The generation gap: more myth than reality.

Policy makers and journalists in this country frequently comment that an aging society may bring with it a growing age polarization, as the young are asked to make sacrifices for a rapidly growing population of elderly citizens. The issue is often posed in terms of generational conflict, reminiscent

According to generational consultants, today's conflict often will occur in the workplace, where, for the first time in our history, we have four diverse generations being asked to work together. Now, unlike in the 1960s, the conflicts may be more myth than reality, as a growing body of independent research and expert opinion shows that concerns about a generation gap have been overstated and, surprisingly, the theory behind it has some gaps in logic that raise serious questions about its value. This article reviews that work to provide perspective on an issue that seldom receives balanced coverage and to make a case that challenges the importance of the generational gap as an HR issue.

Consultants expect generational conflicts in today's workplace, where, for the first time in our history, four diverse generations are being asked to work together. HR professionals who devote resources to this issue risk shortchanging efforts to deal with the radical and unstoppable changes in the workforce for which few employers are fully prepared. According to some experts, our workforce is becoming smaller and less sufficiently skilled, increasingly global, highly virtual, autonomous and empowered, and vastly diverse (Hewitt Associates, 2005).

Generational Premise

The "generational" school of thought maintains that values are imprinted for life by defining historical events that occur as people mature into adulthood. For example, the generation that grew up during the Great Depression is said to be particularly thrifty because its members experienced hard economic times. Because of the power and influence of these shared events, each generation develops a unique set of beliefs and attitudes to guide its members' behavior.

Generational advocates typically place people, by birth date, into one of four generations, each with an assigned peer personality, as shown in one well-known typology (Strauss & Howe, 1991):

1. Silent (1925 to 1942): Adaptive

2. Baby Boomer (1943-1960): Idealist

3. Generation X (1961-1981): Reactive

4. Generation Y or Millennials (1982-Present): Civic

Research and expert opinion do not fully support the generational premise. For example, two Duke University sociologists have found that the three assumptions behind the premise are not always supported by a body of research (Hughes & O'Rand, 2005):

1. Research supports the assumption that people are particularly impressionable early in life.

2. Research shows that some core personality characteristics are set for life, but also that people change their beliefs and attitudes based on later life experiences.

3. Research does not support the assumption that all members of a generation experience the same early events in the same way, as race, ethnicity, gender, and social class also color our life experiences.

Generational advocate Claire Raines admits this weakness, in stating that such factors are "every bit as important, probably more important, than generational differences in shaping our perspectives" (Raines, 2005).

Following are other findings concerning the generation premise:

1. When a noted sociologist questioned the importance of generational analysis for understanding social change in a major professional journal, colleagues agreed (Alwin, 2002; Bengtson, 2003).

2. When social scientists attempted to verify the central thesis of a well-known book, Bowling Alone, based on the generational approach, they found no support for a claimed decline in volunteer behavior from the Silent to the Baby Boomer generation (Rotolo & Wilson 2004).

3. Generational advocates William Strauss and Neil Howe (1991) admit: "Triumphant in popular culture, the cohort generation has been confined by experts to the shadow world of unproven hypothesis." A cohort generation is a group of people who experience a particular historical or environmental event at roughly the same point in life.

4. Some experts believe that the model is limited in its application to minorities and recent immigrants to North America (Robbins 2003); others have questioned its relevance to women (Quadagno, et al., 1993).

In sum, advocates admit the limitations of the generational approach and academic research does not always support it.

Academic Publication

In their study of HR practices, Robert Eichinger and David Ulrich used the term frou-frou to describe popular and faddish HR trends that do not add value over the long term. At the completion of the study, they created a list of attributes for such ideas, one of which is that proponents do not write about them in academic journals (Ulrich, 1997).

According to an independent review of the literature, there were no major published academic articles on the generation gap in the United States in the 1990s (Smith, 2000), and a search by this author of academic journals in the past five years did not locate articles supporting generational concepts.

These findings, and the previously observed lack of research support, lend credence to the notion that the generational approach may be more popular culture than social science. Other issues with the generational approach are described in the following discussion.

Defining a Generation

Proponents do not always agree on how generations should be defined. One point of contention is the beginning date of the Baby Boomer generation, which can be 1943 or 1946. The year 1943 is used by those who define generations according to shared formative experiences. The year 1946 is used by those who follow the US Census Bureau definition of the Baby Boomer period, in which 1946 is the first year that reflected a surge in births that lasted to 1964 (Hughes & O'Rand, 2005).

Other experts cannot agree on what constitutes a generation, when shared formative experiences is the criterion. Experts generally have identified four generations on this basis, but others believe there are five and cite an anomalous subgroup in the Silent Generation, The Swing Generation, which is comprised of activists and free thinkers who were born in the latter years of the Silent birth period (Mitchell, 2003).

Others point out that people who are born near the beginning or end of a generation do not closely resemble those born in the middle and, for example, have argued for a Generation Jones, which overlaps the end of the Baby Boomer and beginning of the Generation X periods (Wellner, 2000). The reality is that many people identify with at least two generations (Raines, 2005).

As a result of this controversy, definitional matters can become major issues for those who wish to use generational concepts.

Multiplicity of Baby Boomer Generation

Sociologists and gerontologists advise us to focus on the heterogeneity of generations and to avoid "lumping" members together into one homogeneous group. In 1998, they expressed the concern that "American society is intent on re-creating the problem of generation simplification" for aging Baby Boomers that had hampered earlier efforts to understand the elderly (Cutler, 1998).

Independent research provides the following insights into this generation's complexity:

1. Boomers were born over 19 years, so the last ones were born as the earliest were reaching adulthood. This means that, within this generation, individuals experienced history differently. For example, Boomers are frequently associated with the Vietnam War protests of the late 1960s, but those born in the middle of the generation in 1955 were not in high school and some were in preschool at that time (Hughes & O'Rand, 2005).

2. In a novel study of 2,000 adults that looked at major life event changes, the AARP and the Roper polling organization came to this conclusion on the multiplicity of the Baby Boomer generation: People in their 50s are hardly "settled," as they experience more major life changes (for example, loss of spouse or parent, menopause, responsible for parental care) in this decade than in any other. Baby boomers did not fall neatly into a single profile (for example, "free birds" or "continuing care givers") that was a clear representative of the group (Silvers, 1997).

3. To better understand the retirement attitudes of the Baby Boomers, the AARP sought a better approach than conventional generation profiles. Through its research study of 2,001 adults, it concluded that five segments were necessary to understand Baby Boomer retirement attitudes (American Association of Retired Persons, 1999).

4. As part of its initiative, "The Aging of Aquarius: The Baby Boom Generation Matures," The Segal Company came to the conclusion that, contrary to popular belief, there is no "typical" Boomer (The Segal Company, 2001).

This research indicates that the Baby Boomer generation, which accounts for 43 percent of the US workforce, must be segmented into smaller groups to understand and predict the behavior of its members with precision.

The Generation Gap

Advocates claim that the generation gap results in intergenerational conflict that is a cause for HR concern (Zemke, et al., 2002; Lancaster & Stillman, 2002; Martin & Tulgan, 2002; Belkin, 2005). The workplace is portrayed in dramatic terms, as rife with clashes, collisions, and flashpoints. An example: "From the public to the private sector ... a conflict of earth-shattering proportions is unfolding right before our eyes. The American business scene is being rocked by a series of generational collisions at every turn" (Lancaster & Stillman, 2002).

Before reviewing independent research and expert opinion on the generation gap at work, similar information on the gap in general is reviewed to determine if the specific concern is well-grounded in a general proposition:

1. After reviewing the results of its 1994 scientific pool of 1,053 Americans in four generations, the director of the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, Everett C. Ladd, concluded: "The results--some of the most powerful views I have encountered in 30 years of public-opinion research--show that even though young people buy different CDs and clothes, they do not buy into a set of values different from their elders." The study compared fundamental beliefs and values across four generations and found only minimal differences (Ladd, 1994).

2. Upon observing that interest in the generation gap lacks perspective, researchers at the National Opinion Research Center investigated the gap on 1973, 1985, and 1997, using the biennial General Social Survey of 3,000 adults. After analyzing 20 topics (for example, abortion, civil liberties, work, and finances), they concluded that the average gap has fallen from an average difference of 19.4 percent in 1973, to 16.7 percent in 1985 and to 15.2 percent in 1997, and large, defining differences were rarely observed (Smith, 2000).

3. American Association of Retired Persons surveys of thousands of persons in the 1970s and in 2002 led the authors to conclude that the gap between Baby Boomers and their children in several key areas (sexual attitudes, sense of personal responsibility, respect for parents, and honesty) is much smaller today than the gap that existed between Boomers and their parents in the 1970s. The differences are so slight that AARP refers to a "vanishing generation gap" (American Association of Retired Persons, 2002).

4. Susan Mitchell, a demographer and author of American Generations, states: "Unlike the Boomers, however, Millennials do not face a generation gap. They share many of the values and interests of their parents." Mitchell believes that the differences between Boomers and later generations are insignificant compared to their similarities (Mitchell, 2003). The real gap, she believes, is between the Silents and the following generation, and once they die off, our preoccupation with generational differences will subside (Tolson, 2001).

Generation Size

Generational advocates frequently claim that, for the first time in our nation's history, there are four generations in the workforce (Lancaster & Stillman, 2002; Reynolds, 2005; Zemke, et al., 2002):

1. Silent (1925-1942): 5%

2. Baby Boomer (1943-1960): 43%

3. Generation X (1961-1981): 42%

4. Generation Y or Millennials (1982-): 10%

A closer look at the generational demographics shows, however, that four generations will not be present in the workforce of all individual employers. The Silent Generation accounts for only 5 percent of the workforce nationwide, so it will not be represented in every organization. Some firms will have only a small number of Gen-Y members, the oldest of which would have graduated from college in 2004. For many organizations, the vast majority of employees are Baby Boomers and Gen-Xers.

One also has to question the assertion that having four generations is a first-time event, as the trends toward early retirement and delayed entry into the workforce, because of increased formal education, are recent ones in our society, resulting in a smaller age spread at work today than in the past. No demographic data could be located to support this claim. Equally important as the number of generations is the extent to which they differ, which is not as great as one might assume, as noted by the sources cited in the following discussion.

Generation Gap at Work

Following is a summary of recent independent research on the generation gap at work:

1. A 2000 Catalyst study of 1,200 Generation X professionals in North America dispelled myths about this group and showed their unexpected traditional values regarding their employers:

* 85 percent care a great deal about their organization's future.

* 83 percent are willing to go beyond what is expected to ensure the success of their firm.

They gave these reasons for choosing their employer:

* Advancement opportunities--88 percent

* Compensation--78 percent

* Reputation--77 percent (Catalyst, 2001).

2. A 2000 study by Sibson & Company of 1,200 US workers to determine the rewards of work associated with performance, retention, and satisfaction found a surprising similarity in the generations: "There was no evidence that Generations X or Y represent any special breeds, and any differences in the attitudes of these groups from older groups can be explained by age, rather than special circumstances in the youthful experiences of each group" (Mulvey, et al., 2000).

The study also found that, for the two groups that dominate the workforce numerically: "There is relatively little evidence that Generation X ... are different from the Baby Boom generation in their pattern of satisfaction or in the types of rewards that motivate their retention and motivation" (WorldatWork 2000).

3. The Society for Human Resource Management's 2004 survey of 258 randomly selected HR professionals resulted in the following findings:

   Despite the prevalence of intergenerational workforces in every
   workplace, generational conflict is not widespread. Instead,
   organizations are reaping the benefits of the diversity provided
   by workers of different generations. Workers from different
   generations work effectively together and learn from one
   another. The most frequently reported problems are relatively
   minor and tend to stem from issues such as differing expectations
   regarding work hours and acceptable dress (Society for
   Human Resource Management, 2004).

For many years, studies by respected organizations and opinions from experts have challenged the concern about a troubling generation gap in US society and in the workplace. Consequently, HR professionals have good reasons to be skeptical about such claims. Additional support is provided by studies, described later, concerning supervisor-subordinate relationships and employee engagement.

As Sibson & Company researchers have pointed out, some of the characteristics of the generations cited by generational advocates can be attributed more to life stage than to generation personality. Most valued rewards, such as retirement planning assistance for aging Baby Boomers and career development programs for Generation Y members, are commonly mentioned as generation-based, when life stage is a more plausible explanation.

Supervisor/Subordinate Relationships

One area of potential concern, in which tensions between the generations would be most disruptive, is a situation in which older-generation employees are supervised by younger generations. This topic is of interest today because of the anticipated trends for mature employees to delay retirement, because of inadequate retirement savings and for the psychic benefits of work, and of a projected need to retain older employees based on expected shortages of skilled workers.

The Families and Work Institute (FWI) investigated this area, using 2002 data from a large and representative sample of the US workforce, and found that older employees (over age 57) who have appreciably younger supervisors are more likely to feel that their supervisors are more competent, more supportive of their success on the job, and more responsive to their personal and family needs than younger employees (Gen-X and Boomers) who have substantially younger supervisors.

FWI, which receives funding from some of the nation's largest companies including General Electric, Exxon Mobil, and IBM, commented on this result by stating: "These findings fly in the face of widely held beliefs that older workers tend to view their younger supervisors negatively--as having usurped their seniority, having robbed them of higher paying jobs, and lacking the experience to perform their jobs."

The study also included the perspective of the younger employees and found no significant rifts between Gen X or Boomer employees and their significantly older supervisors. Gen-Y employees (age 18 to 22) rated their appreciably older supervisors somewhat lower than supervisors their own age. While acknowledging conflict and value differences between the generations, FWI observes: "we may have exaggerated the differences to make them seem more pronounced than they really are" (Family and Work Institute, 2003).

Employee Engagement

With concerns about the productivity and motivations of an increasing number of Baby Boomers staying in the workforce, the American Association of Retired Persons engaged Towers Perrin in 2005 to study the needs and desires of four groups of employees (ages 18 to 29, 30 to 44, 45 to 54, and 55 and older).

The study produced some surprising results that indicate common motivations for each age group. Between 82 and 86 percent of each group are similarly engaged in their work and share the top three engagement drivers: senior management interest in employee well-being, skill improvement in the past three years, and reputation of organization as a good employer (Towers Perrin, 2006).

In sum, there is good evidence to indicate that the generation gap is not as wide and alarming as claimed. Even though the generations are different, it does not necessarily mean they hold divisive values and attitudes that will affect their ability to work well together.

Diversity in Perspective

Workforce diversity is on the increase because of many factors, including changes in cultural norms, shifts in the economy, new migratory patterns, higher ethnic minority birth rates, growing numbers of employed women, and more diverse life styles and life patterns. As a result, minorities are the fastest growing segment of the workforce; Hispanics account for half of all new US workers in the past 10 years; men and women are pursuing occupations that were previously reserved for the opposite gender; and more people are juggling and mixing the order of the traditional pattern of education, work, and family responsibilities.

These trends have created a workforce that challenges the generalizations and simplifications of the generational school. If this approach is not set aside, HR practices will be an obstacle to change and prevent the leveraging of diversity that can improve business performance. (Hewitt, 2005; Jackson, 2002; Jayne & Dipboye, 2004).

Summary

Based on a review of the literature, the major issues with the generational approach can be summarized as follows:

1. Research does not fully support the assumptions of generational theory, and advocates admit its shortcomings. The assumption that individuals are more impressionable earlier in life is supported, but the assumptions that the core personality does not change and that all generation members experience the same early events in the same way are not fully supported.

2. Sociologists have noted the concept's limited applicability to minorities, recent immigrants, and women.

3. Research by generational proponents is not published in academic journals, an indication to experts that the concept is a fad, lacking long-term value.

4. The number of generations in the workplace is overstated for some employers, because the Silent Generation accounts for only 5 percent of the workforce and the Generation Y had its first members graduating from college in 2004.

5. Agreement is lacking on the number of and birth periods for the generations. Some experts assert there are five generations based on an anomalous group that does not match the Silent and Baby Boomer profiles; and some claim that the first year of the Baby Boomer period should be determined by the number of annual births, rather than historical events.

6. Baby Boomer personality profiles are oversimplified. One reason is the last members of this generation were born as the earliest reached adulthood, resulting in vastly different exposures to the historical events that define this generation.

7. Intergenerational conflict in the workplace lacks independent verification and appears to be exaggerated. Recent research shows that older workers do not resent their younger supervisors and that the generations are working in harmony to capitalize on their diversity.

8. Factors that motivate the generations are surprisingly similar. For example, employees in all age groups have similar levels of, and key drivers for, engagement.

9. Recent trends in our society, such as the rapidly increasing numbers of Hispanic workers and nontraditional career choices for men and women, have created a workforce with such diversity that global concepts, such as generation, which tend to oversimplify the workforce, contribute little to understanding its complexity.

Conclusion

There is no shortage of books, articles, and conference presentations warning HR professionals about the seriousness of generational conflicts at work. This article was prepared to balance those warnings by compiling independent research and expert opinion on the gap and the theory behind it. The result is considerable information from respected organizations, demographers, and sociologists that raise doubts about the concern and the validity of the theory. Surprisingly, there is an absence of support from independent sources on both subjects. All of this should give HR professionals good reasons to regard the generation gap as an idea that is more myth than reality, so they can focus on the real talent management issues of the 21st century.

REFERENCES

Alwin DF (2002). "Generations X, Y, and Z: Are They Changing America?" Contexts (Fall/Winter), 1(4): 42-51.

American Association of Retired Persons (1999). "Baby Boomers Envision Their Retirement: An AARP Segmentation Analysis" (February).

American Association of Retired Persons (2002). "Tracing Baby Boomer Attitudes Then and Now. A Comparative Look at the Attitudes of Baby Boomers in the 1970s and 2002" (August): 1-25.

Belkin L (2005). "A Generation Gap, a Workplace Chasm," The New York Times April 24), 10(1).

Bengtson VL (2003). "Letters to the Editor," Contexts (Winter), 2(1): 5.

Catalyst. (2001). "Catalyst Study Dispels Myths about Generation X Professionals and Sheds Light on What This New Generation of Leaders Seek at Work," Press Release (December 11): 1-3.

Cutler NE (1998). "Preparing for their Older Years: The Financial Diversity of Baby Boomers," Generations (Spring), 22(1): 81-86.

Family and Work Institute (2003). "Older Employees in the Workplace" (Report): 1-8.

Hewitt Associates, LLC (2005). "Next-Generation Talent Management" (Viewed August 14, 2006), www.hewittassociates.com/_MetaBasicCMAssetCache_/Assets/Articles/next_ generation.pdf.

Hughes ME & O'Rand AM (2005). "The Lives and Times of the Baby Boomers." In The American People, R Farley & J Haaga (eds), New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Jackson T (2002). "The Management of People Across Cultures: Valuing People Differently," Human Resource Management, 41 (4): 455-475.

Jayne MEA & Dipboye RL (2004). "Leveraging Diversity to Improve Business Performance: Research Findings and Recommendations for Organizations," Human Resource Management, 43(4): 409-424.

Ladd EC (1994). "Generation Gap? What Generation Gap?" The New York Times (December 9): A16.

Lancaster LC & Stillman D (2002). When Generations Collide: Who They Are. Why They Clash. How to Solve the Generational Puzzle at Work, New York: Harper Collins Publishers Inc.

Martin CA & Tulgan B (2002). Managing the Generational Mix: From Collision to Collaboration, Amherst, MA: HRD Press.

Mitchell S (2003). American Generations. Who They Are. How They Live. What They Think, Ithaca, NY: New Strategist Publications Inc.

Mulvey PW, Ledford GE, & LeBlanc PV (2000). "Rewards of Work: How They Drive Performance, Retention, and Satisfaction," World at Work Journal, 9(3): 6-18.

Quadagno J, Achenbaum WA, & Bengston VL (1993). "Setting the Agenda for Research on Cohorts and Generations: Theoretical, Political, and Policy Implications." In The Changing Contract Across Generations, VL Bengston & WA Achenbaum (eds), Hawthorne, NY: Aldine DeGruyter.

Raines C. "Generations At Work. The On-line Home of Claire Raines Associates" (Viewed October 21, 2005), www.generationsatwork.com/FAQ.htm.

Reynolds LA (2005). "Communicating Total Rewards to the Generations," Benefits Quarterly (Second Quarter), 21(2): 13-17.

Robbins SP (2003). Organizational Behavior, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Rotolo T & Wilson J. (2004). "What Happened to the 'Long Civic Generation'? Explaining Cohort Differences in Volunteerism," Social Forces (March), 82(3): 1091-1121.

The Segal Company (2001). "The Aging of Aquarius: The Baby Boom Generation Matures" (Viewed July 7, 2006), www.segalco.com/publications/segalspecialreports/ feb01aquarius.pdf.

Silvers C (1997). "Smashing Old Stereotypes of 50-plus America," Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14(4): 303-309.

Smith TW (2000). "Changes in the Generation Gap 1972-1998," National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago, GSS Social Change Report No. 43 (October): 1-41.

Society for Human Resource Management (2004). "Generational Differences Survey Report," 1-29.

Strauss W & Howe N (1991). Generations: The History of America's Future, 1584 to 2069, New York: William Morrow and Company Inc.

Tolson J (2001). "Is Generation a Bad Word?" U.S. News and World Report (August 13), 131(6): 42-43.

Towers Perrin (2006). "Study Highlights Business Case for Attracting and Retaining Workers Age 50+," Monitor (March): 1-4.

Ulrich D (1997). Human Resource Champions, Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.

Wellner AS (2000). "Generational Divide. Are Traditional Methods of Classifying a Generation Still Meaningful in a Diverse and Changing Nation?" American Demographics (October), 22(10): 52-58.

WorldatWork (2000). "New Research from WorldatWork/Sibson & Company: Study Identifies Five Focus Areas to Keep Employee Retention, Motivation High," Press Release, May 22, 2000. (Viewed June 28, 2006), www.worldatwork.org/.

Zemke R, Raines C, & Filipczak B (2000). Generations at Work: Managing the Clash of Veterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in Your Workplace, New York: AMA Publications.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Frank Giancola is a retired human resource practitioner and college instructor who devotes his time to writing articles that analyze HR trends and practices. He has over 35 years of HR experience with Ford Motor Company, Development Dimensions International, Eastern Michigan University, and the US Air Force. He has taught human resource and compensation management at Central and Eastern Michigan Universities. He graduated with a BA in psychology-sociology from the University of Michigan and received an MBA and MA in Industrial Relations from Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan.