How can we strengthen intergenerational ties and succeed in getting several generations to work intelligently and harmoniously with each other? The young, the old, the young seniors and the seniors?
This question is a real concern for many actors in economic and social life, especially since situations where 4 generations find themselves working together in the same organization are becoming more and more frequent.
Generations whose differences are regularly highlighted in order to justify the difficulties in getting people from different age cohorts to cooperate. The salience of the subject becomes evident when we hear sentences such as: “They’re really not like us. » or “There’s nothing to do, we’re not from the same world”.
It is true that sensitivity to digital technology, relationship to authority, clothing preferences, respect for schedules and so on are all generational markers from which it is tempting to categorize individuals according to their birth date. birth. This trend is also confirmed by the algorithms of Google and ChatGPT which are full of information on this subject.
The most popular generational categorization is expressed behind the letters S, B, X, Y, Z and the very last called A for Alpha. These letters constitute a reading grid which is based on numerous studies and reflections whose aim is to reveal the characteristics, needs and expectations of each generation with the hope of finding a way to make people coexist these differences without harming collective effectiveness.
Obviously, the popularity of this reading grid is largely due to its simplicity, and as always the line between simplicity and simplism is tenuous. We can indeed regret the absence of sociological indicators such as social and cultural origins. We can also regret that psychological variations within the same age group are so stereotypical.
In practice, initiatives intended to harmonize collective work based on such generational characteristics are far from producing the expected results. By calculating individuals based on their date of birth, the prophecy of generational gaps can even become self-fulfilling, especially when this leads to offering more freedom, less hierarchy and a lot of cuddle therapy.
The fundamental problem with this generational reading grid is that it focuses on the differences between individuals and in fact neglects their similarities. As Elisabeth Badinter says so well: “Every time we put our differences before our similarities, we enter into a process of confrontation”.
By focusing on similarities, we take the risk of finding transgenerational preferences, that is to say common desires, identical needs and even religious and intellectual convergences.
Generational integration is then no longer really the subject. The subject becomes that of aggregation, that is to say the grouping of individuals whose common points predispose them to share a common adventure under favorable conditions allowing them to achieve shared objectives.
