Let us stop stereotyping Generation Y workers

"Does it really do anybody any good in any work situation to stick people in behavioral categories?"

Of course it does. This is America. Categorization is what brought about slavery and segregation in this country. Group A has to find a few generalizations about a few people and create Group B. Group B does the same thing to Group A and then creates a Group C.

This type of thing will never go away because Americans at their core are racist, sexist, misogynist, homophobic, intolerant of youth, and fearful of anything foreign or new. This applies to whites and blacks, pious and atheists, youg and old, and any other 'group' in America.

Calling young people Millenials is just a politically correct term for labeling a group to be mocked, envied, loathed, despised and generally hated. At the same time, young people take the Millenial categorzation and start to embrace some of the stereotypes. It becomes a badge of recognition in the workplace. Then a battle between Gen X, Gen Y, Baby boomers, and older workers ensues.

In the end, it is all nonsense because if the stock price or sales of the company drops, people from every group will be laid off just the same. People must remember that they are not important at work. Employers only care about how much work they can get out of you. Employees should care about how much money they can get out of the company.

Follow The Golden Rule and be happy. Forget The Golden Rule and be miserable.

Yet everything I am hearing in this forum VERIFIES why people are categorized in one particular group or another. Organizations need to quantify groups just like our politicians have to. And yes, people do not belong with one group or another(gi gen, baby boomer, xer, y, whatever). However, there will always be more exceptions more so than the rule. What I think everybody has to understand is that it is these very groupings that identify ones salary, someone else's perception of you, who you associate with and why, the list can go on and on, and until we "understand" why these groupings exist, we will never be able to change them.

www.generationalprofiles.com

The concept of work habits only remains valid when calibrated to the equally ever changing concept of the work environment and the new fiscal realities.

Outsourcing, (long-term) temping, mult-income households, the internet, wage vs. cost of living. It's all changed! So of course the members of the work force have changed also. Being the classic "IBM man" is as outmoded as big iron.

Immediately post boom, employee remuneration was directly linked to work output. In the current economy of increased output with stagnant real wage increase there is very real disconnect. Works look spoiled only under the old system. It’s a new system and unless you ask to get paid for overtime, you’re on your own dime. (Of course it’s a calculated risk to ask, but that’s what we’re dealing with these days.)

Perhaps the point is that ASSUMPTIONS, aka stereotyping, is bad.

True, yet an understanding of cultural norms provides a place to start having a discussion about whether there are different paths to generating the high output. If you are the "unique" individual in an organization, whether by age, ethnicity, gender, education, etc., "being who you are" may limit your success. It would be useful to figure out who you are, and who they are, and find a way to influence the organization in a manner that aligns with your values and strengths, and can be successful in that environment.

www.ReadSolutionsGroup.com

"It would be useful to figure out who you are, and who they are, and find a way to influence the organization in a manner that aligns with your values and strengths, and can be successful in that environment."

If people hate you, you will not be able to change anything.

I was born after 1978. I'm lazy, unmotivated, and disinterested in the people around me or my work. Am I the exception that proves the rule?

(snipped entire Tim Harris Post for brevity's sake, but that's what I'm referring to)

No, it's people like you that sell organisations and politicians on the fact that they need to "quantify" people (as if they were things) into nice, manageable, bite-sized, predictable markets, all the while hypocritically exclaiming "well of course there's going to be a few exceptions!" when this simplistic reasoning fails to predict even the most basic pattern or development.

You're raping sciences like sociology, anthropology, and statistics for your own profit. You keep acknowledging, selling and perpetuating stereotypes to the detriment of all involved, and then a confused workforce gets to wonder whatever happened to all the meritocratic company posturing at the job application talk when they got hired.

So, convince me here. Everything in this forum "verifies" your theory? There's only one post before your commercial break. Also, how would my being "different" affect my salary, according to you?
Don't know about your country, but there's anti-discrimination laws in mine, and if you're a direct colleague earning more than me you'd better have a sexier degree or more work experience.

Sorry if that sounded bitter, but I've been the victim of berks like that before, in a thousand little ways.

For years now, corporations have been treating their workers more and more shabbily. Significantly. many if not most refer to people as "resources" -- you know, like paper pulp or topsoil.

These younger Americans are demanding to be treated as individuals, not "resources" and those of us who are older would be smart to join the chorous rather than being hoodwinked into thinking of them as spoiled.

If I had to coin a term for my own age group, it would be "the sucker generation" becuase we believed the professional manager class, the churches, the politicians and all the other layers of self-centered, exploitative parasites with which society is afflicted.

Well said Denis.

Micheal Flynn named it the naught generation in his Starfire book and I've always enjoyed that. Calling the class of 2001 the class of naught one.
I've always enjoyed that terminology more then the millenial since that encompasses the entire next 1000 years

"I was born after 1978. I'm lazy, unmotivated, and disinterested in the people around me or my work. Am I the exception that proves the rule?"

Karma, you are the rule. Just focus on getting as much money as possible and you will be alright.

Ugh. Millenials. I've got a better name: Generation i. iPod, iMac, and i facebook, therefore, i am.

I know of a company that requires their prospective employee's to take a psycological test. Sure, this isn't all that rare in the world we live in today, but this company I'm talking about uses the results in a uniquely grotesque way. They will only hire prospective employee's who show an extraordinary patience/perseverance, can be easily mollified, and are not vindictive. Why? This company I write of abuses their employee's to no end, forcing them to work long hours on straight wages, work the weekends on short notice, and refuse to give a raise even when an employee goes beyond the call of duty to improve themselves by attaining accreditations on their own dime. Can generalization be harmful to your financial growth? Sure, but being labeled correctly can be even more dangerous.

In USA, the workplace trends are more in tune with the "human" touch whilst in Asia, in particular geographical locations where the mainstream language is not English, the touch is even more human.

Having said that, I beg to rectify and say a different set of problems exist. Abusive language and verbal insults are allowed and even subtlely encouraged. I was a witness to it. The more shocking being the company is European based and yet people who imagine their English is better than the locals are allowed such atrocities.