THE GENERATIONAL FALLACY

We’ve never really understood the way horoscopes work. How can it be that if someone is born a minute after midnight on October 24th, they’re suddenly destined to be a strong-willed Scorpio instead of a pacific Libra (or at least that’s the way the newspaper horoscopes make it sound)?

We’ve been thinking along similar terms as the world of human resources seems increasingly intent on differentiating the way they treat millennials as opposed to Gen Z or Baby Boomers. We can certainly see that there are reasonable generational differences in the way people act, and respond, and we’ve written about that ourselves. But we also wonder if the focus on generations has gone too far.

As Dave Costanza wrote in Slate a while back, “ there is a commonly held perception that people growing up around the same time and in the same place must have some sort of universally shared set of experiences and characteristics. It helps that the idea of generations intuitively makes sense. But the science does not support it. In fact, most of the research findings showing distinct generations are explained by other causes, have serious scientific flaws, or both.”

For one thing the attributes ascribed to each of the generations differ depending on who you talk to. Take Generation Z. There’s a commonly held belief that these young adults, just entering the workforce, feel entitled and believe the world circulates around them. We’ve heard plenty of people talk about this generation that way.

But wait. According to Stanford Scholar Roberta Katz, “Gen Z are typically self-driven, collaborative, and diverse-minded. They value flexibility, authenticity, and a pragmatic approach to addressing problems. Gen Z are misunderstood. Contrary to stereotypes of being “lazy” or “coddled,” Gen Z is entrepreneurial and adaptive.”

Or consider the millennials (who are increasingly dominating the workforce). They are allegedly overly emotional and have difficulty bouncing back from hard times; they are risks adverse, lack persistence and tend to live beyond their means.

Based on a tiny sample of two – our son and our daughter – we’ve seen that neither of them exhibit any of these traits. And neither do most of their friends. In fact, both of them are (modestly) highly resilient and have remarkable work ethics.

We came across an article by the BBC that helps to explain why labels attached to  younger generations are often critical. “Evidence shows newer generations do, indeed, measure highly on traits that their older counterparts might consider as a sign of weakness. Yet experts also believe that Baby Boomers (born roughly between 1946 and 1964) and Gen X (born between 1965 and 1980) might be judging the generations that succeed them much too harshly, and measuring them against standards that have long ceased to be the norm.

“Generational context could be key to narrowing divides between decades – yet looking down on young adults is such a long-established and innate instinct that it might be impossible to undo.”

It’s our entirely unscientific theory that a big part of the reason there appear to be differences between members of Gen Z and their predecessors among the millennials, is that they’re at different stages of life. The Gen Zers who are often described as self-serving and even selfish could conceivably alter these traits when they have children of their own who – in turn – are going to believe they are the center of the universe.

Part of the problem, we believe is that every generation seems to want to look down on the one that follows. This has been going on for thousands of years. Consider Aristotle’s quote: “Young people are high minded because they have not yet been humbled by life nor have they experienced the force of circumstances.

We bring this up because of a concern that many public sector workplaces seem to be set on attracting new recruits based on generational stereotypes. Want a millennial? Treat the applicant like a millennial. Want a Gen Zer? Treat the person like a Gen Zer.

In very general circumstances, this could be a starting point from which to understand the nature of an individual based on the most circumstantial of evidence. But we’re pretty sure that long term this attitude runs the risks of oversimplifying things in a way that could conceivably offend.

All of this makes us think of one of our favorite books, “Cats Cradle” by Kurt Vonnegut, who used the term “granfalloon,” for people who are lumped together, arbitrarily based on a false premise – like Hoosiers, the commonly used phrase for residents of Indiana, who may have geography in common but not necessarily that much else. "I don't know what it is about Hoosiers,” he wrote, “but wherever you go there is always a Hoosier doing something very important there."

#StateandLocalGovernmentHumanResources #StateandLocalHiring #StateandLocalGenerationalStereotyping #CityGovernmentHumanResources #CountyGovernmentHumanResources #GenerationalDifferences #GenerationalStereotyping #OverSimplifyingGenerationalDifferences #StateandLocalGovernmentWorkforce #StateandLocalGovernmentRecruitment #BandGReport #BarrettandGreeneInc