HAVING DOUBTS

I was born in 1947, which places me as an early boomer in Deal's typology of generations. After thirty-two years as an educator and executive manager in North Carolina's public schools, in 2001 I left to join CCL's faculty. When the results of Deal's seven-year study were published in 2007, I reacted with a healthy (I hope) skepticism. I was certain that as a longtime educator, I had been confronted on a daily basis by the effects of generational differences.

Near the end of my years in public school work, one of the most critical challenges for the school district in which I worked was what appeared to be an approaching perfect storm of two realities generated by demographics. This district (along with many others) was facing an unprecedented loss of leaders over a very short period of time; sixty-three of the district's one hundred principals were eligible to retire within the next five years. In addition, there was growing discomfort among the Baby Boomer principals, who, at the end of their careers, were struggling to replace boomer teachers with recent university graduates. These new generation teacher applicants (Gen-Xers) were often described by principals as having “bad attitudes,” as “lacking commitment,” and as being “poorly motivated for teaching.” The principals were clearly resisting employing these individuals, and were searching far and wide for more experienced candidates.

The situation seemed grave. I and the other managers in the district knew that 78 percent of our budget was spent on and 100 percent of our success was dependent on what Jim Collins— author of Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap ... and Others Don't (HarperBusiness, 2001)—has called “getting the right people on the bus.” It appeared that this perfect storm was about generational differences between boomer principals and new generation teachers. Hurriedly we tried to stem the tide of exiting boomers by conducting principal development in order to improve understanding and appreciation of new generation teachers. Although our efforts at intervention proved far from perfect, the dialogue between principals and teacher candidates was very helpful as we struggled to staff the schools in a tough teacher market.

So when I read Deal's research on generational differences I sought assistance in taking a closer look at the effects of these differences for educators.

Deal's original survey data had not included educators, so with the permission of Deal and the assistance of William A. Gentry, a senior research associate at CCL, the survey was administered to a group of ninety-nine educators from three states—Virginia, South Carolina, and Ohio. I expected that my experience with generational differences among educators would be validated. But when a question focusing on how people get ahead in organizations revealed that performance was agreed on as the prime factor across all generational groups—with only Gen-Xers slightly more likely to feel that politics might also play a role—validation was not mine. Another question revealed that early boomers were more likely to stay with an organization for the remainder of their working lives than were Gen-Xers—but at that point, of course, early boomers' working lives were almost over.

Another question probed the existence of trust in upper-level management to keep promises and do the right thing. The educators' responses revealed that boomers were only slightly more positive on this question than were Gen-Xers— but then boomers are also much more likely to already be in upper management.

Other questions also failed to identify generation as the indicator of differences, and my certainty that I would ferret out such differences for educators was now looking much less certain. In short, despite my perceived experience, there was simply little to no difference among generations in this data; educators proved to be no exception to Deal's much-larger sample of corporate leaders.

But what about my discomfort and that of the principals I had supervised? What had we been feeling? Despite the fact that my closer look at the data specifically for educators did not uncover generational differences as the culprit, that did not make those educators' discomfort less pronounced or less real. The principals really did have issues with body art (tattoos or piercings that many in the younger generations display) and really did bristle when the people they interviewed demonstrated a poor attitude (principals often said they felt as if they were the ones being interviewed), and really did perceive a general lack of respect for the principal role among the new generation applicants. Principals were often heard saying that the new applicants didn't understand or respect the way things work. The perfect storm was brewing, boomers were exiting left and right and the need for teachers was skyrocketing, yet most principals remained resistant to employing new generation applicants as replacements for the boomers.

If, as Deal would have us believe (and as I do believe), in the final analysis generations have similar values, everyone wants respect, and trust matters, what accounted for the principals' discomfort? Deal identifies the culprit as what she terms clout (which includes control, power, authority, and position), both who has it and who wants it.

Despite being armed only with a healthy intuition, a desire to solve the problem of principals' continuing discomfort, and dumb luck, I had talked with principals about the disconnect with young teachers and teacher applicants. In these conversations, we also addressed the reality of an employment environment in which these new and aspiring educators were going to be the only way to successfully staff the schools and stay focused on students and their achievement.

Many of the principals said that the image of classrooms without good teachers—or even any teachers—had caused them to begin to listen more carefully and more positively to the younger generation and to begin to consider instructional ability as the sole discriminator of quality rather than becoming fixated on such things as perceived poor attitudes, body art, or apparent generational differences. The principals changed their focus, subordinated their own needs, and as educators are prone to do, moved on with the business of educating students. The renewed focus on the real mission of schools—educating children—helped to get the right people on the bus.