One of the seminal works in the area of generational issues in the workplace is the book by Lynne Lancaster and David Stillman titled When Generations Collide: Who they are; why they clash, how to solve the generational puzzle at work.  When this book appeared in 2002, it made a huge contribution in introducing this new area of diversity tension and clearly identified who the four generations in the workplace were, the major events that shaped each one, why there is tension among them, and some practical solutions for helping the members of these generations work effectively together. All in all it is a well-thought out and hopeful book.

One of the observations that social scientists have made is that the language we use creates a social reality.  By introducing the term “ClashPoint” into the organizational vocabulary, this book defined a reality in which the generational collisions seemed inevitable. I would suggest that another way of viewing a ClashPoint is in the context of a diversity conversation that goes like this. If we see diversity as any dimension that defines groups or individuals, generational differences certainly are one dimension. And when the dynamics of those differences impact a situation we have what is called diversity tension.  It is important to recognize that diversity tension is a normal occurrence in organizational life and acknowledging it when it is present is the first step in resolving that tension.

When we delve deeper into what contributes to diversity tension – particularly in the domain of generational differences – we usually find that an insistence on traditions, preferences, and conveniences rather than actual job requirements is at the root of the tension.  Traditions refer to the way things have always been (e.g., we do performance reviews once a year). Preferences are the way we like things to be (e.g., I like people to wear real shoes rather than flip flops). Conveniences refer to the way it is easier (for me) to do things (e.g., it is easier to give you feedback once a year then every time I see you). In contrast, requirements are the things that are essential to getting the job done.

Let me illustrate the diversity tension around generational differences by relating a personal experience from my internship at a Philadelphia Bank during the summer before my senior year at Princeton.

Suits, starched shirts, and ties were required attire for all male office employees. Business casual was not even on the radar screen at this time. On the second day of my internship, I arrived wearing a blue dress shirt.  Even though it was freshly starched, I received a note that I needed to see the Senior Vice President of my department immediately.  As soon as I entered his office, the lecture began.  “As long as this bank has been in existence, only WHITE dress shirts are appropriate (a tradition). And I like it that way (preference). And furthermore, when a man wears a white shirt, it is easier to dress in the morning because every tie in the closet works (convenience).” Not one of the reasons he gave for wearing a white shirt was essential for me to complete my job successfully (a requirement).

So when a Millennial gets the same kind of lecture about flip flops, tattoos, etc., is it really about the job requirements, or is it about traditions, preferences, or conveniences?  The same holds for when a boss rebuffs a Gen Y’s request for more frequent feedback because it is less convenient for the boss than just providing it at performance appraisal time.  Any thoughts?