I have been musing considerably of late on the Strauss and Howe theory of Generations; this was one I saved for my personal blog, Networks Complexity and Relatedness. Strauss and Howe maintain that there is a cyclical pattern of generational archetypes in the U.S.  that have repeated consistently  since the Pilgrims first landed. The theory maps nicely to what we see (and talk about here and elsewhere) about the impacts of GenX and GenY.

This historical rhythm may not be the only force that is outside of our control, as readings from just this past week are pointing out. There may be, in fact, a  genetic disposition toward being a political conservative or liberal. Jonathan Haidt gives a convincing TedTalk on this inherited moral trait; liberals are distinguished by being more “novelty-seeking.”

This week’s Washington Post Weekly included a recent article citing research reported in Science Magazine. Similar studies that imply that conservatives are biologically more sensitive to threats (as evidenced by their “startle” response to disturbing images or loud noises).

Today, my friend Karl Hakkarainen (aka Roaster Boy) points to comments by geneticist Steve Jones that “human evolution is grinding to a halt.” We have become so good at extending our lives and creating a global melting pot that the three components of evolution - natural selection, mutation, and random change - are slowing down.

So, how I’m feeling about this this morning is, who we are and how we think is truly connected to both biology (we’ve known about the difference between men and women for years) and history (but we can approach understanding historical differences in a new way, if we read Generations). We are not only different, we can identify those differences. And we can value them. During the 1980s, companies instituted diversity programs that were targeted at resolving conflicts and dysfunctions based on racial, gender, personality (think Meyers Briggs) and sexual preference differences.

Many companies are now adding generational differences to this list, and I was pleased to hear from colleague Deb Gilburg how the Gilburg Leadership Institute is using the work of Strauss and Howe to bridge gaps between young and old in corporations.  I wonder if we will someday add testing for the “startle effect” or inherited “moral psychology” (see YourMorals.Org if you want to see how you come out in these tests) that will help manage conflicts in conversation or ensure diversity in viewpoints as we move toward organizations that are more densely networked and collaborative.