Generation Labels: A Misleading Claim

Some employers like to say they have five generations in the workplace. While boasting employing workers across the age spectrum is commendable, the misleading claim is not.

What Does It Really Mean?

If I worked for Company A (I’m 60), then someone the age of my parents (deceased), grandparents (deceased), sons (aged 22 to 35) and grandson (aged two) would also need to be employed by Company A. That is five generations in the workplace. Understand the problem?

Generation Labels: Rise and Fall

In a pro-con article on the use of generational labels, Dr. Daniel Jolles, a research officer in behavioral science at The Inclusion Initiative (TII) at the London School of Economics and Political Science, wrote: “These labels have largely originated from the Pew Research Center, a U.S. think tank, before evolving organically through popular and social media. In recent times, there have been mounting concerns about the absence of scientific rigor supporting these generational constructs and the potential detrimental effects the labels may have on workplace culture.”

Why Age Labels Should Be Avoided

Understanding the dangers these labels represent will help employers build a stronger work culture.

• Implied generational stereotypes perpetuate age bias–across all ages and can create or intensify conflict in the workplace, reducing productivity and increasing employee absenteeism and turnover.
• Labels are distracting and impersonal, deepening separation in the workplace where productivity, teamwork, and efficiencies rely on shared vision.
• Oversimplification and stereotypical references have led to so-called generational experts who rely on this false narrative to sell consulting packages to companies, which hope to increase employee satisfaction and attract younger talent. No empirical research has shown generational differences to be so vast that differential training is required, and, in most cases, these experts merely perpetuate age stereotypes.

What to Do Instead

Before referring to age in any internal or external communications (written or spoken), ask if it is necessary. Consider if you would add race or gender to the same reference. If the answer is no, that’s a good indication that age is not necessary. If the answer is yes, ask again to make sure.

Case for Inclusion

One case where age might be relevant to include would be for companies who measure representation across various dimensions of diversity, such as ensuring pay equity for the same types of jobs across ages, races, genders, etc. Additionally, reporting on employee surveys with demographic slices to help the company better understand segments of its work culture could also be helpful so long as age references are specific and consistently represented. The following breakout is recommended: 15 – 25, 26 – 35, 36 – 45, 46 – 55, 56 – 65, 66 – 75, 76 – 85, 86 – 95.

Conclusion

By avoiding age labels and highlighting the successes of all-aged teams, organizations can build synergies that ultimately build a best-in-class workplace for all ages. Most importantly, understanding the difference between age labels and generations will eliminate the age hype and produce more authentic communications that resonate.

Q: What is the alternative to generational labels?
A: Instead of using generational labels, consider focusing on age ranges (e.g., 15-25, 26-35, etc.) or using more nuanced descriptors that avoid stereotypes and oversimplification.

Q: How can I avoid using generational labels in internal and external communications?
A: Before referencing age in any internal or external communications, ask if it is necessary. Consider if you would add race or gender to the same reference. If the answer is no, that’s a good indication that age is not necessary. If the answer is yes, ask again to make sure.

Q: What are some potential downsides of using generational labels?
A: Implied generational stereotypes perpetuate age bias–across all ages and can create or intensify conflict in the workplace, reducing productivity and increasing employee absenteeism and turnover. Labels are also distracting and impersonal, deepening separation in the workplace where productivity, teamwork, and efficiencies rely on shared vision.