Under One Roof: Leading a Generation Inclusive Workforce

With four generations currently in the workforce, the Singapore Public Service is at its most generationally diverse since 2021. Generations X and Y constitute nearly 75% of the Public Service, with Baby Boomers and Generation Z making up the rest, in almost equal parts.¹

This situation is hardly unique. Some organisations in Singapore and across the globe may even have up to six generations working concurrently. Members of the Silent Generation—who are octogenarians today—may be serving in advisory or leadership roles, while early Generation Alpha members may be starting their internships.

The challenge for Public Service leaders is how to engage and include the different views that a multi-generational workforce may have about what is work, how we work, and why we work, while leading their constituents towards organisation purpose & outcomes.

We are Different, But Less Different than We Think

ILOD’s research have found that, in general, employees of the older generations tend to be more used to hierarchy, more respectful of authority, and more inclined towards traditional achievement values (e.g. ‘work hard and make steady progress’).²

Those of the younger generations tend to have more consideration for individual needs and well-being. In addition, they can be more assertive, more willing to challenge authority and emphasise different achievement values: such as autonomy, independence, speed and creativity.³

These differences in worldviews, values and approaches to communication and to tasks tend to be more salient for those generations that are farther apart — and could lead to conflicts over work issues. Such conflicts may give rise to feelings of distrust and a lack of social integration within a work team, as well as emotional and interpersonal conflicts^4,5 that are often accompanied by difficult and infrequent communications within work teams.⁵

Among public officers, regardless of generation, experiencing a sense of competence and performing impactful work are the two most important conditions for meaningful work.

However, the generations are less different than we think. For instance, among public officers, regardless of generation, experiencing a sense of competence and performing impactful work are regarded as the two most important conditions for meaningful work.⁷ Some other research have similarly found that the generational differences widely reported in popular press may be weak or inconsistent.⁸

Creating Healthy Differences that Matter

Healthy differences provide the energy to find creative solutions in our lives. In any given situation, each person brings their unique combination of perspectives, skills, knowledge and understanding to bear. When we work together, we contribute our differences to make a difference at work.

There may well be significant differences that characterise the different generations. But the issue is not that differences exist. It is what we believe about these differences that can hold us back from finding a way forward. When we are interacting with people we are unfamiliar with, we are more likely to rely on stereotypes and biases. One HBR study⁹ suggests that our workplaces are full of age-related stereotypes¹⁰ and that these are not always accurate nor aligned to actual differences. For instance, we may believe that the younger officers are ‘the strawberry generation’ and cannot withstand the slightest bit of hardship at work, and we are then cognitively biased to seek evidence that confirms our thinking. We may also believe that the older generation will not be open to using more technology in their work as ‘we cannot teach an old dog new tricks’. The stories we make up about each other creates ‘interpersonal mush’¹¹ and prevent us from having learning conversations about one another that could address the differences that really matter to us, or even harness these differences for collective benefit.

The issue is not that differences exist. It is what we believe about these differences that can hold us back from finding a way forward.

How then might we constructively approach multigenerational differences in our workplace?

Step 1: Reduce Polarisation

A key step is to stop perpetuating behaviours, narratives and language¹² that polarise us. We must remember not to stereotype individuals that we interact with, based on these typical generational differences. Instead, we recognise people as the unique individuals they are.

This is difficult because as humans, we are invariably prone to being emotionally triggered by certain differences and situations. Learning how to park our reactions and regulate our negative emotions when triggered by these differences can further support us as we move towards more helpful learning conversations.

This is why self-awareness and self-work of leaders remain a cornerstone of ILOD’s support¹³ for all levels of public service leaders. Modelling openness and standing in learning curiosity goes a long way to create generative-inclusive spaces in teams and organisations.

But besides influencing intra-personal conditions to reduce polarising responses, senior leaders can further reduce stereotypes by influencing organisation narratives.

Step 2: Sense-giving to Influence Sense-making of Differences

Because stereotypes are socially and psychologically constructed, one way to reduce organisational stereotypes is to encourage more and better sensemaking and sense-giving interactions within the organisation.

Our world needs to make sense to us, and we are constantly attempting to make sense of our world by interpreting and explaining environmental cues.¹⁴ Organisation sensemaking occurs when employees attempt to construct an interpretation of organisation reality.¹⁵ Leaders can influence organisation sensemaking through the process of sense-giving, where they articulate an understandable and tolerable narrative of the organisation reality.¹⁶ Through sense-giving, leaders can frame how others think about what is happening, and so, allay people’s concerns, provide a suitable amount of discomfort to catalyse change, or to spur others to act in support of systems change.^17,18 Sense-giving, done well, can rally everyone around a core purpose.

Varying sensemaking and sense-giving processes and efforts can lead to different sensemaking outcomes.¹⁹ And yet, stakeholders and leaders do not always engage in sense-giving even around issues that matter to them.^20,21

Thankfully, within the Public Service, ILOD observes more agencies are holding conversations amongst and between leaders, managers and staff. These are wonderful opportunities to nudge your complex organisation system to socially reconstruct a common language and behaviour of inclusivity.

However, few have seized these opportunities to spotlight the patterns of differences and similarities across the generations, as the urgent businesses of the day often take precedence in group conversations. Nevertheless, some organisations have productively broached generational inclusivity as part of their discussions of organisational culture and values.

Sensemaking/Sensegiving in a Public Service Organisation

An organisation which ILOD supported, realised that one of the reasons for their young officer attrition and lower employee engagement could be due to how different generations view growth and development approaches.

Among the many interventions the organisation developed, one was to co-create a social compact for the organisation. This was conducted through multiple grounds-up conversations.

Because of the extraordinary efforts to address the deep employee engagement issues in the organisation, older officers and leaders started to feel that the organisation was “pandering” to the needs of the younger generation. But in launching the process, the senior leaders framed the exercise not as a compact to address only the needs of the younger generation, but the aspirations for all generations.

This sense-giving process then paved the way for fruitful conversations for all voices to debate and find the values that are truly meaningful and can be practised daily in their organisation life.

Step 3: Find & Leverage Common Ground

The next step to finding common ground across generational differences is akin to finding similarities across any difference in complex human systems.

Leveraging on the Human System Dynamics approach of pattern spotting and pattern shifting, we can explore common ground by inquiring about 3 key levers in this complexity:

1. What differences among our generations will make a positive influence on our teams & organisations?

2. What similarities among our generations do we want to enhance?

3. What exchanges between our leaders, managers and staff might we want to encourage so that all may grow in an organisation?

For instance, at one of ILOD’s monthly Institute-wide meetings, we intentionally grouped our colleagues by their respective generations and posed questions about their defining memories on a range of issues — schools, games, national day songs, buildings and bosses. We then explored what bosses and teams had taught us about a deep value we hold at work and leadership.

This was the first step in helping us to name the differences in work values among generations, in a fun and also personal way. As we saw our different sketches on the flipcharts and heard our different stories of growing up, we also started to better appreciate the rich lives that each of us have led.

After the differences were highlighted, we started to explore the similarities across the generations. We could identify many similar patterns in our growing up years and work life. For ILODians, doing deep impactful work in leadership and organisation health was one such unifying call.

To leverage on these rich insights, a team might then try to nurture the necessary exchanges to address issues that could be caused by generational differences. This is where participants might regroup into their work teams to discuss how difference in worldviews might have led to underlying frictions at work.

If a team grouping is not a sufficiently psychologically safe container for individuals to share, another way of re-grouping is by designation (junior staff, managers and heads/leaders). This can create more common ground in groups so that differences can be aired in the spirit of exploring options. At the end of the session, teams could round up and discuss the ideas they would like to experiment that will fit their team context.

Taking such steps, an organisation might begin their journey to build bridges across the generations.

After the Conversations, Then What?

Leading a generational-inclusive organisation calls leaders to not just manage the either/or differences of the old or young, but to leverage on their both/and strengths and perspectives. Both/And Thinking, also known as Polarity Thinking, can be one way to address seeming paradoxes, and explore practical ways through both equally valid perspectives.

In ILOD’s teaming and leadership workshops, we often explore interdependent pairs occurring in selves and teams, such as performance and rest; visionary and grounded; empowerment and governance. By leveraging on the benefits of interdependent pairs, and early detection of respective downsides , teams and leaders can create action steps that harness both perspectives towards the higher goals of their organisation.

For there to be coherence in generational-inclusive organisational strategy, we further suggest paying attention to four key organisation dimensions: Systems & Processes, Structures, Culture, Leadership & People.²³ Our preliminary suggestions above work in all the four dimensions: your leadership collective can generate more ideas to bring your people together, in ways that fit your contexts.

Managing four generations under one roof — whether at home or in an organisation — is going to be a challenge. Everyone wants their own space, each person wishes to lead their own life and follow their own aspirations. Making it work takes more than just opening more physical spaces so that we can stay out of one another’s way. It requires us to open up the spaces in hearts and minds, so that we can all flourish together.

Human System Dynamics, Sense-giving, Sense-making, Clear Leadership, Polarity Management, 4 Change Frames are some of ILOD’s approaches and methods in OD consultancies to help our agencies be healthy and performing. For details on these approaches and interest in consultancies, please contact ILOD at cscollege_ilod_consultancy@cscollege.gov.sg.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Kok Sheu Sum is Senior Principal Consultant (Organisation Development) in the Institute of Leadership & Organisation Development (ILOD), Civil Service College, Singapore. Together with the ILOD’s team of OD consultants, Sheu Sum supports the learning and development of Singapore public servants, ministries and agencies, through the consulting and teaching of best OD practices.

Khoo Ee Wan is Principal Researcher and leads the Data and Research Team in ILOD, where she conducts research studies that generate actionable insights to inform talent assessment, leadership development and organisation development.

NOTES

1. ILOD’s estimates based on profile of respondents to 2023 Employee Engagement Survey. Gen X: 38%, Gen Y: 36%, Boomers:14%, Gen Z: 12%

2. Goh, H. T., & Hennessey, J. (2011): Generations and Leadership. Singapore: Civil Service College

3. Ibid

4. Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organisations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1199–1228. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.26586096

5. O’Reilly III, C. A., Caldwell, D. F., & Barnett, W. P. (1989). Work Group Demography, Social Integration, and Turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392984

6. Joseph, R. D. (2014). Age Diversity and its Impact on Employee Performance in Singapore. International Journal of Research & Development in Technology and Management Science, 21(5), 79–98.

7. Law, A., & Ong, A. (2024) Understanding Generations in the Singapore Public Service [Powerpoint Slides]. Singapore: Civil Service College.

8. Stiglbauer, B., Penz, M., & Batinic, B. (2022). Work values across generations: Development of the New Work Values Scale (NWVS) and examination of generational differences. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1028072

9. King, E.; Finkelstein, L.; Thomas, C. (2019) Generational differences at work are small. Thinking they’re big effects our behavior. Harv. Bus. Rev. https://hbr.org/2019/08/generational-differences-at-work-are-small-thinking-theyre-big-affects-our-behavior

10. Bailey, E., and Owens, C. (2020) Unlocking Multigenerational Workplace, Harvard Business.

11. Interpersonal mush is where people are making up stories about each other and acting on them as if they are the truth. This is a concept from the Clear Leadership approach by Gervase Bushe. Bushe, G.R. & O’malley, J. (2013) Changing Organizational Culture Through Clear Leadership. In Carter, L., Sullivan, R., Goldsmith, M., Ulrich, D. & Smallwood, N. (Eds.) The Change Champions Field Guide (2nd Ed (463‐479). NY: Wiley

12. Bailey, E., and Owens, C. (2020) “Ditch These Tired Stereotypes” in Unlocking Multigenerational Workplace, Harvard Business.

13. See ILOD’s Leaders’ Growth Guide https://file.go.gov.sg/lgg.pdf

14. Maitlis, S. (2005) The social processes of organisational sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 48, pp. 21-49.

15. Weick (1995)

16. Ghate, D., Lewis, J. Welbourn, D. (2013) Systems leadership: Exceptional leadership for exceptional times. Nottingham, UK: The Virtual Staff College.

17. Arena, M. J., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2016) Complexity leadership theory: Shifting from human capital to social capital. People + Strategy, 39(2), pp. 22-27.

18. See Note 16

19. Maitlis, S. (2005) The social processes of organisational sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 48, pp. 21-49.

20. Dutton, Ashford, Lawrence & Miner-Rubino (2002)

21. Maitlis, S. (2005) The social processes of organisational sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 48, pp. 21-49.

22. Reference Containers, Differences and Exchanges (CDE) in Human System Dynamics

23. Cheung-Judge, MY and Holbeche, L (2015) Organization Development: A practitioner’s guide for OD and HR, Kogan Page, London.

Back to ETHOS Issue page