We are living through an unprecedented historical phenomenon: the coexistence of six generations. How is this interaction reshaping social and economic relations?
The comparison of expanded generational horizons across society, the economy, and organizations, in a world that is increasingly complex and rapidly changing, makes the ability to achieve collaborative synthesis essential. Added value and competitive advantage lie precisely in the capacity to generate value through relationships and collaboration among people who bring different expectations, languages, and interpretations of reality.
Each generation brings with it a distinct way of seeing the world, shaped by how it grew up and by what it seeks to improve compared with the past. The world forces us to produce progress by enabling interaction among different generations, because each must collaborate and overlap with those who came just before and those who come after.
Where this generational turnover works well, both quantitatively and qualitatively, and fosters positive interaction among different generations, shared added value is created. Where it does not, misunderstandings and conflict emerge.
The issue is more urgent today because the world is more complex, change is faster, and we live longer. As a result, more generations coexist at the same time – and they are more different from one another than ever before.
When, and under what conditions, do these collaborative practices work?
The real issue is generational renewal. Today we are witnessing an unprecedented shift in the numbers: very large cohorts – the Baby Boomers – are being set against much smaller ones – Millennials and Generation Z.
There is also a profound qualitative change. Baby Boomers are the first generation born in the immediate post-war period and they have internalised the ways of the 20th century. Generation Z is the first born in the 21st century and speaks to an entirely new set of demands. Two different centuries are now facing off, albeit with very different demographic weight.
Those carrying the legacy of the 20th century do so from a position of strength and continuity, as they form part of the country’s ruling class. Those bringing the priorities of the 21st century are fewer in number and are navigating a more complex, uncertain landscape.
And yet we live in the 21st century. The priorities of Generation Z – and of those who come after – will have to prevail, even if members of this cohort may face more obstacles before they find the right path.
The competitive edge for social, economic and corporate organisations lies in the ability to create value not only for new generations, but with them – and alongside them, through collaboration across age groups.
How can the barriers to this kind of collaboration be broken down?
We are living through a distinctive moment in history. Until now, we could afford to sideline younger generations, sliding into a demographic and cultural greying. But the cohorts born up to the 1970s are now moving into middle and old age.
You can already see the competition intensifying to attract young talent. The well-trained, high-potential young professional has become the most sought-after resource, and their bargaining power has risen accordingly. They can now say: “If you don’t value me properly, I’ll move to another company – or another country.”
Only the companies able to attract, engage and develop high-calibre young people will remain competitive.
Technology is available to everyone; the competitive edge comes from putting young employees in a position to use new tools to generate real added value.
It is the ability to recognise and develop that human capital in line with ongoing transformations that makes the difference.
Data from reports by various research institutes point to historically low levels of engagement within organisations, high levels of stress, and low trust in leadership. What, in your view, is not working?
Things are not working because those leading companies and organisations are shaped by the 20th century, while those joining them – and looking for ways of working that match today’s change – belong to the 21st. There is a gap that has yet to be bridged.
The real issue is the ability to engage younger generations. If you do not offer that in a credible way, it is hardly surprising they do not feel satisfied.
Can intermediate generations play a bridging role?
In their interaction with younger generations, older cohorts can take on three distinct roles.
The first is rejection, retreating behind the familiar refrain that “this is how it has always been done” and placing the blame for every problem on the young.
The second is the stance of those who, while acknowledging the difficulty of understanding and engaging with younger people, try to create new spaces without truly questioning themselves and, in effect, retaining their own centrality.
The third position, far less common, is taken by those in older generations who genuinely manage to connect with younger cohorts. They recognise the new priorities younger people bring and are able to work with them constructively, questioning their own assumptions and realigning themselves with younger workers’ ways of working and their very idea of work.
Baby Boomers struggle far more to adopt this mindset. Generation X tends to sit closer to the Baby Boomers, while Millennials are better placed to act as a bridge and to converge with the ways and conditions of the 21st century, enabling younger generations to perform at their best.
The problem is that we expect younger generations to operate according to the logic of the past. This means forcing them to adapt to something that no longer exists and in which they cannot recognise themselves, locking them into a state of permanent cognitive dissonance.
This dynamic somewhat resembles a process of coming to terms with loss, moving from denial to acceptance. Is that a metaphor you find appropriate?
Young people go to work bringing their whole selves. That is a radically new development, because in the past employees brought only their skills and accepted a simple trade-off: “You pay me, I do what you tell me.”
That model no longer works. If companies want young people to perform at their best, they need to create the conditions for them to see themselves in what they do. Younger generations give their best when they feel engaged and can identify with their work.
If those conditions are not in place, young people will do the bare minimum and look elsewhere for meaning and stimulation.
In this context, how do you view the rise of side hustles and parallel activities, which are becoming increasingly widespread, at least in the United States?
When what is already in place no longer works, people start exploring alternatives. Experimentation is part of the new trying to find its way. There is also a crucial point: for younger generations, experimenting with themselves is essential. Reality has become so complex that it is no longer possible to know in advance what will work, so the first step is to test oneself in practice.
In the past, people found a job in their twenties and did essentially the same work in the same way for the rest of their lives. Today, everything is in constant redefinition. To keep pace with a changing reality, it is necessary to continually question what one has done, even before it stops working, in order to understand what can be done better tomorrow.
It is a complex reality. Change comes through exploring alternative paths, but experimentation cannot mean abandoning what one has done so far; it has to happen alongside it. From that experimentation, an insight may emerge, an entrepreneurial idea or a passion that initially runs parallel to one’s main activity and may, over time, evolve into something more.
What matters is not leaving young people stuck in place, but offering them opportunities and then systematising and structuring those opportunities so they can make the most of them, rather than leaving everything to improvisation.
This would require effective active labour market policies: expert systems that guide and support choices in a complex, constantly changing world, recognising not only skills, career paths and ongoing activities, but also personal passions.
Is this shortcoming in Italy also linked to the NEET issue, that is, young people who are not in work, education or training?
The NEET problem stems precisely from the failure of these so-called expert systems, which causes many young people to fall through the cracks. Those with fewer skills struggle to find guidance, while those with greater potential are unable to find the right fit.
The process of developing young people is not static. It is not just about helping someone enter the labour market; it is the starting point of a pathway that is constantly evolving. We keep replicating 20th-century models that are no longer fit for purpose.
Are there any positive international examples where these expert systems are working effectively?
There are positive examples. They tend to be contexts where new technologies are combined with a serious commitment to developing young human capital, and where younger generations create new work rather than merely replacing those who retire.
Expecting a 30-year-old to do what a 65-year-old does means falling 35 years behind. Younger generations need to be put in a position to create new work, but that requires investment in research and development, innovation, policies that match supply and demand, and tools that turn ideas into products and services.
Germany is further ahead than we are on these fronts. It has a more effective system for guidance in higher education, entry into the labour market and the attraction of talent. The net balance of qualified young people between Italy and Germany is not in Italy’s favour.
How should we deal with the fact that, today, someone in their sixties may still have a long career ahead of them?
This is an entirely new issue, yet we are still managing it with outdated thinking. People are living longer, and so are levels of wellbeing and cognitive capacity. Cognitive decline tends to begin after around 75. In theory, up to 75, if you remain healthy and active, you can do almost any job that does not require excessive physical or psychological strain.
New technologies can reduce stress and physical effort, which gives us far greater opportunities to stay active for longer. The problem is that we still assume, on the one hand, that a 65-year-old should do the same job they did at 30 and, on the other, that the day after retirement they are no longer capable of doing anything.
A 60-year-old today can work far better than a 60-year-old 30 years ago, but they cannot do what they themselves did at 30. We need to build frameworks that support a long working life, putting the person at the centre and ensuring they have the right conditions to remain productive.
Why are we struggling to take this step forward?
Because even public debates on longevity are framed defensively: “We are ageing, what can we do about it?” They continue to reason within the old system, where anything that is different automatically becomes a problem to be managed, rather than something new that, if handled well, can improve people’s lives. The challenge of a longevity society points in this direction and concerns everyone, not just today’s older generations.
As long as we fail to think in terms of the need for systemic change, we will keep adapting an old model to new problems instead of imagining a different model of social development.
Some reports highlight the strong sense of community and collaboration shown by Generation Z. How do you assess this aspect?
This collaborative trait was already present among Millennials, the so-called “wiki generation”, accustomed to horizontal and collaborative ways of working. It is part of the broader shift of this century.
Younger generations work well in horizontal, collaborative settings, but they want their individual contribution to be recognised and valued. In organisations, if you expect a young person to contribute to a collective outcome without receiving individual feedback on their role, that person quickly becomes demotivated.
It is like in a football team: you play to win together, but your role is recognised, whether you are the goalkeeper or the striker.
Does it make sense to create communities specifically for young people within companies, as some large organisations are already doing for their most talented employees?
We should not create silos. Communities of young people can exist, but they need to be open and engaged with the rest of the organisation. What matters is that they are not exclusive or turned into isolated enclaves.
If they help young people build confidence and gain recognition for their specific characteristics, and then bring those qualities into the wider organisation, everyone benefits. Individual concerns become shared at group level, and people no longer feel alone in pushing change forward.
Should we move away from generational labels, as some international research institutes suggest?
The problem arises when generational labels are overused, as if everyone within the same generation were identical. There is significant diversity within generations, but there are also real differences between them.
People in their twenties today do not experience being twenty in the same way their parents did. Failing to recognise that difference is misleading, because it means ignoring their specific characteristics and missing the opportunity to turn diversity into value.
Labels become problematic when they are reduced to marketing tools or stereotypes, instead of being used to reflect the deeper anthropological changes unfolding through younger generations.
