Today, I found myself researching motivation and the differences between generations. I came out of a school webinar unclear about whether there was sufficient evidence to support some of the changes they were making to the enrichment curriculum. Furthermore, I wanted to understand if we were just making it easier for kids not to step out of their comfort zone. In education, I am all for innovation but less for following any trend that emerges.
The Generational Shifts
Sometimes, we like to claim that generation labels are just generalisations and not so relevant. It turns out, research does seem to find meaningful differences in the motivation of individuals across generations and, naturally, in how they are engaged in their learning.
The same goes for how they engage in the workplace.
We heard all about Millennials wanting purpose and flexibility, so it’s about time we start understanding the next generation in the workplace. Gen Zs observed some of the Millennials’ struggles and emerged more pragmatic and career-focused. They also came up with the concept of relevance and questioned the usefulness of some of their learning for real life. And now Gen Alpha, the ones growing up in a hyper-personalised AI world, expect personalisation, choice and relevance for them as individuals to stay engaged. It is a whole other game plan to respond to this.
What it means for learning
What fascinates me is a deeper question: when does personalisation help people thrive, and when does it prevent them from developing the resilience that comes from stepping outside their comfort zone?
It is believed that Gen Alpha students are driven by instant feedback, they prefer customised learning paths and don’t see the point of a one-size-fits-all approach. They also prefer formats to be interactive and multi-modal. It feels like I am describing an AI classroom. In fact, I am not.
The AI-geek in me is also the no-smartphone-mum.
I recognise the potential of AI in customisation at a scale that can allow each student to learn at their own pace, and that I cannot argue with. But I can also argue for that same AI to enhance the human tutors as they become more agile in their delivery and can understand each student’s learning path better. A tutor that the students respect and feel inspired by, who provides them access to real-life relevant experiences they can learn from.
I also recognise the agency that choice can create, but I am yet to see enough evidence of how much of the core skills we should still be dictating (or not). I am not talking English and Maths, but rather topics that push kids out of their comfort zone and that we are quick to assume as extras, such as Drama or Arts. Just because kids are not comfortable and deem themselves “not good at it”, should we make that a choice early on? Or do we push that “uniform base approach” just one bit longer so they can bring that with them in the difficult years of teenagerhood?
What it means for companies
The question stayed with me because workplaces are facing a similar challenge. If each generation arrives with different expectations around relevance, feedback and autonomy, organisations are being asked many of the same questions schools are. How much should systems adapt to individuals, and how much should individuals adapt to the system?
Gen Alpha is yet to hit the workforce. At the moment, we are confronting the results-oriented Gen Xers with the purpose-driven Millennials and the pragmatic and financially driven Gen Zers. I have recently worked on a team review where a lot of the conversations by the managers revolved around intrinsic motivation for the “new generations”. As in, for anyone who was 10-20 years their junior.
As much as one tries to avoid these types of generalisations and ageism, some foundation has been found for the identified trends, and therefore, it is important to dig deeper into theories of motivation across generations to understand how to make these generations work together.
The quick conclusion goes to work ethic, but it goes well beyond that.
A corporate conflict of generations
So what is it that is creating this lack of understanding across generations (and will likely continue to do so as the Gen Alphas arrive in the workplace as well)?
- The Gen X manager grew up self-reliant. He or she values autonomy and often provides it to others. That does not work as intended for Millennials, who want more coaching and are motivated by collaboration. Research suggests Gen Z dislikes it even more, as they are risk-averse and want clear guidelines.
- The Gen X manager focuses on feedback when something needs correction. As in, no news is good news. Millennials need growth validation in their careers. Gen Zs, worried about job security, want to have real-time feedback that is clear and transparent.
- While Gen X managers “invented” work-life balance, Millennials pushed for integration and being able to bring their whole selves to work. Often, they missed the need to establish barriers and suffered burnout. Gen Zers learned their lesson and enforced pragmatic out-of-office barriers. This is where the work ethic myth comes in. For Gen Xers, Gen Zers have none.
- The Gen X manager believes in earning respect and authority through merit and hard work, not necessarily committing to institutional loyalty. Millennials want purpose to be brought into work and want to buy into the corporate morals and force corporations to become active participants in society. Gen Zs, conversely, see only the corporate marketing and are happy to challenge authority.
Forgetting who is right and bridging the gap
When you read through all this, you can’t help but wonder how these generations will co-exist in the workplace without fights, quitting and firing? But they will, as they have in prior generational shifts. With some prejudice and mutual attacks of lack of understanding.
The awareness of these general traits (which will certainly not apply to everyone in each generation perfectly) helps develop a culture that recognises different ways of coming at corporate identity, belonging, accountability and ownership. The awareness of these gaps is also what allows us to develop systems that help these generations collaborate and work together, building training, incentives and feedback mechanisms that cater to these differences. The balance is in adapting enough to allow individuals to thrive and push enough to allow them to grow out of some of the generational constructs.
Perhaps that is the challenge for both educators and leaders.
To understand the broad forces shaping a generation without allowing those labels to become the whole story.
To recognise patterns without losing sight of the individual.
To personalise where it helps, while still inviting people into experiences that stretch them beyond what feels comfortable.
I am fascinated by how generations aggregate around certain traits, and we are quick to box them into being less career-focused, less willing to work, less detail-oriented, less of something that the prior generation values. Clearly, a simple workshop about a new curriculum offering in school, backed by Gen Alpha suggested evidence was all that took me to start thinking about where these generalisations are helpful to make or not.
I land in hyper-personalisation, understanding the macro-trends around generations. I land in understanding each individual within the context in which he or she was raised and learned, interacted socially and entered the workforce. Bringing together what is common shared humanity with perspectives that come from lived experience.
Photo by Fotografia Lui Vlad on Pexels