Dr John Sullivan Talent Management Thought Leadership
3 things to know
- This approach doesn’t hire better performers who stay longer.
- It blatantly ignores gender differences. The intra-generational differences are created based on how and where a candidate was brought up. So any assumption that all generation members share the same attributes is flawed.
- Treating candidates differently “based on their birth year” is clearly age discrimination. And this recruiting approach is also likely to have an age bias. Because in practice, the generational focus has mostly been on recruiting more younger people (while generally ignoring older candidates).
Note That Every Other Form Of Stereotyping Has Been Banned
For years, it’s been difficult to find a business or HR magazine that didn’t periodically run articles about what I call “the generational alphabet soup,” where authors make broad statements about the stereotyped attributes of the different generations.
For decades, we have strictly forbidden stereotyping candidates based on their gender, color, national origin, or age. So to me, it’s time for everyone involved in recruiting to realize that the generational recruiting model is actually just another type of age discrimination (i.e., based on the year that the candidate was born).
It’s inexplicable to me why this generational model is still widely used throughout corporate recruiting. It stands out if you proposed using a similar form of attribute stereotyping for women candidates. For example, can you imagine the firestorm if you suggested that all women candidates “lack a work ethic or have poor communication skills.” For some reason, no one raised any objection when these same two attributes were actually used to describe the members of Generation Z! So, this stereotyping based on age must stop.
Operational Flaws That Should Cause You To Stop Using Generational Recruiting
In addition to the “three things to know” presented at the top of this article. There are numerous other operational reasons why the generational recruiting model should be stopped in its tracks. Those additional flaws include:
Prepare to be disappointed if you expect to find different job preferences in each generation – you should know before you start. That if you expect to find major differences in job preferences between all generations. You will be disappointed. Because researchers conducted a side-by-side comparison. And that research revealed that the actual job preferences “didn’t differ that much” between the applicants from the different generations.
Realize that it becomes age discrimination when you treat candidates differently based on their birth year – federal law protects those who are 40 and over from discrimination. In addition, some state laws (including New Jersey) and many corporate policies directly prohibit treating candidates and employees differently, regardless of age. So be aware that the use of generational recruiting will, in many cases, eventually cause internal conflicts and legal and regulatory issues.
The boundary years that define the span of each generation vary widely – it’s a fact that authors who write about generations frequently assign completely different boundary years for when each generation starts and ends. For example, many authors use 1981 to 1996 to define the millennial generation. In contrast, others assign a much wider range of years (1981 to 2000). As a result of these different starting and ending dates, confusion is inevitable. It’s not unusual for two recruiting team members to disagree on a candidate’s generation, placing the same candidate in completely different generational groups. Consequently, the two team members will make completely different assumptions about the attributes that this candidate possesses.
There is little agreement on which attributes should be assigned to each generation – unfortunately, there is no standard definition or agreement on which attributes apply to each generation. And to make matters worse, some of the attributes/characteristics assigned to each generational group directly contradict each other. Another major flaw that can’t be ignored is that the generational model assumes that the attributes of every individual in a particular generation don’t change over time as that individual gains knowledge and experience.
Many inaccurately assume that they know a candidate’s generation – because you can’t ask about a candidate’s age during the hiring process. Managers and recruiters who want to use generational attributes are forced to guess which generation a candidate is in. Or they must choose to use inaccurate indicators of a candidate’s birth year instead. These questionable indicators may include first names, voice, years of experience, graduation dates, Social Security numbers, or physical appearance. This difficulty in determining a candidate’s birth year is important. First, when an evaluator picks the wrong birth year, their assumptions about the candidate will be off. In the cases where two different evaluators pick two different birth years. The result may be a wide (but unjustified) variation in their interview scores.
Unfortunately, managers who rely on generational stereotypes will often expand their stereotyping – using this generational approach will cause some managers and recruiters to get comfortable with the practice of stereotyping groups of candidates. Once comfortable with generational stereotypes, many will unfortunately expand their stereotype usage to other candidate groups.
The lofty goal of increasing workforce inclusion won’t be met – in theory, a primary goal of generational recruiting is to make hiring more inclusive. By broadening your hiring, you now hire equally across all generations. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that this generational approach actually increases inclusion. In part, because no one that I’ve met who uses this generational recruiting strategy has even attempted to create the performance metrics for it. Such metrics would prove that the practice produces greater inclusion, better performance, and longer retention hires.
Be careful with your stereotype. For example, are you really that much like your brother, sister, or cousin? Even though you were both born in the same generation.
Now let’s shift our focus to…
The Many Ways That Generational Recruiting Will Hurt Your Recruiting Results
Relying on the generational recruiting model will likely challenge your current recruiting process while damaging your recruiting results in multiple ways. They include:
Without metrics, continuous improvement will be difficult – as mentioned previously, the advocates that push this approach. Literally never use performance metrics to measure the model’s actual impact on new-hire performance, retention, and inclusion. And without performance measures, your continuous improvement effort will struggle.
Your applicant pool will be limited – if you put the attributes of your targeted generation into your recruiting information, sourcing, and job postings. Many potential applicants of a different age won’t “see themselves” in your position requirements. As a result, many prospects from other generations simply won’t bother to apply.
You won’t get an accurate assessment until you identify each candidate’s actual attributes – because all stereotypes are broad generalizations. If you expect accurate candidate assessments during your hiring process. You will need to go beyond a candidate’s assumed generational attributes. And instead, thoroughly research each finalist to identify their actual attributes, skills, and capabilities.
Many qualified candidates will be prematurely screened out at the resume step – because resume screening focuses on keywords. When your keyword list for a job covers a large number of attributes from a single generation. Both the ATS screen and your human screeners will prematurely “screen out” many qualified candidates from other generations. They might not display these desired attributes in their resumes. This problem is especially damaging because screening out occurs so early in the hiring process. That means that once the resume is rejected, you won’t have another chance to reassess any candidate who simply didn’t use enough of the right keywords in their resume.
Candidates will alter their interview answers to match your expectations – when candidates sense that the interviewers are focused on the attributes of a certain generation. Many will alter their interview answers in order to meet the interviewer’s expectations. And that will make your interview assessments less accurate.
Using non-job-related factors will make candidate selection less accurate – because typically, many of the attributes that are assigned to each generation are not job-related (i.e., social consciousness, concern for the environment). If you assign positive points to candidates with these non-job-related attributes, hiring people based on them won’t result in better-performing new hires because these factors are not related to the work.
Global candidates may be misjudged because US survey data was used to assign attributes – because the work environment is quite unusual in the United States. It’s important to realize that most of the surveys that identified the attributes of each generation were completed by US workers. This means the typical attributes assigned to each generation are unlikely to fit candidates raised outside the US, since upbringing and culture significantly influence individual attributes. If you continue to use US-based attributes, your diversity and international recruiting efforts will be dramatically affected.
Your employment brand will suffer, and that will reduce future applications – when word gets out to potential applicants on social media that your organization relies on questionable generalizations to make their candidate decisions. Many qualified applicants will decide to apply to other companies where the hiring team spends less time generalizing and stereotyping. And more time to find out about the actual capabilities and needs of each individual candidate.
Your job offers will be less appealing, so fewer will accept – many tailor their job offers to the assumed needs of those from a particular generation. However, if your finalist ends up being from a completely different generation. Your offers will be markedly less attractive.
The developing AI-powered screening tools may make candidate screening even more inaccurate – because AI screening tools must train by relying heavily on publicly available data and discussions about what makes a great candidate. In the near future, most AI tools will have an assessment bias that favors candidates who fit the attributes assigned to their generation.
The goal of increasing inclusion won’t be met, and you will hire from a narrow range of generations – In theory, a primary goal of the generational recruiting strategy is to produce broader, more inclusive hiring that is spread out across multiple generations. Unfortunately, you’ll never know if this goal was met. Because in most cases, the goal has not even been publicly declared. But also because the people who champion this goal have never acted like innovators and leaders. Because none have taken the time to measure how much this strategy has actually broadened your hiring inclusion.
Final Thoughts
As a Professor, I am alarmed by the fact that academics primarily push the generational model. Well, shame on them. They should know better than to encourage stereotypes and the “lumping together” of all candidates under a single age-defined group. Instead, their recommended approach should be to help hiring managers “celebrate” individual differences. And not hide those differences behind inaccurate assumptions and stereotypes. However, the recommended approach requires each recruiter and hiring manager to treat every candidate as a unique individual. And to spend the necessary time identifying their actual strengths, weaknesses, and needs. And then to make their final hiring decision objectively, based on a candidate’s actual attributes. Rather than the assumed ones that have been assigned to everyone who happens to be a member of their generation.
Thank you for reading
Note for the reader
This is the latest article from Dr. Sullivan, who was called “the Michael Jordan of Hiring” by Fast Company.
Please help spread his ideas by sharing this with your team/network and by posting it on your favorite social site.
