Acronym

So you're not alone in your reaction to these types of observations Scott. What I'm wndering is how you would suggest we talk about our differences then. What approach and/or language would you find more inviting?

I have a few responses to your question, Jeffrey.

First - I think overall we need to talk about broad generalizations less than we do. And when we talk broadly about generations or gender or people who don't eat meat, we need to make repeated caveats that all stereotypes, no matter how much good research is behind them, break down at the small group level and could do more harm than good at the individual level.

Second - The characteristics that are applied broadly to these groups are perfectly valid, just don't label people inappropriately. In other words, talk about how to deal with a staff that is comprised of both people who's primary motivation is loyalty (commonly ascribed to the pre-World War II generation) and staff of those who feel that they are entitled to have a leadership seat at the table (ascribed to those born since 1980). You can have those conversations without labeling people.

Third - The one thing I just never hear enough, whether it's people talking about the Myers-Briggs or these generational or gender or ethnic differences is that all of these types or generalizations are situational. There are times and situations when some people act one way and then act in other ways based on the situation.

Thanks Scott. I appreciate you taking the time to share some more of your thinking.

It is going to cause me to go bake and dig into the research a bit more as I don't recall things being as situational as I'm inferring you might believe. Human behavior is so complex that we try and separate out certain characteristics and then use them to predict cause and effect as opposed to acknowledging the integrate and complex nature of who we are and what choices we make.

I completely concur that at the individual level any generalizations can break down quickly and indeed do much harm. That's a point we would be wise to keep on the front burner. So the self-aware individual is going to take all the info learned about groups or cohorts and keep that as background information that may or may not apply to any specific individual.

Not sure if you'll check back here or not, Jeffrey, but your second comment made me think of another point. When you talk about "keep that as background" I think of Gladwell's thinslicing. So many people read Blink and thought he was celebrating snap/gut decisions as good. He was just making the observation that people do it, and often they are right. But he also made the point that when he grew his hair out, the police and some white people started approaching him with more distrust.

I guess my point is, if you keep the knowledge as background, you'll have the tendency to project it on others whether it applies or not. I think every one does that to some degree, and it can be an humbling experience when you notice it (or worse, when somebody points it out in you).

I think we sometimes spend too much time trying to categorize people rather than teach folks a full set of skills to be able to customize their approach to the person in front of them.

Too often people prefer to just stick with the shallow labeling process (especially when it justifies why they are superior) - rather than learn what to do based on what the information presented.

I once worked with a group dominated by older leaders. Rather than give them the typical four generation talk, I had them talk about the characteristics they saw in each group.

Their generation was the most brilliant, loyal, hard-working, etc. As we moved through to the young adults, the judgements and words used got harsher with each level.

Finally someone realized what happening - and raised it to the group. The whole room shifted in energy (and some felt almost shame) as they realized what they were doing.

It was a great teaching moment to start the conversation about what could be done differently, how to find the common ground, etc. The next hour was very powerful for them as they owned their filters.

Cynthia

But Scott, every experience we have becomes part of our background and the filters we use to make meaning and sense of what happens around us. Just because that is the case doesn't mean they lead automatically to snap judgments, stereotypes, or worse yet, deep prejudices.

We aren't blank slates and never will be. As Gladwell notes, some times that works to our advantage and sometimes it doesn't. i don't think I would want it any other way.

Another sticky thing about generalizations is that we all belong to numerous groups, some of which may have different, or even conflicting, stereotypes attached to them. How do you choose which one to group someone under?

The main thing, I think, is to be aware of the stereotypes you have as part of your background. Then you can do a check on whether they actually are true, and if true, if they apply to the person in front of you. The bad creeps in when you don't stop to think, but blindly go about putting people into slots based on whatever aspect you choose to categorize them under.

As Scott said above, it's not a happy surprise to find out you're doing this when you don't even know it.

I think Jeffrey and Sue are too quick to dismiss the potential messiness that can be background. I think the way Sue described it is fairly accurate, you test individuals against the knowledge in your background. The problem is, none of us are impartial, and all of us are highly susceptible to projecting that background onto an individual without reason.

I'm not saying there's a great deal we can do about it... we're going to have that background whether we want it or not. I just think that everyone needs to understand that the background can be dangerous for everybody, and we must be vigilant not to project. And we have to realize that each of us is going to fail from time to time.