In response to this BloombergBusiness article: As Boomers Retire, Companies Prepare Millennials for Leadership Roles by Jeff Green.


Once again, the widespread cultural bias against recessive generations and toward dominant generations rears its predictable head.

In this article, the author goes on about the whoa-is-corporate-america problem of losing all the knowledge that Boomers have and needing to transfer it to the new Millennial leaders in their ranks.

At one point, the author talks about how much money companies save in this brain-trust transfer and he writes, “The median tenure of workers age 25-34 is about three years, compared with 10.4 years for workers age 55-64, according to BLS data.”

Does anyone notice how he … just casually … neglects to include data about 35-54 year olds (which one might want to include when one is talking about companies and leadership). And one might want to include data about 35-54 year olds in an article about business because, well, those are kind of prime earning years for many.

But, most people will read this ridiculous article and say, “Yeah, that’s a problem with so many Boomers retiring; good thing those companies are preparing.” The author even concludes his article by saying, “The bottom line: Companies that don’t plan for generational management shifts risk falling behind and losing out to their competitors.”

Except how can we really trust what he writes when he curiously neglects to address the 35-54 year olds, which, if you happen to know anything about generations is well, almost the exact age of today’s GenXers in 2016 (35-55 years old).

Surprised? No, I’m not surprised. This cultural bias against the recessive generations — diminishing them, lessening their impact such as what this author does by neglecting to include BLS data on 34-54 year olds — happens so frequently that people don’t even understand their own bias, or the bias they swallow and thus participate in. And the reverse happens, the over-glorification, the selective choice of data to include about dominant generations is the other half of the story that supports the cultural bias.

I understand that GenXers’ strength lies much in being off the radar, being able to do what needs to be done without the light shining — and certainly without gold stars. And I respect the natural, archetypal cycles of generations: dominant, recessive, dominant, recessive and then back to the beginning for a repeat.

But, really, can we at least get some statistical acknowledgement? Some accuracy in journalism? Don’t do it for the GenXers, of course. Lord knows, we don’t need it. But Society needs the information. Policy planners need the correct perspective. And, for goodness’ sake, for the author’s conclusion to be truly helpful, i.e., “Companies that don’t plan for generational management shifts risk falling behind and losing out to their competitors,” businesses need accurate information.


Dominant and Recessive Generations

per Strauss & Howe
Dominant – prophets (boomers) and heroes (millennials and GI)
Recessive – nomads (genxers) and artists (silent gen and now homelanders)