Insights

The assumption is that people are clashing because they have different values. It’s not a clash of values. It’s a clash of interpretations.  It’s often a different threshold for what constitutes respectful conduct. Same Interaction. Different Interpretation.

Examples

Take this example.  A leader says to an employee: “You need to toughen up. You were a bit emotional. You need to be more composed.” The leader thinks they are helping, drawing on an older norm that direct = helpful. The employee experiences the comment through a new lens of dismissive, undermining and gendered. Same interaction. Different interpretation.

Or consider this example, which appeared in a mediation recently. During an online meeting, an employee didn’t turn their camera on. The Manager: “They are disengaged.” The Employee: “I’m concentrating”. The Manager interprets it as a lack of commitment. The Employee sees it as a personal preference or a way to manage meeting fatigue. Same behaviour. Different interpretation. The conflict isn’t really about the camera; it’s about differing assumptions of what professionalism and engagement look like. Different Generations. Different Workplace Rulebooks.

This is where many organisations go wrong. They immediately start debating who is right. The more useful questions are: Why are these two people experiencing the same interaction so differently? What assumptions is each person bringing into this conversation? The answer is that they have learned different workplace rules. They have been socialised under different workplace contracts and when those collide, friction is inevitable.  One cohort learned: “Respect authority. Don’t make a fuss.” Another learned: “Speak up. Challenge constructively.” A third is being told: “Psychological safety is a right…and a responsibility.”

Many experienced workers entered workplaces where hierarchy was rarely challenged, difficult feedback was delivered bluntly, and concerns were often handled privately. Many younger workers entered workplaces that emphasise psychological safety, speaking up, respectful conduct and understanding the impact of behaviour. They are assessing behaviour through entirely different lenses.

What’s actually changed?

Underneath many intergenerational disputes sit four shifts that are reshaping modern workplaces

1.  People aren’t arguing about values. They’re arguing about meaning. Most people want respectful workplaces. They disagree on what respectful behaviour looks like in practice.

2.  People are no longer judging behaviour solely by intent. They are also judging it by impact. Leaders increasingly need to help people understand not just what they meant, but how their behaviour landed.

3.  Power matters more than it once did. Who said it, and the relationship between the people involved, influences how behaviour is experienced.

4.  Speaking up is increasingly viewed as a responsibility rather than an act of disloyalty.

The Leadership Challenge: Create Clarity.

The risk isn’t that generations think differently.  The risk is that organisations leave those differences unspoken.

Assumptions that once lived unwritten in workplace culture now need to be made explicit. Because the real challenge isn’t getting four generations to think the same way. It’s creating a workplace where people understand the rules, understand each other, and have the skills to work through the gaps when they inevitably appear.

This is why I don’t think the challenge facing leaders is generational conflict. The challenge is creating clarity. Make the implicit explicit. Clarity about respectful behaviour, expectations and how power should be used. Because when organisations fail to define the rules, people default to the ones they grew up with. And that is where conflict begins.

Ready to take the next step? Join me on 18th November in Melbourne CBD for a full-day, in-person training where I’ll show you how to move from awareness into action! This practical and interactive workshop focuses on the tools and strategies for participating respectfully and assertively in difficult conversations.