Goodbye generations: how organisations can respond to a changing labour market

Narratives about generations, age and longevity are now increasingly prominent not only in diversity management, but also across the media, within organisations, and in public policy and labour market debates. Often associated with concerns about skills shortages, these narratives can lead to enduring assumptions about generational identities that influence both public and private life.

It is often noticed that generations are blamed for societal challenges: ‘boomers’ for climate change, ‘gen Z’ for the shortage of future leaders. However, there is little scientific evidence to support the concept of homogeneous generational identities or their direct link to such issues. This can exacerbate social tensions, reinforce stereotypes and discrimination, and perpetuate generational myths, which are often amplified in public discourse. Furthermore, it obscures the underlying social dynamics and socio-economic inequalities that shape these narratives.

To respond effectively, organisations may need to move beyond generational labels. Strengthening the long-term impact of employer strategies requires inclusive structures that support diverse teams and the evolving needs of employees at different stages of their lives and careers. In fact, demographic shifts and growing skill shortages are already making age diversity a strategic priority for organisations, as highlighted in the 2024 World Economic Forum report.[1] Therefore, organisations must proactively respond to these shifts and develop a deeper understanding of their employees’ expectations and values.

Labour markets and responsibility: understanding shifting expectations in a diverse workforce

Before examining the myths surrounding generational thinking in more detail, it is worth taking a closer look at the changing labour market and considering why this topic has become so relevant today. Labour markets are changing rapidly due to demographic shifts, technological progress, and geopolitical instability. According to an OECD report published this year, labour shortages have reached historically high levels, particularly in sectors such as healthcare, transportation and construction. These shortages are primarily driven by three factors: ageing populations, poor job quality, and an increasing mismatch between employees’ skills and the needs of the labour market.[2]

In the European Union, Germany and Italy serve as examples of how demographic and economic factors influence labour market outcomes. Germany is experiencing a significant shortage of skilled workers, which is driven by an ageing population, immigration patterns and a growing mismatch between qualifications and labour market demands.[3] By contrast, Italy continues to face high youth unemployment and marked regional disparities, with more favourable employment conditions in the north than in the south.[4] Similar patterns emerge across labour markets worldwide. For example, ongoing reforms to the vocational education system in China are taking place against a backdrop of significant regional disparities in quality and access. Despite continued investment, labour market forecasts suggest that a shortage of up to 30 million skilled workers is expected by 2026.[5] These examples illustrate the complexity of labour shortages and highlight the importance of aligning workforce development with evolving structural and demographic conditions. Markets worldwide are further impacted by the green transition and digital transformation, which are reshaping global skill demands and creating risks and opportunities.[6]

Beyond buzzwords: the limits of generational labels

The concept of generations is often used to explain how shared historical and cultural experiences shape collective identities. As Karl Mannheim argued in the 1920s, generations are not solely defined by age, but are socially constructed through shared formative experiences during pivotal historical periods.[7] In contrast, Neil Howe and William Strauss popularised the idea of clearly defined generational identities, arguing that people born within specific timeframes share fixed characteristics and follow a recurring generational cycle.[8]

The generational myth assumes that individuals born within the same historical period exhibit consistent values and behaviours that meaningfully influence social and workplace dynamics. While this narrative has gained popularity in public and policy discourse, it lacks analytical validity. Generational categories oversimplify demographic complexity, obscure differences within cohorts and often reflect political rhetoric or economic anxieties rather than genuine age-based distinctions.[9] Instead of illuminating genuine differences, they risk deflecting attention from structural inequalities and perpetuating age-based stereotypes.[10]

Generational narratives: between perception and oversimplification

In everyday discourse, the term ‘generation’ is often accompanied by buzzwords such as ‘generational divide’ or ‘generational conflict’, reflecting popular narratives rather than empirical realities.[11] While these notions may reflect genuine experiences, they tend to generalise and, at times, stigmatise entire cohorts. Media narratives that claim ‘boomers’ are responsible for the climate crisis, or archetypes such as the ‘millennial learner’, obscure intra-group diversity, reinforce age hierarchies, and minimise people’s specific needs at different life stages.[12]  It is more insightful to consider the dynamic influences that shape individuals.[13] Life phases provide a more nuanced perspective on the varied expectations and experiences that emerge throughout different career and life stages.

Generational labels can reinforce bias without providing meaningful insight. A persistent stereotype suggests that younger generations lack work ethic[14], while older generations are often portrayed as struggling with technological change.[15] However, there is limited scientific evidence to support either of these claims. These assumptions became particularly apparent during the Covid-19 pandemic, when older workers were expected to struggle with digital technologies, and younger workers to thrive in remote settings. In reality, people of all ages faced challenges such as care responsibilities, isolation, and adapting to new working arrangements.[16]

Even more generalisations have gained traction. Generational differences have been blamed for everything, from a decline in interest in baseball[17] to a change in processed cheese preferences.[18] In the workplace, they have been used to explain a declining level of commitment[19] rising rates of job switching.[20] These perceptions continue to perpetuate the unfounded belief that younger people are unwilling or unable to maintain long-term employment, despite a lack of empirical evidence.

Beyond stereotypes: how inequality shapes work expectations

Nevertheless, people entering the workforce today face fundamentally different conditions. Inequalities between age groups primarily arise from structural disparities in access to education, employment, and asset accumulation. Those born between 1995 and 2010, often referred to as ‘gen Z’, are starting their careers at a time of economic uncertainty, climate anxiety, and the aftermath of a global pandemic.[21] While these contextual factors shape decisions and opportunities, influence how people understand work and approach life planning, they do not imply a homogeneous generational identity. One clear area of inequality is housing: according to a 2024 Pew Research Center study, people born in the years typically associated with ‘gen Z’ face disproportionate challenges due to high property prices, rising interest rates, and stagnant wages.[22] Insecure housing prospects may influence individuals’ attitudes towards work. Many values and expectations attributed to younger people today are not signs of generational sensitivity, but responses to broader socio-economic shifts.

The world of work has changed considerably since the 1980s, as have the expectations that employees and employers have of one another.[23] The achievements of the labour movement, such as the introduction of the eight-hour working day and the expansion of women’s labour rights, as well as the rise of public discourse around equity and inclusion, have all shaped how work is perceived today.[24] Flexibility, emotional intelligence and digital fluency are adaptive responses to demands in the labour market.[25]

Labour shortages in advanced economies are becoming increasingly acute. This is due to demographic ageing, declining fertility rates, reduced labour migration, persistent gender gaps and skill and geographical mismatches.[26] The situation is further exacerbated by early retirements and the growing demand for expertise in the digital and green sectors.[27] For those entering the workforce today, this environment requires continuous adaptation, resilience in the face of uncertainty and flexible career paths. Their attitudes towards work are often mistakenly perceived as disengagement or laziness[28], when in fact they reflect a growing demand for fairer and more meaningful employment, as well as broader shifts in the labour market and public discourse. However, not everything is changing: there is little empirical evidence that generational affiliation has a significant impact on leadership expectations.[29]

Inclusive structures: moving from awareness to action

In light of the current economic and political landscape, it is anticipated that labour markets will continue to transform.[30] This also presents an opportunity for organisations to fill the gaps left by institutional frameworks. To remain attractive in this changing environment, organisations must align more closely with the evolving values and expectations of their workforce. They need to recognise the changing needs that emerge throughout people’s lives while paying attention to broader societal discourses and transformations. This includes embedding a purpose that goes beyond profit, facilitating the development of participatory skills, and making diversity, equity, inclusion, and wellbeing strategic priorities.

These shifts are no longer optional, but prerequisites for long-term resilience.[31] Diversity, equity and inclusion, and mental health are no longer peripheral issues but central components of contemporary talent management. From a practical perspective, this also requires the integration of lifespan principles into organisational processes and policies. Moving beyond generational categories, an approach informed by the lifespan perspective supports the development of inclusive structures that address employees’ diverse needs at different life stages, helping to avoid the reductive logic of generational thinking.[32]

[1] World Economic Forum. (2024). Age diversity will define the workforce of the future: Here’s why. World Economic Forum.

[2] Causa, O., Murtin, F., & de Serres, A. (2025). Labour shortages and labour market inequalities: Evidence and policy implications (OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 1832). OECD Publishing.

[3]  Feist, L. (2024). Imbalances between supply and demand: Recent causes of labour shortages in advanced economies. International Labour Organization.

[4] European Trade Union Federations. (2024). Youth employment trends & policies after Covid-19 pandemic (Italy).

[5] Song, X., & Xu, D. (2024). More graduates, fewer skills? Vocational education expansion and skilled labour shortages in China. The China Quarterly, 260, 970–985.

[6] World Economic Forum. (2023). The future of jobs report 2023. World Economic Forum.

[7] Mannheim, K. (1923). The problem of generations.

[8] Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (1991). Generations: The history of America’s future, 1584 to 2069. William Morrow & Co.

[9] Giancola, F. (2006). The generation gap: More myth than reality. Human Resource Planning, 29(4).

[10] Macnicol, J. (2006). Ageism and age discrimination: Some analytical issues.

[11] Teng, L. S. (2020). Bracing for the multi-generational workforce: What we need to know. Management Revue – Socio-Economic Studies, 31(3), 324–345.

[12] Jauregui, J., Watsjold, B., Welsh, L., Ilgen, J. S., & Robins, L. (2020). Generational ‘othering’: The myth of the millennial learner. Medical Education, 54(1), 60–65.

[13] Mazi Raz. (2021). Debunking generational myths at work. Ivey Business School Executive Education.

[14] Williams, E. (2010). Debunking the millennials’ work ethic “problem”. Harvard Business Review.

[15] Conger, K., & Griffith, E. (2020, March 27). The virus changed the way we internet. The New York Times.

[16] Alon, T. M., Doepke, M., Olmstead-Rumsey, J., & Tertilt, M. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on gender equality (Working Paper No. 26947). National Bureau of Economic Research.

[17] Keeley, S. (2016). Derek Jeter has had it with millennials and their lack of interest in baseball. The Comeback.

[18] Mulvany, L., & Patton, L. (2018). Millennials kill again. The latest victim? American cheese. Time Magazine.

[19] Cenkus, B. (2017). Millennials will work hard, just not for your crappy job. Medium.

[20] Adkins, A. (2016). Millennials: The job-hopping generation. Gallup.

[21] Kniffin, K. M. et al. (2021). COVID-19 and the workplace: Implications, issues, and insights for future research and action. American Psychologist, 76(1), 63–77.

[22] DeSilver, D. (2024). A look at the state of affordable housing in the U.S. Pew Research Center.

[23] Kossek, E. E., Perrigino, M. B., & Rock, A. G. (2021). From ideal workers to ideal work for all: A 50-year review.

[24] Washington, E. F. (2022). The five stages of DEI maturity. Harvard Business Review.

[25] Fernandez, J., Landis, K., & Lee, J. (2023). Helping Gen Z employees find their place at work. Harvard Business Review.

[26] International Labour Organization. (2024). Imbalances between supply and demand: Recent causes of labour shortages in advanced economies (ILO Working Paper No. 115). Geneva: ILO.

[27] International Labour Organization. (2024). Navigating the future of skills and jobs in the green and digital transitions. Geneva: ILO.

[28] Brower, T. (2024). The Gen Z effect: Their demand for meaningful work may change the workplace for everyone. Forbes.

[29] Heyns, E. P., Eldermire, E. R. B., & Howard, H. A. (2019). Unsubstantiated conclusions: A scoping review on generational differences of leadership in academic libraries. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 45(5).

[30] World Economic Forum. (2024). Global risks report 2024. Geneva: World Economic Forum.

[31] World Economic Forum. (2025). Future of jobs report 2025: What’s shaping the future of the global workforce. World Economic Forum.

[32] Rudolph, C. W., Rauvola, R. S., Costanza, D. P., & Zacher, H. (2021). Generations and generational differences: Debunking myths in organizational science and practice and paving new paths forward. Journal of Business and Psychology, 36(6), 945–967.