You'd think that the media's love affair with the "shocking" behaviors of Millennials (born 1982 to 2004) would have weakened a bit by now. For the last five to ten years, we've been treated to the following sort of news stories:
"Millennials challenge their work environment/superiors as a group-- are summarily fired"
"Millennials collectively protest speaker on college campus"
"Millennials decide X kind of restaurant is awful and won't go..."
"...but Y kind of restaurant sees a sudden bump in popularity from Millennials due to social media"
Whether it's Red Lobster or Casual Friday, it seems that when the Millennial Generation sets a target, the target gets hit-- with collective force.
Is the hit always successful? No. But that seems to be unrelated to the amount of effort expended by this group of 20 and 30 somethings. In fact, you could almost say that this behavior has a certain militant flavor. It is as though the Millennial generation operates as an army-- unified in thought, behavior, and tactical response to oppositional force.
To understand why Millennials make such big moves together, we can turn to Generational Theory to learn why Collectivism and Challenging Authority are such keystones for this generation.
Collectivism
Sometimes referred to as group-think, hive-mind, or herd mentality, Collectivism in Millennials is actually not so much a surrender of individual thought as it is a reinforcement of consensus. That is to say, there are two tactics to take in forming consensus. The first tactic is bullying-- beating some into submission or agreement to terms set by another. This betrays a power struggle-- one person wishes to be obeyed. So we see there is a hierarchy within the group (more on that in a minute). The second tactic is confirmation-- bestowing gifts, praise, and other markers of belonging onto those of like mind. This seals the internal structure and keeps people psychologically knit to the group and its leader.
Both tactics found strong roots in the millennial upbringing. News and entertainment of the early 2000s documented a solid decade of Mean Girls, frenemies, cyberbullying, and hazing. At the same time, the No Child Left Behind program may have had a contributing effect to the "stickiness" of Millennial groups: when gifted education was being axed amid accusations of racism and elitism, children in newly inclusive classrooms were encouraged to work in small groups via the "cooperative learning" strategy. The "smart kids" were expected to act as ersatz tutors for the slower learners in the group*. It is my theory that, in order to avoid negative labels (bossy, geek, etc.), the gifted children who survived this learning strategy learned to curry favor with their peers by using subtle tactics of manipulation and positive reinforcement. In other words, schools unintentionally created a situation that would result in a power struggle among peers, and children, creative survivalists that they are, found a way to turn it into an advantage that has carried to adulthood.
Challenging Authority
While peer authority structures were being cemented, the elder-centric authority structures were being dismantled from the inside during Millennial childhoods. It was now a widely-accepted parenting goal to "be your child's best friend", and amid the rise in single-parent families, it was tougher than ever to enforce the authoritative boundaries that would come from "traditional" two-parent, non-divorced families**. Additionally, the self-esteem movement actually encouraged young Millennials to think of the elder-centric ladder as a flat field. Children's ideas were prized, their "leadership skills" praised, and their challenges to authority were accepted as completely valid. In college, the workplace, and the family space, these attitudes have continued with confidence. Why not challenge the boss? In a postmodern world, position is only a matter of happenstance, not of merit or design.
Reactionary Parenting (It's Generation X's fault, again)
So, why were Millennials raised this way? According to Generational Theory, each generation is a reaction to the one above it. In this case, Generation X was widely perceived to be such an abysmal failure that, by gradual degrees, society sought ways to avoid a repeated outcome in its offspring:
Highly independent and individualistic? Emphasize teamwork!
Pragmatic and driven by monetary reward? Everyone gets a prize!
Distrustful and resentful of authority figures? Befriend and collaborate!
However, it's important to remember that no generation is inherently "better" or "worse" than another. A look at Strauss & Howe's Generations explains the purpose of this special Millennial army-- one specifically informed by their generational counterparts: the G.I. Generation (born 1901 to 1924).
Rolling through Europe en masse to defeat the Third Reich in World War II, the surviving G.I. soldiers would eventually depart amid waving banners of "Thank You Boys" and return home to enthusiastic marching bands and ticker tape parades. This generation of "militant" individuals actually saved lives-- many, by sacrificing their own. When the crisis of the Crisis Era arrives (and many feel it won't be long now), we may very well be glad to have army of Millennials on our side.
...
* See Parenting Gifted Kids by James R. Delisle (Prufrock Press, 2006), p. 51-52.