Generations, We Hardly Knew Ye: An Obituary

Abstract

Although popular in the organizational sciences, in the media, and in practice, the concepts of “generations” and “generational differences” have been increasingly scrutinized based on theoretical, methodological, and statistical concerns. Here, we present a short obituary to bid adieu to these troubled concepts, with the hopes of memorializing and “putting to rest” these controversial ideas. We encourage researchers and practitioners to think beyond the narrow scope offered by the idea of generations, adopt a more critical perspective on our science and practice, and learn from the mistakes of the past.

Full text

GENERATIONS OBITUARY
1
Generations, We Hardly Knew Ye: An Obituary
Cort W. Rudolph
Saint Louis University
Hannes Zacher
Leipzig University
Cort W. Rudolph https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0536-9638
Hannes Zacher https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6336-2947
Note: This is a preprint version of an in press, accepted manuscript: https://psyarxiv.com/nrmka
Please cite as:
Rudolph, C., & Zacher, H. (2022, In Press). Generations, We Hardly Knew Ye. Group &
Organization Management.
Author Note
Cort W. Rudolph, Department of Psychology, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO
(USA). Hannes Zacher, Wilhelm Wundt Institute of Psychology, Leipzig University (Germany).
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Cort W. Rudolph, Saint Louis
University, Morrissey Hall 2827 St. Louis, MO, 63103, cort.rudolph@health.slu.edu, +1(314)
977-7299.

GENERATIONS OBITUARY
2
Abstract
Although popular in the organizational sciences, in the media, and in practice, the concepts of
“generations” and “generational differences” have been increasingly scrutinized based on
theoretical, methodological, and statistical concerns. Here, we present a short obituary to bid
adieu to these troubled concepts, with the hopes of memorializing and “putting to rest” these
controversial ideas. We encourage researchers and practitioners to think beyond the narrow
scope offered by the idea of generations, adopt a more critical perspective on our science and
practice, and learn from the mistakes of the past.
Keywords: Generations, Generational Differences, Critical Review, Obituary

GENERATIONS OBITUARY
3
Generations, We Hardly Knew Ye: An Obituary
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the
light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is
familiar with it. . . . An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning
over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen
is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the
ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.”
Max Planck (1950, pp. 33 & 97)
Promoting skepticism about “what we do” in the fields of management, organizational
psychology, and organizational behavior is important for the continued development of our
science and profession (e.g., Rotolo et al., 2017). To this end, ideas surrounding the notion of
“generations” have a unique ubiquity and we would argue that they have assumed a form of
“functional autonomy” (Astin, 1961). That is, the existence of “generations” and “generational
differences” are taken as self-evident in many circles (e.g., in common discourse, in the media,
and especially among organizational managers and consultants) and are rarely questioned. This
is notable, because we lack a compelling body of evidence that speaks to the existence of
generations or the influence of generational differences across a wide variety of the outcomes
and processes that we care about as organizational scientists. Our own research in this area has
cast doubt upon the validity of generational frameworks for understanding work-related
constructs, broadly defined (e.g., Rudolph et al., 2017, 2020; Rudolph & Zacher, 2017). Since
we started this work about ten years ago, we have seen some change in thinking around these
ideas in the literature (e.g., Lyons & Schweitzer, 2017; Parry & Urwin, 2021). At this point, we
must ask ourselves, is it now time to declare these concepts dead? It is clear to us that the
generations concept is slowly, albeit steadily, beating a path toward the proverbial empirical
dustbin. To advance and perhaps escalate this critical conversation, we take this suggestion a step
further here. What follows is our obituary for the concept of generations.

GENERATIONS OBITUARY
4
Generations (b. 1927; d. 2022).
Born to functionalists (Manheim, 1927/1952), who sought explanations for social order
and the stability of societies, generations were raised among 20th century sociologists as
explanations for social change (Ryder, 1965). After a tumultuous youth (e.g., none of its
guardians could agree upon its meaning or value; Kertzer, 1983), generations were all-but
abandoned as functionalism fell out of favor and gave way to more contemporary paradigms in
the social and behavioral sciences (e.g., critical theories, which emphasize the role of power
structures for maintaining order within societies; see also Agger, 1991; Bottomore, 1975). Even
lifespan developmental psychologists eschewed their meaning and influence (e.g., Baltes, 1968,
1987).
Now orphaned, generations eventually found a home in the organizational sciences,
where they were adopted innocently enough to make sense of the changing landscape of work
(e.g., Galinsky, 2007; Joshi et al., 2011). At first, this adoption was welcomed; generations and
generational differences offered simple and seemingly reasonable explanations for many of the
dynamic phenomena we observe at work. Indeed, understanding the complexities of
interindividual differences and aging through the lens of generational categories offered a
convenient (if not reductive) view of aging at work. Generations provided a heuristic
“sensemaking” tool that distilled complex developmental phenomena into easy to understand and
communicate qualities of a few groups rather than individuals. Early considerations touted the
utility of generational differences to this end and called for enhanced research to investigate their
effects (Smola & Sutton, 2002). As evidence about (the lack of) generational differences
amassed, questions began to emerge about their cumulative impact (as they often do; Kraiger,
1985). A meta-analysis was conducted to take stock of this literature; its conclusions were

GENERATIONS OBITUARY
5
devastating: “The pattern of results indicates that the relationships between generational
membership and work-related outcomes are moderate to small, essentially zero in many cases”
(Costanza et al., 2012, p. 375). With the seeds of doubt thus sown, the concept of generations
came under increasingly intense scrutiny.
First came the methodologists, who re-declared what was long known (Glenn, 1976) — it
is impossible to empirically separate the influence of generations (or cohort effects) from age and
contemporaneous time period effects (e.g., Bell & Jones, 2013). Next came the empiricists, who
proclaimed that the results of generational differences studies do not triangulate with one-another
(e.g., Lyons & Kuron, 2014). Finally, the statisticians had their say, noting that every inferential
model that we use to study generations offers a different interpretation (Costanza, et al., 2017).
Generational differences ultimately succumbed to the rigors of the scientific method, as do many
management fads (Abrahamson, 1991). In the end, there was no narcissism epidemic to be
concerned with (Stronge et al., 2017; Wetzel et al., 2017), work ethic was found to be cross-
temporally stable (Zabel et al., 2017), and there were notable inter-individual differences in intra-
generational personal values (Weber & Urick, 2017). Ultimately, even once staunch proponents
of the concept began to reconceptualize generations as little more than “fuzzy” social constructs
(Campbell et al., 2017, p. 130; Twenge, 2017, p. 6). This was the final straw that ushered in the
post-generational era.
Occasionally, a study of generations or generational differences still appears in a top-tier
organizational science journal (e.g., Anderson et al., 2017; Holtschlag et al., 2020; North, 2019;
Tang et al., 2017; Van Rossem, 2019). There is a fascinating persistence to this phenomenon and
a comfort in being able to attribute otherwise complex age-related experiences to vastly
oversimplified generational groups. Accordingly, generations are now a “big business” that helps

GENERATIONS OBITUARY
6
to sell books, talks, and workshops run by organizational consultants who peddle their expertise
in these flawed concepts. The persistence of generations is, to some degree, likewise reinforced
by the continued use of generationalized language in scientific papers and in popular media
(Rauvola et al., 2019) to (mis)classify people into generational groups (e.g., “Boomers,”
“Generation Xers,” “Millennials”). Accordingly, an important step in successfully navigating
post-generational science and practice is to strike such imprecise and prescriptive language from
our vernacular. To do so, we encourage people to adopt a lifespan developmental perspective on
aging at work, which considers age along a continuum rather than in terms of discrete
generational categories. Additionally, adopting a social constructionist perspective is useful as it
offers that generations and generational differences do not actually exist, but are socially
constructed phenomena based on widely-held generational stereotypes and the socially accepted
and sanctioned practice of broadly applying generational labels (see Rudolph et al., 2020;
Rudolph & Zacher, 2017).
Mannheim’s (1927/1952) original argument for the existence of generations was that, for
societies to change, new generations must disrupt existing patterns of thinking. In this spirit,
albeit somewhat ironically, we offer this obituary to satisfy similar ends — to disrupt existing
patterns of thinking about generations and generational differences. We hope that these efforts
serve to reinforce existing calls for a formal moratorium to be placed on generations and
generational differences research in the organizational sciences (e.g., Rudolph et al., 2017). We
recognize that there exists a strong pull, especially from organizational consultants and the
popular business and management press, to keep the idea of generations afloat. The simplistic
appeal of generations will be difficult to overcome, however, as science often moves slowly and
incrementally. Further embodying Mannheim’s (1927/1952) argument for generations and

GENERATIONS OBITUARY
7
paraphrasing the quote that begins this musing, Planck’s (1950) principle offers that “science
progresses one funeral at a time” (see also Azoulay et al., 2019). In our eyes, based upon the
amassed evidence that speaks to the contrary, there really is no debate to be had about the status
of generations. Put simply, the time is now to bid adieu to the concept of generations as a means
for understanding human behavior. Rest in peace.

GENERATIONS OBITUARY
8
References
Abrahamson, E. (1991). Managerial fads and fashions: The diffusion and rejection of
innovations. Academy of Management Review, 16, 586–612.
https://doi.org/10.2307/258919
Agger, B. (1991). Critical theory, poststructuralism, postmodernism: Their sociological
relevance. Annual Review of Sociology, 17(1), 105-131.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.17.080191.000541
Anderson, H. J., Baur, J. E., Griffith, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. (2017). What works for you may
not work for (Gen) Me: Limitations of present leadership theories for the new generation.
The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 245-260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.08.001
Astin, A. W. (1961). The functional autonomy of psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 16(2),
75-78. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048324
Azoulay, P., Fons-Rosen, C., & Graff Zivin, J. S. (2019). Does science advance one funeral at a
time?. American Economic Review, 109(8), 2889-2920. https://doi.org/
10.1257/aer.20161574
Baltes, P. B. (1968). Longitudinal and cross-sectional sequences in the study of age and
generation effects. Human Development, 145-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000270604
Baltes, P. B. (1987). Theoretical propositions of life-span developmental psychology: On the
dynamics between growth and decline. Developmental Psychology, 23, 611-626.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.23.5.611
Bell, A., & Jones, K. (2013). The impossibility of separating age, period and cohort
effects. Social Science & Medicine, 93, 163-165.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.04.029

GENERATIONS OBITUARY
9
Bottomore, T. (1975). Competing paradigms in macrosociology. Annual Review of
Sociology, 1(1), 191-202. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.01.080175.001203
Campbell, S. M., Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2017). Fuzzy but useful constructs:
Making sense of the differences between generations. Work, Aging and Retirement, 3(2),
130-139. https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/wax001
Costanza, D. P., Badger, J. M., Fraser, R. L., Severt, J. B., & Gade, P. A. (2012). Generational
differences in work-related attitudes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 27, 375–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-012-9259-4
Costanza, D. P., Darrow, J. B., Yost, A. B., & Severt, J. B. (2017). A review of analytical
methods used to study generational differences: Strengths and limitations. Work, Aging
and Retirement, 3, 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/wax002
Galinsky, E. (2007). The changing landscape of work. Generations, 31(1), 16-22.
Glenn, N. D. (1976). Cohort analysts' futile quest: Statistical attempts to separate age, period and
cohort effects. American Sociological Review, 41(5), 900-904.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2094738
Holtschlag, C., Masuda, A. D., Reiche, B. S., & Morales, C. (2020). Why do millennials stay in
their jobs? The roles of protean career orientation, goal progress and organizational
career management. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 118, 103366.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2019.103366
Joshi, A., Dencker, J. C., & Franz, G. (2011). Generations in organizations. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 31, 177-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2011.10.002
Kertzer, D. I. (1983). Generation as a sociological problem. Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 125–
149. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.09.080183.001013

GENERATIONS OBITUARY
10
Kraiger, K. (1985). On learning from the past: A meta-analytic fable. Personnel
Psychology, 38(4), 799-801. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1985.tb00566.x
Lyons, S., & Kuron, L. (2014). Generational differences in the workplace: A review of the
evidence and directions for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35,
S139–S157. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1913
Lyons, S. T., & Schweitzer, L. (2017). A qualitative exploration of generational identity: Making
sense of young and old in the context of today’s workplace. Work, Aging and Retirement,
3(2), 209-224. https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/waw024
Mannheim, K. (1952). The problem of generations. In P. Kecskemeti (Ed.), Essays in the
sociology of knowledge (pp. 276–322). Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul. (Original
work publised 1927).
North, M. S. (2019). A GATE to understanding “older” workers: Generation, age, tenure,
experience. Academy of Management Annals, 13(2), 414-443.
https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0125
Parry, E., & Urwin, P. (2021). Generational categories: A broken basis for human resource
management research and practice. Human Resource Management Journal, 31(4), 857-
869. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12353
Planck, M. K. (1950). Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers. New York: Philosophical
Library.
Rauvola, R. S., Rudolph, C. W., & Zacher, H. (2019). Generationalism: Problems and
implications. Organizational Dynamics, 48(4), 100664.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2018.05.006

GENERATIONS OBITUARY
11
Rotolo, C. T., Church, A. H., Adler, S., Smither, J. W., Colquitt, A. L., Shill, A. C., Paul, K. B.,
& Foster, G. (2017). Putting an end to bad talent management: a call to action for the
field of I-O psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on
Science and Practice. 11(2), 176-219. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2018.6
Rudolph, C. W., Rauvola, R. S., Costanza, D. P., & Zacher, H. (2020). Generations and
generational differences: Debunking myths in organizational science and practice and
paving new paths forward. Journal of Business & Psychology. 36(6), 945-967.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-020-09715-2
Rudolph, C. W., Rauvola, R. S., & Zacher, H. (2017). Leadership and generations at work: a
critical review. Leadership Quarterly. 29(1), 44-57.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.09.004
Rudolph, C. W., & Zacher, H. (2017). Considering generations from a lifespan developmental
perspective. Work, Aging and Retirement, 3, 113–129.
https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/waw019
Ryder, N. B. (1965). The cohort as a concept in the study of social change. American
Sociological Review, 30, 843–861. https://doi.org/10.2307/2090964
Smola, K., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting generational work
values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 363-382.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.147
Stronge, S., Milojev, P., & Sibley, C. G. (2017). Are people becoming more entitled over
time? Not in New Zealand. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 44(2), 200-213.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217733079
Tang, N., Wang, Y., & Zhang, K. (2017). Values of Chinese generation cohorts: Do they matter

GENERATIONS OBITUARY
12
in the workplace? Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 143, 8-12.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.07.007
Twenge, J. M. (2017). IGen: Why today’s super-connected kids are growing up less rebellious,
more tolerant, less happy--and completely unprepared for adulthood--and what that
means for the rest of us. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Van Rossem, A. H. (2019). Generations as social categories: An exploratory cognitive study of
generational identity and generational stereotypes in a multigenerational workforce.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(4), 434-455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.2341
Weber, J., & Urick, M. J. (2017). Examining the Millennials' ethical profile: Assessing
demographic variations in their personal value orientations. Business and Society
Review, 122(4), 469-506. https://doi.org/10.1111/basr.12128
Wetzel, E., Brown, A., Hill, P. L., Chung, J. M., Robins, R. W., & Roberts, B. W. (2017). The
narcissism epidemic is dead; long live the narcissism epidemic. Psychological Science.
28(12), 1833-1847. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617724208
Zabel, K. L., Biermeier-Hanson, B. B., Baltes, B. B., Early, B. J., & Shepard, A. (2017).
Generational differences in work ethic: Fact or fiction? Journal of Business and
Psychology, 32(3), 301-315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9466-5