Psychologist Erich Fromm said that economics as the essence of life was not acceptable, given that the former is governed by principles of infinite growth, while the latter has the concept of "finite" as something inherent and unalterable. Something similar is happening with the generations that will succeed us in a world of continuous technological and digital disruption, those pockets of the population we call Generation Y, or millennials, and Generation Z, or digital natives. We deal with these population groups from the perspective of a coherent, closed world, where things happen in a continuous present that explains causes and consequences; but we leave them with an environment where almost nothing seems certain, which forces them to continually adopt new positions and which, in order to function effectively, imposes risks of social fracture.
It is no coincidence that these generations are also known as the "disruption generations," precisely one of the most popular terms in today's business environment: "disruption," understood not as a halt in production, but as a continuous need to reinvent oneself in a highly competitive environment without traditional rules to hold on to. In this sense, Deloitte's Global Millennial Report, the 2019 edition of which was recently published, is a reality check on the immediate future of the economy and society. It is a document that objectively and coldly holds up a mirror to how young people born after 1985 are facing the present and the future that lies ahead.
And the first headline-grabbing statistic is not encouraging: they are increasingly pessimistic and distrustful of both their careers and the world around them. This is not complacency or a lack of ambition, but rather an acclimatization to the reality of "disruption," which drives economic growth and opportunities but also produces a huge lack of direction.Millennials and digital natives seek their "safe havens," as the report calls them, while establishing their own models of disruption to survive in their familiar environment.
Sinking expectations
It is not surprising that this is the headline when, according to the responses of those surveyed (13,416 millennials in 42 countries and 3,009 digital natives in 10 countries), economic and sociopolitical optimism is at an all-time low. There is less faith than ever in traditional social institutions, including the media, and there is an overdose of pessimism when it comes to social progress. One in four (26%of millennials, 24% of Generation Z) have no confidence in business leaders, and the figure is even higher when asked about the media (27%, 30%), political leaders (45%, 41%), or religious leaders (45%, 49%).
Added to this is the collapse of expectations for the immediate future: only one in four (26%) believe that the economy will improve in a year, representing a drastic decrease from the same response in previous editions (45% in 2017 and 2018). Faith in an improved socio-political environment has also declined in recent years, from 36% in 2017 to 33% in 2018, and finally to 22% in 2019. Even the positive impact of business on society is being called into question: two years ago, three out of four respondents (76%) believed this to be the case; a year ago, the figure was six out of ten (61%); and this year, it has fallen to eleven out of twenty (55%). Expectations are falling, and for the moment, there is no sign of this slowing down.
"Why are these younger generations filled with mistrust rather than optimism?" asks the consulting firm's executive summary, venturing an answer: "Perhaps it is because they are perpetually caught in the crossfire of social, political, and economic upheaval." In turn, it identifies the economic recession of the late 2000s as the main factor influencing responses, even today. It was a turbulent and interesting time to study the patterns of both segments of the population, as "at one end of the spectrum are older millennials who entered the labor market as the crisis unfolded," while "at the other end are Gen Zers, many of whom have spent half their lives in a post-crisis world."
The impact is therefore greater on themillennial generation, who entered the labor market in the midst of a recession or during the years of slow growth that followed. As a result, they experienced less economic growth in their first decade of work than any other generation, with lower real incomes and fewer assets than previous generations at similar ages, along with higher levels of debt. However, the effect was not a one-off for that generation, but cumulative because it altered "a wide range of financial decisions," which have an impact on the generation immediately following.
Unlike the postwar 1950s, which were characterized by international cooperation, a baby boom, and economic expansion, the last decade was marked by a sharp increase in economic inequality, a reduction in social safety nets, dysfunctional governments, an increase in tribalism fueled by social media, radical changes in the contract between employers and employees, Industry 4.0 technologies that are redefining the workplace, and personal technologies that make people more connected and more isolated," the report explains.
Myths debunked
Speaking of social media, the macro survey also serves to debunk some myths we may have about young people and their "addiction" to apps on their devices. In almost identical percentages, the majority agree that reducing their social media activity would be beneficial to their psychological health, admit that it does more harm than good, and that they would be happier if they reduced the time they spend onsocial media. In fact, a significant 40% agree that they "would like to stop using social media altogether."
Should we then think of two lost generations? No, because alongside this data, young people also provide valuable clues as to how society's institutions can respond in mutually beneficial ways that could increase trust, generate a positive social impact, and meet their high expectations. It is "only" a matter of aligning priorities with the main concerns of those who will occupy the main centers of command and decision-making in a few decades. And what is the number one priority? Corporate profits, perhaps, as might be attributed to a generation that, out of ignorance, could be labeled as selfish? Becoming aninfluencer as a symptom of a hedonistic and hyper-consumerist generation? Well, no: the main concern of our young people is environmental degradation and natural disasters.
Secondly, inequality and wealth distribution are global concerns, which also clashes with the preconceived notion of a carefree youth, although by population segment this concern falls to fourth place in the case of Gen Z, who place a striking item in second place: terrorism. In fifth place for both groups, there is also a striking difference in criteria: for millennials, corruption in business and politics is a concern, which is not mentioned among the top seven by digital natives; the latter, on the other hand, mention diversity, equal opportunities, and discrimination based on personal characteristics as a critical factor, which their "older siblings" do not mention.
On the other hand, even though they feel that circumstances are not in their favor, they are just as ambitious as previous generations: more than half want to earn high salaries and be rich. But their priorities have evolved or been delayed, as having children, buying houses, and other traditional "markers of success" in adulthood are not on their list of ambitions. Traveling and seeing the world are, accounting for 57% of stated aspirations, among which we find some unexpected "ambitions" such as having a positive impact on their communities or society in general (46%). Owning a home (49%) or starting a family (39%) remain prominent ambitions, but are trending downward.
Prosumers: consumers and productive force
These behaviors should be taken into consideration, especially by companies that want to build bridges with these generations. Points to pay (close) attention to: 38% would stop doing business with companies whose products or services are harmful to the environment, and almost the same number (37%) would do so because of questionable business ethics. These are generations that do not tolerate "slips": three out of ten (31%) would stop buying from companies that do not take care of their personal data, and a similar proportion (29%) would cut ties with a company based on the behavior or statements of its executives.
Not only as consumers, but also as workers, they are particularly vigilant: six out of ten (59%) would stop working within two years for a company that did not prioritize having a positive impact on local communities, and the percentage would skyrocket to almost all (74%) within five years. Other elements that employers need to take into account are: promoting a stimulating work environment (54% would leave within two years if this is not provided, 73% within five years), offering flexible working hours (56%, 68%), supporting work-life balance (56%, 71%), promoting diversity and inclusion (63%, 75%), and encouraging personal development through training andmentoring (55%, 71%).
We are facing a "disrupted" generation, according to the term chosen by the consulting firm. But not a lost generation. Just one (or two, to be exact) that is wary of the world it inherits, that demands the construction of its own social and economic disruptions, and that we have an obligation to understand if we want to use it not only as a market, but above all to enjoy its future leadership.
Photo byAustin DistelonUnsplash
