key: cord-0951627-qorwfuqk
authors: Rudolph, Cort W.; Zacher, Hannes
title: COVID-19 and careers: On the futility of generational explanations
date: 2020-05-08
journal: J Vocat Behav
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103433
sha: 7de9e9fef47d75528e421787af0446a9a68e0b2f
doc_id: 951627
cord_uid: qorwfuqk

It is common to broadly group people of different ages into “generations” and to speak of distinctions between such groups in terms of “generational differences.” The problem with this practice, is that there exists no credible scientific evidence that (a) generations exist, (b) that people can be reliably classified into generational groups, and (c) that there are demonstrable differences between such groups. We have already noted an emerging generationalized rhetoric that has characterized how people of different ages have been affected by and reacted to the COVID-19 pandemic. These narratives have been especially present in discussions of how work and careers will be affected by this crisis. In this essay, we outline problems with applying the concept of generations, especially for researchers seeking explanations for how COVID-19 will affect careers and career development. We urge researchers to eschew the notion of generations and generational differences and consider alternative lifespan development theoretical frameworks that better capture age-graded processes.

J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f THE FUTILITY OF GENERATIONAL EXPLANATIONS 3

Humans naturally seek simplified explanations for their own and others' behavior through a process of sensemaking, especially during -uncertain times‖ (Kramer, 1999) . This process is enacted through numerous means, including the construction and adoption of stereotypes (Hogg, 2000) . To this end, there is a tendency to broadly classify people into distinct groups based on demographic characteristics, such as age and gender, and to make generalized assumptions about the -typical‖ attitudes, values, and behaviors of all members in a given group that distinguish them from members of other groups. In particular, we often see sentiments that members of one generational group are markedly different in various ways from members of another generation. Such differences are noted across domains, for example, members of certain generations are often chided for -killing‖ various industries (e.g., napkins, Koncius, 2016; cereal, Severson, 2016; fabric softener, Terlep, 2016 explanations are those the rest upon the assumptions that (1) distinct generations exist, (2) there are demonstrable differences between generations, and (3) these differences can be empirically studied. Unfortunately, each of these assumptions represents a -myth‖ about generations that does not hold up to logical or empirical scrutiny. The assumptions that support generationalized explanations are dependent on one-another, forming a logical -house of cards,‖ wherein falsifying any single assumption invalidates the entire idea of generations and generational differences. In our previous work, we have outlined these issues in some detail, so we only allude to them briefly here (see Rudolph, 2015; Rudolph & Zacher, 2015 , 2017 Zacher, 2015) .

First, the idea that generations and assumed differences between them actually exist is highly doubtful in light of their socially constructed nature (see Rudolph & Zacher, 2015 , for an introduction and overview of this perspective). Simply put, generations exist because we think that they do; we will them into being. Generations provide a convenient way for us to describe otherwise complex phenomena associated with human aging into simpler, if not consequently reductive and deterministic terms (Walker, 1993) . Generations and assumed differences between them are socially constructed through numerous mechanisms, for example, these ideas are born from and reinforced by the media, often through sensationalized headlines (e.g., Glazer, 2020) .

Moreover, some scientists and organizational consultants financially benefit from promoting the idea that, despite weak or non-existent empirical evidence, generational differences exist (e.g., by selling popular press books, by conducting trainings and workshops). As suggested by Rudolph and Zacher (2020) , we are already seeing a generationalized rhetoric of COVID-19

emerging (see also Ayalon et al., 2020) .

Second, research that has attempted to study generational differences generally finds small differences between members of (assumed) generational groups (e.g., Costanza et al., . That said, the understanding of the -demonstrable differences‖ assumption is qualified by the third assumption. Namely, third, there exists no methodology or statistical/analytic framework that can unambiguously separate out -generations‖ (i.e., birth cohort effects) from two other time-varying influences: chronological age and contemporaneous period effects. These methodological and statistical/analytic issues matter, as suggested by , because -… it could be argued that there has never actually been an empirical study of generational differences‖ (p. 4).

In particular, in common research designs (i.e., cross-sectional, cross-temporal, longitudinal), age effects, period effects, and cohort effects are variously confounded with oneanother. This issue is well understood and defined in the literature (e.g., Glenn, 1976 ; see also Rudolph, 2015; Rudolph, Costanza, Wright, & Zacher, 2019; Rudolph & Zacher, 2017, for critiques and empirical demonstrations of these and related issues). Of particular note, the conflation of cohort and period effects bears some consideration, especially to the extent that one is attributed to the other. Factors that occur contemporaneously and that are experienced broadly (e.g., economic conditions, global pandemics) manifest as period effects, not as cohort (i.e., generational) effects. COVID-19 has already affected hundreds of millions of people across the globe, either directly or indirectly; its influence will continue to be wide-sweeping, affecting everyone regardless of their birth year and their (assumed) membership in one generation, versus another.

Just as we would caution against the application of generations for studying any phenomenon related to work (e.g., leadership; Rudolph, Rauvola, & Zacher, 2018) , so too would we offer that generations are not a reasonable framework for understanding vocational behavior topics. We fully recognize that generations are a convenient way of explaining colloquially the 

Aging in Times of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Avoiding Ageism and Fostering Intergenerational Solidarity

Generational differences in work-related attitudes: A meta-analysis

Jobless claims soar past 3 million to record high

Coronavirus job losses could total 47 million, unemployment rate may hit 32%, Fed estimates

COVID-19 Will Permanently Change The Way Every Generation Lives-Here's How

Cohort analysts' futile quest: Statistical attempts to separate age, period and cohort effects

Why do millennials stay in their jobs? The roles of protean career orientation, goal progress and organizational career management

Do you use paper towels as napkins at the dinner table? You are not alone

Motivation to reduce uncertainty: A reconceptualization of uncertainty reduction theory

Generationalism: Problems and implications

A note of the folly of cross-sectional operationalizations of generations

Lifespan developmental perspectives on working: A literature review of motivational theories

Cross-temporal meta analysis: A conceptual and empirical critique

Leadership and generations at work: A critical review

Intergenerational perceptions and conflicts in multi-age and multigenerational work environments

SIOP Organizational Frontiers Series on age in the workplace

Considering generations from a lifespan developmental perspective

The kids are alright: Taking stock of generational differences at work. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist

-The COVID-19 generation‖: A cautionary note

Cereal, a Taste of Nostalgia, Looks for Its Next Chapter

Millennials Are Fine Without Fabric Softener; P&G Looks to Fix

J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f