HR mythology: Gen X and Y - repeated assertions make it so

If you want to believe in something as trivial as the difference in managing "gen Xers" and "gen "Yers", go right ahead, but don't foist it on everyone else just because you can. Yes, every person is born into a very slightly different world with a marginally different set of circumstances, and yes you can make broad generalisations about people based on what technologies have been popularised in their childhoods or the mean wealth their families may have accrued. You may even believe in the "soccer mum" theory that has supposedly led to a generation of high-expectation children. But as I keep pointing out, relentlessly, the demographics of many, many countries was massively distorted in a very real way by 2 successive 'world wars'. Now war robs us of young men in particular and creates (hopefully) temporary deprivation and profound uncertainty. These world wars (and the Great Depression for that matter) were not trivial, they reshaped nations and cruelly influenced succeeding generations in many profound ways. The so-called Baby Boomers were identified as the generational change that came after those events, and was measured as a surge in babies born immediately after WWII. I have no argument about that obvious, real and characteristic demographic bump, and I further accept that analysis has revealed correlations with many societal changes in attitudes and behaviours that can reasonably be attributed to that post-war "generation" and its circumstances.

But the increasing trivialisation of "generations" based on increasingly weak correlations (or pure assertion) is stretching belief too far. To imagine that the computer, the mobile phone and the "soccer mum" is a driver of social conditioning comparable to a world war is frankly, quite silly.

OK, everything has an influence and we are a product of our environment as well as our genetics and social circumstances. Yes, the technologies that we use in our daily lives influence how we live, interact and behave. But to assert that we should manage people "differently" because they are labelled "Gen X" or "Gen Y" is making some gross - and to my mind pretty shallow - assumptions about them as individuals. In fact we should manage people as individuals and drop our preconceptions before opening our mouths.     

That generations myth again

Are we really so stupid as to put up with this sort of weak, sloppy analysis? (And I mean on BNET's behalf here - c'mon, please don't just repeat what's told to you, actually do some work here!) 

From BNET: Lack of authority and an inability to see where their contribution fits into the big picture is leaving Generation Y, or Millennials, disengaged and disenchanted with work, according to a report by BlessingWhite.

What's wrong with that statement? Well, first up, what is BlessingWhite and what axe do they have to grind? Unsurprisingly we find that they are "engagement" specialists, ie people who make money out of advising others how to "re-engage" and "re-align" a disenchanted workforce. So they are hardly likely to want to report a solid "engagement" situation, are they? (Not that I'd suggest they would distort the figures, but they may unconsciously ask the wrong questions of the wrong people, or simply leave out the good stuff.) 

Secondly, where is this report, how was the research conducted and how valid are the results? Well if you click on the link and look at the free summary reports (as against the $500 'full analysis') they do tell us that it was an online survey of employees (invited by email and broken up by the usual demographics)  backed up by manager interviews. BNET doesn't look into it, but one wonders (doesn't one?) what the (multiple choice) questions were and how the invite-only email addresses were obtained (randomly, or from prior interest shown in surveys?). Of course such surveys are only as good as the final sample size and distribution, and the questions posed; and only as accurate or truthful as the respondents care to be. Which is to say they probably mean little but look fabulously interesting when graphed.

One interesting takeaway from these reports was that the HR industry in North America was the most engaged of all - doesn't that suggest something? Either the HR industry is the most adept at engagement - what they'd suggest, I wager - or simply the best (or most "aligned") at answering "HR"-style surveys.  Groan.  

Anyway, to get back to BNET - it all revolves around generational labelling again. Like, somehow, it matters. Well it's interesting to label things - or in this case people - but what does it mean? Millennials or Gen Y are somehow, surprise surprise, the least engaged and empowered, the Boomers the most. Heck, guys, this isn't because of their birthdays - this is because Boomers have grown up, have had their kids, settled their affairs, saved some cash, travelled, gotten used to life and probably found their way into an "empowered" and respected role in their working lives. Whereas young adults are just starting their journey. Where you happy about starting at the bottom when you started out? Where you more likely to look around and try different things when you had no kids and no responsibilities except to enjoy your youth? Of course you feel less empowered doing "assigned" or "donkey" work - when you get into senior management and settle down a bit you may be a bit happier about it, eh?

Let's face it - just thinking of Western democracies now - we had 2 massive World Wars in a row that seriously distorted our demographics - robbed us of our sons, if you like. The generation after that was a release from fear and war and an opportunity to rebuild populations. Early 'boomers' really had to face some changes, some deprivations, and built some real prosperity out of it. That was a real thing, and those that came later lived off that prosperity and rapid post-war change. And whilst the aftershocks matter, that's all they are. To dream up correlations with "engagement", "technology" and "soccer moms" just for the sake of it, and to apply these funky X, Y and Z labels simply because we once had a real demographic post-War bubble... is just a convenience for the researchers, the marketers and the booksellers.

Get over it. 

More on millennials

To be fair about this generational labelling machine and its adherents, let's look at the "why" behind gen Y. To quote BNET again: millennials were the first generation to grow up with soccer moms, doting dads, and trophies for participation. All that adult attention gave them confidence and a knack for following directions. In addition, says Lancaster, many millennials’ lives have been heavily scheduled since childhood, so they understand achievement and heavy workloads. And growing up with PCs has contributed to their comfort with technology and social networking.

Remember we are looking at the generation born roughly between 1977 and 1995. "Roughly" gives them some way of wriggling out of the prescription, but let's not let 'em do that.

What exactly are 'soccer moms' and why do they suddenly appear in 1977? Well there's no research on this that I can find so let's use some logic and a bit of guesswork. We are looking at the US, so we have just excluded a lot of people born elsewhere, including people who now work in the US. If we apply this to 'all rich western nations' then we are in the ballpark. We can assume 'soccer' is a generic for any sport or activity to which by untested stereotype 'moms' drive their kids to events. I think we can relate to that, but why 1977? Did this hit some sort of tipping point? Cars have been increasing in number and spreading pervasively across Western society since the end of WWII, so perhaps they hit some magic point where the vast majority of families had 2 cars by then... maybe. Easy to check. But it must also be allied with "moms" and their being available and licensed to drive. Again a check is in order to see what proportion of families had licensed car-driving mothers, and what proportion were in 2-car families. That second part may not be a clincher as one presumes 1 car is sufficient. But 'doting dads' and 2 kids or more suggest a need for 2 cars at times.

What would be the clincher is what proportion of these mobile moms actually took their kids to these activities. For Gen Y to be real we'd expect more than 50%, probably more like 80%. But is that so? Even at 50% that leaves a lot of these 'millennials' out of scope.

Of course they all got certificates and trophies for participation, which never happened before, or at least not to this degree. And it twisted their minds, apparently. But again, only an unknown proportion of kids is involved. Is it 50%? Less?

And we are assuming of course that being driven to events and activities in your childhood overrides almost all other facets of your life, environment and genome. Wow, big assumption there. Illness, accidents, variability in family income, persecution, broken homes, violent families, drunken parents, blended families: all are simply not on the radar. Wow. Anyone seen the evidence for this amazing soccer-mom influence? I haven't.

But wait, there's more! "All that adult attention gave them confidence and a knack for following directions". Are you sure about that one? This doesn't sound like any kids I know, or any different to the generation before. We have been doting on our kids ever since before we dropped the average family down to under 3. And that, in most Western countries, was before 1977. In some cultures doting on your kids has been in place for much longer.

And more again: "many millennials’ lives have been heavily scheduled since childhood, so they understand achievement and heavy workloads". This is a big call. Where exactly is the evidence? There is none - it's an opinion. I can just as assertively say that many people, Gen Y included, have not had heavy workloads and overly-scheduled lives, nor do they particularly like heavy workloads or heavy scheduling in their lives. Some people relax instead and live relatively unstructured lives. In any case linking this "understanding" of scheduling to "achievement" simply because you say so is arrogant rubbish. I'm sorry but again, where is the evidence for this link?

Lastly, "growing up with PCs has contributed to their comfort with technology and social networking". Growing up with something will usually make you comfortable with it, unless it's unpleasant. It's a no-brainer. It will apply to a large proportion of this age group but not everyone. People born in 1977 will be under-represented in social-networking sites in comparison with those born in 1995, yet there will also be Gen X and even baby boomers at those same sites. It's a sliding scale, and never as black and white as the generational labellers make out. There is individuality and life-long learning at play here.

At the end of the day it's a label - a big one. It doesn't fit everyone, nor can it. There is little evidence to support it and it is arbitrary. The definitions are so bland as to fit anyone. Whilst a significant number of post-War baby boomers actually lived with missing parents, social deprivations, shortages and even bombed-out buildings, it's stretching the case rather a lot to suggest that being driven around by doting parents will make you significantly different to anyone else. Let's just treat everyone as individuals and stop making stuff up.

Don't fall into generational labelling trap!

Beware, the pop psychologists and generational labellers are after you! Now it's "the millennials".

From BNET: The generation of workers born roughly between 1977 and 1995, known as millennials or Generation Y, represents the biggest shift in the U.S. workforce since the baby boomers came of age. Eighty-million strong, they will soon account for the majority of American workers, especially as boomers start to retire.

OK, that sounds fine, doesn't it? This group of people will soon be the majority of workers. But does this matter? And why are we - or they - choosing to look at only this segment of the workforce? Why only people born between 1977 and 1995? What is significant here?

Nothing, absolutely nothing. Look at it this way: they remain human beings. They have the same physiology we have had for perhaps a million years. They have emotions. They also have wants and needs, starting with the basics like food and shelter. They are just like us. So trash this labelling scam, please, and start addressing people as individuals!

Not convinced? Well why don't we include people born in 1976? How are they different? Or 1975? Who decided upon this cut-off and why? Was it because of some genetic shift in our genome? Was there a cultural revolution? No?

Well apparently they are different because "experts" say so. One expert says: millennials are team-oriented, eager to tackle huge challenges, and quite particular about their leaders. “They won’t do something just because you say, ‘I’m the manager,’” Smith says. “On the other hand, they’ll work hard for someone who truly mentors them.”

How odd. Team oriented? That's insane! Imagine that, human beings that are team-oriented. That's never happened before. Eager to tackle huge challenges, too. Like no-one has ever done this before, eh? And choosy about leaders... hmmm. But if you are a good mentor it's OK, you'll get respect. How counter-intuitive. Basically that "expert" has spewed out nonsense that's as convincingly bland as the definitions of astrological sun signs. Folks, this is a con.