|
Exploring generational differences and
turning them into assets
“Every generation imagines itself to be more intelligent
than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one
that comes after it.” George Orwell Do you experience
this attitude in your organizations? Do you notice that
members of different generations do not understand each
other? Do they seem to come from different planets? Is
your team’s effectiveness impacted by these
misunderstandings and different expectations and
assumptions?
Being faced with different generations working together
can be a challenge. Today the members of different
generations are not separated by authority or hierarchy.
They work together across all levels. Each generation
sees the actions of the others and makes sense of them
in their own way. Without knowledge about the other
generation and without inquiry into their reasoning, we,
as observers, apply our own thinking to what we see
happening. That’s where confusion, disagreement and
conflict between generations are rooted.
What can you do if you experience this situation?
First, you can help your employees become aware of their
assumptions and inquire into the other generations a bit
more. The literature on generations at work offers
various ways to engage your team in such an exploration.1
Secondly, you can deploy a tool that helps individuals
explore the process of abstraction (Peter Senge2
calls it: mental pathways to abstraction) when they are
working with other generations. This tool is called the
“ladder of inference”. The ladder is very useful in
exploring assumptions about generations. The ladder of
inference is a step by step process of understanding how
we abstract from observations to beliefs. We all use it
and we need it to make sense of the world and the amount
of data around us. Without abstraction we would drown in
the sea of information and data that bombards us
constantly. Abstraction helps us deal with the
tremendous amount of data. And there are times when
abstraction hinders us seeing the moment.
Step One – We select data:
Around us is observable data – data that a video camera
would capture. Unlike the video camera we select a
subset of the available data that we feed into the
pathway. It already means that we ignore some of the
data that is around us. We might only select data that
confirms our beliefs.
Example One:
Mary, the 50 year old senior executive, observes Joe, a
23 year old team member, looking at his phone throughout
a divisional meeting. She does not notice him taking
short notes and she does not hear the key points he
contributes to the meeting.
Step Two – We add meaning:
We make sense of what we observe. Making sense means
that we add meaning to what we observe. To make sense of
data we access cultural and personal knowledge and
experience and connect it to our observations.
Example Two:
Mary learned in her life that focusing on what is
discussed in a meeting means listening to what is said
without other activities.
Step Three – We make assumptions:
Based on the meaning we added, we then make assumptions
about the situation.
Example Three:
Mary assumes that Joe is not paying attention.
Step Four – We draw conclusions:
From assumptions we draw conclusions.
Example Four:
Mary concludes that Joe does not have valuable
contributions to the meeting.
Step Five – We adapt beliefs:
Over time our conclusions become beliefs.
Example Five:
Mary believes Joe does not contribute.
Step Six – We act:
Based on the formed beliefs we act in the world.
Example Six:
Mary does not ask Joe for his thoughts and does not
invite him to other meetings.
Step Seven – We feed back into the data selection
process:
Our beliefs feed back into our process of selecting data
from the observable data. We focus on data that confirms
our beliefs.
Example Seven:
Outside of the meeting, Mary keeps observing Joe when he
is distracted with other activities e.g. checking his
phone, talking in the hallway.
Most of the times, we climb up the ladder of inference
very quickly – within seconds – and often without being
aware we are doing it.
A key challenge for effective communication is that we
are the only person that can discover our own steps up
the ladder. Others can only see the observable data
(which they might select other data points from) and
they see our actions. They can not know the intermediate
steps we are making to go from observable data to our
actions. Steps One to Four are invisible to the other.
They only see Step Six, our action. In the example
above, Joe realizes that Mary does not ask for his
thoughts and opinion.
Additionally, the others climb up their own ladder –
very quickly and mostly being unaware of it. In our
example, Joe observes Mary not involving him in projects
and climbs up his own ladder of meaning, assumptions,
etc.
What are the organizational consequences when every
participant climbs up their own ladder and relies on
data and observable actions of others? It leads to
misunderstandings, delays in projects and stressed
relationships between employees. If everybody sticks to
their beliefs without challenging them, there will be
mistrust, communication breakdown and conflict. As a
consequence, the IQ3 of the entire team goes
down even though the IQ of individuals is high.
Productivity decreases. As mentioned earlier,
abstraction and conclusions are crucial in life.
Nevertheless they need to be balanced with reflection
and inquiry. Three steps can help avoid
misunderstandings and conflict.
Reflection:
I become aware of my thinking and reasoning I practice
separating data I observe and the meaning I add to it.
In our example, Mary becomes aware that she observes Joe
checking his phone and separately that she assumes he is
not paying attention. She also realizes that she
concludes that he has nothing to contribute.
Advocacy:
I make my thinking and reasoning visible to others I
share my reflection with the other. For example, Mary
can share with Joe that she noticed him checking the
phone often. She focuses on referring to Joe’s behavior
only. She can also share her assumption that he is not
paying attention. The key here is how to word it and
state it as an assumption of myself – not as a statement
for the other.
Inquiry:
I inquire into other’s thinking and reasoning I can ask
questions about why others are behaving in a specific
way. Following our example, Mary can ask why Joe is
checking the phone. She might learn that he has a sick
child at home and is worried. She can also inquire how
Joe behaves when he pays attention.
Using the ladder as a guideline for a dance between
reflection, advocacy and inquiry allows each employee to
learn about the other. This opens the door to discover
generational differences as assets and common ground.
1 For example: Carolyn A. Martin, Ph.D. and Bruce Tulgan:
Managing the Generation Mix: From Urgency to Opportunity
& From Collision to Collaboration; Misti Burmeister:
From Boomers to Bloggers
2 Peter Senge: The fifth discipline Fieldbook
3 IQ = Intelligence Quotient
© Baessler Consulting, 2008 All rights reserved
|