In his article “The Myth of the Millennials” published in 2008, author Edwin Koc argues that the current emphasis on the characteristics of the Millennial generation may be out of place, since there is no concluding data on the truth value of the Millennial generation narrative. For this reason, the author argues, there is little evidence that there is indeed an entirely different generation of employers ready to change the work environment.

Instead, he proposes that the entire Millennial generation narrative may simply be a myth, or “an urban legend”, that does not correspond to the reality of the present-day workforce. Throughout the article, the author is careful to preserve an apparent objectivity, and to remain open to the possibility that the generational theory might be valid (Koc 2008). However, this paper argues, Koc tries in fact to persuade the readers into believing that Millennials may not represent a real threat to the present day marketplace reality, because their existence as a different type of future employee is not real. This is important because employers need to adapt their long-term strategies to fitting these new types of employers, and their contribution to the market plays will have long-term effects. Determining what strategies one should adopt in relation to the incoming new generation of employees is essential to effective management.

The fact that Koc tries to persuade the audience in adopting the view that there is no Millennial generation is apparent from his word choice. For example, he labels the “generational attributes of the Millennial as “urban legends”, which drastically reduces their potential truth value. Urban legends are usually incorrect, in the same way that myths are usually untrue. By using such headings as “Urban Legend I”, it sends a clear message to the reader that, even though the generational theory might be correct, he clearly tends to believe that it is not. Also, rhetorical questions such as “are these characteristics that are so often associated with the current generation of college graduates real, or do they represent urban legends..?”. These questions have the role of suggesting the answer to the readers, and persuading them into taking a position in this respect. However, the attributes of the Millennial generation are well-documented the same way that the attributes of previous generations were, by means of observation and association of the cultural and social events in the country, with the way that the new generation was shaped by them. As explained by Elam, Stratton & Gibson (2007), different social and historical events have shaped the way that Millennials and their parents developed, and consequently, they grew up to become adults with different values and expectations. Clearly, there is a huge difference between the current generation, and the Generation X in terms of motivations, expectations and values, particularly because of the different historical, economic and social events in which each generation developed. However, Koc (2008) refuses to give credit to ethnographic studies and other type of analysis, focusing instead on the need of gathering data from scientific research, to prove the existence of these worldview differences and expectations among the members of the new generation.

However, observation is indeed able to tell employers what they need to know of the current new graduates in search of jobs. For example, Murray (1997) comparatively assessed the attributes of the generations X and Y (Millennials), and argued in favor of the reliability of direct observation as a method of testing the characteristics of the new generation. According to him, “the Millennials walk among us, established people with observable behavior. Think about these kids and how they are like. Apply a little logic. His argument was meant to encourage teachers to prepare for a different generation of college students, and he was right to assume that, because of their different generational characteristics, they will force changes into teaching methods and student-parent-university relationships. Similarly, by observing students and by analyzing their upbringing and the behavior of parents while in college, and the changes that colleges had to make as a result of these behaviors (Elam, Stratton & Gibson 2007), it is easy to understand that similar changes will appear in the market place after the Millennial generation will begin to dominate it.

However, Koc’s urging to conduct research that could support or oppose the generational theory was positive as well as reasonable. His alternative explanation for the changes in the attitudes of the new generations, as the result of a more welcoming and generous marketplace, although ignoring all the ethnographic and sociologic proof brought by so many authors and specialists, can indeed at least partially explain some choices of graduates, and some of their attitudes towards work. Yet, research scientific studies were indeed performed to measure the characteristics of the Millennials, as compared to the previous generations, as a means of determining how the marketplace should change to be able to anticipate their needs. In their study on this topic, Alexander & Sysco (2012) tested the theoretical framework’ of the generational theory, in particularly focusing on the claim of entitlement feelings of the Millennials. Using interviews and surveys, the researchers found that indeed, the new generation perceived their parents as “helicopter parents”, although Koc (2008), claimed this to be an ‘urban legend’, that they have strong personal goals, are committed, and have a positive and know-all attitude. Overall, the authors argued that “specific areas in which academicians, supervisors, subordinates and coworkers, may better understand the motivations, thought processes and resulting behaviors of the Millennials”(p.67) exist and should not be neglected.

Therefore, Koc was right to point out that research was needed to back up the generational analysis theory, particularly since the Millennials are already moving to such an important field of activity as the workforce. However, he clearly tried to influence the readers to perceive the generational analysis theory as merely based on “compelling narratives” which do not reflect the reality, and he suggested that the particular characteristics of the new generation might be merely “urban legends”. However, observation as an analysis method is viable enough, and as more recent research shows, at least part of the characteristics associated with the Millennials are supported with data. Clearly , as it happened in the case of universities, the Millennial generation will transform the workforce as well, and employers must prepare for this shift.