Peter O’Neill put up an interesting post on the Acronym blog yesterday, making reference to some generational issues. The gist of his post was that although Gen X and Y are talking about wanting more work/life balance, Peter doesn’t see a way around working long hours in order to be successful.
I commented on the post, pointing out that there is a difference between “balance” and “working less.” The quest for balance does not necessarily mean fewer hours, it just means they are more flexibly applied (before carpool, after soccer practice, etc.). I also pointed out that when Gen X and Y started making vocal demands for balance, they were still young, not yet in middle management. At that point in their careers, they are less likely to NEED to work the long hours.
And this is actually the biggest point here. The older members of Generation X now range in age from their late thirties to their mid-forties. Yes, we’re hitting midlife. And crises aside, this is important because this is really the most powerful stage of life. This is where we get responsibility and authority. This is where we get positions of leadership. For a generation that has been in the shadow of the Boomers, it will be interesting to see what happens as we move through the life stage that is, ostensibly, the most powerful.
I think Peter’s observation is getting at this. It’s time to refine, a little, what it is to be Generation X. And I am starting to see more stories, like the story in HBR that Peter was talking about, that are now taking a closer look at what is often defined as “Gen X” issues (like flexible benefits, or work/life balance). I am interested to see if the generational tendencies are now going to show up as “new answers” to traditional workplace issues.
Yeah, flexibility is key. With laptops and wireless connections there's really no reason to spend 10 straight hours in an office staring at a computer. That time is never spent 100% efficiently anyway.
Posted by: Fred Simmons | December 06, 2006 at 12:41 PM