|
|
31 of 39 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Please read this book - skeptically, July 5, 2002
Most of what is written about the Generational Personality and its impact in the workplace is just no good. It fills this purpose: it entertains Human Resource managers who are made anxious by more relevant diversity concerns and provides a niche for a new group of consultants and writers. These books are also usually written in an extravagant style, claiming that there are immutable differences between generations and that "dealing with these differences" is a vital diversity concern. A roster of books along these lines includes "Generations at Work" by Ron Zemke, Claire Raines and Bob Filipczak; "When Generations Collide" by Lynne C. Lancaster, and David Stillman; and (slightly better) "Bridging the Boomer Xer Gap" by Hank Karp, Connie Fuller and Danilo Sirias. To this list, we must add "Managing Generation Y" by Carolyn A. Martin, Ph.D. and Bruce Tulgan.Martin and Tulgan follow the typical approach: They define a generation as the people born between two selected years. Then they describe a few events occurring in the years that those people were coming of age. From this, they concoct a generational personality that they say describes this age cohort and which will describe them throughout life. Audiences and Human Resource practitioners usually miss the signficance of the last seven words in the proceeding sentence. It is possible to have a useful discussion about the differing needs of younger versus older workers. Martin and Tulgan and their colleagues are selling something considerably more radical: a notion that a distinct generational personality is formed that can characterize millions of Americans born between two selected years and that this personality will stick with them throughout life. Thus, some group of Americans will, in general, be cynical until they die, whereas another group will have the dominant trait of optimism throughout life. Of course, in so doing, they have indulged the very modern workplace practice of dividing people into more and more groups. Martin and Tulgan are writing about what they call Generation Y, limited to those Americans born between 1978 and 1984. One reality that undermines any objective basis for a generational personality is that definitions between the experts vary. For Martin and Tulgan, Generation Y is birth years 1978 - 84; for Lancaster and Stillman it is 1981 - 1999 and for Zemke et al it is 1980 - 2000. The years picked to describe a generation are arbitrary and lead to idiosyncratic results. So, Martin and Tulgan feel free to describe a six-year "generation"; other theorists such as Lancaster and Stillman, in one case identify a 45-year generation. Here is a short list of what is wrong with this book 1. Setting up phony arguments Martin and Tulgan begin by criticizing those who would label Generation Y as "lazy, self-interested, kids constantly at risk, for drugs, sex and violence." There is no identification of who these narrow thinkers are other than a reference to the mainstream media. Does it really represent any kind of consolidated opinion or are the authors just pretending outrage as a prelude to creating their own stereotypes? 2. Extravagant language. This, too, is common to the genre. Whereas Zemke describes the 1980's as a time when "the layoff craze struck like a radioactive lizard in downtown Tokyo" and Lancaster writes of that time as one in which "children mysteriously disappeared from neighborhoods and showed up frighteningly at the breakfast table on milk cartons", Martin and Tulgan have their own excesses. They speak of Generation Y growing up in a " 'war' (that) was fought on native soil. Their 'enemy' appeared in their homes, in their neighborhoods, on their playgrounds: in adults who sought to abuse them; in schoolmates who might suddenly shoot them." They insultingly aver that in the light of these experiences, Generation Y didn't need a Second World War or a Viet Nam to feel terrified. I guess Martin and Tulgan would understand a twenty year-old telling an eighty year old in 2002, "O.K., I didn't have to go fight Germany, Italy and Japan, but do you realize that just two states over from me there was a school shooting my sophomore year?" (Note to my Human Resource colleagues: I know these people can be entertaining speakers at our conferences, but do we really want to be associated with this nonsense?) 3. Ignorance of the normal life cycle Martin and Tulgan don't seem to realize that the characteristics of the young that they identify may be a feature not of having been born between two arbitrarily selected years, but just a matter of being young. Most of the trends they cite are not compared with how young people may have been twenty or forty years ago. If they looked, they might find some similarities. On page 4, they describe the young as optimistic. Fine, but according to Gallup, in 1968, eighteen to twenty-four year olds were more optimistic, at least about the country's future, than their counterparts were in 2000. The authors quote David Gergen to the effect that today's young people could make this country an immensely better place. Archibald Cox said similar platitudes about young people over thirty years ago. The notion of a generational personality is an entertaining distraction. In the end, it does a disservice to those companies that spend time and resources on it.
|