How to manage a multigenerational workforce

Commentary

Danielle Drossel (danielle@oiglaw.com) and Madeline Buitelaar (madeline@oiglaw.com) are attorneys with San Francisco Bay Area-based law firm Oppenheimer Investigations Group LLP.

For the first time in history, there are up to five generations in the workforce: Traditionalist (1925–1945), Baby Boomers (1946–1964), Generation X (1965–1980), Millennials (1981–2000), and Generation Z (2001–2020). Each generation has faced a different set of experiences and realities that inform their views, values, and communication styles.

As workplace investigators, our office is seeing more and more conflicts involving generational disputes.

With so many generations in the workplace, it is not surprising that dynamics among employees can be fraught with generational friction. Despite these challenges, employers can address conflicts and reap the benefits of a multigenerational workforce.

Avoid age stereotypes and microaggressions

It is not unusual for incidents to arise from seemingly innocuous comments such as, “I’m having a senior moment,” “That happened before your time,” and the dreaded coupling of millennials and avocado toast. These age-based comments can potentially be considered microaggressions, broadly defined as unintentional conduct that is an external expression of an internal bias.

Age-related stereotypes can have a significant impact. When young employees are overlooked for feedback, simply due to their age, they might avoid opportunities to speak up based on the belief that their input is not valuable. More seasoned employees might feel anxious about being viewed as out of touch and slow.

Be aware of different generational experiences

While it is important to avoid harmful generational stereotyping, it is also critical to acknowledge and appreciate the different experiences and realities each generation has faced.

One case our office investigated involved religious discrimination, in which older Jewish participants in the organization’s diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) program felt troubled by being referred to as "white" and by being told that they enjoyed "white privilege." The older employees felt that this label ignored their ethnicity, history and the realities they faced growing up on the heels of World War II. The younger Jewish employees in the DEI program were not similarly offended.

This was likely because the younger employees were further removed from World War II and because they were more familiar and comfortable with the idea that members of marginalized groups can still benefit from white privilege.

In other words, the varying reactions of people who shared the same religious identity seemed to stem from the generation they grew up in, and their different experiences and realities.

Although there was no evidence of religious-based animosity in this case, the DEI program did not consider the generational nuances of its participants that made the older participants feel isolated and unsupported.

Respond to complaints of ageism promptly

In California, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) provides age-discrimination protection to employees 40 years old or older. While ageist treatment against employees younger than 40 may not give rise to legal liability, if they are not properly addressed, the comments are likely to cause harm on both individual and organizational levels.

Employers can avoid these costly effects by addressing different treatment against all employees, regardless of age.

When responding to age-based conduct in the workplace, employers should consider whether the conduct was intentional. If a person’s conduct is unintentional, education and counseling might be an appropriate and effective response in some circumstances rather than discipline.

Less often, employees make comments or engage in behavior that is intentionally discriminatory. In such cases, disciplinary action may be warranted. The key to determining whether conduct is intentional is to determine whether the person knowingly engaged in discriminatory behavior.

For example, if there is evidence that a supervisor makes ageist comments and has a pattern of ignoring slights from younger employees while holding older employees to a higher standard, this could be evidence of intentional discrimination.

Incorporate ageism training into DEI strategy

Tackling ageism in the workplace should start with training employees to recognize age bias.

But it should not end there. Any training should be incorporated into the organization’s larger DEI strategy. As with any DEI initiative, an effective and sustainable training program should be intentional and ongoing.

Encourage cross-generational mentoring programs

Reverse mentoring and mutual mentoring initiatives offer another creative solution.

Reverse mentoring involves pairing senior leaders with junior employees and having the junior employees serve as mentors to the leaders. This provides leaders with new perspectives, while uplifting younger employees by giving them visibility at the decision-making level. Mutual mentoring is similar, but instead of the senior leader serving as the primary learner, both sides assume equal roles as learner and teacher. Cross-generational mentoring can help employees challenge their assumptions by learning from one another.

While multi-generational work forces present challenges for employers, they also offer a distinct opportunity to embrace unique talent and diverse perspectives. Leveraging the benefits of a multi-generational workforce requires employers to be proactive in fostering an environment of respect and collaboration across generations.

Commentary

Danielle Drossel (danielle@oiglaw.com) and Madeline Buitelaar (madeline@oiglaw.com) are attorneys with San Francisco Bay Area-based law firm Oppenheimer Investigations Group LLP.

Show Comment