A new research report suggests that associations may be overinvested in generational differences when developing programs and products, at the expense of understanding behaviors that better drive engagement.

Decoding Generational Behaviors, Motivations, and Myths, released last month by MCI Group, questions the traditional system of using age-based personas—gen Z, Millennials, etc.—to define audiences. “The usual metrics no longer tell you who will actually show up,” the report says, “and even successful events and organizations struggle to explain why certain formats work.”

Erin Fuller, FASAE, CAE, global head of association solutions at MCI Group, said the report was inspired by earlier MCI research that pointed to a breakdown in typical understanding about what members and attendees might do. “We have reporting that doesn’t actually tell you who will actually show up, and even when you have a successful event, when you ask why were people engaged here versus there, no one can really explain it,” she said. “We need to shift associations from demographics to behavioral design, because age-based segmentation is no longer enough. We think motivation and context probably matter more than generational labels.”

For instance, the report identifies one group as “rising influencers,” tracking largely but not exclusively to gen Z; those influencers may tend to be more technically savvy, but regardless of their age they’re looking for authenticity and safety as they begin their career paths. “The motivation piece [of product and event design] is more critical because people switch careers all the time, so you can’t assume that someone who’s 42 necessarily has more job or industry experience as someone who’s 29,” Fuller said.

Moreover, tracking of education might focus more on how participants want to receive information rather than where they are in their careers. “Instead of having an ‘early career track’ or ‘senior track’ you might design options for quiet participation where people can observe and reflect, or structured participation like guided small groups, and then opportunities to actively contribute, co-create, present, and mentor.” 

The shift to behavior-focused design is also intended to respond to the fact that more generations are engaged in the work force and working cross-functionally. “In practice, the biggest sources of friction are usually not interpersonal,” the report says. “They come from mismatched expectations around content, technology, visibility, pace and how people prefer to take part.”

“Organisations that treat engagement as a living system, not a sequence of events, will retain loyalty as behaviors and expectations continue to change,” the report advises. To do that, Fuller recommends looking at areas where deep engagement already exists and building on it, rather than standing up yet another brand-new program.

“You need to ask, ‘Does it feel transactional, or does this feel like a genuine investment and development?’” she said. “Associations often will ask, how do we get more mentors? And I think that the better question is, where in our existing systems is mentoring already naturally occurring, and how do we lean in on that?”