Belief in generational differences is nothing new. In ancient times, generational differences were seen as a threat to productivity, and efforts were made to change them. Bertman (Reference Bertman1976) writes, “as early as the twenty-fifth century BC, the older generation in authoritarian Egypt had to ‘work at it’ to mold the younger generation in its own image.” Yet, Costanza and Finkelstein (Reference Costanza and Finkelstein2015) point out that “there is minimal empirical evidence actually supporting generationally based differences” and “no sufficient explanation for why such differences should even exist.” One explanation for the prevailing belief in generation-based differences is systematic biases in social perception.

In-group/out-group bias (the “we–they feeling”; Tajfel & Turner, Reference Tajfel, Turner, Austin and Worchel1979) may cause each generation that is in the position of power and control (which today would be the Baby Boomers) to view successive generations primarily negatively. As a result, the younger generations are viewed as “unmotivated,” “unfocused,” “lacking in work ethic,” and organizationally “disloyal” (although there may also be some positive qualities also associated with the younger generation; e.g., “technologically proficient”). This is reflected in the fact that most of the writing on the younger generations (both Generation Xers and Millennials) tends to view their work-related behavior from a problem-focused perspective: how to “fix” or “manage” them.

Confirmation bias then causes members of the dominant generation to seek and interpret evidence that is consistent with the stereotypes (Nickerson, Reference Nickerson1998). For example, an employer might interpret information from a Millennial job applicant's response that he or she seeks a career that allows “work–life balance” as evidence of lack of occupational and organizational loyalty, stereotypical of Millennials. Evidence that is inconsistent with the prevailing stereotypes may be ignored or discounted, resulting in persistence of the generational stereotype/bias.

The generational stereotypes may then become fortified through shared stories and from articles in the popular media. As these stereotypes are widely and consistently disseminated, the members of the target generation—the Millennials themselves—may start to believe them, leading to a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, if a young person hears often enough that “Millennials want work–life balance,” it might cause that individual to mention this as an important requirement of a job during a job interview, even though she or he might not have previously considered the issue important. What we are saying is that perhaps members of the generation endorse the stereotypes about themselves, regardless of whether they actually apply (e.g., “I want work–life balance”). They report certain behaviors and beliefs, but the actual incidence of the behaviors, such as the number of hours per week spent at work versus home, doesn't actually vary across generations.

Costanza and Finkelstein state that “stereotypes are hard to shake because it is easy for us to see evidence of what seems to be their accuracy,” but that may be due solely to how we process social information and inherent biases. If someone stereotypes Millennials as young adults constantly glued to their smartphones, every young adult hunched over a handheld device serves as evidence that the stereotype is true (never mind the many Boomers who are also on their smartphones). What we are suggesting is that there is a there there, but rather than actual generational differences, they are perceived generational differences that are commonly held not only by both members of other generations but also by the members of the target generation.