In 1991, William Strauss and Neil Howe published "Generations", a book which asserted the existence of a generational personality. Since that time, theorists in the Human Resource field have attempted to apply this notion to the world of work. Authors trying to make this connection included Ron Zemke, Claire Raines and others. These books follow a typical pattern:
Step 1: Generations are defined as those Americans born between two selected years. The Baby Boomer generation born between 1946 and 1964 or, by other accounts 1943 and 1960, usually is the anchor.
Step 2: Major societal events occurring in the formative years of these generations are cited as forces shaping a personality of these age cohorts which stays with them throughout life.
Step 3: The difference between generations is claimed to be a major diversity concern affecting American businesses.
"When Generations Collide" by Lynne C. Lancaster and David Stillman follows this pattern. In my view, this is an awful book, flawed on these and other counts:
1. It describes as a generational cohort (sometimes as one generation, sometimes as two) Americans born between 1900 and 1945. This is a mammoth grouping, about which it is difficult to make any meaningful generalizations. To lump together these people, born over several decades, and to proceed to describe a common personality is arrogant. Some of these people came of age during World War I, others during the Cuban Missle Crisis. This large-scale approach is also contrary to the more discrete groupings made by other generational commentators.
2. Lancaster and Stillman describe generational personalities quite differently than other commentators. They describe the Americans born between 1900 and 1945 as "God-fearing, hardworking and patriotic." Aside from the obvious stereotyping, its worth noting that while the historians Strauss and Howe use terms like these to describe some of the Americans born in these years, they also describe some of them as having a declining interest in religion and as a generation coasting along on the accomplishments of others. Who is right?
3. Lancaster and Stillman need a fact checker. Even a nonspecialist notes claims like the one that the dance, the Twist, was a key cultural factor for the 1900- 1945 generation. (It was introduced in the 1960's). Other claims include one that certain modern employees long for workplace of the 1940's, when a worker would need to be at least in their 70's in 2002 to have worked in the last year of that decade. Here is an understatement: there are more such discrepancies.
4. Most significantly, as often happens with the theorists of the generational personality, the authors engage in gross stereotyping. Again, a pattern is followed, beginning with decrying others who stereotype instead of "get(ing) to know who these generations really are..." Note: the authors teach that stereotyping is avoided not in getting to know actual people, but only age cohorts.
It is very tempting to read this as feigned outrage when the authors then proceed to build a book around what seems to be stereotyping. We are taught by Lancaster and Stillman that: Baby Boomers (1946-1964) resent Xers (1965-1980) for finding it easy to change jobs; that Xers resent Traditionalists (1900-1945) for being resistant to change; that Baby Boomers are competitive; that Xers are skeptical. As an aside, I reviewed descriptions of young people as reported in the popular media of the early 1970's. A common description of the young at that time was skeptical. This is suggestive that life stages rather than a generational personality are a far more important factor. Here is a common-sense question: Is it really very unusual to view young people at any time as skeptical? Why build it into a description distinguishing young people of the 1990's from the young a generation ago?
5. There is a trendy, cliche-ridden writing style. Beaver Cleaver is linked rhetorically with Eldridge Cleaver as influential people for Baby Boomers; "Mad" Magazine with Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) as an example of life being complex. There is gross exageration: The so-called conflicts between generations are called "earth shattering." One of the worst examples of hyperbole is this description of the 1980's: "Children mysteriously disappeared from neighborhoods and showed up frighteningly at the breakfast table on milk cartons." O.K., but this just might be stretching things a bit.
There is another problem with this whole notion of a generational personality. Besides the lack of any coherent foundation and aside from all the stereotyping, it diverts crucial resources from real diversity issues. I might speculate on why managers would find it more comfortable to talk about their diversity concerns as they pertain to Baby Boomers or what is was like to be young, but I can't understand why diversity professionals allow the concept of a generational personality to take resources away from concerns about race, gender or sexual orientation.
The best clue that the idea of a generational personality may lack content comes near the end of this 352-page book, when Lancaster and Stillman summarize their advice. They tell us: flexibility is in; give people the benefit of the doubt; don't forget the little things.
Thanks, we needed that information.
