When Generations Collide

By Dennis Doverspike and Alison O’Malley

Acknowledgements of the existence of a “generation gap” (i.e. a difference in attitudes or values between generations) appear to be as old as oral history. Many Roman and Greek myths rely upon the concept of titanic struggles between parents and their children. In the United States during the 1960s, the concept of a generation gap was often used to explain a variety of intergenerational conflicts. So, the image of generations—as many as four possible generations—competing in the workplace in the 2000s is one that has attracted both popular and scientific interest. It has led to dramatic statements, which lead to accompanying vivid images of the generations colliding or clashing in a battle for dominance of the workplace.

Dramatic imagery aside, the prevailing argument has been that managers in organizations, including human resource managers, must find ways to deal with this diversity of generational cultures. In theory, human resource managers and others can deal with this generational diversity by 1) understanding the differences between generations and then 2) crafting various strategies based upon the identified differences for responding to the needs and values of the different generations. Of course, this also means dealing with the conflicting demands of the generations.

This article presents two competing theories regarding generational differences. The first theory, generational cultures, holds that historical events shape the unique culture of a generation. The second theory, career stages, proposes that apparent differences between generations can be explained in terms of the differences in their developmental or career stage.

Generational Cultures Although we have labeled this approach “Generational Cultures,” this view might also be called the “Event Theory of Generations.” Basically, this theory holds that various generations develop unique cultures. These unique cultures are a result of the significant events that each generation encounters and the accompanying challenges that they must overcome. Generations can then be defined in terms of a range of years, reflecting groups of individuals, or cohorts, which have had to respond to similar challenges or encountered similar events. Although the names given to the generations differ from author to author, as do the exact year ranges, one can identify the specific generational cultures as including:

Traditionalists: Born between 1922 and 1943. The youngest members of this generation are now over 60 and many are retired from the workforce. The typical member of this generation lived through both the Great Depression and World War 2. They believed in traditional, conservative American values including self sacrifice, pulling oneself up by the bootstraps, and respect for authority. They endorsed loyalty to the organization. Their values were consistent with the Protestant Work Ethic and its emphasis on hard work as the pathway to success.

Baby Boomers: Born between 1946 and 1960, baby boomers are the result of the increase in births following World War 2 and the Korean War. The typical member of this generation lived through Vietnam, the resulting anti-war movement, the civil rights movements, Woodstock, and the shootings at Kent State University. Baby boomers tend to be competitive, but also team oriented. Having grown up during a time of expansion, growth and opportunity, they tend to be optimistic and success oriented. A major challenge for this group that set out to change the world is that their time in the workforce may be running out. As this group begins to retire in large numbers around 2008, it is expected that there will be major changes in the demographic composition and skill levels of the workforce.

GenXers: Born between 1965 and 1980, the markers for this generation tend to be more personal. GenXers grew up during a time of reduced growth in the American economy and changing family values. As a result, GenXers tended to envy previous generations for the opportunities that were available in their time and blame them for the environmental problems existing in the world today. Family relationships of GenXers were marked by divorced, single, and stepparents, a situation that contributed to a great degree of familial separation and thus distance between GenXers and their extended families. Workplace values range from the concept of “slackers,” who tended toward jobs characterized by low pay, low status and feelings of dissatisfaction, to the “work hard, play hard” individuals with a desire for an ethical, creative work environment where learning, growth and frequent feedback took place. In either case, GenXers are noted for greater concern with individual growth and less loyalty to the employer.

9/11s: Born between 1980 and 1988, 9/11s were in high school or college during the 9/11/2001 attacks on the World Trade Center. This group is just now entering the workforce. They are seen as having great technological prowess. The work values of 9/11s tend to be more positive and also realistic than those of GenXers, and 9/11s tend to value public service and service to others.

It should be noted that the above age ranges include some gaps or tweeners. Furthermore, individuals will differ in terms of how acculturated they are into the dominant culture of their generation. Thus, as with any other construct, we would expect substantial individual differences within a generation.

Nevertheless, according to the generational culture theory, generations clash in the workplace because they have different values, which are the result of their passage through different historical events. In theory, this should lead to differences in management practices. For example, GenXers have been seen as less team and leadership oriented, which has implications for both pay systems and for succession planning.

Career Stage Theory An alternative theory is offered by career stage theory. According to career stage theory, what appear to be generational differences are really the results of differences in a cohorts positioning in their career. Thus, one would expect 60-year-olds to be more interested in retirement policies and 20-year-olds to be more interested in vacation policies, regardless of the historical events encountered by a generational cohort.

Although the notion of a career has become more flexible, people still seem to progress through a series of career stages corresponding to those listed below:

Trial - (under 30 years of age). Marked by a need to identify one’s interests and capabilities. Developing an idea of one work-based self-concept. Defines self through one’s achievements. Places a high value on leisure and self-reliance. Work hard, play hard, mentality.

Stabilization - (30-45). Concerned with career advancement. Stabilization of life at home and at work. Begins to determine whether successful or not; makes decision on future of career. Places a high value on the centrality of work.

Maintenance - (45-65). Seeks to maintain status. May be asked to develop others. More visible in organization. Fighting obsolescence, while also working at maximum performance levels. Begins to consider other job and career possibilities as well as planning for retirement. Values ethical behavior.

Retirement - (above 65). Planning for or retiring from main career.

The career stage theory differs from the generation theory in that it argues that the differences found across cohort are a result of stage in the workforce rather than the influence of historical events. As a result, as generations grow older, there values tend to shift in the same directions as pervious generations.

An Interactionist Perspective So which is correct and does it matter? Our own research has suggested that the career stage perspective is probably more accurate than the generational perspective. That is, yes, generations do differ in their work values and attitudes, but they tend to differ more because they are at different stages in their career, rather than because of some unique influence brought about by historical events. Furthermore, within each generational cohort or each career stage there are substantial individual differences.

However, it is important to take into account generational differences. This is where the interactionalist perspective comes into the picture. Generational differences in culture appear to interact with career stages. One of the cultural markers for GenXers was putting off marriage and children until older ages than those associated with Baby Boomers or Traditionalists. This delayed but did not eliminate the concern of GenXers with family friendly benefits including child care. As GenXers aged and moved through the workforce, their values shifted from a 24-7 emphasis, to a greater concern with making time available for families.

The Human Resource Response As indicated in the beginning of this article, in order to deal with generational diversity, human resource professionals should:

1. Understand the differences between generations. 2. Develop strategies for responding to the needs and values of the different generations.

This remains sound advice. However, human resource professional should also:

3. Avoid an overemphasis on popular stereotypes of the values of various generations.

As generational cohorts move through their career, their values will change to reflect those career stages. Thus, it is also important to:

4. Understand the values and needs of individuals at different career stages.

In addition, there will be substantial individual differences both within generational cohorts and across career stages. In the current competitive environment, organizations must work to ensure that all individuals are working to their full capability regardless of generational or career stage.

Dennis Doverspike (a Baby Boomer), Ph.D., ABPP, is a professor of psychology at the University of Akron. He is also a member of the Board of the IPMA Assessment Council, which is a section of IPMA-HR and the leading organization of applied personnel assessment professionals actively engaged in practice, research, and training in personnel assessment to meet the needs of both public and private organizations. Alison O’Malley (a 9/11) is a graduate student in the industrial-organizational psychology program at the University of Akron. For more information, contact Doverspike by phone at (33) 972-8372, or by e-mail at [email protected].

When Generations Collide – Part 2

By Dennis Doverspike and Alison O’Malley

In Part 1 of “When Generations Collide,” we discussed the general concept of a “generation gap” and described the cultures of Traditionalists, Baby Boomers, Generation Xers, and 9/11s (for the last group, the appropriate label is still a matter of debate; recent articles have referred to this group as Generation Myspace and the Plastic Generation). The prevailing generation gap argument has been that managers in organizations, including human resource managers, must find ways to deal with this diversity of generational cultures by 1) understanding the differences between generations and then 2) crafting various strategies for responding to the needs and values of the different generations based upon the identified differences.

In terms of understanding generational differences, there have been two major opposing theoretical arguments. The first theory, generational cultures, holds that historical events shape the unique culture of a generation. The second theory, career stages, proposes that apparent differences between generations can be explained in terms of the differences in an individual’s developmental or career stage.

A third approach, an interactionist perspective, was also introduced. According to the interactionist approach, cultural differences between generations interact with career stages to yield unique variations in employee values and attitudes. For example, the delaying of marriage and children by GenXers diminished but did not eliminate the concern of GenXers with family-friendly benefits (e.g., child care).

While we cautioned earlier that entire generations of workers cannot be summed up with a few sentences, it remains imperative that human resource professionals recognize the distinct values and expectations possessed by each generation and devise ways to address these differences. In this article, we will focus on three manifestations of generational differences that should be of concern to human resource managers. These three important trends are the:

1. increased emphasis placed on location by recent entrants into the workforce. 2. increased importance of the self-management of careers. 3. need to find new methods and models of developing leaders.

Location, Location, Location Traditionally, the argument has been that location is not a critical factor in the job hunt or in job acceptance. That is, the conventional view holds that while individuals may reject a job because they do not like a particular locale, they are unlikely to shop for a specific location or place much weight on location in making final job choice decisions.

However, the job search methods utilized by GenXers and 9/11s have called this view into question. Rebecca Ryan, a consultant who has been hired by a number of cities to study what communities can do to make themselves more attractive to young professionals, has argued that location is a major factor in recruiting younger workers. Ryan and her team have identified more than 40 variables pertaining to community diversity, amenities, and health and environmental factors that characterize “cool” communities for young talent. Among these are air and water quality, recycling rates, farmers markets, concentration of designers, amount of charitable donations, and number of sunny days. According to Ryan, 75 percent of those under the age of 28 claim that a cool community is as important to them as a good job.

Patrick McKay and his colleagues at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee have also emphasized the role of location in the recruitment and attraction of ethnic minorities. According to McKay’s research, minorities consider the racial climate of a city when deciding whether to take a job. These perceptions of a city’s racial climate are influenced by the percentage of minorities and the availability of various amenities. Location factors that are considered include grocery stores, public transportation, job opportunities, healthcare, entertainment, affordable housing, parks and outdoor recreation, and arts and culture.

Similar factors have also been found to be important in the recruitment and retention of employees in low pay or low grade jobs. In order to retain employees in such jobs, either the organization or the city must offer adequate transportation, housing, child care, social work services and healthcare.

One obvious implication of these findings for recruitment is that organizations wishing to attract young talent should play up the community in which the organization is embedded. Of course, this requires that the community actually offer those “cool” amenities deemed desirable by fresh entrants into the job market. This scenario places a unique and novel demand on human resource professionals. First, they must analyze their community’s offerings to identify the factors that would prove attractive to young job applicants. Second, when a location is found to be unattractive or “uncool,” they must find ways to work with civic leadership to increase the desirability of their locale.

Self-Management Although self-management of careers is not a new concept, it is predicted that this issue will become a major concern for 9/11s and future entrants into the workforce. With many of these workers wielding technological savvy and habituated to a fast pace lifestyle, it is critical that organizations provide a wide set of tools and training programs for employees to stave off boredom. Relatedly, organizations must be attuned to the powerful self-advancement and self-dependence motives possessed by younger workers, and should take steps to avoid employee perceptions of being in a “dead-end” job. Finally, the quest for meaningful work has been identified as being of considerable importance to 9/11s, and organizations must be prepared for these employees to move on if they do not feel that are doing valuable work.

As discussed below, this trend toward self-management of jobs and careers will apply new pressures to all human resource systems, including management and leadership. To further complicate matters, employees geared toward self-management coexist in the workplace with individuals in the 20- to 40-year-old age range who still desire more traditional types of careers. Organizations must find ways to encourage those individuals to pursue self-development in a rapidly changing work environment.

Leadership The January 2006 issue of IPMA-HR News contained several articles dealing with the issue of leadership development and succession. Of particular relevance is Dee Anne Bonebright’s article entitled “Creating and Sustaining Effective Leadership Development,” in which she described how converging factors are predicted to increase the importance of leadership. Three critical factors are:

1. The retirement of large numbers of Baby Boomers from middle- and upper-level management leadership positions. This will create a large number of leadership openings as well as the loss of a great deal of organizational knowledge. 2. The entry into the workforce of masses of Generation Xers and 9/11s who possess very different values and approaches to work than older employees. Members of these generations are predicted to prefer non-traditional approaches to leadership that emphasize the encouragement of self-management. These new generations of workers may also be reluctant to pursue leadership roles. 3. The increasing complexity of organizations and work relationships which will create new demands and pressures on leaders.

These converging factors are predicted to result in a leadership vacuum as organizations rush to prepare new leaders for challenging roles. Organizations must be mindful of this outcome and should proactively engage in the identification, training and development of leaders. Greater challenges will arise if older, traditional models of leadership development fail to apply to the generations of younger workers and new methods must be devised.

Conclusion While the generation gap may not manifest itself as a dramatic collision among generations of workers, the implications generational diversity has for the workplace certainly warrant the attention of HR professionals. HR practitioners must bypass the tendency to stereotype generations of workers, and instead examine employee values and attitudes in light of employee career stage and organizational culture. The current article reveals how it is valuable to consider recruitment, career self-management and leadership issues in light of possible generational changes in work attitudes and ethics. While it may on the surface appear bothersome to view organizational practices from multiple vantage points, investing careful thought into these domains could reap significant organizational benefits, starting with the attraction of talented young workers.

A few years ago, organizations wanted to be “employers of choice.” Today, they want to be “cool” employers, i.e. organizations that can attract new generations of employees. Unfortunately, coolness does not come from following a simple formula; rather, it is a perception that must be earned through the fostering of authentic positive relationships between employers and employees.

Dennis Doverspike, Ph.D., ABPP—a Baby Boomer—is a professor of psychology at the University of Akron. He is also a member of the IPMA Assessment Council Board, which is a section of IPMA-HR and the leading organization of applied personnel assessment professionals actively engaged in practice, research and training in personnel assessment to meet the needs of both public and private organizations. Alison O’Malley (a 9/11) is a graduate student in the Industrial-Organizational program at the University of Akron.