Leading Generational Diversity

Bad diversity training is absolutely the worst. Not that any bad training is something to look forward to, but bad diversity training almost invariably produces unintended consequences that are highly undesirable. With that as a premise, there are three points we would like you to consider:

1. “Bad Diversity Training” can be defined as awareness training that emphasizes that which is different at the expense of that which is held in common. It doesn’t do anybody any good to have a workshop or an online module that draws attention to “unique characteristics,” without circling back and making a concerted effort to point out the power of that uniqueness, and how it can/should be integrated or incorporated into the strength of what already exists.
2. The definition of “diversity training” has been expanded well beyond the challenges presented by ethnicity and gender to include (at a minimum) the challenges presented by generational identity. Despite all we have been hearing about it lately (i.e., “Millennial This” closely followed by “Millennial That”) generational training is nothing new. Among others, Dr. Morris Massey has been addressing this topic since the 1970’s (What You Are is a Product of Where You Were When!!)
3. For all intent and purposes “diversity training” is synonymous with “leadership training.” By definition leaders are the people that get diverse followers on the same page moving forward. This invariably involves acknowledging and appreciating that which is different, while leveraging the power of that diverse talent to achieve something worth achieving.

So, consider the following graphic in this context:

• “Diversity” includes the unique experiences that have shaped the world views of multiple generations (i.e., maybe there really are some very good reasons that dad is so weird)
• Leadership is a function of uniting diverse resources in pursuit of a common objective

The distributions identified reflect the population as a whole, and are the product of community surveys conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. We think it’s also safe to say that these percentages are present in similar form in most work settings (i.e., think about the laws of large numbers and the really big area under the normal distribution curve).

 

TRADITIONALISTS

• Value Programming – World War II; The Great Depression
• Influences – Joe DiMaggio; John Wayne; Betty Crocker
• Cyber Literacy – “In the room” when the first fax made its way through the fax machine (“it was like magic”)

BOOMERS

• Value Programming – Watergate; Civil & Women’s Rights; Assassinations (J.F.K. & M.L.K.); Vietnam
• Influences – The Beatles; Beaver Cleaver; Rosa Parks; Gloria Steinem;  John Belushi; Captain Kirk
• Cyber Literacy – Widely variant

GEN X’ERS

• Value programming – MTV; AIDS; Video Games; The Fall of the Berlin Wall; The Gulf War
• Influences – Bill Clinton; Beavis & Butthead; Michael Jordan; O.J. Simpson; Bill Gates; Steve Jobs; Ted Bundy
• Cyber Literacy – Very Strong

MILLENNIALS

• Value Programming – Oklahoma City Bombing; Columbine; 9/11; The Election of Barack Obama; Hurricane Katrina
• Influences – Barney; Mark McGuire & Sammy Sosa; The Backstreet Boys; Dawson’s Creek; Full House; Justin Timberlake
• Cyber Literacy – Invented Facebook & Google

GENERATION 2020

• Value Programming – Wars in Iraq & Afghanistan; Impending response to use of chemical weapons in Syria; more to come!!
• Influences – Lady Gaga; Justin Bieber; Hannah Montana; Lebron James
• Cyber Literacy – Hyper Connectivity

So where is all this headed and why all the fuss about Millennials? Consider the projections below while considering the notion that 2020 isn’t really all that far away. By 2015 Millennials will constitute roughly 47% of the workforce. By 2020 that number will be north of 55%.

 

Looking ahead, the challenges brought to the forefront by “leading generational diversity” are self-evident (we suppose we could throw in the terms “intimidating” or “daunting” as well).  Regardless, it provides a “call to action” for us all. And we would respectfully suggest that call to action has far less to do with sitting through a training program highlighting the nuances of generational differences than it does with implementing one or two of the suggestions identified below in our Application Challenge.