The Challenge of Generation Y
Abstract
The author examines the claims about the importance of the emerging generation as they enter the workforce, Generation Y. The Australian Army, he states, need not adapt itself to the ‘unique’ characteristics of Generation Y—they are like any other group of young people, not the ‘generational shift’ that popular opinion presents. He finds more assertion and hyperbole than evidence and fact in many of the claims by and about Generation Y.
Introduction
The movement of what has been dubbed Generation Y (Gen Y) into and through the ranks of the Army is becoming a subject of much debate. The current focus on recruiting and retention within Army and the wider Australian Defence Force (ADF) has increased the perceived importance of this debate as the military tries to demonstrate relevance to this generation of potential recruits. It would appear there is much angst and hand-wringing in relation to attracting and retaining Gen Y, but there seems little real examination of the precepts behind the hype. So what is Gen Y and are they different? This paper examines the ‘conventional wisdom’ currently underpinning the various arguments and debates about this particular demographic and tries to determine the challenges this poses for ADF recruiting and retention.
Who is Gen Y?
In the broadest sense Gen Y is described as those people born from about 1975 to the early 1990s. In the Army, this is anyone old enough to have enlisted from 1993 to the present day. In 2007, Gen Y personnel had at most thirteen years service. Their rank could be anything up to and including Majors for officers or Warrant Officer Class Two for other ranks.
How is Gen Y Characterised?
Gen Y is routinely described as technologically adept, extremely adaptable, demanding and opinionated. Many observers claim they have a better start-point, with the advantage of beginning where other generations have left off in areas such as gender equity, racial and ethnic tolerance, and the seemingly all-important mastery of technology. In her 2006 book The World According to Y, Rebecca Huntley describes them as ‘optimistic, idealistic, empowered, ambitious, confident, committed and passionate. They are assured about their own futures and, in many cases the future of the world.’1 Ryan Heath claims they are ‘the most educated, skilled generation yet.’2 Captain Erin Maulday, writing in the Australian Army Journal says, ‘Gen Yers grew up in an era of uncertainty and complexity, constantly changing technology and mobility. They have adapted to it quickly, capably and are technologically savvy.’3 It is from these and many other opinions a picture is formed of Gen Y being confident and assured. They stride the national stage and are preparing to stride onto the international stage, determined to suck the marrow from the moment and make a lasting contribution to the world around them.
Is This True?
The most obvious problem with such general descriptions of this demographic is purely mathematical. Australian Bureau of Statistics figures indicate that about 263 000 people are born in Australia every year. This means that in the period attributed to Gen Y—1975 to 1992—almost 4. 5 million people were born. In any broad group within a population, the spread of intelligence and mental acuity, physical prowess, ability to interact socially, and a myriad of other indicators will be about the same as for any other group. In any tested area the individuals will demonstrate ability or competence ranging from the absolute bottom of the scale to the top. The numbers at either end of the spectrum will be about the same and the greater bulk of the population will trend towards the middle, or the median. Thus, in Gen Y, like any other demographic cohort, there are as many ‘numpties’ as ‘geniuses’.
The ‘popular wisdom’ surrounding Gen Y makes no allowance for this statistical truth. Gen Y is viewed as a single entity, as a completely uniform mass of individuals exhibiting identical characteristics and behavioural patterns. Even a cursory glance around a suburban shopping centre, music concert or major sporting event will show the ridiculousness of such a proposition. Individuals are exactly that, individual. There are indicators that allow individuals to be grouped by interest, ethnicity, gender, or religion—to name a few—but to claim that all individuals born from 1975 to 1992 are exactly the same by any measure used brings into question the validity of the data collected and the analysis conducted. Gen Y members range from sixteen to thirty two years old. Without being a psychiatrist or sociologist, it is easy to accept there are massive differences in the attitudes and expectations of sixteen and thirty-two year olds and in their reactions to stimuli from the world around them. Will a sixteen year-old apprentice boilermaker from Strachan in Tasmania have the same ‘technological savvy’ as a twenty-eight year old pastry chef from Potts Point in Sydney? Consider the following quote: ‘Compared with older employees, they are said to be more collaborative or accustomed to working in teams, better educated, less hierarchical, more entrepreneurial, more likely to move from one job to another, more technologically skilled, less conscious of formalised rules and regulations and more likely to chose a career that offers a balanced lifestyle.’4 If true, such a statement certainly points to some problems for the ADF in recruiting and retaining Gen Y. The main problem here is that the quote is actually speaking of Gen X, the age demographic before Gen Y.
The Research
Is it possible that much of the research used to prop up arguments about the nature of Gen Y could as easily be used to describe other generations as well? The answer is no. This research describes part of every generational demographic very accurately but fails to describe the whole. Opinions and arguments about the nature of Gen Y and the integration of that demographic into the workforce fall routinely into the trap of the positive focus, or the ‘best foot forward’. Are there no drug addicts in Gen Y? Are there no criminals? Are there no individuals who fail completely to cope with the modern world and simply opt out? The aforementioned glance at the crowd in the shopping centre has as much chance of describing the demographic as a whole than any of the pseudo-scientific twaddle that has shaped the debate thus far. David Schmidtchen, writing eloquently on this subject in the Australian Army Journal, quotes a study conducted by the Centre for Creative Leadership that compared generations born from 1926 to 1982. The study looked for differences in attitude, aspiration and behaviour. They found very few. Their recommendation was that business leaders consider the ‘facts’ of generational differences ‘very carefully, and without relying on stereotypes.’5
The 'Facts'
The ‘facts’ in dealing with generational demographics are quite simply not facts at all. They are at best impressions and at worst an overly optimistic self-description. Despite claims to the contrary, there is very little actual research to support the contention that Gen Y is significantly different. It all depends on the author. A Baby Boomer (or any older demographic) will probably have a negative view of Gen Y based on their own values and life experiences. A member of Gen Y (like any other demographic) will be loath to mention a negative characteristic in relation to their own peer group. So what is, and where lies, the truth?
Technology
The use of the term ‘technology’ usually denotes the integration of computers into the everyday. In a broader, contemporary sense, it also encompasses mobile phones, IPods, DVDs and CD-ROMs, modern cars and washing machines. For the military, it is computer-assisted or -controlled weaponry, modern communications equipment, remote sensors and the entire suite of equipment and skills that are loosely grouped under the heading ‘network-centric warfare’. The common thread when describing technology is ‘newness’. Technology is made up of things that are new or constantly changing. Captain Maulday states: ‘Gen Yers have grown up with technology.’6 I ask, ‘Has no one else?’ He goes on to say, ‘This [technology] has resulted in a world which is faster and more connected, and in which Gen Y is leading the way.’7 One can be forgiven for noting that Gen Y did not invent communication, computers or even the Internet—further, Gen Y are not the only people to use these things on a minute-to-minute basis.
Gen Y is allegedly ‘technologically savvy’. It is often assumed that this mastery of technology is something that Gen Y is somehow born with. They leap from the womb with an IPod stuck in one ear and a Blue Tooth communications device in the other. The obvious corollary is that Gen Y must somehow be better at learning to deal with new things than any generation before them, yet no evidence is presented by any author to support this view.
Examining the life experience of a man now in his mid- to late-seventies reveals some interesting parallels. This man has started his life in the era of the horse and cart. He has seen the introduction of the automobile from its inception to widespread use and coped with its rapid technological advancement. He has moved from travelling by tram, to trains, to aeroplanes and now witnesses almost routine travel into space. His leisure time has included the introduction of radio and television, video recorders and DVDs. He has recorded his experiences on 8mm movie cameras, video tapes and now on disc, and he has used an increasingly technologically advanced range of still cameras. The home he now lives in bears little resemblance to the house in which he was born. He has probably had a hip replaced, and diseases that killed or maimed thousands in his childhood are rarely seen and swiftly and successfully treated when diagnosed. He began his life communicating over distance using surface mail and telegrams. Now he uses email, surfs the ‘net from his home and keeps in touch with the grandchildren on a mobile phone. In the seventy-odd years of his life, the technological changes have been far more widespread and had a far greater impact on him—and the world around him—than anything experienced by a member of Gen Y. Yet he has never been claimed as ‘technologically savvy’ Why not?
Consumerism
Gen Y is often described as being the ultimate consumers. This dovetails nicely into the view that they are enamoured of ‘technology’—they want only the best and the latest. This is difficult to reconcile with the broadly accepted view of the early 1980s when conspicuous consumption was almost a religion. Using slightly different wording, the term ‘keeping up with the Jones’s’ is exactly the same thing from a different generation. The only real difference in 2007 is that the time it takes for the current ‘latest thing’ to become passé is growing shorter. One need only look at the rapid development of the mobile phone as an example. Every year newer, better and slimmer models are introduced so the ‘churn’ is far greater than in previous years. This is as true for telephones as it is for desktop computers and household white and brown goods. The pressure from advertisers and popular culture to continually update has certainly increased. As manufacturers of goods have become more adept at marketing, they have also become better at targeting age groups and demographics. David Schmidtchen says: ‘Much of the heat and noise about generational differences is fed by marketers who have an interest in putting themselves forward as experts on the attitudes and behaviour of a particular generational group or groups.’8 This pressure is nothing new; it has always been there. It has simply increased and is expressed in such things as product placement in movies and popular television shows. It is lazy thinking to see this as a unique influence on Gen Y because it does not take into account the fact that retiring Baby Boomers are being just as heavily targeted—they have the highest disposable retirement income in history. Manufacturers, service providers and advertisers have all recognised this and the marketplace reflects their wants and desires just as much as it does for Gen Y.
The primary difference between the Baby Boomers and Gen Y, in relation to consumption, is credit. The Baby Boomers did not grow up with accessible consumer credit. That came about with Gen X in the 1980s. The notion of saving to purchase is often seen as alien to Gen Y, but again this is lazy thinking: it is simply a characteristic of youth. Anecdotes of young people making purchases on credit at exorbitant interest rates, under barely legal terms, are certainly nothing new. It is far easier in the new millennium for a consumer of any age group to get into financial difficulties due to the ready availability of credit. What would the impact of such availability of credit have been on the youth of the 1950s? It is not difficult to imagine that there would have been very little difference because the basic nature of youth has certainly not changed.
Education
Without wanting to start a debate about the relative merits of the current versus previous education systems, issue must be taken with the notion that Gen Y is the most educated generation so far. In fact, current debates within the military about literacy and numeracy standards, and proposals for remedial action, highlight that the education system is not producing a complete and useable product. Both primary and secondary schools now have a scope and range within their curriculum that was unheard of in recent history. What is lacking is depth. Young school leavers have little more than introductory knowledge in a wide variety of subjects but no detailed knowledge about any particular area. Their education is superficial and in practice quite useless. The problem here is in the definition of education or, more to the point, the relative importance of subject matter. A student who has learned to use the Internet to find printed material and images, mastered the ‘cut and paste’ function, and produces a ‘project’ that delights his or her teacher, is no more demonstrating education or learning than a dog learning to shake hands—and this completely ignores the crucial, unexamined role of plagiarism. The claim that Gen Y is more educated than previous generations is seemingly accepted without proof.
Adaptability
Dealing with the rapid pace of change in the modern world and adapting to the challenges it poses are often held up as strengths of Gen Y. This view ignores the obvious fact that members of Gen Y are not the only ones living in this world. Everyone alive today faces the same rate of change and must deal with its challenges. Indeed, it could be argued that the Baby Boomers and Gen X are far better at adapting to change than Gen Y because they are now in positions of authority and responsibility that increase the pressure they face. Gen Y are only beginning to enter middle management positions and have yet to be tested in this area.
It is very simple to take a snapshot of a time period, compare it to the present, and then draw conclusions. If the year 1890 was examined and compared to 1935, looking at technological advancement, youth culture, adaptability to change and the entire spectrum of characteristics often claimed for Gen Y, the background scenery would be the only real difference. Being able to adapt to change presupposes that the change is sudden and happening now. It is not. The rate of change may have indeed increased, but anyone living now has adapted to change all their lives and has coped reasonably well. There is simply no data to suggest that Gen Y will be able to cope any better than those who have gone before them.
Popular Culture
The notion that Gen Ys are less tolerant of institutions, that they are free thinkers, problem solvers, results focussed and not process driven are yet more examples of slothful science. This description could just as well be used for the hippies of the 1960s as for Gen Y. Producers of television, movies, video clips, popular music, fashion magazines and other youth-oriented products strive to support notions held dear by the youth of every generation. These notions include such things as the incompetence of management (which is full of old people); that old people don’t understand what it is like to be young; and that if parents, old people, politicians, or anyone in authority, would just get out of the way things would be much better. Every generation of young people holds these things to be true. Producers of popular culture (themselves of previous generations) cater to this mindset because it makes money. Perhaps it is the very volume of youth-oriented products that grabs the attention of sociologists and researchers, but they again miss the salient point. It is youth oriented. The march of time takes care of this mindset. It has in every previous generation and it will for Gen Y.
If anything, the primary effect of popular culture on Gen Y is an extension of adolescence beyond that experienced by their predecessors. The pressure to ‘grow up’ is not as intense as it was in earlier times. This extended childhood leads researchers to the notion that Gen Y is peripatetic in both the workforce and in society. This, again, is false. These are also characteristics of youth. A short attention span, lack of desire to strive when presented with difficulties, the failure to make choices when confronted with too many options—these are not indicative of keeping options open or being prepared to adapt to changing circumstances. These are indicative of what it is to be young and without purpose or direction.
The Challenge?
Is there a challenge posed by Gen Y to the ADF in terms of recruiting and retention? In short, no. However, there is a challenge the ADF must face in relation to the recruiting and retention of young, motivated, committed people. To quote Captain Maulday again, in relation to recruitment; ‘... the consequences of getting it wrong and not attracting the right calibre of Gen Y soldiers and officers are far more serious than previously believed.’9 If we remove the reference to Gen Y from the statement, we discover that it remains absolutely correct. Gen Y is not really any different than previous generations of young people. They lack direction and focus, and are very shortterm in their goals and aspirations. Time, age and responsibility will address many of their particular issues, as it has for generations before them. The challenge is no different now than it has ever been.
Conclusion
This article has questioned a selection of the ‘evidence’ in relation to Gen Y. It has found that there is little substance to many of the claims made about or for Gen Y with regard to their being somehow different or unique. They are young people, no more and no less. They evince the same characteristics as their parents and grandparents at a similar age. If the ADF is to focus more heavily on recruiting and retention, it need not attempt to focus on Gen Y and somehow, as Gen Y champions seem to insist, change itself to suit them. The ADF will be far more successful in demonstrating that it provides focus and direction, long term employment, advancement based on merit, reward for effort and most importantly a sense of belonging. For those parents allowing their teenagers to consider an ADF career, it offers challenges, reasonable discipline and the protection of boundaries for acceptable behaviour. If the ADF does not currently provide these things any appeal to Gen Y or in fact any demographic is certain to fail.
Endnotes
1. Rebecca Huntley, The World According to Y, Allen & Unwin. Sydney, 2006 p. 5.
2. Ryan Heath, Please Just F**k off it’s our turn now, Pluto Press, Melbourne, 2006.
3. Captain Erin Maulday, ‘Generational Evolution in the Australian Army’, Australian Army Journal, Vol. III, No. 2, p. 4.
4. R.J. Burke, Generation X: Measures, sex and age differences, Psychological Reports 1994
5. Quoted in David Schmidtchen, ‘Generational Differences and Other Marketing Myths’, Australian Army Journal, Vol. III, No. 3, Summer 2006, p. 184.
6. Maulday, ‘Generational Evolution in the Australian Army’, p. 6.
7. Ibid.
8. Schmidtchen, ‘Generational Differences and Other Marketing Myths’, p. 183.
9. Maulday, ‘Generational Evolution in the Australian Army’, p. 6.
