Harvard Business Publishing

The term "Generation X" predates Coupland's novel. It was previously the title of a 1965 book by Charles Hamblett and Jane Deverson. They were studying the generation we now classify as baby boomers. It became applied to the following generation as sort of a hand-me-down, through the 1970s band (which got the name from the book) and then Coupland.

"Re-Generation" is a nice, likeable, positive term. If we are going to attach a label to people who aren't yet able to label and define themselves, it might as well be such a term, rather than one which simply marks an accident of birth or circumstance.

Tammy, Re-Gen sounds good. For one, it sounds serious. Somehow the terms Gen X and Gen Y have a tendency to sound frivolous - something that denotes 'not-like-us' on an almost moral high ground.

Of all the supporting 're'-s you provided the one that sums it all up is RESPONSIBILTY. That one term implies all other qualities -be it facing the recession or the reality or rethinking on renewable lines.

As a mother of an eight year old and four year old, it is amazing (and occassionally saddening)) to see the maturity with which they absorb the world around.

Heres to the Re-Gens!

Priya

Such interesting insights. I can confidently say that each thing I have read of yours has illuminated the underlying cause of a world view I hold but never stopped to consider.

I think RE-Generation is an amazingly dead-on moniker.

On "Re-ality" I would add that, perhaps more important than "a mental map based on a world with finite limits and no easy answers" is the fact that the finite world they grow up in will coexist with a digital world that they will feel equally at home in (maybe more so)that contains infinite knowledge, answers, opinions, opportunity for relationships.

I would also expand on your point about "re-newables" "re-cycling" and "re-cycling" and say that the public opinion transition currently underway that is finally opening the door for sensible and aggressive environmental policies will reach full maturity during their lifetime. This will truly provide the Re-Generation with the ability to Re-generate.

Fantastic stuff!

Hello,

Re-Gen sounds like Reagon. Ronald Reagon :O) I prefer 'The Next Generation' (sounds like StarTrek) to Gen-Y and Re-Gen.

I consider myself as the inter-Generation, Generation Gorbachev and perestroika, or Generation Internet, being to young to be a Gen-X and to old to be a Gen-Y.

Best wishes,
Robi

Recollecting Descartes's DE LA METHODE

Descartes's paper conserves apparently what human intelligence generates and continues. According to Descartes's mention, development cycles carry out generation widening research and development efforts because of its complexity and difficulty. An instance of medical research inspected human functions beyond human generations, and Descartes ment that humankind can comfront huge challenges of development.
In other words of above-mentioned generations development, present generation may predict what next human generation and subordinate networks could solve by means of development class inheritance. What next generation may solve means what present generation can withstand in preparation of next. DE LA METHOD articulates how legacy generations solved by all means.

Tammy,

Have you given thought to international generational differences?

I really enjoy your discussions and comments about the various generations and how their surroundings have shaped them. But most of them are American-centric with our American experiences shaping our youth. What about the generational differences between the US and China? Or India?

What are the current generations doing over there? How are they similar/ how are they different?
I suspect that the Chinese youth may not be experiencing the cold water realism that our 13-year olds are experiencing.

Will the American Y generation or "re-gen's" match up with the corresponding generation in one of these Asian Countries, and be able to compete? Or will the pitfalls of our new generations lead to a American workforce that just simply can’t compete?

Ben

Excellent point by Ben. Ditto for gender, race, and so forth. I think the generational differences between women (in white midwestern U.S. culture, anyway) are larger than the generational differences between men. Or, at least, well, different.

Tammy,
I have a 7 (son) and 14(daughter) year old. Both this week's article and last weeks article make sense to me. My daughter and I were discussing your article last week and came up with many of the points you discussed. My son does not remember a pre 9/11 world. His reference points are different from ours.

Your analogies for Re-Gen really captures my kids point of view!

Yeah R.J. I'm really interested in how these different micro-groups within the same generations are interacting. Where one group's positives are another groups negatives and so forth...

For example, although it may not be a problem that an American GEN-Y doesn't see the need for the 5 day work week, It's possible that 25 year olds in China are so into progress right now that they are ready for a 7 day work week.

This difference may not seem significant since these two groups are on opposite sides of the globe, but imagine these two differences being expressed in a college classroom where there is competition.

Hi Ben and RJ --

Good points, all.

I do have a lot of research on what the generations are like in places like China, India, Western Europe, and other parts of the world, and will definitely do some posts over the next couple months on those topics, if you'd like. (I don't have as many personal stories and anecdotes, I'm afraid. :)

I've written a bit on the gender differences and can expand on that, as well, in future posts.

In general, I'd caution all readers, as I did early on, that generational segments are but one way of looking at a group's differences. Gender, nationality, socioeconomic status, parental heritage, race, and a number of other factors all play very important roles. I tend to focus on the generations for two reasons -- one, we've all read a lot about gender and racial differences; two, I think in some ways, generational differences, probably coupled with socioeconomic factors, give us some of the most important clues about how people think about work -- they help us unlock the mystery of why some people appear to be acting in ways that seem so strange to us. However, again, I'm not saying that the other ways of looking at groups are not also very important.

I like to think of the challenge of understanding a group a bit like looking at something through a prism. I look at it one way, then turn the prism and look at it through another facet and see something quite different -- all important, all interesting, all good clues re how we can be more sensitive to each other's needs and preferences -- which, after all, is (in my view) the ultimate goal.

One series of posts that you may enjoy, if you haven't seen them already, are ones that I did last year on psychodemographic segments in the workplace. Again, these turn out to be quite different from the generational segments (the two do not align). I find the psychodemographic segments helpful in understanding what types of activities a specific individual finds personally engaging (team-based competition, solitary reflection, etc.), and the generational segments helpful in shedding some light on the hidden assumptions that underpin some of our lifelong goals ("I need to be able to take care of myself should something bad happen;" "I need to compete to win, since life is a game of musical chairs;" etc.).

Hope that helps. Thank you very much for the suggestions of topics you'd like me to cover in the future. Other ideas and questions are always welcome.

All the best,

Tammy

Hey all,

i'm really interested in this discussion.
I think that nowadays we have more than one generation with the same age. To be more precise, i think that there is a fairly "re-generation" that Tammy has well descibed, but what about the large (very large) number of young people that consistely differs from that description?

Thanks
Andrea

Tammy, Re-Generation sounds serious and proves that you are constantly seeking to enclose in a
nutshell the main challenges that stand in front of our younger generation in coping with the
'appropriate associations' that you kindly list. I remember an interesting statement you made not
long ago, concerning the 'hot potato'- 'A representative of which exactly generation can handle
appropriately the challenges that face America's next 44'th President?'. At that moment you were
convinced that the U.S. will be able to produce the necessary 'Human Quality- From Gen-Y, by
the year 2020', but for the time being seems to have little to offer -'Products of the 1970's
Millennial s'. Painful but realistic conclusions,since life is not a 'Hollywood Movie', where
everything seems possible! So let us leave the field of rhetorics and start thinking what Re-Gen.,
must achieve for us to go on.

> The main challenge that objectively stands in front of our 'management and business communities'- 'It's time for B-Schools around the whole world to start teaching courses titled "Managing cross- cultural innovation networks" and
> "Trans-Disciplinary Design Thinking". Your list indicates the necessity of a quantum jump into the slippery and fuzzy world of "Interactive Complexity", since the conventional 'Management Thinking' is helpless, because of the lack of an adequate perception of reality! This perceptions are already 'obsolete' and an urgent change in our "MINDSET"(unlearning)and the ability to learn what is nessessary about(Reality, Realists, Restrain and Responsibility,etc,) is a must
> necessity. But how in reality is this requirement to be fulfilled ? Who is going to start the process and keep it going? Is it truly possible to achieve this massive change in our brains so that we can transform the existing bureaucracy into rejuvenated productivity? Shouldn't we take in mind that rigid routines erode the brain's amazing plasticity and halt growth?
> Such grand and let us not be afraid to state 'Global' changes are very difficult to administer without major sacrifices that create mainly fear and anxiety. This causes the human brain to shrink and shuts it down to block learning or progress. There is a clear message for our proud 'Western Civilization'that can be clearly identified -"The frightening failure of the 'WEST' to cope with an objective 'Global Truth' in our 'Brave New WORLD' and it is as simple as that: 'The west has to learn to adapt itself to the New Realities that were jointly created', not vice -versa as it used to be in the near Past!'. Rudyard Kipling, who proclaimed that 'East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet' has already been proven wrong with respect to Westernization of heritage-rich and tradition-based China and India. He will be proven wrong again as we witness what I refer to as the Easternization of the world.In short, it will be less a clash of cultures and more a fusion of cultures across arts, architecture, science, law, engineering, medicine and management traditions and perspectives.
> The rise of Chindia is not only inevitable, but it will be beneficial to the world economy. It will be, of course, beneficial to businesses and entrepreneurs, but also to the masses at the bottom of the pyramid (people who earn less than two dollars a day)."
>
> - Our presumption can perfectly be a great statement made by, Margaret Mead -" A small group of thoughtful,
> concerned citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." But then we may stumble into something to alert us : "A Russian researcher Danailov has calculated, that throughout the whole history of mankind among the human population there were around 4000 Geniuses,120 000 major and great talents, 150 000 more or less able people. Only...
> This data was acquired by a careful analysis of encyclopedias and books of reference ( which according to us introduces a obvious bias, since not everything that mankind generated has been documented, known and has survived!?!). In the cited list all recognized geniuses were included as
> well as the most famous criminals created by humanity. The last cited number in the report was generated taking into account all literary, as well as heroes from all documented in the 'Worldly Tales and Folklore'. According to the estimation of expert demographers , for the time 'Humanity' existed on our planet the 'EARTH' there lived around 80 billion people(nowdays they are more than 5 billion). In this context if we calculate the 'Coefficient of useful efficiency' for mankind due to its
> geniuses and talents,we reach the following result:
> 'Coefficient of the useful efficiency' = (154 000 +120 000) : 80 000 000 000 = 0,000 00034.
> "OUCH!' it hurts, and is a insult for humanity as a whole: only a few creative individuals per
> million people - this can be resembled to some sort of noise, fluctuation or pure game of chance.'
> - taking into account,Bertrand Russell's frightening definition of 'Human Thinking' in his marvelous
> "Dictionary of Mind Matter Morals",1952, things do not look that optimistic as we try to present them in the many forums we participate!?
> -I would like to add to my rather heavy thoughts and reflections the following lines of ever lasting wisdom :
>
> " Consequently: he who wants to have right without wrong,
> Order without disorder,
> Does not understand the principles
> Of heaven and earth.
> He does not know how
> Things hang together."
>
> Chuang Tzu, 'Great and Small'.
- I would like to ask Tammy, what managerial "miracles' does she suggest as a remedy as to meet the requirements of "Global Learning' for the Re-Generation ? Systems improvement or Systems design, as a concrete methodology for change or something completely new and non- linear, where the existing system is going to be destroyed overnight as the story goes in 'Management Guru' R.L. Ackoff's fables?
- How in this context will another favorite of Tammy-Peter F. Drucker's predictions on 'knowledge workers perceived as society's greatest future's asset', with which the U.S. is 'blessed' in numbers and
hopefully in quality will graciously give them the competitive advantage in the ' long run' towards
a 'Human - Centric Knowledge Society' ?

>
>
>
>

Tammy, Re-Generation sounds serious and proves that you are constantly seeking to enclose in a
nutshell the main challenges that stand in front of our younger generation in coping with the
'appropriate associations' that you kindly list. I remember an interesting statement you made not
long ago, concerning the 'hot potato'- 'A representative of which exactly generation can handle
appropriately the challenges that face America's next 44'th President?'. At that moment you were
convinced that the U.S. will be able to produce the necessary 'Human Quality- From Gen-Y, by
the year 2020', but for the time being seems to have little to offer -'Products of the 1970's
Millennial s'. Painful but realistic conclusions,since life is not a 'Hollywood Movie', where
everything seems possible! So let us leave the field of rhetorics and start thinking what Re-Gen.,
must achieve for us to go on.

> The main challenge that objectively stands in front of our 'management and business communities'- 'It's time for B-Schools around the whole world to start teaching courses titled "Managing cross- cultural innovation networks" and
> "Trans-Disciplinary Design Thinking". Your list indicates the necessity of a quantum jump into the slippery and fuzzy world of "Interactive Complexity", since the conventional 'Management Thinking' is helpless, because of the lack of an adequate perception of reality! This perceptions are already 'obsolete' and an urgent change in our "MINDSET"(unlearning)and the ability to learn what is nessessary about(Reality, Realists, Restrain and Responsibility,etc,) is a must
> necessity. But how in reality is this requirement to be fulfilled ? Who is going to start the process and keep it going? Is it truly possible to achieve this massive change in our brains so that we can transform the existing bureaucracy into rejuvenated productivity? Shouldn't we take in mind that rigid routines erode the brain's amazing plasticity and halt growth?
> Such grand and let us not be afraid to state 'Global' changes are very difficult to administer without major sacrifices that create mainly fear and anxiety. This causes the human brain to shrink and shuts it down to block learning or progress. There is a clear message for our proud 'Western Civilization'that can be clearly identified -"The frightening failure of the 'WEST' to cope with an objective 'Global Truth' in our 'Brave New WORLD' and it is as simple as that: 'The west has to learn to adapt itself to the New Realities that were jointly created', not vice -versa as it used to be in the near Past!'. Rudyard Kipling, who proclaimed that 'East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet' has already been proven wrong with respect to Westernization of heritage-rich and tradition-based China and India. He will be proven wrong again as we witness what I refer to as the Easternization of the world.In short, it will be less a clash of cultures and more a fusion of cultures across arts, architecture, science, law, engineering, medicine and management traditions and perspectives.
> The rise of Chindia is not only inevitable, but it will be beneficial to the world economy. It will be, of course, beneficial to businesses and entrepreneurs, but also to the masses at the bottom of the pyramid (people who earn less than two dollars a day)."
>
> - Our presumption can perfectly be a great statement made by, Margaret Mead -" A small group of thoughtful,
> concerned citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." But then we may stumble into something to alert us : "A Russian researcher Danailov has calculated, that throughout the whole history of mankind among the human population there were around 4000 Geniuses,120 000 major and great talents, 150 000 more or less able people. Only...
> This data was acquired by a careful analysis of encyclopedias and books of reference ( which according to us introduces a obvious bias, since not everything that mankind generated has been documented, known and has survived!?!). In the cited list all recognized geniuses were included as
> well as the most famous criminals created by humanity. The last cited number in the report was generated taking into account all literary, as well as heroes from all documented in the 'Worldly Tales and Folklore'. According to the estimation of expert demographers , for the time 'Humanity' existed on our planet the 'EARTH' there lived around 80 billion people(nowdays they are more than 5 billion). In this context if we calculate the 'Coefficient of useful efficiency' for mankind due to its
> geniuses and talents,we reach the following result:
> 'Coefficient of the useful efficiency' = (154 000 +120 000) : 80 000 000 000 = 0,000 00034.
> "OUCH!' it hurts, and is a insult for humanity as a whole: only a few creative individuals per
> million people - this can be resembled to some sort of noise, fluctuation or pure game of chance.'
> - taking into account,Bertrand Russell's frightening definition of 'Human Thinking' in his marvelous
> "Dictionary of Mind Matter Morals",1952, things do not look that optimistic as we try to present them in the many forums we participate!?
> -I would like to add to my rather heavy thoughts and reflections the following lines of ever lasting wisdom :
>
> " Consequently: he who wants to have right without wrong,
> Order without disorder,
> Does not understand the principles
> Of heaven and earth.
> He does not know how
> Things hang together."
>
> Chuang Tzu, 'Great and Small'.
- I would like to ask Tammy, what managerial "miracles' does she suggest as a remedy as to meet the requirements of "Global Learning' for the Re-Generation ? Systems improvement or Systems design, as a concrete methodology for change or something completely new and non- linear, where the existing system is going to be destroyed overnight as the story goes in 'Management Guru' R.L. Ackoff's fables?
- How in this context will another favorite of Tammy-Peter F. Drucker's predictions on 'knowledge workers perceived as society's greatest future's asset', with which the U.S. is 'blessed' in numbers and
hopefully in quality will graciously give them the competitive advantage in the ' long run' towards
a 'Human - Centric Knowledge Society' ?

>
>
>
>

Well thats just it.. If there truly is this fusion of international discourse for all of the major topics.. architecture, philosophy, science, etc.. how will America's generation of "ME" contribute?

The majority of Y's in college don't know what they want to be... some want to "take some time off to find themselves"... still others think they want to "host their own TV show".. or say that they just don't see themselves sitting behind a desk.

I just don't know if we should adapt to the Y's and the Re-gens. The Y's want a more laid-back approach to management. And it seems as though we are advocating that big companies fold and mold themselves to attract these Y's.

isn't there a chance that these big companies will inherit the flaws of the generations they are trying to attract?

How should companies/ managers promote forward progress for the good while doing their best to maintain all of the wisdom past down from the generations of the past?

Call them "Homelanders".

RE: R. J. Lesch post as follows:

"The term "Generation X" predates Coupland's novel. It was previously the title of a 1965 book by Charles Hamblett and Jane Deverson. They were studying the generation we now classify as baby boomers. It became applied to the following generation as sort of a hand-me-down, through the 1970s band (which got the name from the book) and then Coupland.

This is HILARIOUS! Baby Boomers are the real Gen Xers -- cynical slackers!