Thanks to several of the blogoclump members who gave pointers to the Smith Bucklin report on Generations. I imagine that many of us (like me) were pleased to see that it bucked the trend of late and concluded that Generation X are, in fact, joiners after all.
But I encourage everyone to read beyond the executive summary on this one, and, more importantly on ANY publication that addresses generations. When I look closer, I see some troubling aspects of the analysis and the research. Jeff and I are both going to post about this report, since the notion of generational renewal in associations is very important to us. But I want to start by highlighting a critical piece of the analysis in this report.
In their research, they described Generation X as people born between 1965 and 1975. The boomers spanned 1946-64 (18 years). The silent generation lasted 19 years and Generation Y is listed as 1975 or later (31 years!?). But Gen X only gets 10 years? Not only is this illogical, it is inconsistent with what other generational researchers have been saying (although I admit the precise start and end years do vary depending on the author).
There is even a brief piece in January's Association Now magazine that cites a US Postal Service study about generations (surprise: Generation X likes the mail, they conclude!) where Generation X was reduced to 1964-72. Seven years!
I'm not advocating for a specific standard for generation length, but this wide (and bizarre) variety is a real red flag for me when it comes to addressing and researching the issue of generational differences. I'm worried that we are driven by what we want to hear or see or prove and then pile up the data so it fits our expectations.
As I said, Jeff and I will be posting more about the Smith Bucklin report specifically--not simply to challenge its research methodology, but to dig deeper into its conclusions and the implications for associations who want to respond to generational differences.