How do you prepare for unpredictability?

Here's a story I often tell when talking about generations. It's from a course I took on statistics, of all things. The professor was teaching probability and asked us what the probability was that the coin he was about to flip would be heads. We were good students and answered "0.5" (50% in layman's terms). He then flipped the coin and held his hand over it. He asked us what the probability was that it was heads. We looked puzzled and answered "0.5" He took his hand off it and looked at it, and said "No. It is heads. So the probability is 1.0. Had it been tails, the probability of it being heads would have been zero." The point is, once the coin has been flipped, the issue of probability is moot. The coin either is heads, or it isn't. One or zero.

The same is true with generations. You or anyone you know is either like their generation, or not. Or in some ways like their generation, and in other ways not. Or some TIMES like their generation and other times not. In short, you’ve already been flipped. No one person ever gets pub in a box by the generational descriptions. They just don’t apply to individuals. But that doesn't negate the high level truth about the difference among generations, just like that one coin landing heads doesn't change the fact that tails will come up 50% of the time in the long run.

I know there are lots of people who say “Oh, you’re a Boomer, therefore you can’t handle technology, etc.” That’s awful. But the problem there isn’t the generalizations about generations. It’s in the way they were applied. Let’s solve the application problem, rather than attacking the tool. Stating that we are all individuals therefore the broad generalizations are meaningless is not the answer. That closes our eyes to a piece of the complex reality, and when we do that we limit our capacity to learn. We’ve got too much going on these days to be reducing our capacity to learn.

Hi Maddie:

What great post and what terrific questions you raise! Thanks for mentioning my blog and the fascinating quotes from Jamie's post. The conversation you opened and comments you got are extremely interesting. So are the examples people bring up. I love them. In light of this conversation I am sort of thinking about what I wrote out loud here.

Our minds logically observe patterns, make comparisons and draw conclusions to make sense of the world. It would be insane to claim that we should not exercise our analytical and intellectual capabilities in our relationship with the world around us. And surely there are generational, cultural, ethnic etc. patterns. The danger is in abstracting patterns from context; and in using, as it was said, categories as prescriptions rather than guides. So, let’s take away the personal components of feeling “boxed” and disrespected when reduced to superficial stereotypes, and look at data-driven approaches in more business terms.

One of the dangers I see in being overly zealous about generational and similar studies is substituting simplistic formulas for the hard work of learning by talking to and engaging members; trying to walk in their shoes and seeing the world through their eyes. I am always astounded by how much money organizations will spend on data -driven studies in the hopes of finding magic bullets and avoiding “co-inhabiting” and “co-developing” with their members. The latter of course is labor-intensive since it has to be continuous and become a way of life for the association, yet it is the only way to produce results. I have seen all kind of generational and other demographic studies applied mechanically and equated with "member focus" and care. I am sure we have all heard and seen it. First it is: "If we want to attract the 20 something crowd, let's just get a twitter account and change the appearance of the website. This is what they are supposed to respond to according to the study." Then come the bells and whistles of social media coolness. And invariably the disappointment: "Hey, I tried social media and it does not work. It's all a bunch of B.S about how effective it is supposed to be."

People will not buy a service because you included superficial features that you decided are characteristic of their age or professional group. We all value services that help us solve problems that we consider important to our specific situations, and that resonate with the way we experience the world and define value. You will not find the clues of this in generic trend and generational studies. I am nervous when organization look for simple keys for solving their challenges with customer groups the way you ask for the right password to enter a website.

Another issue is that of opportunity loss. When providers have a distant relationship with customers, they rely on generalized data and assumptions and miss the opportunities that an intimate relationship and knowledge would open up. Many comments on this blog show a market of 50-80+ internet savvy users. Theoretically, these people would be invisible to a software company or an association looking for better ways to engage and retain members, whose assumptions were based on generational formulas of behavior. Especially in today’s market it is digging into market niches, personal preferences and specialty needs that have real competitive advantage. To my mind it all adds up to the conclusion that assuming a world of predictability, and trying to increase assurances in it, is not consistent with our unpredictable world nor with how to gain intimate knowledge of a human being.

I think we all are boxed in regardless of what generation we belong to. It is the way most folks process and it feels safe to be able to think of a person as this not that. We all belong in some box... The friend box, the mother box, the professional box , the gadget nerd box the foodie box... Not realizing that we are all of those things and the boxes should rooms in a house with doors and stairs connecting them.

What if we came from the perspective of accepting each other for our brilliance and let of the need to control. That is what it is to pigeon hole people, control, or thinking you are controlling them.

What if instead of feeling out of step- we instead embraced we need all these puzzle pieces?

When did life's experiences prevent us from offering each other respect for that journey.

Laughing as I am watching Mad Men and yes I did not watch it on TV- even then the generations were saying the same thing-we do not want to be talked down to, we want to find things on our own, we want the "experience", blah blah blah.

I think it is time to redefine generational conversations. How about we start talking about how helpful it is and see what manifest from those expectations?

I'm a special case here. Because warring stereotypes and archetypes have been imposed on me and members of my family since I was very young, I tend to ignore them in action these days. I got tired of hearing how black people were, how Africans were, how women were supposed to be, how African men are, how children are supposed to act, what a grown-up is...

However, I do maintain some awareness of general cultural difference by type of people. For example, though not one of the female elders is like any of the American stereotypes of what women their age should be like, many of them have purposely and deliberately adopted the archetypes of what mature (not old) Yoruba women are. They expect to be respected for a certain type of status they have earned, and I agree with their assessment and respect them as such.

Of course, I'm a person who has always felt out of step with what people expect of me - even when it's true on the outside, it usually still rings false on the inside. Recognizing archetypes and cultural differences can help you navigate as long as you realize they don't hold universally true, but *relying* on stereotypes to inform you of how individuals act is a recipe for failure.

My 74 year old MIL is on Facebook and uses her email daily and surfs the web for products she wants to buy. My 72 year old father loves the Internet and his iPad is omnipresent in his lap. Oh, and he found his wife via an online dating site and fell in love with my laptop when he was visiting, so we bought him one. I'm 52 and know more about technology and the web than many people my age - and younger.

So I think it's pretty clear that I'm suggesting we not box anyone in. Not 20 year olds, not 40 year olds, not 50, 60 or 70 year olds. We are all different and it is those differences that make us such an interesting society.

I know that as soon as anyone tells me I'm supposed to think or act or feel a certain way, I'm pretty much going to do the opposite, just on general principle.

Yes - let's ditch generational tendencies and look at individual people, not generations.

Great conversation starter!

I was glad to participate in the Twitter conversation that inspired this post. And I continue to disagree that I can easily be placed in a box. Some people consider me a Boomer, some consider me a tailgater (present company included) and some, a GenX'er. I say, I am me. I have been shaped by what's come before, what is here now and what will come after. Human beings are meant to evolve, not remain stagnant. That applies to any age and to any generation. My dad, who is 85 years old, plays computer games, does searches on Google and sends emails. He reads online and checks sports stats. Oh wait! His generation isn't SUPPOSED to understand these things. So the premise that we should use generational tendencies to define or guide a conversation may be as limiting as believing that members of certain generations have those tendencies. Let's stop boxing ourselves in and start expanding our horizons, shall we?

Not just Boomers. It's the same almost any time we try to pigeon-hole any person into a group. And then sometimes these groups form a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy where it becomes all too simple to say, "Yeah, well that's the way my generation is supposed to act!"

But I truly like what you write: these archetypes we create are not intended to predict or prescribe behavior, merely guide us along via a mental model. We need to nip this addiction we have to easy answers and shorthand stereotypes. They only serve to degrade what could be much more fulfilling interactions between individuals.