Making Sense of the Generational Chatter
When William Strauss and Neil Howe published “Generations” in 1991, they likely could hardly imagine the conversation that would ensue. In this intellectually ambitious work, S&H acknowledged at the time that the idea itself, that is the historical and sociological category “generation”, had, in the U.S., barely made it out of the superficial discourse of popular culture. But what a difference a decade makes. From the far rural back stage to Broadway, that is how far this idea has traveled in our culture. Everyone seems to be talking about, researching, writing about, blogging about or otherwise offering opinions about the noticeable shift in demographics in our society as the Millennial generation emerges front and center. And, along with other issues, everyone seems to have an opinion about generations in the workplace.
The topic — generations in the work place — has moved from a cottage industry to a mass market. Markets are powerful forces unto themselves. In the complex dance of the marketplace we notice that these energies are highly interactive and interdependent; that is, markets simultaneously shaped by perception as well as shapers of perceptions. Put another way, markets can be leaders as well as followers. So from here we offer the following observation/hypothesis: the exponential increase in chatter of all types about generations in general — and generations in the work place in particular — is having a powerful impact on the way people are seeing the generational question.
Just be a fly on the wall in your work place and test this hypothesis for yourself. Linger around the proverbial water cooler; what are you hearing? Are you tempted to chime in? Are you chiming in? If so, we think what you and most of your co-workers are hearing falls loosely into the following typology.
As we listen to and reflect on the chatter, we are hearing: the Alarmists, the Objectifiers, the Bridgers, and the Agents. If you are a linear type, think of this typology as a continuum. If you like boxes, think of types as quadrants in a model.
Why do we do this? Is this just some quasi intellectual exercise, more chatter for the sake of chatter? We hope not. Over the next few weeks we are going to explain and explore our typology. And here’s why: We want to examine the thoughts behind the words, including ours. We have not yet reached a tipping point with respect to the generational demographics in the work place. But that tipping point is not far off, two or three years perhaps. And the direction things take after the tipping point shifts the generational balance of power, will, we believe, be shaped significantly by our attitudes and behaviors between now and then.
June 29th, 2007 at 11:59 am
[…] Wolfe represents a body of commentators that I call the Alarmists, referring to our typology or system for understanding what is being said, and by whom, about Millennials. Mr. Wolfe’s clarion call to battle reprsents nothing short of the defense of our civilization. But on a scale less grandiose and audacious, there are voices of equal trepidation heralding Armageddon in the American work place. Mr. Wolfe titillates bored suburban Boomers with his salacious reportage from the edge of history. His near-octogenarian crankiness in the end is somewhat harmless, other than the fact that it perpetuates a cultural stereotype. Alarmists of another type, though, have been hard at work creating myths about Gen Y in the workplace, myths that have, I surmise, done harm to many younger workers. […]