Rethinking generational labels

[WORLD] In an era where “OK Boomer” memes and debates about “lazy Millennials” seem ever-present, the use of generational labels—Boomers, Gen X, Millennials, Gen Z—has become a fixture in media, marketing, and everyday conversation. But as these terms proliferate, a growing chorus of researchers, workers, and business leaders are asking: Do these generational labels actually make sense, or are they just fueling stereotypes and division?

What Are Generation Labels?

Generational labels refer to broad age cohorts, each defined by the period in which its members were born and the major historical events that shaped their formative years. While there is some consensus on the birth years for each group, the boundaries are often debated. For example, most sources define:

Baby Boomers: Born 1946–1964

Generation X: Born 1965–1980

Millennials (Gen Y): Born 1981–1996

Generation Z: Born 1997–2010

Generation Alpha: Born 2010–2024

These labels are used in everything from workplace management to marketing strategies, with each generation supposedly sharing distinct values, behaviors, and preferences.

The Case for Generational Labels

Supporters argue that generational labels are a useful shorthand for understanding how different age groups interact with the world. They can help businesses tailor products and messages, enable policymakers to track demographic trends, and provide a framework for analyzing how major events—like wars, economic crises, or technological revolutions—shape attitudes and behaviors.

“Generational differences are similar to cultural differences,” writes workplace expert Lindsey Pollak. “Depending on the era in which you were born, in many ways you perceive the United States as a different country from that of people born in a different era”.

For instance, Gen Xers, often called the “latchkey generation,” grew up with minimal adult supervision and were shaped by the rise of personal computing and the end of the Cold War, fostering values of independence and adaptability. Millennials, meanwhile, are described as “digital natives,” coming of age with the internet and social media, and facing economic challenges such as the 2008 recession.

The Case Against: Stereotypes and Oversimplification

Despite their popularity, generational labels face increasing criticism from academics and workplace leaders. Critics argue that these labels oversimplify the complex mix of factors—such as race, class, gender, and geography—that shape people’s behaviors and beliefs.

“Generational labeling is complete nonsense,” says David Allison, a consumer behavior expert. “The assigned characteristics are trivial, misleading and often lead to bigotry”. Studies show that generational stereotypes can reinforce age-based discrimination, hinder collaboration, and obscure the individuality of workers.

A 2023 survey found that more than 60 percent of Americans can correctly identify the Pew-defined generation to which they belong, but identification with these labels varies: 74 percent of Boomers embrace their generational tag, compared to just 39 percent of Gen Z. This uneven identification raises questions about the real-world relevance of these categories.

The Impact in the Workplace

In professional settings, generational labels are often used to explain differences in work ethic, communication style, and technology use. But research suggests these stereotypes can do more harm than good, reinforcing divisions and stifling innovation.

For example, labeling older employees as “technologically challenged” may cause them to miss out on opportunities, while assuming younger workers are “digital natives” can overshadow their other skills. Such assumptions risk neglecting the unique strengths and experiences each individual brings to the workplace.

Are Generational Labels Meaningful or Misleading?

The debate over generational labels is far from settled. On one hand, these tags offer a convenient way to discuss broad social trends and differences in experience. On the other, they risk reducing individuals to caricatures and fueling unnecessary conflict.

Recent moves by organizations like the Pew Research Center reflect this tension. Pew has announced it will generally refrain from using standard generational labels when they are not appropriate, citing concerns about reinforcing harmful stereotypes and oversimplifying complex lived experiences.

Toward a More Nuanced Conversation

Experts suggest that, rather than abandoning generational analysis altogether, a more nuanced approach is needed. This means recognizing that while generational experiences can shape attitudes, they do not determine them. Factors such as socioeconomic status, education, and personal history may be just as, if not more, important in shaping behavior.

Some researchers advocate for using generational labels as one tool among many, rather than as definitive explanations for social or workplace dynamics. As Daniel Jolles of the London School of Economics notes, “There are often more similarities than differences between workers across generations, but sometimes important differences in attitudes and behaviors do exist. The key is to use these labels thoughtfully and avoid turning them into stereotypes”.

As society becomes more diverse and interconnected, the challenge is to move beyond lazy stereotypes and foster conversations that recognize both shared experiences and individual differences—no matter what year you were born.