Problems Surrounding the Definition and Operationalization of Generations

As Costanza and Finkelstein point out, the complexity involved with disentangling the effects of age, period, and cohort is a difficult obstacle to overcome when researching generations. Plus there are problems with defining and operationalizing generations. The typical generational cohort cutoffs are dictated by U.S.-centric events that are assumed to have a formative impact on similarly aged individuals who experienced these events. There are at least two questionable assumptions with this logic: (a) that all U.S. events impact individuals in the same way no matter where they are located in the United States and (b) that important historical U.S. events would be a formative event in someone's life outside of the United States who is not embedded in that sociocultural context. An example of the logic regarding the first assumption is the 9/11 attacks in the United States. The attacks were primarily located in the northeastern United States. While we do not deny that this event has had a lasting impression in all parts of the United States, the way the event is internalized and processed may be more intense for those located geographically nearby this terrible tragedy. The second assumption is that U.S.-centric historical events could have a similar formative impact on those outside of the United States. Extending on this example, the assumption would then be that young adults outside of the United States would have been impacted similarly, thus affecting their workplace attitudes and behavior. Accordingly, there are several examples of historic events around the world that might have a dramatic impact on the individuals within the context, but we would not expect them to necessarily have a lasting impact on those outside of the context. For example, the “born free” generation in South Africa (those born after the collapse of Apartheid; Mattes, Reference Mattes2012) and the German generation of Wendekinder (children who grew up before and were young adults during the collapse of the Berlin Wall; Häusler-Gross, Reference Häusler-Gross, Eichmans and Franke2013) may be profoundly important in South Africa and Germany, but the effect may be limited for those outside those countries. In short, specific events may have a formative impact only on certain groups in a cohort, limiting the ability to compare cohort groups from different geographical locations.

Why, then, do people believe in generational differences and assume they exist? We have to wonder how much of this “intuitive” belief stems from being inundated with stories in the popular press about “entitled Millennials” and some organizations accepting such generational stereotypes without question. In fact, some of the information about generational differences being disseminated may be appealing in that these differences sound real when we hear them. In the same way that astrology may appeal to individuals because one or two characterizations in their horoscope rings true (“Sure, that sounds like me”), generational stereotypes reinforce what we want to believe. In other words, there may be a grain of truth, but then it becomes an overgeneralization of an entire group of people.

Lack of Theory

We agree that the extant work-related research examining generation-based differences is lacking theoretically. However, this may not be because there is a lack of existing theory that could help guide the research. In fact, we contend that the problem is not the general concept of generation; rather, it is the way that this concept is currently being used and examined in the literature. It is examined in simplistic terms (i.e., a cohort perspective), which is limited to people born at the same time, thus restricting how a generation can be identified as four or five generic cohorts without reference to a specific sociocultural context and shared formative experiences. However, there is likely considerable heterogeneity in the shared experiences of such broad generations: For example, the “baby-boom” generation encompasses a very broad cohort (1946–1964) that includes people from those who came of age in the United States in the Vietnam and “hippie” eras to those who experienced the fall of Communism.

In fact, the academic research on generations often shows no more sophistication in terms of measurement than do pieces in the popular press. In their review of the generations literature, Lyons and Kuron (Reference Lyons and Kuron2014) identify and summarize two theoretical perspectives, cohort and social forces, and are critical of most of the extant research because of its reliance on a cohort perspective. Rather, they suggest that a social forces perspective may provide a more multidimensional way of examining the influence (if there is one) of generation on groups of individuals in the workplace. Applying this notion of generation in terms of “social forces” has some theoretical advantages. In sociology, the notion of generation is important to understand how knowledge and culture are transferred from one historical period to another, explaining the stability of the social system (Ryder, Reference Ryder1965).

We believe that using social forces as a lens to examine generational differences could be useful if (a) the idea of being a part of a specific generation becomes a part of people's social identity, (b) a generation is identified with specific events that truly have a formative impact for people, and (c) the generations are studied not only in terms of differences but also in terms of reciprocal influences and exchanges within and between generations. Further, knowledge, norms, and other socialization processes may be transferred from one generation to the next, resulting in small and progressive changes over time. However, given these many possibilities, we posit that the psychological impact of generation in a workplace context may require a conceptual integration of social forces theory (Lyons & Kuron, Reference Lyons and Kuron2014), social identity theories (Tajfel & Turner, Reference Tajfel, Turner, Austin and Worchel1979), and lifespan development theories (e.g., Baltes & Baltes, Reference Baltes and Baltes1990) and provide a comprehensive framework by which to approach the examination of how people's development is impacted by time-dependent, formative events in their lives.

Harmful Effects of Propagating Generational Differences and Accepting Them as Real

Given these concerns with the very concept of “generation” and its lack of a theoretical basis, one of our biggest worries is with propagating generation-based stereotypes at work. Is there a single other demographic category—race/ethnicity, gender, religion—where stereotyping of people at work is a useful or healthy thing to do? No, and the same may be true of generational stereotypes as well.

First, the internalization of generational stereotypes could cause problems for organizations and individuals. For example, team diversity research suggests that fault lines may develop within a team based on age and that these divisions could be exacerbated if additional age-based stereotypes exist (Thatcher & Patel, Reference Thatcher and Patel2012). In fact, one organizational response to perceived age-related conflict in groups and teams could be to group people into age-homogenous teams to reduce intergenerational contact, which might lead to more ageism (Iweins, Desmette, Yzerbyt, & Stinglhamber, Reference Iweins, Desmette, Yzerbyt and Stinglhamber2013). Yet other research suggests that as team members from different demographic backgrounds get to know each other, they become less reliant on surface characteristics and stereotypes and more focused on deep, meaningful characteristics (e.g., personality; ability; Harrison, Price, & Bell, Reference Harrison, Price and Bell1998; Harrison, Price, Gavin, & Florey, Reference Harrison, Price, Gavin and Florey2002). Second, internalization of generation-based stereotypes could lead to increased stereotype threat, which in the workplace has been shown to relate to negative job attitudes, poorer mental health, and greater intentions to resign (von Hippel Kalokerinos, & Henry, Reference von Hippel, Kalokerinos and Henry2013). Therefore, stereotype threat associated with generational-difference stereotypes could result in negative workplace outcomes for employees who believe these characterizations of their generation are true. Third, the internalization of generation-based stereotypes may exacerbate negative age metastereotypes, that is, what a particular group believes that those in other groups think about them (Finkelstein, Ryan, & King, Reference Finkelstein, Ryan and King2013; Vorauer & Kumhyr, Reference Vorauer and Kumhyr2001). Metastereotypes related to generational differences could cause individuals to overcompensate in order to contradict the stereotype that they believe others hold about them (e.g., “I'm younger than my coworkers so they must think I'm a narcissist.”).

To counteract this internalization of age- and generation-based stereotypes, the focus should not be on the “problems” associated with workplace age differences but rather on building on the positive aspects of diversity and developing a more inclusive environment. For example, recent research showed that positive age climate is related to higher company performance and reduced collective turnover intentions (Böhm, Kunze, & Bruch, Reference Böhm, Kunze and Bruch2014).

Future Directions: How To Make Generations Research Useful to the Workplace

Thus far we have discussed the limitations of the current generation-based differences research. However, we make suggestions for making this line of research more applicable to the workplace. First, as has been recommended for workplace age research in general (e.g., Truxillo, Cadiz, Rineer, Zaniboni, & Fraccaroli, Reference Truxillo, Cadiz, Rineer, Zaniboni and Fraccaroli2012), we should focus on explaining why any generational differences might exist, that is, mediating, explanatory mechanisms. This would get us closer to understanding why generation has an effect, if it truly does. Second, we propose that the concept of “organizational generation,” or cohorts of employees that enter organizations at the same time, who thus face common events (e.g., periods of rapid growth, merger), be examined for how they influence organizations and employees. For example, the generation of employees who were with an organization at its inception and knew the founder may share a collective experience that is different from those who entered the organization after an acquisition. Third, the current generation-based difference research should examine how much incremental variance these differences account for when controlling for variables that have established relationships with the outcomes of interest. In other words, does generation-based difference account for practical differences in people in meaningful organizational outcomes? Finally, the meaning of “generation” could be examined from a measurement equivalence standpoint. For example, do scales (e.g., measures of career) and individual items even mean the same thing from one age group to another?

We conclude with a question: What are the positive benefits of examining relatively atheoretical generational differences rather than well-established, within-person changes in physical ability, cognition, and personality, and motivation due to aging? We see relatively few at this time. We further argue that propagating generation-based differences can actually be harmful to organization and to individuals. This does not mean there is not a place for generation-based differences research in the industrial–organizational literature, but there needs to be more theoretical and methodological advancement in order to demonstrate its value.