When abstraction goes wrong...

Reducing complexity by abstraction is one of humans' crucial strengths (and often a necessity). Usually, this leads to a conscious inaccuracy that we can handle by actively zooming in and zooming out to double-check if we missed something while in a more abstract layer and adapt accordingly if necessary. However, for specific topics, these abstractions become “accepted” and “common”, and we tend to “forget” to zoom in again. Thus, we do not recognize that we have omitted crucial details.

This is difficult, sometimes even dangerous, especially when this happens in areas in the field of human beings. Most of the time, we are rationally aware not to put “people into boxes,” but because some abstractions or generalizations are so established and familiar, we use them regularly. Abstractions like:

• concepts of generations
• concepts of generational differences
• typologies without scientific evidence

can lead to flawed behavior toward others or assumptions about others in leadership, recruiting or coaching situations.

Further insights:

• Generations and Generational Differences: Debunking Myths in Organizational Science and Practice and Paving New Paths Forward article
• Are generations a useful concept? paper
• How good is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator for predicting leadership-related behaviors? article
• Does the Myers-Briggs Test Hold Significance or Is It Merely Pseudo-Science? article