I am off to give a keynote speech about generational diversity this morning to folks at a federal government agency. So obviously I’ve been rehearsing my talk, editing my slides, etc. But it has been hard because I have been distracted by an interesting yet disturbing conversation I’ve seen on a listserver that I follow regularly. Those of you in the association world probably know what I’m talking about—on a listserve of association executives, someone made a fairly simple request: he asked people to write down the top three things (positive or negative) they notice about “younger workers” in the workplace. He specifically asked for what they observed, rather than what they heard.

The responses started rolling in, many like these:

1) they don’t relate to the same history I do; none of them remember the Cold War, Watergate, or growing up with the fear of nuclear annihilation

2) they are supposed to be really good at using technology, but I don’t meet many who can do more than instant message and download music

3) they have an attitude that they are "owed something" and don’t have to work hard.

1) They don’t know of the concept of "paying dues" in their professions.

2) They have no concept of what is an acceptable way to dress for work

3) If the fax machine and their computers were to go "kaput" they’d be lost as to accomplish their tasks.

I get so frustrated by responses like these. Now, the original requester asked for people’s observations, so it is quite possible that these descriptions completely fit the five or six people that these two responders have observed.

But that’s not how it comes across. It comes across as “they” are a problem. It feeds the stereotypes.

I posted a response that made that point—and got no response (except one personal email, and Maddie’s blog post).

The next day, the person who started the conversation upped the ante a bit. He wrote:

The more I read about ‘Generational Differences’ – especially the
different labels we attach to those born in different – and when you
think of it – incredibly narrow time periods – the more it’s all
beginning to sound like Demographical Astrology than anything else.
In short. Nonsense.

He then goes on to provide quotes from the past several thousand years that repeat the “kids these days” theme. He finishes with this point:

This notion of lumping whole swaths of people into ill-defined
categories by year of birth is abhorrent. Nor is it that useful.
Regardless of the label attached to you, as a good manager, I must –
if I’m to succeed – manage you as an individual.

So I felt compelled to post another response (which I assume will be ignored again) that points to the large volume of historical research on generations and clarifies the difference between life stage issues (which are real—the “kids these days” syndrome) and generational issues (which are very different, but also real).

But out of all of this, the piece that is sticking out the most right now is the notion that this person mentioned at the very end—that to succeed as a good manager, I must manage you as an individual.

I agree. I certainly wouldn’t want you to manage me as…a group. And I always make the point (as I will in my talk this morning) that the individuals in your workplace may exhibit tendencies that reflect their generation—but of course they may not! So stereotyping is bad.

But don’t remove my generational identity from me when you are treating me as that “individual.” Don’t remove any part of my identity, for that matter. Don’t tell me what influenced me, what created me, or what shaped my values (or what didn’t). Feel free to ask me questions about all this. Be prepared to hear answers that sometimes line up with what generational authors talk about, and to hear answers that don’t.

You have a choice. You can discard what is written about generations while you ask me those questions, or you can have that information in the back of your mind. Which do you think will help you in understanding my (individual!) answers?