The Trouble With Generation Discourse—Insights From Research

Generational differences can be engaging topics for memes and conversations, but utilizing them in the workplace without a critical perspective can be risky. Statements like “Oh, generation (add any) is lazy or not loyal or egocentric” are popular but problematic for several reasons. First, they assume every individual in a specific generation cohort shares the same characteristic, independent of their other identities and context. Second, these statements can oversimplify complex behaviors and reinforce biased stereotypes. Last, they can serve as an excuse for organizations not to invest in their employees’ development.

Recently, some colleagues and I reviewed the research on generational differences. Our findings confirmed my concerns; studies discussing and comparing generational characteristics are inconsistent. Although generational differences are a trendy topic, the scientific foundation for these distinctions remains wobbly.

Is it your generation or your age? According to research, the answer to this question is likely both. Many studies identifying characteristics of generational groups fail to account for the effect of age and life stage. For example, perhaps people in early career stages often seek growth, whether they’re Gen Z today or Gen X two decades ago. Likewise, individuals with caregiving responsibilities may prioritize having flexibility independent of their generational cohort.

Are all millennials the same? What about boomers, Xers, and Gen Z? Most existing research was conducted in North America and Europe, primarily with white-collar professionals. So, the answer to this question is likely no. Generations are not a monolithic block; work preferences and values are shaped by individuals’ identities, like gender, race, ethnicity, and socio-economic status. Generations are formed through shared historical events and socio-cultural contexts experienced during individuals’ formative years. Thus, individuals who grew up in different regions of the world will likely have differences in their work values and preferences. The experiences of a Gen Y woman in Indonesia may vary significantly from those of a Gen Y man in the US, despite belonging to the same generational cohort.

What does this mean for talent development? For talent development professionals, designing programs based solely on generational traits can be misleading. Broader categories, like generations, can be helpful to frame workforce diversity on certain occasions; nevertheless, using generations as the only aspect when designing and implementing learning and development initiatives may lead to excessive generalization and overlooking the relevant needs of specific groups.

Some strategies might help to reduce these risks:

• Mind your language – Use generational labels cautiously in organizational communications, weighing the benefits against the risk of reinforcing stereotypes.

• Collect internal data – Relying on generalizations can lead to one-size-fits-all solutions. Instead, gather data on your workforce’s preferences and values to design meaningful development programs.

• Adopt a critical perspective and consider the intersections – Consider how generational cohorts interact with other social identities and contexts, like gender, marital and caregiving status, culture, and educational background.

• Be cautious with generative AI tools – Be aware of the risks of reinforcing generational stereotypes through biased AI-generated data. Talent analytics should help uncover individual needs, not lump people into rigid categories.

While generational thinking offers a familiar framework, it’s not a complete solution for understanding workforce behavior. In an increasingly diverse, global, and complex workplace, talent development strategies must move beyond reductive labels. Embracing nuance and grounding programs in rigorous research can help TD professionals design interventions that are both effective and equitable.