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.
Here’s what it really means to have five generations in the workplace. 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?
When companies claim employing five generations, they are referring to people who fit into five age labels–Traditionalists, Boomers, Gen X, Millennials and Gen Z. Also referred to as generational labels (a misnomer), age labels do not represent generations. These labels are randomly assigned, made-up names representing an inconsistent range of years–arbitrary timeframes that lack any scientific or sociological basis.
Generation Labels: Rise And Fall
In a pro-con article on the use of generational labels, Dr. Daniel Jolles, Research Officer in Behavioural 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 US 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.”
The pressure on the Center to examine the usage of age labels prompted a lengthy study that ultimately documented the lack of scientific foundation and misuse. This finding led the Center to revise its approach in May 2023 when they warned readers to recognize the oversimplification and stereotypes inherent in label usage and the importance of acknowledging similarities across age groups instead of focusing only on differences.
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 has led to so-called generational experts who rely on this false narrative to sell consulting packages to companies who 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.
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.
Bobby Duffy, Professor of Public Policy & Director of the Policy Institute in London, challenges societal understanding of generations, society, and human behavior through his research and books. He argues that younger and older workers can be after different things, but that’s always been the case.
“We’re not seeing a particular shift with new generations coming through, so we really need to avoid exaggerating how unique and different incoming cohorts are,” said Duffy, who offers four alternatives for increasing workplace inclusion.
By avoiding age labels and highlighting the successes of all-aged teams, organizations can build synergies that ultimately build a best-in-class workplaces 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.