Conversations with the Generations: Work Life

by Penny Harrison and Maura O'Scannlain

Most discussions of the generations seem to be shaped by labels slapped on by the media. The generation that came of age during the Depression and fought in World War II is “stalwart,” “dutiful,” “conformist,” “narrow,” “materialistic,” “self-sacrificing,” “the greatest.”  This is not to ignore those artistic and adventurous members who were first “Lost” and then “Beat.”  Little is ever mentioned of that bridge “war baby” generation except to call it “silent,” though this may change now that a member of this group, John McCain, is the Republican candidate for President. In contrast, the generation that was born after the war is called the “boomers,” “activist,” “rebellious,” “irresponsible,” “self-centered,” “relevant,” and “tolerant”; they have produced both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush as well as current presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton. Now the younger generation that has so far just been assigned a letters of the alphabet: “X,”  “Y” and “Z,” have produced a presidential candidate of their own in Barack Obama. Though of course much of the voting is likely to be cross-generational, relative age and context of candidates seem to be favorite topics for the polls and pundits this season.

Certainly these generations contain far more variety than their labels suggest, but major events and shared experiences contribute to memories and perceptions of reality which, along with our own individuality, shape our vision of the world.  Of course, there are many cross-generational connections, and we all share the present, but we travel through it with different sets of reference points.

For those born shortly before and during WWII and those born after, the security of nuclear families together again and the new insecurity of the Cold War, pervaded daily life as they “ducked and covered” under their school desks to escape a threatening nuclear disaster. In homes across the country, small screens began to flicker the black and white images of Groucho, Lucy and Desi, and Ed Sullivan. Moving lazily through pick-up baseball or Nancy Drew mysteries on empty summer days, these children grew up whizzing in their convertibles by Burma shave signs stuck in farmers' fields to the music of Elvis, Ricky and Fats on their way to hanging out at the local A&W.  In college some grew into protesters marching from civil rights and Vietnam to Earth Day and the women's movement to the refrains of Baez and Dylan, the Kingston Trio and Peter, Paul and Mary, the Beatles and the Stones, their hearts rising with the landing on the moon, and falling with the assassinations of JFK and MLK. 

Their children, on the other hand, recalled the colorful worlds of Sesame Street , Mr. Rogers and Captain Kangaroo before moving on to the blended family world of The Brady Bunch. Velcro made life easier. The Challenger disaster made it painfully harder. Leg warmers, jelly bracelets and hockey hair made it a bit stranger. Ears plugged with the music of Pearl Jam, Madonna and Michael Jackson, they moonwalked back to the future. Soccer and computers gave them skills their parents could only look upon with awe. “Yadda, yadda, yadda!”

To gather insight into the ways individuals perceive their own and other generations, Open Spaces held a number of discussion groups.  These groups were divided by age: 25-39 years; 40-61 years and 62+ years, corresponding roughly to the years of beginning careers and families, years in the midst of it all and years of easing off from both projects.

What follows is the first installment of a two-part series in Open Spaces on the generations. In it, the authors have compiled participants' responses to five questions focused on the economy, jobs and the challenge of establishing a balance in one's life between work, family, and other pursuits. Part 2 explores impressions of and participation in the direction of the community, the country and the world.

The questions focusing on work that were posed to the groups were:

1.  How do you see the current economic situation?
2.  What degree of loyalty, if any, do you feel to your profession? Employer? Employees?
3.  Do you believe it is important to “pay your dues”?
4.  What is the role of your job in your life?
5.  Are you satisfied with your balance of school/personal life/social life/public service/family life, etc.? Do you think it's possible to “have it all”? What is “all”?

25-39 Years
This most recent generation to test out the workforce has had much of its outlook on employment, professional development, and careers shaped by three elements: the bulging and bursting of the dot-com bubble, the current contracting economy and with it the downturn in employment opportunities, and the common parental advice to “find your passion, and all else will follow.”

The dot-com high was a heady interlude for many who made and lost much in its sweep.  As one participant framed it, the late 90s was a time when “anyone with a business credential could propose any idea, no matter how far-fetched, unnecessary, or unlikely to turn a profit, and immediately secure venture capital funding.”  Promotions, raises, and impressive titles for people with little industry experience soon followed: “It took all the meaning out of money as a way to prove one's worth.”  In addition, all of this growth was accompanied by an underlying emptiness, a knowledge that in most companies employees weren't producing a “real” product or useful service.  As one former dot-commer-turned-teacher observed: “There is a sense of purpose in being a teacher; I was just a lackey in the dot-come world, albeit a well-paid and oft-promoted lackey.”

The experience of working in the dot-com culture had an impact on this group's view of the need to “pay dues” before moving to positions of leadership.  During the economic boom, they had moved up quickly, usually because their employers were eager to keep them from bolting to other companies by offering higher salaries, more stock options, management opportunities, education credits, “casual days,” and prime offices.  When the bubble burst, and the job market tightened, many went back to the concept of dues paying, either by going to graduate school, taking a lower-level job in a different line of work — usually one they were contemplating before the temptations of the dot-com world appeared — or staying with the same company but swallowing a startling pay-cut. 

Though generally good-natured about the comedown, this group expresses frustration at having to jump through traditional hoops in order to rise through the ranks of a profession.  They do not feel a need to spend years learning what they already know or developing skills they already possess simply because they have not spent the requisite number of years at a certain level within the company or industry.  And yet, while proposing a meritocracy as a solution, members of this generation still do feel there are worthwhile aspects to rising through the ranks: “If you haven't worked your way up, you don't get respect from those who work for you — especially if you're young.”  Furthermore, there is a strong sense that working their way up teaches them the importance of those who do all of the jobs that make theirs possible: “The best supervisor I've had was in his tenth year with the organization.  He had held my position years before and was incredibly conscientious about making sure I wasn't getting dumped on or overloaded and that I had opportunities to develop professionally.” 

In spite of their acknowledgment that the traditional dues-paying system may provide some benefits, several glaring exceptions to the system leave many of them unconvinced of the system's merit.  One such exception is the music recording industry in which people can work hard for years and not “make it,” only to watch others who have devoted fewer years to their music get discovered and shoot up the charts.  Additionally, nepotism and “connections” that allow people to attain positions above those of others with similar experiences and educations was often mentioned as throwing a hypocritical shadow over the system: “I'd be more content spending my years in the trenches if everyone my age was down there with me.  Instead, you look up one day and see a new college grad whose best friend's uncle is on the organization's board moving into the window office.”

For many in this generation, their weathering of the economic bumps is further complicated by a desire to find a way to follow the mantra: “find your passion, and all else will follow.” They expressed gratitude for, but growing disillusionment with, this frequently-received parental advice.  Many of those who have followed it have avoided being trapped in a job they find unsatisfying or completing work they disagree with, but this freedom has often been accompanied by the frustration and uncertainty of being jobless or earning far less than some peers.  As one young engineer observed: “I think this is a common experience among my generation.  Many have worked very hard for their educations and aren't seeing the same financial success as early in life as our parents' generation did.”  They believe this state is temporary and know they have the intellectual and creative resources to find their way eventually, but there is some dismay at discovering the advice is easier to give than to follow.  Still, there is lasting idealism here — a need to “do something great” and a fear of being complacent: “It's just not good enough to show up for work everyday.”

This willingness to move from job to job and the desire to find fulfilling work have led to a different outlook than that shared by members of other generations.  Unlike their parents, whom they see as sticking with an employer for decades in the name of supporting a family, many 25-39 year-olds take more of a “cost-benefit” approach to a job — evaluating whether what they're giving to a job outweighs what they're getting from it every six months or so.  As part of this approach, they draw sharp distinctions between loyalty to a profession, such as teaching or medicine, and loyalty to a particular employer.  Loyalty to an employer is dependent on how they're treated—whether they're given constructive feedback on their work, a chance to move up based on merit, and deserved respect.

Much of this feeling stems from the degree of loyalty exhibited by their employers:

I was laid off a few years ago from a company I gave a lot of effort to with the expectation that it would be reciprocated, but it wasn't— understandably—because it was strictly a financial decision. I need to commit as much as I can to my employer, but that goes as far as I see it coming back, so it's short term.

The degree of loyalty this group feels toward its employers is colored by their experience that they could be escorted out of the building at any time—with only a pink slip in hand—regardless of job performance. In spite of this shift, there is guarded optimism that in the future companies will again value individual employees: 

A lot of companies are starting to look carefully at their value judgments and decision-making processes.  We're going to see an increased focus on loyalty and building relationships.  I aspire to start my own company and that kind of relationship is one of the primary tenets I'll focus on because of my own experience.

Finally, members of this generation expressed some dismay at the challenges they're facing in building a career and maintaining balance in their lives, especially as compared to those faced by older generations: 

People today work much, much harder, much longer hours, and it's more stressful and expensive than it was 30 years ago.  Although, I think the older generation doesn't think we work as hard, that we're a little lazy. 

40-61 Years
This large generation at the heart of today's workforce grew up amidst the ferment of the 60s and 70s and matured in the yuppiedom of the 80s.  Many of those within it are engaged in reconciling the need to provide security for their families and themselves with their desire to maintain the power to shape their worlds, a power first experienced in youthful protests affecting the course of the Vietnam War, and the civil rights and women's movements. It was a power magnified by the demographics of the population bulge they constituted. Recognizing the relationship between public policy and personal experience, the more committed among them continue to work for the causes in which they believe.  Often these include equality of opportunity and the protection of the environment.

Worries about the current state of the economy are an unexpected and unwelcome glitch as they plan for daily expenses and try to save for their own future and their children's education.

There was that point in the 90s when there was so much wealth accumulated, yet we had so little interest in shoring things up like public programs and education for the future. Where did it all go?

For many, having children who use community services has made them all the more aware of the losses. They note that the 90s were only good for a segment of the population and that middle class income and wages have dropped. 

All these layoffs and cutbacks and people working more hours for the same amount of money---I don't know anyone who doesn't spend at the level of their income. The top is sucking off more and more; they can do this by keeping the income of others low.  Then everyone feels the pinch, wants a cut in taxes, and there goes education and roads and parks and libraries.

For those with children, there are the costs of education looming in the ever closer future.  Attractive options are few. “Kids get horrendous loans to get through. Then they're sort of indentured when they get out.”  They worry that if this keeps up, just the elite will be going to college.  Free rides are harder to find as the money dries up.  “With the market going down, the schools can't afford them anymore.” 

They have faith that as long as students feel they can make it up in future earnings, they'll take out loans to go to school.  But they worry that the need to repay the loans moves capable and dedicated young people away from careers in teaching or public service or other careers that directly benefit society into jobs that will give them the biggest bucks. “How do you pay for a medical education and go into private practice in a small town?”

This concern connects with their frustration regarding inequities in pay and the lack of any relationship between salary and value to society.  “It's a problem that our worth is determined by how much we're paid. We should rebalance that.”

Believing that they paid their dues, they are quick to see the value for those coming after them to pay too.

Our interns on the obstetric service now are taking call just once a week. As a result they'll be delayed in their maturation in the field.  And it's unrealistic training for the life of an obstetrician. When I was in that position, I minded not having much free time, but I was engaged enough while I was working that it was alright.  Paying dues gives you experience and helps you understand the steps in a process.   It may be hard to accept that you have to work whether it's staying up all night or pushing the broom in the office—but you have to learn to do whatever it takes to get the job done.

They described the “secret of life” as figuring out what you want to do and then finding someone who will pay you to do it.  They would prefer that the job also be useful to society.  “I'm a cook. I enjoy my work, and I like the satisfaction of knowing when I get my paycheck that I made it and I can spend it.  I want to go to work and make a difference in someone's life.”

It was generally acknowledged that the best solution for this activist group is either a job that provides a social good or one that allows time to be involved in such useful activities.  Some are willing to organize their lives to make this kind of contribution possible.

My background's in geology, and I made a pretty big career change a few years ago.  When I first got out of school I had multiple offers to look for oil and live in Texas , which I did for eight years, but I realized I didn't want to be in an extractive industry; I wanted to do something more positive.  Now I manage a group of geologists in environmental consulting.

That's a choice.  You could have had one of those big old houses in Dallas —worked for a major oil company.

Well, that's exactly why we left.  Houston was the epitome of the materialistic society of the 80s, although we had a close knit group of progressive and vocal friends. And I sort of wore two hats: I actually worked for Exxon,  but at the same time I was president of the Houston Sierra Club.

Nowhere are new norms adapted to individual needs more prevalent in this group than in defining a division of labor between work and the care of children. Solutions run the gamut from full-time moms and/or dads to home offices, to part-time arrangements, to full-time nannies and daycare. For single parents especially, the latter is a necessary solution. But for two-parent households, more often than not, it is still the woman who is the primary caregiver as it is still the man who is the primary “breadwinner.”

No matter what the division of labor, many of the comments expressed a working partnership and an appreciation for each other's roles.  From an attorney with children from ages 8 to 18 we heard: “I can stay home, for which I am eternally grateful. He has given me and the kids something irreplaceable, a real basic value.”  And from a female certified public accountant with children from ages 6 to 12: “I work out of my home which gives me the flexibility to be there when I need to be. I've probably sacrificed a lot of income, but I've never thought twice about going back to the corporate world because what I have is very precious, and I always feel very fortunate that I'm able to do this.  When you're younger, I don't know if  that's what you consider when you're thinking about a career, ‘maybe in ten years I'll have a family,' but it's actually turned out to be a very workable thing for us.”

Finally, this group expressed frustration that time constraints are ironically only made worse by today's technology.  “Phone calls, faxes, email—it comes from all directions and never ends.”  Rather than being a tool for better communication in the office, email “too often forces immediate decisions.” There is “no time to think, discuss, figure out what the best course of action may be.  It's just ‘Give me an answer, now!'” 

62+ Years
Those who are easing out of or who have left the workforce believe that gray is a good color for hair, and that no one really goes to the gym for fun. One member of  this generation always answers the phone with “I'm here.”  In a sense, she speaks for many in this group, which places a high premium on responsibility and thoughtfulness. Having been stirred by the eloquence of  JFK and the euphoria of placing a man on the moon, they recall the power of inspirational leadership to move people beyond themselves. They have found that much in life is attitude and, in spite of understanding the realities, they choose to remain hopeful.

The downturn in the economy has struck this generation in the form of early retirement (When companies speak of downsizing by attrition, they are primarily referring to this group.) and in the shrinking value of their retirement funds and the knowledge that they don't have the time to grow those funds again. They compare the nineties to a previous great rise in the twenties when the stock market also seemed a vehicle with minimal risk—only going up. Then subsequent to the crash, there was a great downturn when people considered it too risky.

Though the parental voices from the Depression “If you can't afford to lose it, don't put it in the stock market,”  kept some from investing too heavily, others were swept along on the rising tide of expectation and “get rich quick” psychology, which at times seemed overwhelming. “It affected the formation of new companies and infected the way companies were governed, promoted market orientation and short term quarterly earnings.” The dramatic increase in wealth of a few made those who weren't participating feel they were missing out. 

Those in the corporate world noted that the ethic had changed from the quality of the work to “How can we make money?” Some attributed this change largely to a change in upper management. They saw a change in the leadership of organizations from engineers, people who had participated in the development of the product, being replaced by lawyers and consultants,  “people separate from the product and focused on the laws, how to get around the laws, how to deal with regulations, how to change the way earnings were portrayed.”

Some had little sympathy for those who had played this game and lost, which they attributed  to an America that doesn't read about the cycles of history. They noted that it has only been in the last 20-25 years when people outside of large institutions and mutual funds thought of investing in the market as a way of significantly increasing wealth. “And people sit here better off than most people in the world, complaining about losing money.  They never had the money. It was simply a number that grew on a piece of paper.  It's all a fantasy.”

They advise restraint. “You can't react to every crisis on the evening news.  You've got to take the long view.  Ten percent up or down is a meaningless number. People go nuts about a point and a half. It will more or less come back again; it just won't repeat what we had for the last 10 or 12 years. Just like the volcano is going to blow up from time to time, the markets are going to go down and up.” And they are somewhat philosophical. “Maybe this needed to happen to remind us again that you don't get self-confident about getting something for nothing.”

But they are deeply concerned about the cumulative effects on the national self-confidence of the falling market in combination with 9/11, widespread dishonesty, and the betrayal of trust by those in charge of every aspect of life. This concern is combined with a worry about the growing disparity of wealth between the top 1 percent and everyone else.  “CEOs get 500 times what workers get today.  In the 80s it was around 40 times.  Now that the inequities and the sham are so obvious, you'd think young people would be reacting the way they did in the 60s.”

“No, our kids are starting with a better sense of security than we ever had.  They have a start in life that is much better than I could ever have hoped for in terms of having a huge array of options open to them, being able to do what they want to do. They don't have the constraints of military service in front of them. Where they go from here is up to them.”

Loyalty to job and employer was valued at the beginning of the careers of many in this group.  And it lasted as long as one was working for oneself or the goals of employee and employer were perceived to be congruent.  But more often than not, this group felt that does not seem to be the case anymore.  As law firms, corporations, universities and HMOs increase in size, the opportunity for independent entrepreneurship seems to have decreased considerably. There is resentment about becoming a “money-making machine” for the purely business goals of administrators in these larger enterprises.  “I am not willing to sell my soul for the institution.” As a result, there is a lot of early retirement.

The concept of dues paying, with all its advantages at both ends, seems to be fading fast. This group sees that as a loss. “The ‘scut,' the drudgery, is part of the whole picture.  ‘You've got to mix the mortar before you lay bricks,'” says one contractor. They note there is a lot less willingness to do it now and believe that's too bad.  “Not only did it give us an understanding of the process, it gave us an appreciation for the people who do those jobs day in and day out.”  And they feel the burden of being caught in the middle. “We did the scut for those older than we are, and now we're asked to do it for those younger.  They call it ‘lifestyle,' but more often than not, we pick up the slack.”

To this group, the discussion of dues paying leads naturally into unfair allocations of work in general. “It's great if you can swing a better schedule, spend more time with your family, take a longer vacation, but not if the work just moves to someone else's desk.  The amount of work doesn't change, and it still has to get done.”

In spite of their children's view that they have spent 30 years tied to the desk, those in this group like those in the others, primarily saw the role of a job in life as satisfaction and a sense of fulfillment.  “It's nice to feel good about what you're doing.  A little kid who has learned to read, a business problem that is solved, a family that feels better because their mom or dad feels better—it's always cool.”

They are aware of the gulf that exists between themselves and their children in computer literacy.  Expressions varied between admiration for the skills of the 25-39 year olds and frustration that it is an area beyond their ability to master, though many are in there trying.  Their grandchildren seem to appreciate their efforts. As one woman in her early 30s noted, “My grandfather really has remained open to change.  At 75 he's on the internet, sends me email all the time, gets on websites. He's accepted change gracefully. I think that's a beacon. To embrace the changes you like and try to change what you don't.”

Still, this group also notices with some aggravation the technology induced intrusion of work into every nook and cranny of their lives, and there is considerable resistance to succumbing.  Some shut off their cell phones when they leave work. Others have been known to ignore their email for weeks.  One recalls that in the story entitled “ Harrison Bergeron” Kurt Vonnegut created a state which provided equality for its citizens by handicapping all of them according to their gifts.  The most gifted of all was Bergeron, whose handicap, doled out by the “handicapper general,” was a buzzer implanted in his ears set to go off as soon as it detected that a coherent thought might be forming. They note that cell phones, pagers and email seem to perform much the same function. 

In terms of the role of their jobs in their lives and the balance with other aspects of life, this group presents a far more complex picture than is usually portrayed. Though many of the men in the group might describe their role as providing financially for their families first and many of the women would say that their role was raising the children and providing a home, these descriptions are far too simplistic and static to sum up a system that was often based on a partnership that provided for a division of labor capable of changing through time. 

Thus, though many of the men might say as some did “Marriage requires putting off immediate gratification or even giving up gratification. I might want to pursue my art or explore Antarctica , but marriage says ‘No, I have to make a living for my family. I have to take care of my wife, take care of my children, so I do what I do.'” still, many do pursue their art and their travel on sabbaticals and/or in retirement. And as some women might say, as many did, that “raising our children was the most rewarding experience of my life,” many spent the 20 years after childraising, building parks, town squares, libraries, schools, and hospitals through their volunteer work, while others went back to school or resumed the working life they had begun before children as teachers, accountants, judges, or any one of a number of other professions.

Though this generation generally acknowledged that “it is a very, very lucky person who can be fulfilled in what he or she wants to do and have a family at the same time,”  there were many votes in favor of the serial life. “I don't think you can have it all at once, but you can have it over a lifetime.”                                 
QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ

If you wish to participate in these discussions, either with friends and family or through comments submitted to us at info@open-spaces.com , the entire list of questions used in the Open Spaces discussion groups is printed below.

1.  Has your understanding of the world changed through the years? If so, how?
            a. Do you feel basically optimistic or pessimistic about the future—the world's, the country's or your own?  Has your view of human nature changed? 
    If yes, how?

2.  Do you feel we are going in the right direction locally? nationally? globally?
  If we're not, whose fault is it? How can one person make a difference?

3.  Has the economic situation affected your view of the future?

4.  What is the role of your job in your life? What degree of independence does it afford         you?   
          a. Is creativity important? What degree of loyalty, if any, do you feel to your
    profession?  employer? employee(s)?
            b. Do you believe it is important to “pay your dues”?

5.  Are you satisfied with your balance of school/personal life/social life/public
    service/family life, etc.? Do you think it is possible to “have it all”?  What is “all”?
 

6.  How important are your immediate surroundings at home? At work?

7.  Under what circumstances is your safety or the safety of those you love a concern?

8.  How would you characterize the generations older and younger than your own? 
    How would you characterize your own generation?
            a.  Is there anything all the generations now living have in common other than Star         Wars ?
            b.  Do you think there are differences in the way the generations express themselves? 
            c.  How would you describe your
    relationship with your parents, children, grandchildren, siblings, extended family, friends?  How would you change any of these relationships
            d.  Who owns “cool” ?
 
9.  How do you feel about the idea of marriage? Is there an ideal age? What do
    you expect from marriage/your life partner?

10. What do you consider the most important values you would like to communicate to your children or to others?
 
11. What is your definition of success?

12. What makes you smile?

14. How close is your life now to what you thought it would be when you were
    growing up?
          a. To what degree do you think you have control over the unfolding of your life?

15. How would you like your epitaph to read or how would you like to be remembered?

    Copyright Open Spaces 2008