20. Rethinking “Generations” at Work: From Conflict to Connection.

In today’s workplaces, we often hear about the coexistence of multiple generations—each supposedly possessing unique traits, values, and work ethics, from Baby Boomers (1946–1964), often described as loyal, hardworking, and attached to hierarchical structures, to Generation Z (born after 1997), portrayed as digital natives who expect inclusivity, rapid advancement, and authenticity from employers. In the middle are Gen X (1965–1980), who value independence, flexibility, and a pragmatic approach to work, and Millennials or Gen Y (1981–1996), who are characterized as purpose-driven, collaborative, and tech-savvy.

These broad generalizations have become part of everyday discourse, shaping HR practices, leadership models, and intergenerational training programs.

Yet, I want to express a potentially unpopular position by siding with the increasing body of academic research showing that these categories are, at best, oversimplifications—and at worst, stereotypical and discriminatory frameworks that reinforce division rather than foster understanding.

The Problem with Generational Thinking

The idea that people can be neatly categorized into distinct “generations” lacks strong empirical evidence. Researchers like Costanza and Finkelstein (2015), Parry and Urwin (2011), and Rudolph et al. (2018) have shown that differences labeled as generational often disappear when accounting for age, career stage, or historical circumstances. What is often seen as “generational difference” might just be the result of life-course factors, socioeconomic conditions, or workplace cultures.

In other words, it’s not that Millennials inherently crave flexibility or that Boomers resist change—it’s that people at different stages in their lives or careers have different needs, constraints, and opportunities.

For instance, one category that is almost always absent from these conversations is the migrants’ experience, and as an immigrant myself, I find it a bit intolerable. The age at which someone moves from one country, language, and culture to another is the most significant aspect to consider. Migrants who arrive in a new place as adults will inevitably bring their perspectives, biases, beliefs, etc., shaped by experiences different from those of locals. For instance, very often, people my age comment on things by referring to TV shows from the ’80s and ’90s, when we were kids and teenagers. But I didn’t watch those shows, and I get quickly kicked out of the conversation because, of course, everybody else shares the same experience, and the conversation goes on for them smoothly (and I am happy for them, honestly!).

Moreover, the idea of “generation” is based on flawed methodological foundations. Generational cut-off points are arbitrary and differ across studies. The assumption that everyone born within a 15–20-year period shares the same formative experiences overlooks intersectional factors such as race, class, gender, geography, and education (Lyons & Kuron, 2014).

While it is understandable why organizations use such a well-structured, catchy approach, they risk reducing individuals to caricatures and legitimizing age-based bias when applying generational labels. Labelling younger workers as “entitled” or older workers as “rigid” damages morale and breaches the principles of equity and inclusion that many organizations claim to uphold.

Why Talking About Generations Is Counterproductive

When we discuss “generational conflict,” we reinforce the idea that difference leads to division. Research indicates that these narratives:

• Undermine trust by implying incompatibility between age groups.

• Justify discrimination, especially against older workers, using coded language like “digital natives” or “agility.”

• Divert attention away from systemic issues like poor communication, unclear leadership, or unfair workplace policies.

As Rudolph and Zacher (2020) argue, the persistence of generational discourse in organizations is a “social construction” that serves more rhetorical than analytical purposes. It enables organizations to justify workplace tensions by relying on simple generational stereotypes rather than addressing more profound structural or cultural issues.

A Better Approach: Connecting People Across Experiences

If we move away from generational thinking, how can we foster meaningful collaboration among people with diverse life paths, experiences, and worldviews?

The answer is about understanding and valuing diversity of experiences through the principles of equity and justice, not just labelling differences. Here are evidence-based strategies organizations can implement:

1. Adopt a lifespan and experience-based approach. Focus on individuals' skills, experiences, and perspectives rather than their birth years. Acknowledge that each employee brings unique learning, wisdom, and creativity shaped by their own journey—not their generation.

2. Foster psychological safety and open dialogue. Encourage discussions about work styles, communication preferences, and values without relying on stereotypes. Psychological safety allows individuals to share differences freely and learn from them.

3. Promote mentorship and reverse mentorship. Facilitate two-way learning relationships where experience and innovation flow freely. Older and younger colleagues can both teach and learn, breaking down hierarchy and fostering empathy.

4. Redefine shared success. Invite teams to co-create definitions of success, impact, and recognition before evaluating performance. This shared understanding transforms potential conflict into a collective purpose.

5. Invest in inclusive leadership development. Train leaders to manage across differences—not by assuming generational divides, but by fostering curiosity, empathy, and adaptability.

6. Create meaningful goals that go beyond labels. Align work with organizational missions that resonate across experiences—sustainability, community impact, equity, innovation. Purpose bridges differences more effectively than any generational training ever could.

From “Generations” to “Shared Humanity”

Workplaces are not battlegrounds between Boomers and Gen Z—they are ecosystems of people navigating change together. When we shift the focus from generational categories to relational understanding, we enable connection, collaboration, and collective meaning-making.

Instead of asking, “How do we manage five generations at work?”, we should be asking, “How do we connect people with diverse lives to build something meaningful together?”

That’s where real inclusion begins.

Reference List

1. Costanza, D. P., & Finkelstein, L. M. (2015). Generationally based differences in the workplace: Is there a there there? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 8(3), 308-323. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.15

2. Lyons, S., Urick, M., Kuron, L., & Schweitzer, L. (2015). Generational differences in the workplace: There is complexity beyond the stereotypes. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 8(3), 346-356. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.48

3. Parry, E., & Urwin, P. (2011). Generational differences in work values: A review of theory and evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(1), 79-96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00285.x

4. Rudolph, C. W., Rauvola, R. S., Costanza, D. P., & Zacher, H. (2020). Generations and generational differences: Debunking myths in organizational science and practice and paving new paths forward. Journal of Business and Psychology, 36(6), 945-967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-020-09715-2

5. Zacher, H., & Rudolph, C. W. (2017). Considering generations from a lifespan developmental perspective. Work, Aging and Retirement, 3(2), 140-148. https://academic.oup.com/workar/article/3/2/113/2623794