As a society, we often like to label different groups of people. One of the most widespread ways this is done is through our age. Generation naming began in the 20th century – often accredited to Gertrude Stein and the “Lost Generation“, a group of American writers who found themselves disillusioned from society post-WWI. However, the more accepted beginning is with the “Silent Generation” or the “Traditionalists“. This is a group that grew up in the chaos of war and the Great Depression, so, consequently remained silent not to cause more trouble than the turmoil already being faced. From this point on, we have labelled people based on the year they were born and on broad generalisations on what the group may have experienced (like major world events).

There is no science behind this act. It is wholeheartedly just a way for society to fulfil its need to put people into a box. Hence, the gut reaction may be to assume that these labels are harmful, and we shouldn’t be using them. This is even more true when considering the recent push for multi-generational cohesion and the ADF’s recent discussions on the potential conflict between generations. However, there is also a strong argument for why they may be a good thing. In this editorial, we aim to discuss both sides of the conversation and analyse the different contexts which may be necessary to truly determine the success of generational labelling.

“generational labelling can increase ageism”

One key reason why generational labelling is not necessarily a good thing is it can encourage conflict. Putting a label on someone assigns them to a group and makes it far simpler for people belonging to other groups to single them out. We discussed this in previous editorials where we analysed the media’s portrayal of both young and old generations. The media often takes a generational label and the stereotypes that come with it and often uses it to twist the perception of a generation. Because this group has a name so to speak such as a “Millennial” or a “Baby Boomer” it makes it easier for another group to lock onto those stereotypes. We found in research that the media is often very unflattering in these headlines and articles, creating a negative perception which can then create conflict. In the workplace, this can make managing teams much harder as people from different generations may have preconceptions to their colleagues which means they may not communicate as clearly. This can lead to disorganised groups which are not as productive. For example, a general stereotype is that older generations such as Baby Boomers are not as efficient at using technology. Younger generations in a group such as Millennials or more recently Gen Z (as they begin to enter the workplace) will automatically assume any older people in their group also fit that stereotype and so when it comes to delegation, they may prioritise those roles for themselves instead of communicating and finding out if the older person has those skills. On the other side, older generations like Baby Boomers are considered to be hard workers whilst younger generations like Gen Z and Millennials are often considered to be slackers. Again, in a group environment where perhaps a Baby Boomer is the lead, they may not delegate as much work to the younger generations (meaning they have less opportunity to develop themselves for later in their career) or in extreme cases refuse to work with them. This further emphasises the stereotypes as it stops the opportunity for generations to prove them wrong.

It could be argued that the whole concept of labelling ties firmly to the concept of “othering” This separates the person from yourself and means you don’t view them as part of the same group – often through negative definitions. Essentially, just seeing them as different. This does not bode well for firms trying to be more inclusive in their workforces if there is an “us versus them” mentality. It also means that groups don’t interact and integrate causing the divide to persist and worsen.

From a managerial perspective, generational labelling can increase ageism. During the pandemic, older generations were more likely to be made redundant or put on Furlough – so much so that 44% of the age group now remove their age on their CV. With generational labelling, it is much easier to separate older workers from their younger peers. It becomes a matter of simply saying ‘make the Baby Boomers redundant’ instead of actually analysing each worker’s value to the business.

However, is there any argument in favour of generational labelling? One could argue that it can help start conversations about differences between the different groups – effectively providing its own solution to the problem it has caused. When trying to encourage generational cohesion, an easy place to start is to get people talking to others from separate generations and have a discussion about what separates them. This is difficult to do without the concept of labelling but then it could be said that this wouldn’t need to be done in the first place.

It also may be a comfort to some people. Whilst it is easy to focus on the fact that it dissuades groups from integrating, there is a lot to be said about the fact it makes it easier for people with similar experiences to find each other and bond. There is something about belonging to a group of people who all are close in age and would have had comparable life experiences to you which can make you feel less isolated, particularly in the workplace. It is important to ensure that these groups don’t always stick together and do make an effort to interact with other cohorts. However, we naturally gravitate to people who are like us, so is there an argument that even without labelling, the generational divide would have existed anyway? Have we just put names to something naturally occurring?

It can also help depending on the context. For example, if a business has two separate customer bases, one older and one younger then it would make sense to use generational labelling to ensure that the groups matched the needs of the customers – much like with gender, it’s unlikely you would have a team of males working on a product or service aimed at women, it would also be unfair to have a group of young people trying to work on a product aimed at someone older. This isn’t a problem with their ages, it is more of a problem of understanding the customer from their own experiences and ensuring the output is as suitable as possible.

As mentioned at the beginning of this editorial, there is no real science behind generational labelling. It is often referred to as a pseudoscience, claiming to be factual when in reality it is incompatible with the scientific method. Generational labels are widely misunderstood to be official categories and often undermine important research in social science. It also can be confusing as it bears no relevance to reproductive generations; it is very likely a parent and child could be born in the same cohort whilst being different generations. You cannot identify a group with a set of traits, ideologies and thought processes simply because of when they were born. Whilst some big world events often occur within one of the labels, not everyone would have been affected or even remember them. For example, Gen Z is described as people born between the mid-1990s to mid-2010s. The beginning of that cohort may remember events such as 9/11 whilst others were born after it.

To conclude, as with most things, it depends on the context. However, there is a lot more evidence of the harm and lack of usefulness of generational labelling. It can be said to be an easier way for people to express ageism and prejudice. That being said, a question to ask is how likely is it that even without the labels, we as a society “other” people of a different age to us? Would a world without labels really help reduce ageism? How important is it to remember that there is a certain comfort to labelling?

 

Sonya Knight | ADF Comms Team

Read our previous editorial here

To respond and/or for more information, please contact the ADF Comms Team at: [email protected]