I was happy to see that the person who had started the conversation on the listserver that I mentioned yesterday did respond to the points I made. Turns out he agrees with much of what I said (I was also objecting to a different post from someone else who discounted the “science” behind the topic). Here’s where we disagreed.
I said that the big picture work on generational differences helps me think more clearly and have more productive conversations with people who are differently than me. He disagreed:
Here we can agree to differ I think. I find labels as both an obstacle to, and enabler of, discourse. By using labels, or jargon, we provide a short hand for talking about the same issue. That has a huge benefit, and it’s the reason why we label things. Used properly, labels make conversation possible.
On the other hand, if we’re merely using the same ‘term’, but have different understandings of what it means – then we have a problem.
Even worse, is when someone uses a term with no clue what the word means….
My belief is this, that the current batch of generational terms are short circuiting any real thinking about how we deal with those younger than ourselves.
I wouldn’t blame the terms, I’d blame lack of discipline of thought and poor communication skills. I agree it is a challenge when we don’t define the terms or define them differently. Jeff and I discover this over and over again in our discussions about the failures of strategic planning.
But I don’t think the solution is to jettison the whole discussion because the terms are being used differently. If “real thinking” about this topic is not happening, I just don’t think it’s the fault of the terms. Our responsibility is to continue to push through to clarity. We may never reach perfect clarity, but I think we need to keep pushing.
I think that part of the problem we face with generational terms right now is that many people use them as enablers of the “stories” that we tell ourselves about other people. (I’m stealing the concept of “stories” from a really good article coming up in the November issue of Associations Now …) Someone has a negative experience or two with a Gen Xer, Millennial, or Boomer. Because humans naturally seek patterns in their experiences, she sees a pattern: I’ve had multiple negative experiences with people of this generation; all people in this generation must have this negative quality.
The problem with the generational terms is that they give people who believe in those stories research to back themselves up. I was right that all people in this generation have X negative quality! It says so, right here in this article! (I don’t mean to imply there isn’t value in the generational research, by the way, because there clearly is a lot of value there.)
I don’t think most people consciously think and apply generational stereotypes when dealing with individuals. But subconsciously, those stereotypes can be a big influence on the “stories” or patterns we’re applying. And once a pattern is set in your mind, it can become harder and harder to see information that doesn’t conform to that pattern.
Which all circles back to what you say in your post, Jamie: “Our responsibility is to continue to push through to clarity.” If we find ourselves falling into patterns of thought about particular generations, we have to consciously work to break up those patterns.
How do you view the generational terms as different from jargon? I’m drawn back to a post you did a few months ago about poet David Whyte. Isn’t this a topic that deserves
“larger language” that is “impervious to the jargon we have created to describe” everyday business life.
Am I missing context?
I agree with you Jamie. Generational differences are separate from generational stereotypes. Across all industries, vast marketing, consumer polling and focus group dollars are spent observing the buying, learning and communications habits/preferences of different generations; and associations shouldn’t be ignoring that reality. For example, if a “generation” of members primarily uses text messaging in personal and business communications, associations may want to see how to incorporate their legislative advocacy and marketing messages that way too. Purpose – to increase effectiveness by recognizing and adapting to differences.