Acronym

Great observation, Lauren. Yes, age is an important variable, but it is only one variable. And everybody of a particular age group is not the same.

A lot of the characteristics attributed to younger generations - questioning authority, seeking autonomy, balancing work and life - are shared by many, many of the older generation.

The differences, if there are any, are more likely to be found in their environments and experiences in their formative years.

So keep looking beyond "generations" and you may gain more insights than those who are blinded by age.

Thank you for this article. I am also on the cusp like yourself, and despite being a Millennial, I tend to have more Gen X characteristics. That being said, I appreciate your caution about grouping folks and assuming behaviors by age. I recently attended a seminar on mentoring, and my baby-boomer counterparts were lamenting how "my generation" didn't want to be mentored, were lazy, and unprofessional.

It made me want to scream. Despite my logical arguments as to why those categorizations were not true, and even used my own personal experiences as a counter point. I was dismissed as the exception.

Don't get me wrong, there are just as many individuals who fill the stereotypes, as there are those who don't (that is how stereotypes come to exist). But I would propose that we reach out to individuals in the way that they want to be approached. That way you can get your message to the "lazy" 20-somethings as well as the lazy 50-somethings.

Let's say I had a coin, and I flipped it in the air, caught it, and slammed it down on the table, with my hand still covering it. Seriously, I just took a break from typing and did it, except I covered the coin with some paper so I could type. It's sitting right over there. And so I ask, what is the probability that the coin has the "heads" side up?

Most people will say 50% (or 0.5 for you statisticians). But that answer is wrong.

I just looked at the coin, and it happens to be "tails" side up, so the probability that it is heads is zero. THE COIN HAS ALREADY BEEN FLIPPED, so the probability question is moot. It either is heads, or it isn't.

What does this have to do with generations? Generational research is valid, but it is very high level, and you can't truly apply it to individuals, but we all do that. A lot. I am not a cusper. I squarely in the middle of Gen X, and I'm like the stereotype in many ways (independent, a bit cynical), but in other ways I'm not, and not everyone who was born in 1967 is like me. Each one of us has "already been flipped." We are either like our generational stereotype, or we are not.

But remember, just because each one of us has already been flipped, that doesn't mean we throw out the big picture analysis either. It is true that the probability of coin tosses in general landing heads is 50%. Just ask any casino owner. It's always a dance between the big picture truth and the detail truth. We need to understand the generations, as broad as they are, and that broad knowledge (even generalizations) will impact our specific organizational choices around marketing, leadership development, etc. But so will some of the behavior we observe and knowledge we glean from our individual members, etc. It's a both-and.

The subtlety of this work is often lost when speakers lapse into the hype, which typically chooses one of the generations to vilify, frequently the youngest one. You cut through the hype with knowledge, both about the big picture generalizations--and their exceptions.

Wants to see video of the JNott Generational Coin-Flipping Model

Ages ago William Strauss and Neil Howe spoke at an ASAE conference and said something along the lines of: "Every generation has individuals that embody some of its stereotype, but not stereotype embodies all of the individuals."

That has always stuck with me as has their astute reminder that there are commonalities across generations for people in the same stage of life or same stage of career.

And their final gem was "beware of turning talk about generations into generalizations."

I would hope that we could get away from turning commonalities into stereotypes of any kind whether generational or otherwise. Stereotypes and generalizations serve to create an atmosphere of "us versus them", "my group is better than yours"...and erects barriers where none need exist. It is demoralizing to be reduced to a set of characterisitics - takes away our individuality and humanity.

Lauren -

Great post. Speaking of coin flips - on one side of the coin I remember being your age and hearing similar messages about how Gen X workers coming into the workforce expected too much, slacked off and weren't engaged.

On the other side, two years ago I went to an ASAE event where a "Millennial" was giving generational advice to the room and heard, "Generation X is just mad because we are getting everything they wanted."

I'm kind of tired of being flipped and getting it from both sides. I am firmly in Gen X and I believe I share a certain affinity with many of my peers. Yes, there are similarities in experience, communication styles and the social conditions that mold perspective on the part of individual generations. However, there are also distinct differences between myself and others my age. Generational understanding gives you a head start to creating a dialogue but should in no way make people feel empowered to make such sweeping statements as if they are fact.

Shelly

Jamie -- I think, based on your comment and previous comm we've had on the subject, that we're pretty close to the same position. I think I get there from a slightly different angle, namely I think when you know you have a prejudice (in the true sense of the word, not the ugly sense) you should actively look for clues that your prejudice is wrong.

But I'm not digging the coin flip story as an illustration. When that piece of paper or your hand or whatever is covering the quarter, it is unknown, and therefore you can talk about statistics and probabilities, and the chances of that quarter being heads is indeed 50 percent. Once it is revealed, probabilities no longer apply because it is known. Again, I like the point of the story -- observation is much more telling than statistics. Statistics are useful when the observations are too hard or impossible.

But I contend that the answer to the question you posed--what is the probability that the coin has the "heads" side up?--is, in fact exactly 50 percent. Unless you're Schrodinger, and then I guess it is exactly 100 percent heads AND 100 percent tails (but I don't have the intellect--or creativity is it?--to understand quantum physics).