Intergenerational conflicts? The generation model can't be a merry-go-round!

What potential for conflict actually exists between the generations

Summary

The literature on generational differences is vast. It is largely anecdotal, plausible, contradictory and, on the whole, not worth much when it comes to dealing with the potential for conflict within a company. It serves the purpose of simple categorisation, promises clear formulas and, above all, entertaining storytelling that shines with socio-historical half-knowledge. For the most part, it is not suitable for the serious handling of internal company conflicts, especially between different age groups and generations. Nor is it suitable for age-group-specific management work, generation-adapted personnel development or other efforts to pigeonhole employees.

This is because the data available in the German Socio-Economic Panel Study (SOEP) from over thirty years of German history does not allow any such differential conclusions to be drawn (Schröter 2018).

Introduction

In recent years, it has become common practice to differentiate between generations, to work out key characteristics, to conduct large and small surveys, to carry out elaborate and less elaborate studies – and generally to do a lot of research and publish even more. In the process, differences were identified that were also attributed to characteristics, personality traits and generational affiliations.

From this, management literature as well as trade union literature developed explanatory patterns for leadership issues, conflict resolution and problem descriptions, personnel and organisational development measures, management trainers and career coaches as well as for membership recruitment. Many set about constructing the most appropriate mental pigeonholes possible in order to deal not only with the complexity of individual people, but also to be able to identify group and generational patterns that would enable prescriptive reactions.

One important realisation of a survey of the literature can be anticipated here – and will be confirmed immediately in the following text (with all the necessary evidence already compiled by sociologist Martin Schröter in 2018): There are differences between peopleThe fact that some of these people are already of retirement age, while others have not even started their working lives, makes it very difficult to determine the age of the people categorised in these cohorts. An 80-year-old thinks differently about political and voluntary work than an 18-year-old. This realisation is trivial, albeit important for gaining further insights. The decisive question is to what extent the 80-year-old thought about it when he was forty or twenty. In addition, person A's categorisation of what is particularly important in his life (e.g. family) and what is less important (e.g. professional success) does not mean that professional success is less important to person A than to person B, who has indicated that professional success is particularly important and family is less important. Not only could there be ten, twenty or even more years between these rankings, but A's ranking with regard to values I, II and III does not allow any conclusions to be drawn about B's rankings. Value I may be less important for A in comparison to value II, but this does not mean that value I (of person A) is also less important in comparison to value I of B.

One Further insight that an overview of the more or less specialised literature provides: The characteristics assigned to the individual cohorts by the individual authors are not only different, but sometimes diametrically opposed. For example, Generation Y is said to be very important in terms of professional success (Hurrelmann and Albrecht 2014, p. 33), while Krause (2015, p. 32) states that this is the cohort that is most important in the future. unimportant. Now these contradictions could still be declared as different research results and as an inconsistent research situation, so that it is difficult to speak of a scientific consensus.

But enough preamble.

Below you will find a compilation of key literature on the topic, which is summarised in a chart at the end. The conclusions that can be drawn from the above with regard to conflict management are presented at the end.

The differences between the generations - a myth?

The division of the population into generations is widespread in sociology and is used both in research and in practice to develop concepts for personnel management and development, and to explain how and why conflicts arise and occur between certain age groups.

A new generation emerges approximately every fifteen years, according to the often widespread idea in research. The respective cohorts are labelled with various characteristics, similar to a person. These characterisations of the age cohorts, which are now declared to be distinct generations, labelled and treated as unchangeable in a psychological sense, are now used to develop strategies for leadership, personnel development, but also for conflict prevention and management.

If the division of the population into generations and their individual characterisations become the basis for action, leadership and conflict management concepts, it may be advisable to specifically examine what was differentiated in the characterisation process and whether belonging to a (claimed) generation is actually the cause of any personal values. In view of the generation-independent data collections on the German population in the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP), there are at least considerable concerns regarding the alleged differences (Schröter 2018).

The generations at a glance

1. the traditionalists (born 1925 – 1940)

The oldest group of the more or less uniformly modelled generations are the so-called traditionalists. This generation, also known as the "Sceptical generation" are those born between 1925 and 1940.

Traditionalists are seen as having little interest in politics (Herbert 2003, S. 104; Schelsky 1957, p. 488f.) and social and political commitment (Schelsky 1957, p. 488f.). This stems from their experience with National Socialism. They had grown up with its ideology and the promises of the National Socialist leaders and had experienced the „deep fall“. At the same time, this „deep fall“ was rather or also a victory for humanity. It therefore seems no less plausible that this generation had a strong interest in a policy that would safeguard this. Nevertheless, this generation of those born between 1925 and 1940 is said to be much more sceptical and distrustful than other generations, especially subsequent generations (Schelsky 1957, p. 488f.). In view of the developments in the 1960s (keyword: APO), one might be surprised here. However, a happy marriage or partnership was particularly important to this generation (Schelsky 1957, p. 488f.). Here one might ask whether this generation was concerned with marriage and partnership or a happy one, because this will be significant for the following generations, who have (or were able to!) get divorced more often, and who therefore cannot be said to have valued marriage and partnership less if the divorces and shorter relationships had not been so common. the very goal of creating a happy to find or start a marriage and partnership. But the '68 generation is said to have been less interested in marriage and partnership…(not „ever“! Apropos 68er-Generation…)

2. the '68 generation (born 1941 – 1955)

The generation of '68 includes those born between 1941 and 1955.

In contrast to their predecessors, a happy marriage or partnership is said to be less important to them. They have tended to question family and gender models (Herbert 2003, p. 110; cf. Boltanski and Chiapello 2001, p. 468f.). Self-realisation (Hurrelmann and Albrecht 2014, p. 19f.; Herbert 2003, p. 110; cf. Boltanski and Chiapello 2001, p. 468f.), while professional success is correspondingly unimportant to her (Hurrelmann and Albrecht 2014, p. 19f.). Even if they are supposed to be a generation with a high level of interest in politics, Lüscher and Liegle and Wirth call them a "politically active generation" (Lüscher and Liegle 2003, S. 31; Wirth 2001, p. 14), this is in contradiction to the statement by both Herrmann as well as Herbertthat only a few members of the '68 generation were actually politically or socially engaged (Herrmann 2003, S. 161; Herbert 2003, S. 113). So what has stuck in the collective everyday memory is at best the extreme or the decisive, but not the normal and thus the majority-defining.

3. the baby boomers (born 1956 – 1965)

The generation known as baby boomers includes everyone born between 1956 and 1965. That's only nine years, but so be it.

At the time when they entered the labour market, these baby boomers were confronted with the challenges of the oil crisis, empty motorways, the Cold War arms race and (for the first time in decades) rising unemployment. This resulted in a pronounced concern about the security of their jobs and their own economic situation (Parment 2013, S. 8). They are the generation of neoliberalism, unleashed financial markets and a unique wave of globalisation of the industrial and commercial giants, not just the financial markets. Baby boomers are also characterised by the fact that professional success is particularly important to them, according to Parment (Parment 2013, S. 8). Nevertheless, they are Hurrelmann and Albrecht, Rahn on the other hand, to attach great importance to self-realisation and quality of life (Hurrelmann and Albrecht 2014, S. 23; Rahn 2014, p. 2), even more than all other generations. Small on the other hand, assumes that self-realisation plays or played only a minor role for baby boomers (Small 2003, S. 105).

Like its predecessor generation, it (was) politically interested, but in contrast to the generation of 1968, it was also politically and socially engaged (Oertel 2014, S.  35).

4th generation X (born 1966 – 1980)

All those born between 1966 and 1980 belong to Generation X.

This generation appears to be extremely versatile and changeable. On the one hand, its representatives are said to believe that "work is their central purpose in life". This means that professional success is extremely important for Generation X (Oertel 2014, S. 48). Leisure time only plays a minor role (Oertel 2014, S. 48). At the same time, however, she has a "preference for self-development" (Oertel 2014, p. 49) and is strongly interested in a healthy work-life balance (Oertel 2014, S. 48). Hurrelmann and Albrecht speak of the fact that Generation X has no desire to work at all (Hurrelmann and Albrecht 2014, S. 23).

Just as contradictory as the assumptions about the importance of self-realisation and career are the statements about Generation X's attitude to a happy marriage or partnership. According to Oertel family is a high priority for those born between 1966 and 1980 (Oertel 2014, p. 49), which contradicts both the assumption that work is the centre of their lives and the statement by Goebel and Clermontthat they had moved away from the role models of their parents (Goebel and Clermont 1997, S. 10).

Everyone can use all the existing attributions to the generations as they wish.

But a generational model is not a merry-go-round.

Insert: Xennials (born 1977-1983)

The „discovery of a small cohort born in the years 1977-1983, which may not really feel like they belong to Generation Y, but also not to Generation X, shows just what (differential) blossoms this idea of the generation model can produce, without the result necessarily being boring or implausible, but rather highly entertaining and „also somehow true“. So why not? They are a separate group, the Xennials.

However, we are not on solid scientific ground here, but in the waters of the feuilleton, shallow, entertaining, anecdotal. But neither insightful nor grounded in data. It describes self-images and images of others, but not objectified and profiled social patterns.

5th Generation Y (born 1981 – 1995)

Those born between 1981 and 1995 make up Generation Y.

To the professional attitude who also "Millennials" mentioned above contain statements that …

• from the assumption that they have no interest in a career at all (Krause 2015, S. 32),
• about the thesis that work is only a possibility of self-realisation for them (Mangelsdorf  2014, p. 21f.) and the compatibility of work and family is more important to them than their career (Hurrelmann and Albrecht 2014, S. 33)
• up to the assumption that their focus is clearly on school, studies and training (Hurrelmann and Albrecht 2014, p. 33f.) and everything is subordinated to one's own career (Hurrelmann and Albrecht 2014, p. 33, 42; cf. also Albert et al. 2015, p. 16),

are sufficient.

Also in the Area of self-realisation one encounters contradictory statements about Generation Y. It is ascribed both

• strongly freedom-orientated (Schulenburg 2016, p. 16), to consider self-realisation to be extremely important and to place great value on individualism (Parment 2013, S. 32; Huber and Rauch 2013, S. 14),
• in the same breath, however, to orientate themselves strongly towards the community (Schulenburg 2016, S. 16).

The situation is no different when it comes to the question of possible concerns regarding Job security and your own economic situation from. Some people think so,

• Generation Y is "afraid of falling" (Hurrelmann and Albrecht 2014, p. 24, 41) and fear that they will not be able to maintain their parents' standard of living (Hurrelmann and Albrecht 2014, S. 38),
• there is also the view that uncertainty does not bother Generation Y (Hurrelmann and Albrecht 2014, S. 24, 41). Employers had "always courted" her (Schulenburg 2016, p. 15), which suggests that the Ypsilonians should not be worried about job security and the economic situation.

Millennials are also said to have little political interest and would rather complain about the current situation than try to bring about social change themselves (Hurrelmann and Albrecht 2014, S. 33). A happy marriage or partnership is said to be more important for the Ypsilon generation than it was for the generation of 1968 (Mangelsdorf 2014, S. 23; Albert et al. 2015, p. 13).

6th generation Z (born 1996 – 2010)

The members of the youngest established and analysed generation to date, Generation Z, were born between 1996 and 2010.

They are to be given their Private life be more important than the profession (Scholz 2015, S. 1). Generation Z also attaches great importance to individual fulfilment (Klaffke 2014b, p. 73). According to these  statements, self-realisation seems to be particularly important to her. Klaffke himself, however, takes away one of the pillars of this conclusion by writing that the desire for individual fulfilment stands flexibly alongside a need for security and belonging (Klaffke 2014b, p. 73).

Following the assumption of Scholz has Professional success only of minor importance for Generation Z. According to Ingold she seeks "a meaningful activity rather than material prosperity and success" (Ingold 2016, S. 8). However, he also attests that Generation Z has a "pronounced focus on performance and success" (Ingold 2016, p. 7), which in turn leads to the conclusion that professional success is very important.

There seems to be a consensus that Generation Z is once again more politically interested than their predecessors were (Hurrelmann and Albrecht 2014, S. 26; Ingold 2016, S. 8; Albert et al. 2015, p. 20). When it comes to the young generation's confidence in the future, the question of Ingold a great concern for the environment and the economy (Ingold 2016, p. 8), even a fear of the future (Ingold 2016, S. 7). However, the same author also attributes a "certain detachment" to her, which is said to result from the fact that she has grown up with constant and rapid changes in almost all areas of society and has already experienced financial crises as well as corruption scandals and the like (Ingold 2016, S. 5; Albert et al. 2015, p. 20 speak of growing confidence in the future). However, it is difficult to explain the widespread lack of confidence in the future with this kind of serenity.

Like some of their predecessors, the members of Generation Z traditional gender roles scrutinise (Ingold 2016, S. 7). On the other hand, they are said to be turning back to conservative values and virtues (Ingold 2016, S. 7, 8; Albert et al. 2015, p. 15; 29). Depending on the characterisation, a happy marriage or partnership is therefore also likely to have either a low or a high significance for Generation Z.

Conclusions

There may be plausible generational models that differentiate between generations, attribute and depreciate characteristics, provide plausible explanations, optionally of psychological, historical, sociological or ethnographic origin – and build a coherent concept (story) from this. From this, action, leadership, management, personnel development and conflict management requirements could then be derived just as coherently and plausibly. Once a model has been formulated or appropriated and its internal contradictions have been banished to one's own spaces of non-consciousness, it would be important to stop thinking about it. In the long run, it would be difficult to classify these new and inappropriate influences as fruitful discussions and in-depth discussions of knowledge without clearly recognising that the research question was leading down the wrong track.

This modelling overlooks the fact that people have age-related assessments that change and are not fixed, not even as patterns. Society as a whole has developed and shifted over the past fifty years and more, adapting values and judgements completely independently of the question of birth. In any case, the SOEP data show that Schröter 2018 There is no good reason to assume that generational affiliation is the cause. The fact that a member of the 1968 generation naturally holds different opinions to a member of Generation Z is not mutually exclusive, but has other causes than generational affiliation.

This difference seems to me to have been overlooked in this discussion: Generational affiliation and its characteristics have nothing to do with age. But the fact that an 80-year-old has a different opinion than a 20-year-old is different from the assertion that it is because one belongs to Generation Tradition and the other to Generation Y. The difference becomes clear when you look at the future of 20-year-olds. The difference becomes clear when you look into the future of the 20-year-old: In the model of generations, she will hold her opinions there because she was born around the turn of the millennium and will try to explain this in terms of certain social events (euro and financial crisis, corona) rather than, which is much more likely, because she is an old woman who has continued to have experiences along the way that may also become formative&#8230.

In addition, the generational model leads to oversimplification in our interactions. You say that because you are so old. There is no need for any further discussion because age cannot be changed. In this line of thought, the generational model is directly suited to dividing society instead of deepening unity. However, this is not an implicit characteristic of the generational model, but at best an unintended danger. No, due to its simplicity, it tends to obscure the other relevant factors: personality traits such as origin and gender, socio-economic factors, including those of the parents, but also the education experienced, personal intelligence and the context of the specific conflict or problem. The culture of the organisation, the affiliations in and to the company, hierarchical position, etc. may be significant here. Belonging to a generation is so obviously temptingly important that it may also overlook the fact that society has not only been differentiating itself further for decades, but is also diversifying extensively. It is difficult to assume that there has been and still is a single exemplary generational experience.

Overview:

References can be found at the end of the article.