Jamie Notter has made his e-book, Generational Diversity in the Workplace, available for free, and you should download it and read it. It is a compelling and engaging read, worth its weight in gold for the first part alone, where he summarizes a lot of research into generational generalizations.
What makes Jamie’s work most interesting to me is the fact that he lays out the generational differences as they are usually viewed, and then clearly explains why they should be, for the most part, set aside in terms of actual interactions. Individuals are individuals, not representatives of their generations (the individuals have already been “flipped,” as he says, using a coin-toss analogy — already either heads or tails, not potentially one or the other).
Generalizations about generation are very seductive for those of us who manage people from different age groups, because they’re easy. If we think we know something about the generation in question, it’s far easier to write off an individual’s behavior as, “Oh, that’s how all those [insert colloquial generation title] are.” As Jamie points out, that may be easy, but it’s not helpful.
And I believe those generalizations are not helpful, because they’re not true. I’m an Xer, and yes, I may have certain traits that have been publicly identified with all those other members of my generation. But if you peel back the onion, I think I probably am more likely to have traits in common with people of my generation who share specific life experiences and made specific choices. I grew up in very modest circumstances in a relatively rural area with two working parents; immediately after high school, went to a liberal arts college, financed by scholarships, loans, and a slew of part-time jobs; immediately after college, I entered the workforce.
Find someone who was born on the exact same day I was, but grew up in a metropolitan area with a single parent; went into the military after high school; attended college part-time in their late twenties while working; and then began a professional career. We may speak a certain common cultural language — maybe we both “get” some of the more obscure 80s references on Family Guy, for example — but we likely have different interactive styles and approaches to professional decision-making.
In fact, change just one of my early life experiences — say, someone who went to the same college as I did, started their own career when I did, but had a more privileged, or less privileged, childhood. I still say we develop very different approaches to the workplace (and I can say this because, well, it describes some of my friends).
But personally I find generalizations about generation to be especially dangerous in the association realm when it comes to members and customers, because it’s there that the real differences between sub-groups can be more pronounced. If we listen to those who say “Millennials are like this,” then we might start to think that Millennials among our membership are like this, too.
But the thing about trade and professional associations is that we all serve very different constituencies, who are part of the constituency because they have made particular choices, and who have more in common with each other than they do with generational counterparts who made very different choices (including generational counterparts who chose to work for associations).
Let’s make up a broad example. Let’s say that Mary works for an association that represents a profession, comprised of people who get degrees in what the profession does and tend to work for other people. Let’s say that Dan works for an association comprised of business owners in a certain industry, who are typically either a) skilled tradespeople who stopped working for other people to start their own business or b) are children of skilled tradespeople who stopped working for other people to start their own business.
Now let’s say Mary and Dan both go to a meeting of association executives and go to a workshop called “Recruiting Millennial Members.”
What are the odds that what they learn at this workshop is going to be truly applicable to the very different membership bases these two associations serve?
The fact is, Mary’s membership base probably encompasses a lot of differences based on generation and other diverse criteria. Maybe her association is comprised of people who “trailblazed” a profession out of nowhere, and younger people who chose it as a major in college. Maybe it’s a profession that used to be dominated by men and now is dominated by women. Maybe it could be a lot of different things.
And Dan’s association certainly has a lot of differences of its own to grapple with. Just the difference between the sort of people who start their own business, and people who inherit one, is fairly significant.
Yet despite the fact that their audiences are comprised of profoundly different people, who have made profoundly different choices, what they hear at this mythical workshop is “this is how a particular generation thinks and this is how you can reach them.”
These sorts of differences — and I’m being very shallow in my examples — are one example of why “best practices” for associations are so limited in their usefulness (as are things that don’t call themselves “best practices” but amount to the same thing, such as the workshop I outline above, or consultants who say “you should hire me because I’ve worked with so many different associations,” even though those associations may serve audiences completely different from your own).
Sure, there are things to learn and they can be valuable, just as Jamie points out that there are some things to learn from generational generalizations. But ultimately an association must confront the unique challenges of its own market and create its own path.
It’s not nearly as easy as shrugging off “those kids these days” but I believe you’ll learn far more about serving those kids today and in the future by getting to know those kids — not all the other kids.
{ 8 comments }
Kevin, while I agree with the premise that one should not manage by generalizations, methinks you do protest too much. You say “And I believe those generalizations are not helpful, because they’re not true.” But in the very next sentence you say “I’m an Xer, and yes, I may have certain traits that have been publicly identified with all those other members of my generation.”
I think the point of all of this research is to suggest that there ARE commonalities among the generational cohorts and that it is useful to know this information.
Allow me to present an example: women and men communicate differently (if you want to see how, read “You Just Don’t Understand” by Deborah Tannen). Now, does EVERY woman or man communicate in the same manner? Of course not. But understanding the general behavior of each gender can certainly aid in management of each gender. The same is true of the generational generalities.
Any manager who tries to manage or dismiss a given employee with “Oh, that’s just how [insert stereotype here] behave” is an idiot and not really trying to manage. But that hardly makes the research unimportant or useless (or in your words, “not true”).
Wes, as I said, there’s value to be gained from generalizations and things to be learned, but we have to be cognizant of their limitations. You’re right, saying “not true” was a bit of a rhetorical flourish on my part, and what I really meant by “not true” was really “not true enough” or maybe “true enough in the abstract but meaningless in the specific.”
This is not just about generations, but about all sorts of generalizations. You’re analogy of the differences between men and women is a perfect example. Are there generalized differences in the way men and women communicate? I think, absolutely. Is there value in knowing what these differences are? Again, in my opinion, absolutely. But I also agree with you that when you bring it down to an individual interaction, these generalizations can and probably should go out the window — and may be, depending on the individual, not helpful, because they may be, in the case of the individual, not true.
What I tried to get at in this post is that these large-scale generalizations may also be less true when you move beyond the individual interaction and look at a sub-group, such as those served by differing associations.
An example:
Are there differences between the sort of people who become human resources specialists and the sort of people who become electricians? I’ve no research, but I believe that there probably are.
Are there differences between men who become electricians and women who become electricians? Again, given what we know about the broad, generalized differences between men and women, I think probably.
Now, are there differences between women who become human resources specialists and women who become electricians? Even though we’ve determined that, on a broad scale, we can generalize about women and about men — on this not-quite-individual but still-smaller-than-the-broad-group scale, I think the answer is probably yes.
So, to repeat what I said in my post — there is some value, and things to be learned, from generalizations. Certainly I find them interesting. But, as Jamie wrote in his book and I agree, they can be less than helpful — perhaps even harmful — when you move beyond the abstract and into the realm of concrete individual interactions.
My point was that I think the same can be said for larger sub-groups such as those served by associations, not just individuals. Unless you’re an unusual sort of association like AARP (which, by definition, serves a broad constituency of people with only one thing in common — they are older than a certain age), you are serving a base whose membership has certain life experiences and choices in common that may define them more — and perhaps even define them differently — than broader generalizations about their generation, gender, or anything else.
Thanks for the comment!
Hey Kevin, I think where we disagree is here: “But I also agree with you that when you bring it down to an individual interaction, these generalizations can and probably should go out the window…”
What I’m saying is if one manages solely on the basis of these generalizations, they’re doomed. But I very strongly believe this type of information is helpful as one piece of a much bigger puzzle. So what I disagree with is that these generalizations “should go out the window.” On the contrary, one should be aware of these generalizations to help understand the bigger picture about an individual.
Kevin, I like your reference to “experience,” which includes many variables, including age. I’m amazed at the obsession some people have with generational differences. Those have always existed – throughout time – and have changed during each person passage through various stages of life.
Generational experiences are just part of the mosaic of people’s lives. Economics, education, family, and personality are just as important, if not more, than age considerations.
Well said Kevin and David. I personally hate being pigeon-holed by just one aspect of my life (my age) and having it more important than all the rest I bring to the table.
I think sometimes we’ve tagged the generational differences as the issue when it may have been just the tip of the iceberg.
I’ve seen this in working with volunteer leaders. 12 years ago, I would talk with them about the four generations like everyone else was. But as I kept pressing, I found a more important distinction – that of traditionalists (who wanted to do it the way they’ve always done it) and “today’s members” (who expect value every time they show up.)
Originally I, like others, thought the Gen Xers asking “Why?” was the force – but soon noticed once the door was open, others of various also found increased value in belonging when WIIFM was relevant and thing were fun instead of boring.
Age didn’t really matter in the equation any more. Were more traditionalists older? Yes, but not all. Same with today’s members – more Gen XY – but older members started identifying too.
There is also great potential to skew perspectives with technology only belong to the younger generations because they are “natives.”
I stopped teaching volunteer leaders generation stuff a long time ago. It’s good to be aware of – but I think there are stronger ways to consider groupings especially in the volunteer arena.
Cynthia
Thanks for the (exceedingly!) kind words, Kevin! Great conversation. If Wes hadn’t pushed back a bit, I would have. I do think the generalizations are important–they go beyond age and life stage, and they often factor into small-group interactions, even if they don’t explain them in an oversimplified way.
Identity is complex. Managing people is complex. Taking care of members is complex. So anything that provides oversimplified answers (Bob’s a boomer, therefore he believes…) will get us into trouble.
The crux, in my opinion, is in developing more nuanced and effective “conversations.” THis is particularly true in membership organizations. Think about it. Leave generations out. How many associations have conversations where what the “membership” wants or needs is casually (and simplistically) thrown about? We’re good at oversimplifying our membership. So bring the generational trends into the conversation–not to explain things, but to facilitate exploring the complexity more fully.
Jamie wrote: “So bring the generational trends into the conversation–not to explain things, but to facilitate exploring the complexity more fully.”
Well said! You should consider consulting on these issues!
Thanks, Jamie. The complexity of a particular association’s demographics were exactly what I was getting at. We can learn things from broader societal generalizations but we need to be even more cognizant of the differences within, and peculiar to, our own constituencies.
And you are absolutely dead on when you ask, “How many associations have conversations where what the ‘membership’ wants or needs is casually (and simplistically) thrown about?” This is often because we think we know what our membership wants or needs because we know certain members — volunteers and leaders and vocal members — very well. But they are NOT representative of your membership. Begin a program of frequent surveys and polls of your members and I think you will find a much more nuanced and interesting picture of your membership’s wants and needs will emerge. I believe that statistical sampling of large portions of your membership will tell you far more about what your members (and sub-groups of members) are really like than what you will learn from individual members or broad societal generalizations.
Thanks again for the excellent e-book!
Comments on this entry are closed.