Generational labels: stereotypes, bias, and their hidden costs in the workplace

Generational differences can make it tempting to build personas based on clichés, but beneath the surface, generational labels like “Boomer,” “Gen X,” “Millennial,” and “Gen Z” often do more harm than good. They’re not only rooted in stereotypes and pseudoscience, but can also fuel unfairness, discrimination, and missed opportunities for individuals and organisations alike.

The myth of generational differences

Generational labels are everywhere in workplace conversations, but their scientific foundation is shaky at best. We examine this in our new eBook, ‘Leading Across Generations: Separating Fact from Fiction’, and find that there’s little rigorous evidence to support the idea that people born in the same era share distinct, meaningful work-related characteristics. Instead, these categories are mostly the product of think tanks and media, with arbitrary start and end dates that lack universal agreement. Sure, historical events and technological shifts can influence attitudes, but it’s the leap from broad social trends to rigid workplace stereotypes that’s problematic.

The danger of stereotypes

Generational labels are shorthand for assumptions: Boomers resist change, Millennials are entitled, Gen Z lacks work ethic. These clichés are not just lazy, they’re damaging. When we rely on such stereotypes, we risk:

• Reinforcing bias: Labelling an older employee as “technologically challenged” or a younger one as “flaky” can influence hiring, promotion, and development decisions, often to the detriment of both the individual and the organisation.
• Fostering division: Generational labels can pit age groups against each other, undermining trust and collaboration. Instead of leveraging diverse perspectives, teams and organisations become fragmented, reducing innovation and productivity.
• Neglecting individuality: No two employees are exactly alike, and even if generational differences did exist, many wouldn’t fit the “typical” traits ascribed to their generation. Focusing on labels overlooks the impact of personality, education, culture, and life experience.

The real-world impact: discrimination and missed opportunities

Academic research and workplace surveys reveal the tangible consequences of generational stereotyping:

• Hiring bias: Both younger and older workers report experiencing age-based discrimination. A 2024 survey found that 36% of Gen Z and 37% of Millennials had faced recruitment bias, while 50% of older workers who reported discrimination said it was due to age. Stereotypes about commitment, technological ability, adaptability, or leadership potential can potentially prevent the best candidates from being hired or promoted.
• Weakening succession planning: We often support clients who have concerns over leadership succession, fearing that no one in the pipeline is ready to step up to fill senior roles. But the findings of our rigorous assessment processes often reveal evidence to challenge assumptions that younger employees don’t have the capability for leadership (and, that others with more experience will automatically make a good leader!).
• Limited development: When managers assume older workers can’t learn new skills or younger workers aren’t ready for leadership, they also restrict access to training and advancement. These missed opportunities stifle their personal growth and development (something that people find demotivating at any age!), and which puts you at risk of losing them to your competitors.
• Reduced inclusion: Stereotypes can make employees feel undervalued or misunderstood, discouraging them from contributing fully. This undermines engagement, retention, and overall workplace satisfaction.

Moving beyond labels: what HR can do?

Simply put, we must all challenge the allure of generational stereotypes, but the onus is especially on leaders and people professionals to lead the way:

1. Challenge biases and inappropriate banter: Offer guidance and training on unconscious bias and what’s ok and not ok when it comes to banter, but try to avoid just doing a simple e-learning tick-box exercise. Consider using scenario-based learning and offering live discussion on these important topics. Allowing employees to tell their own stories/challenges can be particularly impactful.
2. Use objective selection and promotion practices: Evidence through multi-method assessment (for instance, incorporating psychometrics, real-world simulations, in-depth interviews) helps to reduce bias in selection and promotion decisions by assessing employees based on their skills, experiences, and aspirations - not their birth year!
3. Review your behavioural framework: It’s easy to miss inherent bias in how you’re describing the values and behaviours that you expect of your staff in any behavioural frameworks. An objective review of this can identify where the wording or even behaviours identified are likely to be reinforcing biases.
4. Promote inclusive leadership: Offer training and encourage inclusive leadership, from the top down. Open feedback tools, such as our Truth Teller 360 can help open leaders’ eyes to their impact on others and promote a feedback culture where all generations can thrive.

Conclusion

Generational labels may offer a tempting narrative, but they are a poor substitute for understanding the real drivers of employee behaviour and potential. By moving beyond stereotypes and embracing the complexity of individual talent, HR professionals and business leaders can create workplaces that are not only fairer, but also more dynamic and successful. As research continues to debunk the myths of generational divides, the case for treating people as individuals, rather than caricatures, has never been clearer.