CHAPTER 4

Implications for the Workplace and Beyond

Many myths concern conflict, ranging from the Trojan War of Greek mythology to Ragnarök of the Norse tradition. Although workplace conflicts are usually less extreme, they are also apparent when examining intergenerational phenomena. In fact, every person with whom I spoke during the course of my research vividly described accounts of times they conflicted with members of another generation, often because one of the parties was interacting with the other under the guidance of incorrect or even offensive stereotypes.

Even those interviewees who did not label their conflict as intergenerational clearly experienced such tension. In one instance, a memorable and immediate intergenerational conflict emerged for me in a research interview. I was running just three minutes late to a meeting with one of my interviewees in the older age group, as I had run over time in my previous interview that day. When I arrived, he berated me for at least 10 minutes about the importance of being on time, especially to a meeting with someone as important as him. Despite my sincere apologies and statement that we would not waste any additional time if we could just get on with the interview, he went on to tell me that his undergraduate university’s president always told his class about the importance of timeliness and that he only agreed to be interviewed because he respected my dean. He was almost turning red and I could tell by the look on his face that he was very angry.

I realized at this point that he thought I was a student! I assume that this may have been because I communicated with this gentleman via a university e-mail address. This was several years ago so I admit that I looked young at the time (but not that young), though I did explain in my e-mail to him that I was a professor doing research. When I kindly told him I was a professor, he was in disbelief. He still would not do the interview with me until I reminded him that his statements would be confidential—at which point he reluctantly signed the required research consent form and we began a civil discussion. His tone had changed. About 15 minutes into our conversation, I asked him to describe a time when he experienced intergenerational conflict and, to my shock, his statement was that he couldn’t think of any times that happened. I wanted to remind him of the conversation that we had had just 15 minutes before, but I did not. I think what caused his reaction was a stereotype he may have held that younger individuals lacked professionalism and experience. Because I looked to be young for a professor, to him there was no way I could have had the experience to be a professional researcher, and instead was surely a cocky undergraduate student.

In the previous chapter, I explored stereotypes, biases, and expectations that have resulted from misunderstanding the complexity of the concept of “generation,” which stems from defining generations differently and from not focusing on the inherent differences of individuals within perceived generational groups. In this chapter, I discuss some of the negative implications of this heavy reliance on stereotypes, biases, and expectations, including challenging interactions and conflict, a breakdown in knowledge sharing, and the formation of negative cultures.

Challenging Interactions

Chapter 3 explored how perceived generational differences emerge, which can create tensions or conflict in the workplace. Much of what will be discussed in the first part of this chapter is related to a study on the same groups of professionals noted earlier that I published with Drs. Elaine Hollensbe and Suzanne Masterson from the University of Cincinnati, and Dr. Sean Lyons, a renowned scholar on intergenerational workplace phenomena from the University of Guelph, titled “Understanding and Managing Intergenerational Conflict: An Examination of Influences and Strategies” in the Work, Aging, and Retirement journal in 2017 (Urick, Hollensbe, and Masterson, et al. 2017). In this study, there was a prevalence of workplace intergenerational conflict and tensions reported by interviewees.

First, let me define what I mean when I talk about conflict. Conflict involves interactions marked by disagreement or struggles between parties, the possibility of interference in resource allocation or objectives by an opposing party, and perceptions of incompatibility between parties (Thomas 1992). In many instances, conflicts are marked by negative interactions. Similarly, tensions are clashes that produce discomfort between parties that need to be managed (Stohl and Cheney 2001). Tension can be considered a type of latent conflict that is characterized by uneasiness, rather than outright aggression. In interviewees’ responses, it was often difficult to distinguish between latent, underlying “tension” and aggressive, more overt “conflict,” though all of the interviewees did describe some form of intergenerational interaction challenges. As a result, I will use these terms somewhat interchangeably. In the following discussion, I present several types of tensions and conflicts that the interviewees described. In my study, I found that conflicts or tensions were primarily based on beliefs about intergenerational values, behaviors, and identities that were influenced by biases and stereotypes of usually age-based generational labels and perceptions. In the following discussion, it is not my goal to further perpetuate stereotypes. Rather, I share the views of the interviewees that my research team examined to report perspectives (guided by stereotypes) on why intergenerational conflict occurs. Table 4.1 provides some example quotes from the interviewees as evidence of representative statements to consider in my discussion.

Table 4.1 Examples of intergenerational conflict or tension

Conflict category	Perceived generational difference leading to tension	Illustrative quote
Values-based	Status quo vs. innovation: Maintaining the status quo/complying with organizational policy and thinking versus resisting old ways of doing business and attempting to innovate.	“I’ve worked for a boss who was probably 30 years older than me and she didn’t want to hear the new ideas that we had. She wanted to do everything the old way and even when new ideas were brought to her, she would go back to old ways. Even if it seems like she saw the new ideas could be better, she didn’t want anything to do with them. And I had done the same sort of work for a younger
		boss, and just those opinions were much more valued and things were much more efficient. The younger boss was more open to hearing our ideas.”
	Traditional vs. progressive: Valuing historically accepted ideals versus being more open-minded about political values, religious beliefs, diversity, patriotism, formality, appearance, and manner of presentation (includes being reserved versus outgoing).	“I think that young professionals as a generation are more open when it comes to race and sexual orientation. I don’t think anybody of a younger generation really sees an artificial distinction, where some people of the older generation do.”
Behavior- based	Earned vs. entitled: Perceiving one’s own generation as having worked for the benefits that they possess, while perceiving another generation as expecting to be given things without truly earning them (includes issues related to purchasing on credit, wanting outcomes immediately, and levels of proactivity).	“The people that I started to see come into the workforce, instead of looking for an opportunity to succeed, it was: ‘What can you offer me? What am I getting out of this job?’ rather than ‘What can I contribute to this and make a success out of?’ … It was ‘What kind of benefits do I get? When do I get my first raise? How many weeks of ­vacation do I get?’ It was all ‘What do I get from working for you?’”
	High tech vs. low tech: Leveraging technology in the workforce versus more traditional means of doing work (also includes tensions related to ability to use technology and lack of recognition for technology development)	“The young people today! It’s a whole different world of technology and I just don’t feel part of it.”
	Skilled vs. unskilled communication: Perceiving one’s own generation as having strong communication skills while perceiving another generation as being unable to communicate effectively (includes issues related to willingness to listen as well as challenges communicating in networking situations).	“We use phones for phone calls to talk to people. The next generations are texting and Facebooking and things like that and I think that’s a big difference. I see that as a breakdown in the communication skills …”
Identity- based	Me vs. we: Focusing on self as an individual versus taking a team- or others-based social approach to work (identifying strongly with a larger group or considering others’ opinions).	“It’s become a very much, I think a ‘me’ issue with that group [younger generation]. They’re more ‘me’ oriented than they are ‘we’ oriented, if you understand what I’m saying … It’s kind of like everyone’s in their cubicle and they’re all doing their thing with the data that they’re working with and they’re moving it on to somebody else. It’s like that until the day ends. Then they go home and try to relate with their families and their friends. I’m not sure how that works … it seems to me to be a very foreign kind of existence.”
	Single vs. multiple identities: defining self by multiple roles (e.g., family, volunteer work, mentoring, etc.) versus defining self by one role (work).	“… It was a couple of vice presidents talking about a potential deal and the account that they were working on from an accounts standpoint. That meeting started on Friday and it gets going into Friday afternoon—and you know they wanted to have something done by the end of the meeting or at least agreed upon. Of course things changed, so they needed the analysis to be re-run and all that. I remember one of the vice presidents saying, ‘Oh, (interviewee’s name) can do that. He can do that on Saturday. He’s got no wife or kids or family to go home to,’ sort of tongue-in-cheek. I knew where he was coming from, but to others that might have been perceived a little bit like, ‘Wow—just because he’s younger and doesn’t have a family situation, he should not be the one working that time period.’ Whatever.”

Adapted from Urick, Hollensbe, and Masterson, et al. (2017).

Values-Based Tension

Values-based tension arises from the perception that each generation cares about different things (Cennamo and Gardner 2008; Smola and Sutton 2002; Twenge, et al. 2010). Based on an analysis of the interview data, two types of values-based tension emerged from interviews: willingness or resistance to change in the workplace and the adherence to or defiance of more traditional general social values.

Such perceived generational differences partially refer to maintaining the status quo or resisting (rather than embracing) change. In the samples, younger interviewees believed that they “think outside the box” or “push the envelope,” but viewed older generations as wanting to maintain the current state and not challenge the way that things have historically been done. In many instances, older interviewees agreed with this statement. Some reported that members of their generation value complying with formal procedures and view members of younger generations as not tolerating structure and wanting to immediately change things unnecessarily.

In a particularly illuminating example, one young professional labeled an older generation as “complacent,” and by implication, suggested their intent to maintain the status quo at all costs. In contrast, the same interviewee described himself as a “person that likes to challenge the status quo,” which caused him to come into conflict with older colleagues whom he saw as rejecting this value. This dissonance creates conflict (the interviewee noted “going head to head”) as intergenerational perceptions emerge and become salient in the workplace. In contrast, older interviewees describe this tension as reluctance by members of younger generations to accept things as they are, and also by their unwillingness to listen to and learn from others older than themselves. In other words, these interviewees often criticized younger colleagues for not being compliant with the rules, procedures, values, and other aspects of a company’s culture. As a result, both younger and older interviewees saw valuing change as a difference between generations; but each sample framed this difference in a way that reflected positively on their own age-based generational grouping.

The perceived values difference of progressivism and traditionalism played out in a variety of ways. As a whole, older interviewees perceived members of younger generations to be politically liberal, have limited spirituality, and be less patriotic than older generations, all of which they related to progressivism. Conversely, members of younger generations perceived older colleagues to be conservative (both politically and spiritually), as well as less accepting of diversity.

One older interviewee expressed frustration with members of younger generations at work because he perceives that they do not possess the same traditional religious values that he does due to his perception that a majority of members of younger generations do not actively participate in organized religion. Additional statements from interviewees showed that this was not an uncommon sentiment. People stereotyped other generations about whether they possess traditional or progressive values related to politics, religion, and even appearance (for example, how conservatively or informally they were dressed).

Behavior-Based Tension

Behavior-based tension arises when one person attributes another person’s workplace actions and conduct to their membership in a particular generational grouping. When the other person’s generationally ascribed behavior conflicts with one’s own behaviors or expectations, tension can emerge. There are three specific perceived generational differences that relate to the behavior-based category: earned versus entitled, high-tech versus low-tech, and skilled versus unskilled communication.

The earned versus entitled perceived generational difference was frequently reported by many interviewees of multiple ages. Members of the older sample perceived that younger generations often behaved in ways that suggested they expected things to be handed to them without hard work or effort (i.e., exhibiting entitled behavior), while their own generation has earned what they’ve received in life through working hard. Anecdotally, this perspective seems like a common one that has existed between older and younger generations throughout time, despite differences in specific context or generational category labels. On the other hand, younger interviewees perceived older generations as being overinvested in work and their own generation as seeking better work–life balance. As an example of the former, some older interviewees perceived younger generations as overextending their credit, a behavior that is tied to their belief that members of younger generations feel entitled to purchase certain items, despite not having the cash to buy them. Many of the older interviewees also perceived younger generations to have a short-term orientation (evident in some statements by interviewees in the older sample similar to “they want it now”), including a willingness to switch employers to get ahead, a phenomenon that was noted by interviewees of multiple ages. In contrast, older generations were perceived by both younger and older interviewees as having more stability and a lower likelihood of changing jobs.

Many younger interviewees expressed a more positive take on the entitled stereotype by noting that younger generations seek balance as opposed to overinvesting in work. A few of the young professionals I studied reported caring for small young families, which lessened the importance of work in their lives. Others reported focusing on outside activities (such as hobbies, the community, or socializing), which made their work activities less important than they are for members of older generations who younger interviewees often perceived to be more vested in work. As a result, what older generations saw as “earned,” younger generations tended to see as “overinvestment” with work.

Perceptions of different lifestyles between generations create tension when younger generations become frustrated by being labeled as “not working hard enough” when, in fact, they view themselves as working smarter, not harder. In other words, younger interviewees perceived that they are also “earning” their outcomes, though perhaps they use a different manner of working than members of older generations.

Some of this difference is evident in perceptions of generations centered on leveraging technology to complete work (such as relying on software or hardware), which comprises another type of behavior-based generational tension. As one younger interviewee noted, technology is “the one big gap” between generations, and indeed, this generational difference was reported by nearly every participant in the samples, regardless of age or generation. Younger interviewees noted frustration with decreased communication and efficiency because they perceived older individuals as reluctant to embrace or leverage various technologies, such as texting, to communicate. However, this tension goes deeper than just communication-related technology issues. Some older interviewees, for example, noted that members of younger generations seem to undervalue traditional ways of doing work, because they take technology for granted.

One older interviewee, an IT manager, perceived technology use among younger generations as “just what they do.” But even though he works in a technology-related field, he reported not liking technology and seemed to view it as merely a tool, which he suggests is a different perspective from his younger colleagues. Because of generational differences in technology-related behaviors, challenges arise when multigenerational teams must work together. Coordination of work may be difficult because of the reluctance or frustration that individuals experience when they feel restricted about their preferred ways to get work done through (or without) technology.

The final specific perceived behavior-based generational difference that leads to the tension noted in the interviews centers on differing perceptions by both generations about the extent to which they and members of other generations communicate in a skilled way. Older interviewees perceived a lack of communication skills in members of younger generations. They often reported frustration with younger generations’ inability to communicate, which included technology-related communication issues, though these were not the only issues reported. Older interviewees suggested that problematic communication skills in members of younger generations included an inability to transmit or interpret messages effectively and a lack of tact in interactions. In many instances, this “unskilled” communication resulted in workplace challenges such as inefficiencies, conflict, unclear messages, and a lack of transmission of information. Some of the older interviewees attributed these challenges to how younger generations learned to communicate. One manager noted that he was unable to communicate with anyone in their twenties, due to his perception of their inability. This would be highly problematic, especially if this individual had a younger employee assigned to report to him.

“Skilled” communication meant something altogether different to some members of the younger sample. They viewed communication differences as arising from the older generation’s failure to adapt to contemporary media. In this case, tension is illustrated through a breakdown in communication that causes frustration and major challenges in interactions, so much so that the message of communication is lost or misunderstood. Potential communication barriers between generations can result from this tension.

Identity-Based Tension

Identity-based tension arises as a result of the way that people define themselves and others or, in some cases, how they perceive the way others (perhaps those of a different generation) define them. These tensions result from competing self-definitions that people must manage simultaneously (Ashforth and Johnston 2001; Kreiner, Hollensbe, and Sheep 2006; Serpe 1987). In the interviews, participants reported tension that arose from perceived generational differences in the ways that they saw their own generation’s identity and that of other generations. Specifically, these emerged as “me versus we,” as well as tensions of single versus multiple identities.

I refer to the first specific identity-based generational difference as “me versus we.” This tension refers to differences in how members of generations perceived that they (and other generations) gave priority to a personal identity or a collective identity. There seems to be a difference between what are termed idiocentric and allocentric personalities (Triandis, et al. 1985). Idiocentrics emphasize one’s own personal goals, views, needs, pleasures, and beliefs over those of others, while allocentrics emphasize shared beliefs, perceive themselves as being similar to others, and pay attention to others as well (Triandis, et al. 1985). In other words, this tension can emerge when individuals perceive someone of a particular generation to be a team player or to be selfish.

Interviewees in both samples made me–we judgments about both members of other generations and members of their own generations. In one example, a younger interviewee pointed out a distinction between generations is the extent to which “me” or “we” is prioritized by describing the “new” (i.e., a younger) generation more idiocentrically, as being “all about me” and the “old” generation more allocentrically, as focusing on shared success. Members of both groups labeled their own generation as “me” or “we” and other generations as “me” or “we.” As a result, while one generation was not consistently labeled as being “me”-or “we”-focused, all generations had both members and different generations label them both ways, although these labels were applied to describe multiple generations interchangeably.

Related to this finding, interviewees commented about how caring their own generation’s members are of others, how likely they were to associate and help people within the context of a larger group, how not self-centered they were, and how likely they were to engage in mentorship. Differences in the “me–we” distinction were often discussed in conjunction with conflict and tension that arose from a lack of collaboration and teamwork.

This finding is related to three levels of identity orientations: (1) personal, defining self as a unique individual; (2) interpersonal, defining the in terms of an interpersonal relationship; and (3) collective, defining self as a member of a social group. It is often assumed that individuals have a predisposition toward a particular identity orientation, and each identity orientation has a different set of social motivations that are associated with it (Brewer and Gardner 1996; Brickson 2000). As noted by interviewees, perceptions of the particular orientation that was stereotypical of members of a particular generation caused increased conflict in the workplace, despite some evidence (Weber and Urick 2017) that indicates a large variation of predispositions within generational categories.

The second identity-based generational difference (single versus multiple identities) involves drawing on one or on many salient identities. Younger generations perceived older generations as defining themselves in one primary way (fundamentally in terms of their work role), while they identified themselves as having a variety of identities or roles. On the other hand, older interviewees defined themselves as engaging with many identities outside of work, including volunteer roles and being a member of a family; they also saw younger generations as pursuing multiple roles other than strictly their work-related one, but in these instances, these outside-of-work roles often interfered with accomplishing work tasks, to their detriment.

Differences in identity perceptions were often described in conjunction with questions asking about conflicts at work. Some interviewees expressed resentment about the way younger or older generations viewed them. This resentment went both ways: younger interviewees felt that older employees expected them to be more focused on work, while older interviewees felt that they were not seen as “holistic” individuals with responsibilities and aspects of self that existed outside of work.

Identity-based tension can arise based on how broadly or narrowly an individual defines both themselves and others. According to younger interviewees, older generations were more inclined to expect younger generations to consider their work role as the most important identity; however, interviewees in both samples tended to define themselves much more broadly than by their work role alone.

Minimization of Knowledge Transfer and Intergenerational Learning

Despite often focusing on stereotypes, the media and popular culture has also acknowledged the importance of intergenerational knowledge transfer, often in the form of mentorship. In The Last Jedi (Johnson 2017) episode of Star Wars, a modern (pop-culture Hollywood) myth, a young Rey seeks out an older Luke Skywalker as a mentor to transfer knowledge related to using the mythical force. Initially, the grizzled and careworn Luke was seemingly apprehensive of Rey as he focused on the stereotype of naivety and inexperience in their initial interactions. In the more real-world example of The Intern (Meyers 2015), Ben and Jules engaged in mutual intergenerational mentorship where they explored issues related to managing a business and the changing nature of the workplace. Similarly, both Jules and Ben were apprehensive about working with each other because of age-based stereotypes related to willingness to learn, technology usage, and experience. In both examples, interpersonal relationships began with conflict that might have blocked the passing on of important skills and knowledge, whether age-old Jedi secrets or expertise in managing a successful business.

Intergenerational biases, stereotypes, and misperceptions ultimately impact knowledge management, knowledge transfer, and intergenerational learning if they persist unchecked. I explore this in the article “Three Generational Issues in Organizational Learning: Knowledge Management, Perspectives on Training and ‘Low-stakes’ Development” published in The Learning Organization with Dr. Therese Sprinkle from Quinnipiac University in 2018 (Sprinkle and Urick 2018). I draw extensively on this piece in the following discussion.

Knowledge management is the transference of specific task-related skills, as well as tacit and experiential knowledge that includes appropriate organizational behaviors and decision-making abilities, such as a consideration of culture, organizational politics, and acceptable leadership styles. The transfer of tacit knowledge, those things that are ingrained in one’s mind and not easily translatable into traditional classroom-based educational events, is important to organizational survival as older generations detach from leadership positions and younger generations assume these roles. It is impossible to transfer knowledge without having effective interactions. Thus, the conflicts and tensions that were discussed earlier in this chapter negatively impact the intergenerational transfer of knowledge.

Perhaps because of these ineffective interactions, businesses report that they are unprepared for this intergenerational shift in knowledge. To illustrate, in a survey of manufacturers (ThomasNet 2014), while 63 percent of participant organizations expect growth, they also reported a lack of preparation within the organization to manage this growth properly. Part of this is due to a lack of proper intergenerational development. Of the 490 respondents, 80 percent identified themselves as between the ages of 45–65+, with nearly half expressing a desire to retire within the next decade. Despite this clear demographic shift that will occur in organizations, 65 percent of participant organizations had no clear succession plan in place to develop the next generation for leadership roles (ThomasNet 2014).

These trends are occurring in a variety of economic sectors (Stanford GSB Staff 2010), not just manufacturing. However, anticipated economic growth coupled with losing a lot of experience and organizational knowledge does not appear to be complemented by an intergenerationally focused knowledge management strategy, which will leave younger employees ill-prepared to move into leadership roles. In other words, once they are challenged to assume these roles, younger generations may find themselves underprepared for these challenges due to a lack of plans to train them properly as older employees filter out.

Organizational newcomers, often younger generations, benefit organizations because they bring in new innovative knowledge and ideas, but they are also likely to face difficulties in their ability to influence other organizational members to embrace these new ideas (Urick, Hollensbe, and Masterson, et al. 2017). Furthermore, despite the benefit of new ideas, keeping an organization’s collective memory intact is important to ensure that the knowledge that is crucial for the organization’s survival remains in the organization. This protects its cultural identity, knowledge of processes, and understanding of current customer expectations. Retention of this knowledge can lead to continued performance (Moorman and Miner 1998).

To support anticipated levels of growth, organizations must hire and equip younger generations with the appropriate tools. These include passing on pieces of current collective memory as well as empowering new employees with the leverage to communicate new ideas. While explicit task-related knowledge can be taught through seminars and degree programs, tacit and experiential knowledge, a deep understanding of the organization’s value system can only be taught through observation, mentoring, and trial and error.

On the other hand, experienced workers (who are often from older generations) have learned a lot throughout their careers, increasing organizational knowledge as they developed; if their knowledge is passed down to newcomers, organizations can continue to function (Cook and Brown 1999). Knowledge conversion theory (Nonaka and von Krogh 2009) suggests that knowledge is an asset that should be managed by organizations to enable their ability to successfully compete in the marketplace. Three useful types of knowledge that organizations must consider include: (1) explicit knowledge, or task-oriented understandings of one’s role, organizational goals, and/or enhanced techniques/software; (2) tacit knowledge, which might include cultural and context awareness, decision-making styles, and power/politics; and (3) practical wisdom or “experiential knowledge,” which emanates from a holistic understanding of the impacts of a decision to the organization and to society as a whole (Nonaka and Takeuchi 2011). An organization that does not adequately prepare newcomers for leadership roles through all three types of knowledge cannot expect these individuals to lead. Yet, as noted above, challenges in intergenerational interactions will limit the transference of these types of knowledge.

Many members of a generation will often enter organizations at the same time and will fill roles at a similar level. Such newcomers are often perceived to have limited practical experience (Urick, Hollensbe, and ­Masterson, et al. 2017), and it is incumbent on the organization to enhance their skills. While explicit knowledge is often taught through training and development programs aimed at increasing skills, tacit knowledge and practical wisdom are more difficult to instill through such overt tactics. These must be transferred through observation, learning by doing, and trial-and-error. All of these methods require positive intergenerational interactions in the workplace. These areas of knowledge (i.e., tacit, practical wisdom) require targeted socialization tactics (Saks and Ashforth 1997) where newcomers are presented with planned, but immersive and informal, learning experiences.

Some socialization tactics can include telling stories to accentuate accepted norms, celebrations to highlight cultural beliefs, explicit indoctrination of a value system, and emphasizing behaviors to model (Schein 1991; Levitt and March 1988). Despite these tried and true tactics, messages sent and received effectively may be limited as negative generational perceptions inform the way that members of various generations communicate (Urick, Hollensbe, and Fairhurst 2017). For example, older generations may withhold information because they believe that newcomers won’t care about old customs or values. Culture transference through ceremonies, role shadowing, and other events may be set aside because of these perceptions. Conversely, younger generations may perceive members of the older generation as unwilling to learn (Warhurst and Black 2015), as noted above. In many organizations, strong tensions arise between generational members, which can limit the type and quality of learning and knowledge that is passed on (Urick, Hollensbe, and Masterson, et al. 2017).

Many formal programs are built to address the perception of new employees’ increased technological preferences (Urick 2017), rather than addressing the training needs of all generations. Given the above discussion, it is important that organizations build development programs that address the needs of multiple generations into their culture, rather than avoid targeted socialization programs because of perceived intergenerational differences.

Generational Differences Regarding Training

Workplace training, which is related to intergenerational learning and knowledge management, has evolved from a less hands-on focus, such as on-the-job training or shadowing, to formalized educational programs, such as traditional classroom-style events, group-based seminars and workshops, or training delivered via technology. In 2014, the Association for Training and Development (ATD) conducted a study of 340 organizations to ask about their learning trends (ATD Research 2014). ATD found that training initiatives were heavily weighted toward instructor-led formal training. Many leveraged technology that enabled learning to occur at a distance or on the employee’s own time. While such training can be crucial to the transfer of explicit knowledge, which can offer newcomers education in task-oriented skills, it has generally largely ignored tacit knowledge. These modules tend to omit those pieces of learning that occur primarily through hands-on experience.

Behavior modeling is useful to passing tacit knowledge on to younger generations who may be organizational newcomers. Famous psychologist Albert Bandura’s (Bandura 1977) highly cited social learning theory emphasized the need for “interpersonal learning” through the use of behavior modeling as a primary means of passing on culture and values (Warhurst and Black 2015). Organizations have recently sought to improve their technology-enabled educational offerings in order to address tacit knowledge. As a result, they have turned to technology to address behavioral modeling, rather than using a face-to-face technique, such as role shadowing, which might facilitate positive intergenerational interactions on the job. Technology-enabled instruction can be leveraged for education because learners can be engaged by having fun. These include Web-based instruction, podcasts, webinars, simple Web searches to find information on a job-related issue, and computer-enabled entertainment, or “edutainment,” a type of gamification where enjoyable competitions are used to provide exposure to concepts and behaviors useful for job performance in a safe environment with no broader negative work implications (Kapp 2012).

Fun initiatives such as “gamification” can be effective, as they increase engagement and immersion while assisting learners in making the connection between concepts and a work situation that they might experience (Kapp 2012). Games can model and reinforce appropriate behaviors at work. When training younger generations for decision-making roles, edutainment is perceived as an important formal component of behavior modeling by simulating experiences that are likely to occur on the job. As it generally focuses on younger generations, edutainment builds on an assumption that newcomers learn best through technology-enabled instruction—though it is likely that all generations might benefit from this approach.

Unfortunately, despite how well-developed the simulated experiences are and how developers hope to improve on behavior modeling, only a limited amount of tacit knowledge can be taught through simulation. Despite improvements in the field, edutainment still tends to be more successful overall when used for knowledge transfer.

Most work decisions leverage experiential knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi 2011), which emanates from the convergence of explicit, tacit, and practical bases of knowledge. This knowledge is most effectively built through more hands-on individualized means. Various scholars (for example, Saks and Ashforth 1997) suggest that, if it is necessary for the individual to demonstrate proactive strategies and behaviors such as those that are necessary in leadership roles in which younger generations will soon be expected to engage, individual socialization tactics like customized on-the-job training or mentorship programs are crucial.

In many multigenerational workplaces, though, vital individualized knowledge management and intergenerational training is lacking. This is likely due to a biased interpretation of generational training preferences. In 2017, I published a short study in the International Journal of Training and Development: “Adapting Training to Meet the Preferred Learning Styles of Different Generations” (Urick 2017). I analyzed potential trends related to organizational learning and generations, again leveraging a sample of members of both younger and older generations. I noted that, although the older sample expressed a preference for on-the-job training and mentorship, both younger and older interviewees were under the impression that younger employees would be more comfortable with technology-enabled training. Each participant carried a perception of their own and of other generations’ preferences for learning and knowledge management.

In contrast, not every individual within a generational group will agree with the perceptions that others have on how they learn best. There seems to be a lack of intensive knowledge management programs that consider individual and group-oriented approaches, as well as formal and informal approaches, for a multigenerational workforce. This may prove to be detrimental to the evolving workplace. Group-based training and development has its place in the transfer of explicit knowledge (Saks and Ashforth 1997), but less formal individualized initiatives allow employees to learn behaviors that are immediately applicable to their jobs. Thus, they are a means of emphasizing necessary role-related skills and competencies. For example, one age-related study of learning (Warhurst and Black 2015) found that shadowing and observing others were most helpful in transferring role behavior. Additionally, less formalized programs help organizations achieve decreased costs; this is partially due to fewer instructor or technology development fees, but also because actual work occurs in tandem with the training (Frazis and Loewenstein 2007).

The development of mentoring programs is one option for organizations to manage both tacit knowledge and practical wisdom. Mentoring programs are neither instructor-led nor classroom-based. They are offered while both employees continue to be engaged in work. Regular meetings are encouraged to allow for behavior modeling (Wilson and Elman 1990). Having a mentor exchange knowledge with a newcomer can be useful as those with a desire to learn exhibit a preference for leveraging personal sources of knowledge (Abrams, et al. 2003), as long as an appropriate mentor–mentee match can be made.

Informal mentoring, in which the mentor–mentee self-select and have a relationship that grows into fostering development over time, certainly worked in both The Last Jedi and The Intern, and these types of programs have been found to be effective in the nonfiction workplace as well. Mentored employees are likely to achieve higher compensation, job satisfaction, and transfer of tacit knowledge (Allen, et al. 2004). Such programs also offer a dual purpose to an organization: they strengthen mentees’ understanding of corporate culture through the socialization that occurs during mentoring meetings, while simultaneously providing vital information for developing leadership potential (Wilson and Elman 1990). Establishment of a mentor–mentee relationship can also remedy tension in intergenerational interactions (Urick, Hollensbe, and ­Masterson, et al. 2017). Intergenerational mentorship forces participants to look beyond stereotypes and to seek out experiences that the mentee may need to be successful in leadership roles. The mentee may begin to accept and appreciate the insight gained from the mentor (and vice versa), effectively breaking down negative stereotypes. It makes sense that tacit and experiential knowledge would be best transferred by minimizing the impact of perceptions of intergenerational differences.

Organizations seeking to transfer culture and values should return to the model of social learning theory described by Bandura (1977), which states that organizational members learn best through interpersonal learning. This is not to suggest that technology-enabled training should be abandoned, but rather that it should be supplemented with informal/individualized initiatives, such as on-the-job education and mentorship programs.

However, mentoring programs may not be ideal for all employees, and the organization may not be designed to effectively support a ­mentoring program. Organizations that are plagued by intergenerational conflict and tension will not be able to have interactions that are effective enough to allow appropriate mentoring relationships to form.

Therefore, organizations may seek to provide other experiences that instill practical wisdom, offering time to practice “live” decision making across a variety of development opportunities that will appeal to a broad set of employees and generations. Some additional ways of doing this could be through low-stakes activities, like pursuing a volunteer activity, where leadership experience is gained outside the organization. This might take the form of encouraging unpaid involvement on a nonprofit board to build leadership and decision-making expertise, for example.

Focusing on Differences Creates a Caustic Culture

Creating an inclusive and welcoming culture that truly cares about all employees is crucial for both organizations and society; yet we constantly hear about marginalization, both in our country and in our organizations. Age, or generation, is certainly one basis of discrimination and marginalization. As I discuss earlier in this book, discrimination regarding generation often occurs because of the stereotypes or misperceptions that people have heard about generational categories and their members.

Nonetheless, there are many reasons to embrace diversity, including generational diversity. One reason is, of course, the importance of respecting all of humanity. In addition, for organizations, welcoming a generationally diverse source of perspectives means that there will be better decisions, higher quality products, improved services, and other improved organizational outcomes (Cox 2001). More importantly, though, by having a welcoming and inclusive workplace, people may start to perceive similarities between each other which outweigh the previously perceived differences. However, this isn’t to say that all differences, such as those that may be related to generations, aren’t acknowledged. On the contrary, in workplaces that welcome inclusion, differences are appreciated and respected while still recognizing that many goals and aspirations may be shared. In other words, by working with a diverse group toward common goals, a sense of shared belonging is likely to occur (Allport 1979).

It’s naive to believe that all people and every organization will willingly embrace such a workplace or society—we are likely to always see negative generational stereotypes. Indeed, evidence has clearly shown that the values inherent in some cultures don’t support inclusion. There are many examples of noninclusive organizations that could be considered, and many examples of workplaces that are less tolerant of certain generational groups, as evident in the conflicts and tensions noted in this chapter.

Part of the reason why some organizations do not welcome generational diversity as much as others could be due to their cultures. To paraphrase the famous cultural researcher Edgar Schein (1991), there are three levels of culture. Artifacts represent the level that is experienced with the senses. A culture is like an iceberg, and the artifacts are like the ice ­visible above the water. Artifacts include behaviors, such as how ­people treat ­others. Artifacts such as behaviors of employees are built upon the values of the organization, the second level of culture, which is represented by the part of the iceberg that is below the surface. Values are what the organization cares about. If inclusion is not a core value of a culture, workplace behaviors are likely to marginalize certain groups.

Many organizations forget that there is an even bigger chunk of ice supporting the values in the depths of the water. These are an organization’s underlying assumptions, the third level of culture, which are beliefs that are so ingrained in an organization that they are simply assumed and rarely discussed. In order to fully embrace inclusion of all kinds (including generation), the assumptions that influence and support values and artifacts need to include respect for all humanity. Therefore, creating a culture of inclusion starts at the assumptions level. The need to care for people—of all ages and other diverse attributes—needs to be the lifeblood of organizations and societies and be the number-one unquestioned belief, from which all other values and artifacts are derived, if discrimination is to be minimized.

Deliberately changing a toxic culture does not happen overnight, and only changes that impact the underlying assumptions will last in the long term. Thus, as representatives of a culture, leaders set the tone for a culture and strongly influence whether assumptions and values are positive. However, this is only part of what is needed to change a culture. People in the organization beyond those with formal leadership titles also need to reflect respect for humanity in their values and behaviors for this assumption to spread, and only then can true change occur within our organizations and beyond. The next chapter addresses creating positive change to promote generational inclusivity and, in doing so, describes the starting steps to changing caustic workplace cultures.

Summary

Conflicts have existed for centuries and have been historically documented, as well as the subject of myth. Conflict can cause a lack of positive interaction, which is detrimental to organizations when generational tensions decrease knowledge transfer between organizational members. Luke and Rey from The Last Jedi and Ben and Jules from The Intern overcame such intergenerational obstacles and the challenge of overrelying on generational stereotypes can be overcome in real workplaces too.

In this chapter, I addressed three negative organizational outcomes of overrelying on generational stereotypes:

• Focusing on generational stereotypes, rather than the individuality of a person, causes a breakdown in communication that can lead to workplace conflict.
• Conflict can decrease the effectiveness of training, education, knowledge transfer, and mentoring between generations. However, such activities are crucial as younger generations prepare to take on more decision-making leadership roles.
• A lack of information sharing and conflict can create a caustic culture, which may make some individuals feel unwelcomed in the workplace.

Hopefully, this chapter has helped readers to identify some of the causes of intergenerational tension that they may have experienced. For managers and employees, it is useful to understand why conflict emerges in organizations, and this chapter provides some examples. Furthermore, when providing training and development initiatives, organizations must consider the structure and format of education that will be most beneficial to a multigenerational workplace. Finally, a major takeaway from this chapter for business leaders is hopefully to understand the importance of culture on whether or not interactions are positive in nature. There are solutions that can be implemented to help strengthen a culture that is more generationally diverse.

This chapter focused on a negative topic as it identifies many of the problems associated with focusing on generational stereotypes. However, the next chapter is more positive in that it offers solutions to help resolve some of these major issues.