… this is also different for teams that are newly build compared to teams that are established in their collaboration. Regardless of age.

These are just a few examples of how age differences can be appreciated in organizations, without falling into the generational trap. Because already Aristote said “they think they know everything, and are always quite sure about it” when talking about the younger generation. There are similar quotes from every century, which shows in a fun way that we struggle probably not the first time in human history to understand each other.