Frankly, I wouldn’t be caught dead at Chuckie Cheese, even for my nephew (which is why he learned to eat Lobster when he was four; only now am I beginning to appreciate what a horrible mistake I made. . .), but I don’t view dining there quite the same way as I would an employment situation (frankly, if I did, I’d never walk into a corporate cafeteria again, and I still do. . .hesitantly, yes, but willingly).

My point is that the ‘generational schism’ is VASTLY overplayed, overanalysed, overcredited, and, frankly, overused. As a profession, we have got to STOP looking for reasons that push people apart, and start looking for reasons that bring people together. . .either that or we need to change our definitions of terms like ‘company,’ ‘organization,’ and ‘Human Resources,’ and begin to think of people, in the mode of the US Army (always a great source of inspiration) as ‘Companies of One.’

James.

The most important factor in the decision to stay or move to something else will be ‘how does it fit with where I am in life.’ Upsetting an
otherwise stable situation is something that anyone with more experience (often misread as age) is more deliberate about because that person has learned how stability at work impacts other parts of life. To someone with less experience (often misread as age) and more
time to recover or regain stability, another move can simply be another move with more time to recover. That’s not generational gap -
that’s a measure of risk versus reward.

The risk-reward equation is also where there are vast differences between actions due to specific factors other than age. I agree with
your article statements but would supplement them with some simple one-liners. When measuring long-term commitment to a company, expect tenured employees participating in a traditional pension plan to be more company-friendly and more likely to stay through events than newer hires partipating in portable 401k and cash balance plans.

If you could then agree that all other pay, rewards, and recognition were otherwise equal to all employees, then the generation gap argument becomes merely a collection of hypotheses. Rather than going down to the individual intimacy level (and believe me I know it takes
some but not much time), leaders and managers want a one-size-fits all explanation of what’s wrong. Most don’t know what makes each
individual tick, such as person’s goals, likes, dislikes, where they are in their job-cycle, career-cycle, and life-cycle or other key
personal events. By the way, most companies committed to succession planning do this only at the most senior levels so there’s no surprise
that without it things fall apart at the levels where it’s not done.

Other than start-up or turnaround situations, most employees really won’t have the opportunity for a one-year megadeal and chance to win
the big one. Employees have to look at the balance each day regardless of age to see if their job and company fits their needs. Believe me, if there were generational gaps as the common thought would have us accept, internal employee surveys wouldn’t reflect that 40-60% of employees are considering leaving. It’s usually not even mathematically possible to get to those percentages using generational age cuts alone. It’s takes a lot of people of all ages in all
generations to get to those percentages.

My bottomline solutions to ending the myth of generation gap: 1) Have HR do a historical analysis of voluntary resignations both before and after significant changes to retirement and compensation plans – wide view study will show that people have become more willing to move as
it’s become enabled by employer pay and pension plans; and 2) Analyze retention data of like employees using age as a control factor -
making age a data control factor will isolate age and prevent it from being lost in the information spin.

Think of it this way – everyone needs to eat and we all like to eat out once in awhile, but how many ‘Traditonalists’ do you see eating at Chucky Cheese’s? Unless they are with their great-grandkids, not many. And how many Milleninums do you see at ‘Country Buffet?’ Both offer a place to sit and eat and have a conversation (ok, well maybe not at CC’s).

I know it just KILLS us as HR-types not to be able to shove people into boxes based on large-group differences, but sometimes we just can’t do it. SOMEtimes, people are just different because they’re different, and sometimes they’re sort of the same because they’re sort of the same, and you’re just gonna have to deal with that, and an 18-year old and a 38-year old can be a whole heckuva lot more similar than a 21-year-old and a 24-year-old sometimes.

So what do you do? You get to know people as individuals, and treat them as individuals, and go from there. . .sucks, don’t it? But that’s what you’re going to have to do, if you want be known for treating people as actual people, and not just, you know, components in a box.

Warm Regards,

James.

- Honest and accurate communication about position expectations

- Solid behavioral interviewing skills

- Common sense in managing employees: get to know your employees and their needs as individuals and do the right thing by them.

Peoples’ priorities will change as they move through life, regardless of what generation they belong to. When they are younger, they may be more focused on money because they are building their independence, and when they get older they may have the luxury of focusing more on life outside of work. All employees want to be respected and recognized for a job well done. That is basic good management. It shouldn’t take generational studies to clue us in to that fact.

I believe, however, that much of the ‘generational differences’ literature also focuses on making the employment experience a positive one. In this area, I think it is important to understand generational differences. Managers of recent college grads need to be aware of their comfort with technology, their preferred means of communication, their preference for working in teams, etc. While these same recent grads need to be aware that their Gen X managers tend to be more comfortable in independent roles and their Baby Boomer Directors and VPs may not be as comfortable with technology.

So, let’s not throw out all of the research and literature on generations. Understanding differences in workplace styles is still important to retention, productivity and performance.

Perhaps some managers want rules for managing different generations so they can avoid doing the hard work of managing, i.e., talking with each direct report one-on-one to get to know them. If employers selected their managers based on the managers’ degree of job match, i.e., they have the talent for the job, employers would have more effective managers no matter how old the direct reports.

Employers should hire for talent or as Lou wrote ‘hire only people who have excelled at doing the real work you want done. This process is called job matching.’ Job matching works.