[WillyF]

I find that the reason that older people in management are slow to adopt new technology has little to do with their generations. It has more to do with the fact that their time is extremely valuable and they don't have a lot of it. Investing time in learning new technology just isn't worth it for them.

I've seen plenty of older people who are unemployed adopting social media and other new technology. Their time isn't that valuable, so they make the effort to learn the new stuff. They're same generation as the folks in management, but the value proposition of investing time in learning technology is very different.

[swernli]

But the time required to learn a new technology, at least enough to use it successfully, is much lower for "millenials." And it's scary low for the kids in middle school now, who learned how to spell from animated computer programs and could probably click a mouse before they could write. I think your point is valid, that the older management don't have the time, but I'd say because of the difference in time it takes to learn, younger management would be able to make the time for a new system.

This generation gap is apparent to me, and it's all the more frustrating as I consider myself an outlier in it. I'm young (firmly in the middle of the millenials by this definition), but I identify more with the values and communication styles of the older generation. I love the technology behind it, but I don't use it. This leaves me with the prospect of looking like a horrible anachronism when myself and my peers are in the positions of power.

[OliverSmith]

So when I go to management and let them know that I've spent my less valuable time and figured out a way to speed up our process, they should then either trust me and let me implement it, or spend the time and evaluate for themselves if I'm correct. When management says their time is too valuable to learn how to do their job more efficiently, they're just bad managers. It would be like a programmer entering a bunch of data by hand over and over again because it might take too long to figure out how to automate it. It may not pay off immediately, but it will in the long run.

It seems to be a misconception of older people that a manager's time is too valuable to learn new things. I don't know why that is... it just always seems that way to me. Maybe you can enlighten me...

[ynniv]

You might be wrong in thinking that your "faster" way is better. Given no details I can't really elaborate, but a fresh perspective often omits important subtleties that management values.

For instance: paper forms becoming web forms / database tables. Great for 99% of enterprise situations, but there is a loss of flexibility in edge cases. You can't write notes in the margins, or enter "invalid" but actually correct data.

Adoption will be seen differently by different people - those who have seen no edge cases (aka you) see the common case become substantially more efficient. Those who have more experience (aka management) might see the frailty of the new system and worry that important business will be lost.

So, people who value their time (doctors, lawyers, etc) still use older systems (often paper) that are more mature and flexible. Heck, I find myself (a "Millennial" early adopter) moving towards free text systems as I run into random inflexibility.

[OliverSmith]

exactly... inflexibility to change an old process because of 1% or less of the use cases could be justified or not. If a new process makes 99% of things take 10% of the time and 1% of things take 1000% of the time, you still win. I would argue that edge cases should rarely be a reason to hold up improving a process.

[abstractbill]

...except that those 1% might be incredibly critical to the business. Perhaps if you break them, the fallout will be bad enough to kill the company.

Whether or not you should try a new process is entirely a function of what kind of company you're in, not what generation the various players grew up in. If you're in a startup, you should definitely try any new process you can think of that might give you an edge. If the company is basically milking a cash-cow, be incredibly risk-averse when thinking about "making things better".

[tjmaxal]

It depends on whether you work in company that rewards age over innovation or innovation over everything else. In a pure meritocracy it's what you do that matters not who you are. However every large company I've ever worked for has rewarded people more based on who they are instead of what they do.