Intergenerational Conflict : Myth or Reality ?

For as long as I can remember, people have talked about intergenerational conflict as if it were a natural phenomenon — like gravity or the weather. You hear it everywhere: older colleagues are “living in the Stone Age,” incapable of using modern apps or adapting to AI, while younger employees are supposedly impatient, entitled, or lacking work ethic. As if age were destined to determine behaviour and stereotypes were fact. Even in antiquity, thinkers noted the same frustrations: Hesiod complained that "youth were reckless", and Horace observed that "each generation sees the next as worse than its own".

When I was younger, I swallowed some of these clichés without much thought. I noticed differences — mostly during larger family lunches or dinners where all four generations were present — and I occasionally felt frustrated, assuming age must have something to do with it.

But over time — and with more pairs of eyes on many contexts — I’ve realised that what people often call intergenerational conflict (or friction) is rarely about age. It’s often prejudice dressed up as fact, statistics, or hashtags.

If you look closely, variation within age groups is just as significant — often more meaningful — than variation between them. There are older colleagues fluent in design software, AI tools, and digital workflows who make the young look like novices. Similarly, there are younger professionals whose preferences, values, and communication styles are indistinguishable from those of people two decades their senior.

In other words, when tensions arise at work, they are more likely linked to differences in values, priorities, and lived experience, not birth years. Researchers such as Jean M. Twenge (known for iGen) and Corey Seemiller & Meghan Grace (authors of Generation Z Goes to College) have documented generational attitudes through surveys and social research. But even their work — rich and insightful as it is — reminds us that averages and trends are not the same as individual realities. Averages cannot capture the individuality that shapes workplace dynamics.

Think of it this way: you can find a 60-year-old who embraces digital tools with enthusiasm and a 25-year-old who prefers paper and printed calendars. Someone else may embrace post-modern social perspectives but prefer very structured workflows. The neat boxes of generational stereotypes collapse quickly once you examine individual lives closely.

Perhaps the “conflict” exists only when we assume age equals perspective. The real differences lie in values, communication styles, and priorities — and those are entirely independent of the year of birth. When it comes to work styles, collaboration, and technology, some people prioritise stability and clarity; others prioritise creativity and flexibility. When it comes to relationships, family roles, or societal expectations, you might find the entire spectrum of views in any age group. The belief that age determines position on such matters is, in my experience, a prejudice — an easy narrative that simplifies complexity.

This doesn’t mean there are never tensions — of course there are. But what if we reframed the question? Instead of assuming “older vs younger,” we could ask:

• Is the difference more about communication style rather than age?

• Are tensions rooted in values and priorities rather than generational identity?

• Do we perceive others through the lens of stereotype rather than reality because it’s easier than curiosity?

• How might your own assumptions about age influence how you respond?

In truth, intergenerational conflict is often a story we tell ourselves. The patterns we notice are real, but the causes we attribute — the clichés about boomers and zoomers — are usually oversimplifications.

So if you think you see generational conflict at work — or in society — pause for a moment and look again. Focus on what really matters: understanding the individual, cultivating curiosity, and bridging differences between people.

You might find that what you’re really seeing is not age against age, but values encountering other values instead, and the only solution is curiosity, not assumption.

References

• Twenge, J. M. (2017). iGen: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy—and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood. New York: Atria Books.

• Seemiller, C., & Grace, M. (2016). Generation Z Goes to College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

NavigateWorkNow

Relation - Trust - Dialogue - Impact - Growth

info(at)navigate-work-now.com

© 2025. All rights reserved.