Work, Aging and Retirement, 2017, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.

109–112
doi:10.1093/workar/wax003
Advance Access publication February 20, 2017
Review Article

Generations, Age, and the Space Between:

Introduction to the Special Issue
David P. Costanza1 and Lisa M. Finkelstein2
1. Department of Organizational Sciences, George Washington University, Washington, DC
2. Department of Psychology, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL

A B ST R A CT
Research and practice relating to generations and generational differences continues apace and yet numerous ques-
tions and inconsistencies in the literature and uncertainties in application remain. Accordingly, for this special issue,
we present a set of papers that we believe advance understanding of the generations concept, address the state of the
science about it, and provide practical recommendations for organizations and their workers. Two broad categories
of articles are included: (a) theory and methods reviews that address how we think about and study generations, and
(b) articles about the stereotypes and effects of generations and generational membership. Together these papers
provide a thought-provoking mix of new ideas, approaches, and evidence for thinking more broadly and complexly
about this notion of generations and how they may (or may not) be impacting our workplaces.

A fascination with generations and the impact that these socially con-
structed groupings may have on a variety of organizational outcomes
is growing among practitioners, consultants, and researchers alike. As
with many organizational phenomena, however, perceptions and prac-
tice have preceded the science. While organizations try to figure out
how to manage what they perceive to be generationally-based differ-
ences in their workplaces, and consultants and practitioners offer ser-
vices and interventions to help organizations do so, research has lagged
behind. Specifically, researchers have generally not identified and then
appropriately tested a sufficient explanation for why generations exist
and why they should have an impact, have struggled to find empirical
evidence actually supporting generationally-based differences, have
offered numerous and viable alternative explanations for differences
that have been observed, and, like their practitioner colleagues, have
not conducted systematic assessments on the effectiveness of interven-
tions designed to address any perceived differences.
While it is apparent that among organizations and the individu-
als within them, there are widely held perceptions that there are gen-
erationally-based differences among workers, the science so far has
failed to consistently or convincingly back up these beliefs. Further,
many practitioners, consultants, popular press journalists, and some
researchers have suggested that there is something unique about
socially constructed generations that not only differentiates their mem-
bers from those of other generations, but also is the cause of various
phenomena and outcomes, work-related and otherwise. These social-
history constructions of generations may be useful for descriptive pur-
poses, but drawing the conclusion that they causally affect outcomes in
meaningful ways and why they might do so has received little support
conceptually or empirically.
We (Costanza & Finkelstein, 2015) and many others (e.g.,
Jorgensen, 2003; Macky et al., 2008; Sackett, 2002) have written of the
ill-advised practice of organizations creating talent management and
other HR strategies based on stereotypical generational differences in
the workplace and have encouraged research efforts to focus on vali-
dated and effective methods for understanding and handling evolving
changes in the workforce. Reactions to our 2015 piece ranged widely
from enthusiastic and wholehearted agreement (“yes!”), to additional
alternative explanations (“yes, but…”), to staunch disagreement
(“no way!”). Because of these varying reactions (see Volume 8(3)
of Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Sciences
and Practice for the full range of responses) and the ongoing debates
about generations and generational differences, we were asked to put
together this special issue of Work, Aging and Retirement.
For this special issue, we used both an open call for papers as well
as targeted invitations to researchers with widely ranging opinions
and approaches. Our goal was to assemble a diverse set of articles and
persepctives that would advance our scientific knowledge of the gen-
erations concept. Specifically, we called for papers on theory building,
methodological advancements, processes, boundaries, perceptions,
interventions and anything in between. We see the set of eight papers
in the special issue as generally falling into two main categories: (a)
papers that suggest new theory and/or methods, addressing com-
plexities of the generations concept that have sometimes been ignored,
and (b) papers that look at the effects typecasting (both others and

© The Authors 2017. Published by Oxford University Press. For permissions please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to David P. Costanza, Department of Organizational Sciences, George Washington University, Washington,
DC 20052. E-mail: dcostanz@gwu.edu
Decision Editor: Mo Wang, PhD
• 109
110 • D. P. Costanza and L. M. Finkelstein
oneself) and stereotypes about generational groups. While not all the
topics in our call were addressed (e.g., there were no submissions on
assessing generationally-based interventions), the papers in the special
issue extend our understanding of generations in new and interesting
ways. Below, we summarize the eight articles and then reflect on some
of the broader issues still to be resolved.
T H E O RY A N D M ET H O D S PA P E R S
The first group of papers reflect the efforts of researchers to better
understand both the conceptualization of generations as well as the
measurement and methods used to study them. Four papers in this
special issue address these issues.
Rudolph and Zacher (2017) start off by reviewing the idea of genera-
tions and many of the ways it has been conceptualized in the literature
including from sociological, biological, and psychological frames. They
then offer an interesting set of propositions for a differentiated lifespan
development perspective of generations. After arguing that practitioners
and organizations would be better served by paying attention to continu-
ous developmental and lifespan factors than categorical generational dif-
ferences, they conclude with a series of methodological recommendations
based on their approach for studying what may appear to be generational
differences.
Turning to the calendar-based boundaries that may or may not
delineate generational groups, Campbell and her colleagues (2017)
use data collected from a large sample of high school seniors to test the
extent to which there are differences among generations and, impor-
tantly, whether there are clear and distinctive cut-offs between them.
They find that while there were some mean differences among genera-
tions, the trends suggest more gradual and linear changes over time.
While there is no clear “stair-step” pattern of mean differences, they
do argue that such differences are worth exploring in order to improve
understanding of variations in workplace values.
Parry and Urwin (2017) address a related question: do generations
as commonly conceptualized (Boomer, Xer, Millennial, etc.) actually
exist? They take an intriguing approach using longitudinal data to try
and tease out generational effects as well as to assess whether the gen-
erational categories that have been used are reasonable (i.e., what if you
induced “generations” from the data rather than applying a priori cat-
egories to it?). In the end, they argue for a more dynamic view of indi-
viduals and question whether some generational differences that have
been observed are more appropriately thought of as gradual changes
over time, echoing Campbell and colleagues’ (2017) findings.
Finally, Costanza and colleagues (2017) review the analytical
methods most commonly used by researchers studying generational
differences. They discuss the strengths and weaknesses of three ana-
lytical approaches and then work to demonstrate how the analysis used
impacts the results obtained. Specifically, they use two large data sets
and run three different analyses on each. They report that each analytic
approach generated slightly different results yet none fully and accu-
rately capture differences attributable to generational membership.
They conclude with a set of recommendations both for researchers
studying generations and for practitioners trying to understand and
apply research on generational differences.
ST E R E OT Y P E S, I D E N T I T Y, A N D E F F E CTS
In the second group of papers, contributors take the perspective that
beliefs about the qualities possessed by generations—ones’ own or
others—can have real effects in the workplace. Four papers address
issues of this nature, drawing from several theoretical traditions and
using experimental and qualitative approaches.
Urick, Hollensbe, Masterson, and Lyons (2017) recognize that
regardless of the veracity of differences among the generations, the
perceptions that they exist may drive intergenerational conflict.
Although researchers on both sides of the generational differences
fence have recognized this, Urick and his colleagues (2017) take a
deeper dive into the underlying mechanisms. They present a model,
based on a grounded theory approach to analyzing interview data
with samples of older and younger professionals that suggests a vari-
ety of possible tensions between generations stemming from percep-
tions of values-, behavior-, and identity-based differences, each of
which may trigger different types of strategies for handling intergen-
erational interactions.
Perry, Golom, Catenacci, Ingraham, Covais, and Molina (2017)
make the point that past work attributing perceived generational dif-
ferences to stereotyping has assumed that age stereotypes and gen-
erational stereotypes are interchangeable. It is an empirical question
whether the stereotypes triggered by a description of a person’s age or
the person’s generation are identical and transposable. Across two sam-
ples, Perry and her colleagues (2017) provide evidence that for some
key beliefs this is not the case. Further, they show that the perceptions
triggered by older age, but not Baby Boomer, stereotypes partially
explain hiring outcomes for the different groups, suggesting that age
and generation stereotypes are divergent enough to have the potential
to affect behavior toward and decisions about people of a particular age
(and thereby of a particular generation) in a different way.
Eschleman, King, Mast, Ornellas, and Hunter (2017) demonstrate
another way that a particularly popular and pervasive generational
stereotype (in this case, that Millennials are entitled) can have detri-
mental effects. In a series of three experimental studies, these schol-
ars find that Millennials exposed to the implicitly activated stereotype
showed an actual increase in self-reported entitlement and behavioral
situational entitlement over those not exposed, while those exposed
to the explicitly activated stereotype showed a decrease. Overall, this
research implies that ubiquitous generational stereotypes may be par-
ticularly difficult to eradicate as they may in some situations play a role
in creating differences among generations.
Lyons and Schweitzer’s (2017) qualitative analysis of 105 inter-
views takes a different perspective on generational typing by focusing
not on stereotypes of other generations, but rather on whether and how
people individually and socially identify with a generational group.
These researchers uncover a good deal of heterogeneity in identifica-
tion within generations. Particularly noteworthy is the finding that
although researchers and the media may be sticklers for generational
labels and boundary dates, a lot of people commonly use the term far
more loosely, thinking of a vaguer conceptualization of being in the
“young” or “old” generation.
R E F L E CT I O N S
As a group, what do these papers tell us about Age, Generations, and the
Space Between? In general, after reading the extensive reviews of the
literature included in these pieces and then considering the thought-
ful and interesting approaches taken by the authors in their own
work, we are simultaneously heartened and discouraged by the state
of the generations literature. Like almost anyone who has conducted

a meta-analysis discovers about their topic, our reaction to the gen-
erations literature at large was both “wow, there is a lot out there” and
also “wow, what is out there is distressingly uneven and inconsistent.”
There are many studies addressing the generational question but also
a disturbingly large number of unanswered questions, inconsistent
findings, inappropriate methodologies and analytical strategies, and
unsupported use of findings to justify applied interventions and ques-
tionable claims.
We start with the good, in particular, the papers in this special
issue. It is clear to us that each of the sets authors took a careful and
thoughtful approach to thinking, studying, and writing about genera-
tions. Rudolph and Zacher’s (2017) proposal that researchers con-
sider a developmental framework for individual changes over time and
Parry and Urwins’ (2017) search for induced “generations” that might
be more defensible than the standard a priori groupings suggest to us
that researchers are still struggling with exactly what a generation is
and how they are “formed.” Further, their work raises the question of
whether the concept of a clearly defined group of people more similar
to each other than not because of a shared experience is even useful.
Both of these papers advance thinking about the most fundamental
issue within the generations literature: what are these things? Such
work is most assuredly needed.
Campbell and colleagues’ (2017) conclusions that clear delinea-
tions between groups are not apparent and Costanza and colleagues’
(2017) findings that the ability to identify generational differences
vary as a function of the analytical method used raise similar existential
questions but from a statistical and methodological frame. That is, the
lack of clarity about what generations are and why they should have an
impact are reflected in the lack of clear delineations among them and
the finding that the analytic method used impacts the results obtained.
Both papers would likely have found what they did only if the underly-
ing concept itself was still unclear, ill-defined, and non-parsimonious.
While these four “questioning” papers may not seem like advances per
se, they each serve to further our understanding of the issues and chal-
lenges while at the same time making concrete recommendations and
suggestions for how work in this area can be improved, recommenda-
tions that both researchers and practitioners would be well advised to
consider.
Moving on from current conceptualizations on generations, the
second set of papers advances the field by taking a slightly different
tack: what else might explain what appear to be generational differ-
ences? A unifying factor in these papers is an attempt to understand
the beliefs and perceptions about people on various groupings. These
papers provide a different perspective on the disbelieving managers’
and practitioners’ responses to research that shows little to no consist-
ent group-based differences, responses that are usually along lines of
“but I see these differences every day.”
Among these papers, Urick and colleagues (2017) focused on how
perceptions about individuals can lead to “intergenerational” conflict.
That is, maybe what everyone claims to be seeing as generational differ-
ences really are differences in how people perceive each other and, in
particular, how older and younger workers perceive the other group. If
they are correct, many of the interventions designed to deal with gen-
erational differences might be more successful if they dealt with mini-
mizing inter-group conflict via efforts to change worker perceptions.
Perry et al. (2017), Eschelman and colleagues (2017), and Lyons
and Schweitzer (2017) all approach the generational differences
Generations, Age, and the Space Between • 111
question from a stereotyping frame. For these researchers, understand-
ing generational differences may be found in the stereotypes that peo-
ple have about individuals of various ages and birth cohorts. In slightly
different ways, they each found that stereotypes had a demonstrable
impact on both perceptions about others and perceptions about self as
they related to generational identity. As a group, these four papers raise
a number of possibilities both for alternative conceptualizations about
what generations are as well as for how organizations and managers
that perceive there to be generational differences might deal with those
perceptions.
Turning from the heartening, even with the substantive advances
these papers and others are making, it is still clear to us that there are
theoretical, definitional, measurement, analytical, and application
issues in the generations domain that need to be addressed. No one
special issue of eight articles will resolve the unanswered questions.
As each of the papers made excellent recommendations for future
research and discussed implications for practice, we will not repeat
those here. What these papers and the generations literature in toto
point out to us is that the proponents of “generational differences”
have yet to demonstrate that generations are a thing and that this thing
has a demonstrable group-level, causal impact on work and organiza-
tional outcomes.
This last point, one that is worthy of an entire paper in and of
itself, is an especially important one. In much of the popular press
and some of the academic literature there is an unstated or even
explicit implication that being part of one generation causes peo-
ple to behave in a particular way. However, the belief that being a
member of a particular generation causes someone to behave in a
certain way relies on inferential leaps that have not been supported
and, in our view, should not be made. Given the theoretical uncer-
tainties and intractable methodological and analytical challenges
with generations research raised herein and elsewhere, we are not
terribly sanguine about the possibility of such causality ever being
demonstrated. So, yes, more research is needed on generations and
differences among individuals of varying ages in the workplace and
elsewhere. That said, it is critical that such work should be guided by
the goal of discovering the actual underlying causes of any observed
or perceived differences and the impact they have and not by using
generational membership as a catchall explanation for why people
act the way they do. In the end, it is critical to remember that genera-
tions are labels, not causes.
REFERENCES
Campbell, S., Twenge, J., & Campbell, W. (2017). Fuzzy but useful
constructs: Making sense of the differences between generations.
Work, Aging and Retirement.
Costanza, D. P., & Finkelstein, L. M. (2015). Generationally-based
differences in the workplace: Is there a there there? Industrial and
Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Sciences and Practice, 8,
308–323. DOI:10.1017/iop.2015.15.
Costanza, D. P., Darrow, J. B., Brown, A. R., & Severt, J. B. (2017).
A review of analytical methods used to study generational differ-
ences. Work, Aging and Retirement.
Eschleman, K. J., King, M., Mast, D., Ornellas, R., & Hunter, D.
(2017). The effects of stereotype activation on generational differ-
ences. Work, Aging and Retirement. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/
workar/waw032
112 • D. P. Costanza and L. M. Finkelstein
Jorgensen, B. (2003). Baby boomers, generation X and generation Y? Policy
implications for defence forces in the modern era. Foresight, 5, 41–49.
Lyons, S. T., & Schweitzer, L. (2017). A qualitative exploration of gen-
erational identity: Making sense of young and old in the context of
today’s workplace. Work, Aging and Retirement. DOI:https://doi.
org/10.1093/workar/waw024
Macky, K., Gardner, D., & Forsyth, S. (2008). Generational differ-
ences at work: Introduction and overview. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 23, 857–861. doi:10.1108/02683940810904358
Parry, E., & Urwin, P. (2017). The evidence-base for generational dif-
ferences: Where do we go from here. Work, Aging and Retirement.
Perry, E. L., Golom, F. D., Catenacci, L., Ingraham, M. E., Covais,
E. M., & Molina, J. J. (2017). Talkin’’Bout Your Generation:
The impact of applicant age and generation on hiring-related per-
ceptions and outcomes. Work, Aging and Retirement. DOI:https://
doi.org/10.1093/workar/waw029
Rudolph, C. W., & Zacher, H. (2017). Considering generations from
a lifespan developmental perspective. Work, Aging and Retirement.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/waw019
Sackett, P. R. (2002). Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National
Academies, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education.
Urick, M. J., Hollensbe, E. C., Masterson, S. S., & Lyons, S. T. (2017).
Understanding and managing intergenerational conflict: An exam-
ination of influences and strategies. Work, Aging and Retirement.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/waw009