“Gen Z need constant praise.”
“Boomers resist change.”
“Millennials will leave if they are not promoted fast enough.”
These claims are repeated so often at work that they can feel like facts. But what if the evidence simply does not support them?
In 2024, Daniel Ravid, David Costanza and Madison Romero published one of the most comprehensive examinations of generational differences at work to date in the Journal of Organizational Behavior. Their study brings together a large scale meta analysis of over 150,000 employees, alongside a qualitative review of how generations research is written and interpreted.
The findings challenge many of the assumptions that continue to shape people management decisions.
What does the evidence actually show?
Ravid and colleagues analysed 143 independent samples, examining differences across a wide range of work outcomes, including job satisfaction, engagement, commitment, turnover intentions, work values, work life balance and burnout.
Across most outcomes, the differences between generations were small, inconsistent or non existent. In statistical terms, the effects were typically so modest that they were unlikely to be meaningful in practice.
For example, there was little evidence that generations differ in their core work values, a claim that often sits at the heart of generational narratives. Similarly, the authors found no meaningful differences in work life balance or burnout between generations. Where differences did appear, such as slightly higher engagement or commitment among older workers, these patterns were far more plausibly explained by age, tenure or career stage rather than generational identity itself.
Importantly, the authors also found no evidence that results varied by country. If generations were shaped by distinct social and cultural events, we would expect stronger differences across contexts. That was not the case.
Why do generational stereotypes persist?
One of the most interesting contributions of this paper is its qualitative analysis. Ravid and colleagues examined how researchers discuss their findings and what messages readers are likely to take away.
They found a pattern. Even when studies reported weak or null results, authors often still framed their conclusions in ways that implied generational differences mattered. Null findings were explained away, while practice recommendations were still offered as though generational distinctions were real and actionable.
The result is a literature that subtly reinforces stereotypes, even when the data do not support them.
This matters for inclusion. Age based stereotypes are associated with lower engagement, reduced performance and unfair treatment at work. When leaders rely on generational labels, they risk overlooking the meaningful differences that actually shape behaviour, such as life stage, role demands, personality, experiences and context.
Inclusive leadership asks us to move away from broad generalisations and towards curiosity about the individual in front of us.
Implications for inclusive leadership
This research reinforces a simple but powerful point. Treating people as representatives of a generation is a poor substitute for understanding them as individuals. Inclusive leaders focus on what genuinely drives performance and wellbeing, rather than relying on convenient labels. They design practices that are flexible, responsive and grounded in evidence, not stereotypes. As Ravid and colleagues argue, the future of effective people management lies in better explanations for difference, not louder claims about generations.
If you are interested in evidence based insights like this, you can sign up for Inclusion Insights via Inclusive Leadership Company:
📩 https://inclusiveleadershipcompany.com/insights/
And if you would like to explore how we support organisations to translate research into inclusive leadership practice, you can find out more here:
🌐 https://inclusiveleadershipcompany.com/
You can read the original article here: https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2827
