Good management can "calm" the generational conflict

Conflicts between generations are a hallmark of humanity. They are a recurring social phenomenon. They happen when groups of different ages – and therefore with different values and behaviors – clash. Perhaps it has always been this way. However, probably because of recent socioeconomic transformations, profound changes in the technologies that surround us and omnipresent digital interactions, they have intensified and become more evident. They are one of today's great challenges for managers in companies.

Every so often, a new term emerges to designate a new generation. Several "labels" have already been created for them: baby boomers (born between the 1940s and 1960s), generation X (between the 60s and 80s), millennials (marked by the turn of the century)... And generation Z, the "digital natives”, born between 1997 and 2010. And all these generations mix and coexist within companies.

So there is a question that keeps nagging at managers: how should management be structured so that generations with such different trajectories work together harmoniously, with efficiency, productivity and the capacity to innovate?

There are no definitive answers. However, it is possible to build "timeless" foundations of good management that will always be relevant, regardless of an individual's generational trajectory. That may be a good path.

For example, the idea that the ultimate goal of work is to create value for the customer, whether final or intermediate. That is universal. It does not matter which generation you belong to. If you can look at your work critically, seeking better ways of doing things in order to deliver more value to your customers, then you, the company and society all gain.

The same goes for the ability to eliminate waste and solve problems. Forget the generation. All of them will gain if we consider that every process is “naturally” filled with activities and steps that consume resources and demand effort but are irrelevant to customers. Waste needs to be identified and eliminated. Problems need to be exposed and solved. There should be no generational “contraindications” for such practices.

The list does not end here. There are several other possible “convergence zones” that organizations can explore and nurture. They do not depend on generations. But they need to be understood and practiced by everyone. Emphasizing only the differences, placing them at the center of the debate, can further widen the distance between generations and amplify the force of the clash. Perhaps the role of management is to soften them.