Generational Theory – Self-Deception or Serious Science?

I am not Generation Z myself, but my digital competence far exceeds that of many in that cohort. Downloading apps and using them compulsively is not digital literacy — it is just another form of consumption. Oversimplified labeling of this kind began as far back as the 1940s, when the notion of youth culture was born. Marketing, business management, and mass media quickly seized on it as a tool to achieve their own goals. In the 1990s, Strauss and Howe breathed new life into the idea by proposing cyclical generations supposedly shaped by major historical events. Yet academic circles have been critical from the start, pointing out that this is an enormous generalization applied to vast groups of people without rigorous scientific backing.

Contrary to what generational theory suggests, solid research has shown that differences in workplace attitudes across generations are tiny and inconsistent. Statistically, they are so minuscule that building a grand theory around them qualifies more as pseudoscience than as reliable insight. A whole range of studies and articles conclude that management models based on segmenting employees into generational boxes are not only useless but also discriminatory.

Reality Plays a Joke: When Stereotypes Outgrow Facts

Harvard Business Review found that many managers, recruiters, and HR professionals believe that different generations behave fundamentally differently at work. In practice, the differences are marginal at best. We live in an era where on the one hand we claim to fight stereotypes, while on the other hand we keep inventing new ones. Is our world spinning so fast that we can only explain it by resorting to shallow stereotypes and unjustified generalizations?

Many buy into generational clichés without reflection and then begin to act accordingly. The results are predictable: the stereotype rolls forward like a snowball, growing larger with every turn. A discriminatory stereotype starts to dictate reality itself. One side manages people “according to theory,” while the other side is left with no choice but to respond according to the imposed expectations. The stereotype then becomes reality.

When the Stereotype Fails – What Reality Actually Shows

Labeling all people born in a certain period as identical is, frankly, absurd. Take digital skills, for instance. Can we really claim that a person’s technical competence depends on their birth year? In fact, many Boomers grew up during the rise of IT and the birth of the internet, acquiring core skills along the way. A Boomer may well be a digital master, calmly connecting a printer to a computer using logic and experience, while a member of Generation Z frantically searches the app store for a program that might tell them how to do it.

On the flip side, what is often praised as “digital competence” in younger cohorts is, in reality, closer to digital dependency. And dependency does not translate into adaptability. Whenever digital solutions fail, many younger people are left helpless in non-standard situations. A Finnish study on forest visitors revealed that Boomers and older generations navigate the woods using experience and intuition, while younger generations depend on technological tools. Yet when asked to match the information on their phone with the actual terrain, many struggled. So much for digital superiority. Similarly, in the ICILS 2018 study, only about 2% of young participants demonstrated advanced digital skills — hardly a solid foundation for labeling an entire generation as “digitally gifted.”

Why Do We Keep Labeling?

The answer is simple: generational labels are easy to understand and quick to spread. In a world that demands instant explanations, stereotypes are the fast food of reasoning. Some experts even argue that they help people feel part of a social group and provide simple frameworks for understanding why things happen the way they do. But this kind of superficiality is precisely what makes generational labeling so popular. It explains things to those unwilling to dig deeper, and it lets others dodge responsibility for complexity.

The consequences, however, are serious. For example, during recruitment processes, rather than taking the time to truly evaluate candidates, some rely on generational stereotypes. Initial selections may even be made based on age alone, with deeper assessments reserved only for those who fit the “theory.” Labeling may make life simpler, but it certainly doesn’t make it better.

Consequences Can Be Serious (and Comic)

When managers and recruiters start relying on stereotypes, they create self-fulfilling prophecies. Stereotypes then shape not only recruitment but also everyday work. The supposedly “technologically slow” Boomer is denied opportunities to prove themselves because “the theory” says they cannot. Meanwhile, all the technical work is dumped on the “digitally fluent” Geneneration Z employee, who may lack the necessary experience to deal with complex problems. The result? Both fail, and both burn out.

The organization finds itself trapped in a vicious cycle: stereotype equals limited opportunities, which reinforces the stereotype, which further limits opportunities. Such leadership inevitably leads to failure, as decisions are made on faulty premises, key employees leave, and workplace culture becomes toxic.

What Could Be Done Instead — Without Labeling?

The first step is simple: forget generational theory as a measure of human quality. Focus instead on the employee’s actual skills, values, education, and experience. Ask directly: “How do you use technology?” or “What motivates you?” — not “Millennials all want flexibility, right?” A person’s knowledge, skills, habits, and experiences are shaped far more by family, environment, and career path than by their birth year.

What truly matters are age-related characteristics rather than so-called generational traits. I have personally observed that age-diverse teams achieve far better results, because they combine youthful enthusiasm with the wisdom of experience. Ultimately, everyone wins.

Conclusion (Finer Than Elevator Music in the Background)

The stereotype of generational theory may be fun reading before bedtime, but when applied in the workplace it becomes one of the greatest obstacles to understanding and evaluating people. Birth year alone cannot serve as a basis for shoving everyone into the same box. Every person has a unique background, experience, motivation, education, and social network — those are the true shapers of identity. Even twins are not 100% alike, yet we are willing to generalize millions of people? It is absurd.

Let us leave generational labeling to marketers and media. In everyday leadership, it is time to look people in the eye and see them for who they really are.

In the following pieces, we will look more deeply into what actually shapes individuals. It will become clear that generational theory is at best entertainment — but never a reliable tool for leaders.

References

• Menand, L. (2021). It’s Time to Stop Talking About “Generations”. The New Yorker.

• Clements, A. J. (2025). A Critical Review of Research on Work-Related Differences in Generational Cohorts.

• Rudolph, C., Rauvola, R., & Zacher, H. (2017). Leadership and Generations at Work: A Critical Review.

• Rudolph, C., Rauvola, R., Costanza, D. R., & Zacher, H. (2020). Generations and Generational Differences: Debunking Myths in Organizational Science and Practice and Paving New Paths Forward.