The Generation Hunger Game of Thrones

I loathe Baby Boomers, despise Gen X, can’t stand Millennials or Gen Z in equal measure, now Generation Alpha is starting to grind my gears, and the Silent Generation, really? Shut up!

If you’re thinking that this is a perspective so cynical that I must be a Gen Xer, you’re right. Chronologically speaking I meet the definition of ‘Gen X’. I also happen to believe that my generation is responsible for pretty much every decent bit of music ever created, and I admit that my default position is scepticism when confronted with any form of ‘received wisdom’.

To be clear though, it’s not the people to whom we apply these generational labels that I direct my disdain, it’s the labels themselves - the lazy categorisation of millions of humans based solely on their year of birth.

To quote Scepticus Empericus, a fictional philosopher from my unwritten novel, 'what absolute bollocks!'.

I’ve been down a rabbit hole on this topic for the past few days because the challenge of leading multi-generational teams has come up in several recent conversations. During the most recent I had to check myself as I could feel my eye-rolling muscles begin to twitch involuntarily as a friend relayed this story from the frontline:

“Employee-Z asked that the ‘more senior’ Employee-X always send a text checking that it’s a good time to talk and stating what they will be discussing, before they call, so that Employee-X can be prepared for the conversation”

It shames me to admit that my unspoken gut-reaction was ‘just take the call and don’t be so precious’ - but then we got chatting and I’m pleased to report that we landed in a much more empathetic place.

There is a power imbalance at play here, so good on Z for being brave enough to make the request. Plus, I don’t believe that it’s only younger staff who feel at least a pang of anxiety when the boss's name flashes up on screen unannounced. And, actually, I would prefer that because; a) it demonstrates respect for my time, and b) in most cases asynchronous communication is simply more efficient.

When I was Z’s age, I would have been alarmed had I received an unannounced call from my boss on my mobile. Mainly because mobile phones that didn’t leave you bankrupt and with third-degree burns to your ear hadn’t been invented yet, but even if they had I’m certain that me-the-younger would have appreciated some time to prepare - emotionally and intellectually.

Here’s what I found down that aforementioned rabbit hole: according to my AI research assistants, the practice of categorising generations has roots in sociology (Karl Mannheim’s 1952 essay “The Problem of Generations”). Okay, great, that sounds pretty scientific.

However, the categories we see today (Boomers, etc.) were later popularised by authors such as William Strauss and Neil Howe in their 1991 book Generations, and then those pesky consultants jumped on the bandwagon - giving it that ‘little-bit-academic-little-bit-horoscopy’ vibe. For the record, I’m not a fan of horoscopes either (which is so Leo, I know).

On the face of it these generational categories offer a compelling cognitive shortcut, a wonderfully simple guide to complex human behaviour that fits neatly into a four box matrix.

Unfortunately, they are useless as a management tool.

Your primary role as a leader is to help your people perform to the best of their abilities in service of your strategy, and ideally not be an arsehole in the process. By relying on these generational caricatures I believe you are likely doing the opposite - limiting your team’s potential by applying lazy stereotypes.

I’m convinced that this obsession with generational labels is one of the most counterproductive trends in modern management, right up there with addressing your employees as ‘family’, while solemnly announcing that one-in-five of you will need to find a new family on Monday.

The scientific evidence for distinct generational groups is weak. This view is backed by organisational psychologist Adam Grant who states that generational differences are "vastly exaggerated." Much of what we attribute to a generational trait is what psychologists call an "illusion of moral decline", the tendency to believe younger generations are somehow worse than our own because we compare them to our current selves, not our younger selves (see ‘burnt ear’ above).

This view is also backed by a consensus study from the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, which concluded that categorising workers by generational labels is not supported by research and is an unreliable basis for workforce management decisions.

So why do these labels persist?

Because they offer a cognitive shortcut, and maybe because a whole industry of consultants make a shit-ton of money selling you this simple story. It’s easier to manage a faceless "Millennial" than it is to manage Sarah, who is juggling childcare with caring for an aging parent as the cost of living continues to skyrocket, and is motivated by personal development. The problem is, this shortcut is at best ineffective.

I think these labels cause real harm and agree with Brené Brown, who said, "We are complex beings who wake up every day and fight against being labeled and diminished with stereotypes and characterizations that don't reflect our fullness." When you apply a label, you not only overlook the individual but also bring the lie to pass:

• When you assume an older employee is "technologically challenged" you may deny them opportunities for training - so now they’re properly challenged.

• When you label a younger employee a "job hopper," you may deny them leadership opportunities - so off they hop.

This is poor leadership and in my view amounts to age-based discrimination which potentially creates legal risks, which I should preface with ‘never take legal advice from me’. The labels leave no room for the Gen Xer who has been working at the frontline of every technological shift since the 1980s, or the Boomer who is a more sophisticated social media strategist than their junior colleagues.

The labels tell you which box to put people in, but they tell us nothing useful about who they are or how to get the most out of them.

What’s the alternative?

Well, it ain't rocket surgery: Just manage people as individuals. Instead of relying on the flimsy evidence of what separates us, focus on the overwhelming evidence of what unites us. Research consistently shows that, regardless of birth year, people want similar things from work. They want fair compensation, flexibility, opportunities to learn and grow, and leaders who are competent and honest.

This requires a shift from making assumptions to asking questions. It means choosing, as Brené Brown puts it, "courage over comfort." It is easy to rely on a stereotype; it is courageous to lead a person.

Instead of a generational playbook, try having workplace preferences conversations. Simply ask people how they like to communicate, receive feedback, and be recognised. This is why I built the Reqlarity Pact - a tool that makes these conversations explicit rather than leaving teams to guess at implicit expectations. It helps people see where they fit without resorting to stereotypes. Relationship expert Esther Perel suggests asking questions that build real connection and trust, like "What brings out the best in you?" or "When is it difficult for you to ask for help?". These questions reveal the individual, not the stereotype, and show that you care - much more effectively than any corporate values bumper sticker ever will.

I’m open to having my mind changed on this, but the evidence so far seems pretty clear - yes, I am guilty of confirmation bias, which is a personal flaw that has nothing to do with my star sign. The best way to get your people on board is to see them for who they are, not for when they were born. As Adam Grant says, "The responsibility of each generation is not to please our predecessors - it's to improve conditions for our successors".

I’ll see Adam Grant and raise him one: regardless of when you were born, take time to understand what makes the people around you tick, behaviours you may have previously considered fundamental personality flaws are more likely to be rational adaptations to the different worlds we grew up in, worlds defined not just chronologically but economically, socially, culturally, etc.. By doing this we can simultaneously be better ancestors and better descendants.

Interpersonal relationships are a two-way street, of course, but as leaders it’s on you to come up with much better metaphors than where this sentence was going, and just make it okay for your people to be honest about their expectations by first being open about yours, and being open to finding the middle-ground that works for all.

What if the biggest inter-generational “problem" in our workplaces is the obsession with the labels themselves?

What more could your team achieve if you all decided to lead, or follow, or work alongside the person, not the stereotype?