Generational Tension In The Workplace

Intergenerational Conflict is Hard. This Framework Can Help.

Ben Dockery | Est. 4-5 minutes

Generational Tension in the Workplace

Who gets to set your office party playlist? Do you go with Springsteen, The Beatles, and The Supremes or Swift, Bieber, and The Weeknd? Do you prioritize parking, ‘acoustic privacy,’ and an adjacent cafeteria (Boomer favorites) or tech-friendly spaces, biodegradable office products, and a complimentary avocado toast bar (Gen Z selections)?

These questions are tangential to the real tensions. Generational fault lines often remain unspoken, but we still feel them. The revolutionary speed of technology means generations inhabit different worlds and don’t always share customs, values, or language. How can we resolve these issues? Or, are we even supposed to?

To borrow a phrase I first heard from Andy Stanley, we need to determine if this is a problem to solve or a tension to manage.

Solving always seems better than managing at first glance. But tension can be helpful. Stanley shows that the genius of human invention is often a direct result of human thumbs, which creates tension for all sorts of delicate and intricate movements – think writing calligraphy, picking up a contact lens, or using chopsticks. 

Generational tension can be helpful in your workplace. You can think of these as organic checks and balances. Since there are five diverse generations in the workforce today, that’s a lot of balancing. It takes wisdom (and an occasional whimsical playlist) to navigate the fault lines, but it can even turn into a competitive advantage.

New Horizons: Reframe First

I love God’s reframing question to Abraham and Sarah at the Oaks of Mamre, “Is anything too difficult for the Lord?” (Gen 18:13). 

Andy Crouch has a lovely description of the way culture remakes the world: ‘culture shapes the horizons of the possible.’ When you reframe the question to ask, “how can we manage tension for the benefit of all?”... you change the possible outcomes.

One of the common accusations against the younger generation is that they rely too heavily on short-term thinking (the same complaint is lodged against every “younger” generation). If only “they” could see long-term implications… They are coddled and have unrealistic expectations. Ouch! Similarly, the more experienced generation is accused of hanging on too long and not being nimble. If only “they” could let go, learn new tricks… Innovate or die, right? Gulp!

Sounds like tension, but there is no need to proverbially cut off your thumb. You can move beyond age discrimination.

You can’t be two ages at the same time. It is almost too obvious to write, but helps pronounce the juxtaposition of a 34 year-old and 64 year-old facing the same organizational decision. Not only do they likely see things differently, but they decide on two different time horizons. The 34 year-old is likely a decade into their career. The 64 year-old is likely less than a decade from completing their career, maybe just a few years. The math is different. The risk calculations have different horizons. Company cultures often lean one way or the other, which creates a tension that people try to resolve. Which way should you lean?

Benjamin Jones’ research at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management demonstrates that the likelihood of a major discovery increases steadily through one’s twenties and thirties and then declines dramatically through one’s forties, fifties, and sixties (see Arthur Brooks, From Strength to Strength). Score one for the younger generations.

Conversely, the average CEO of a Fortune 500 company is 57. The average age of S&P board members is 63. Warren Buffett is in his 90s and still outperforming the young finance moguls. When people are selecting guiding voices, they tend to value varied experiences, which accompanies age. That’s a point for the older generations.

The reframe doesn’t ask who wins, but what do our generational tensions make possible.

Clashing values: Listen First

“He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, It is folly and shame unto him.” (Prov. 18:13). Speaking of generational differences, how do you like that King James rendering of “listen before you answer”?

Yuval Levin’s book, A Time to Build, has a case study that tackles the tension in what he deems a “crisis of journalism.” Not only is there swelling public doubt about the integrity of the journalistic profession, mass misinformation from non-journalists, a rising celebrity culture within the profession that rejects editorial review, but also a growing crevasse between generations. He explains, “Many older professional journalists now have stories to tell about the clashes between this younger, more activist journalistic ethic and the traditional professionalism of the newsroom.” Later, he records a conversation from a New York Times veteran who explained that one generation came of age when you tried to fit into the institution and the younger generation was brought up to believe their voices needed to be heard, or the institution should change to accommodate them.

How does wisdom insert itself into this pressure point? When values clash, people clash. When people clash, well, there is normally a winner and loser. Proverbs 27:17 offers a way out of the dilemma: both can win because iron sharpens iron. Both grow as they clash. 

First, wisdom does not ask, how do we all get along? The goal is not to tamp down generational differences so there is no more tension. That’s another way of solving. Managing means listening, which means naming and explaining the differences.

Second, explain what’s behind the unspoken points of tension. In the case of journalism, acknowledging the tension of objective reporting (value 1) and social activism (value 2) is a good start. Listen first, then respectfully disagree. Applaud disagreement when you see it done well – or even attempted. Although values won’t fall cleanly on generational lines, listening first can create positive conflict that will allow for greater understanding.

Third, what do you do when listening leads to greater tension? It can help to add a value. One way to adjust the horizon of possibility is by introducing a triangulating value. Back to the field of journalism – instead of objectivity vs justice – add courage to the mix. It might be a shared value that everyone can adhere to. It takes courage to be an activist and it takes courage to report objectively. One point of shard agreement is better than none.

Honoring the other: Go First

If you commit to managing the tension, you realize there is no finish line to eliminate frustrations. They will remain. So, outdo one another in showing honor (Rom. 12:10).

A multi-generational team enjoys innate advantages. Teams can combine wildly innovative, energetic, young workers with savvy, sensible, networked older workers. A masterful reporter who has covered 10 election cycles can link up with a hungry, enthusiastic recent grad who possesses infinite social media capabilities. Sounds like a win - win.

The challenge here, for us, is to go first. Initiate. Ask for help. Build a relationship. Learn from someone who doesn’t stand where you stand or assume what you assume. With a dash of humility, we can create intricate new solutions to real problems that need solving.

Christian wisdom reframes, listens, and initiates. That’s a good leadership playlist.

And, if you need some inspiration, go listen to Ryan Adams covering the 1989 Taylor Swift album or Amos Lee’s tribute album to Chet Baker. The older honors the younger and the younger honors the older. That’s a multi-generational song set for your next office party.

© Ben Dockery | This article was first published in Lakelight Monthly, February 2023 Edition