Arielle, you’re involved in several initiatives around intergenerational collaboration. What drives your work?
At the core, my work is about bridging generational divides in a very practical, human way. I started the Legacy Project because I saw how rarely younger and older people are given structured opportunities to really engage with each other beyond stereotypes. What began as a small idea during my time in high school has grown into a program across universities and high schools in the U.S.
The idea is simple but powerful: bring together people from different generations, give them tools to share their life stories, and let them co-create something meaningful. That storytelling process creates empathy and understanding in a way that abstract conversations about “generations” never can. Alongside that, my work with CoGenerate and Generations United expands this idea into leadership and policy—thinking about how we design systems that include multiple generations from the start.
How does the Legacy Project work in practice?
Participants are paired across generations and engage in a structured storytelling process. They interview each other about their lives, their values, their challenges, and what has shaped them.
What’s important is that it’s fully reciprocal. It’s not a mentoring program where one side “gives” and the other “receives.” Both participants contribute equally, write narratives about each other, and co-create chapters that become part of a published book. So in the end, they don’t just have a conversation—they leave behind a shared artifact that reflects both perspectives.
That mutual exchange is where the real impact happens. People begin to see not just differences, but also surprising common ground.
When it comes to intergenerational teams in organizations, what’s a common misconception?
One of the most persistent myths is that younger employees are naturally better with technology and older employees are resistant or slower to adapt. There’s a kernel of truth in terms of exposure, but it’s often overstated and can become a harmful stereotype.
In reality, learning is continuous across all age groups. I’ve seen plenty of situations where younger employees are surprised by how quickly more experienced colleagues adapt or where knowledge flows in the opposite direction in unexpected ways.
Another misconception is that generational divides are the primary source of tension in teams. Often, what’s framed as a “generational issue” is actually about experience, communication styles, or organizational hierarchy. Labeling everything as generational can oversimplify the real dynamics at play.
What actually makes intergenerational teams work well?
A lot of it comes down to intentional communication and awareness of power dynamics. In many organizations, there’s still a strong hierarchy where younger employees feel their perspectives carry less weight. That’s not always explicitly stated, but it’s felt.
High-performing intergenerational teams are the ones where that dynamic is actively addressed. Leaders create environments where input is genuinely valued regardless of age or tenure. That doesn’t mean eliminating structure or leadership—it means making sure that different perspectives are invited and taken seriously.
Interestingly, many organizations already have intergenerational collaboration happening every day—they just don’t recognize or actively support it. Making it visible and intentional can significantly improve both performance and culture.
What can managers do concretely to foster that environment?
One of the simplest but most effective actions is to actively invite perspectives from younger team members—and then actually use that input. It sounds obvious, but in practice it’s often missing.
Culture change doesn’t usually start from the most junior level. It has to be modeled by leadership. When a manager explicitly asks, “What’s your take on this?” and integrates that perspective into decision-making, it signals that contributions are valued.
Another important shift is around feedback. Younger employees are often in a position where they are constantly receiving advice, sometimes unsolicited. While guidance is important, it shouldn’t be one-directional. Creating space for them to share their own insights—and not just absorb others’—is key to building a more balanced dynamic.
What are the consequences if organizations don’t address this?
The impact is often subtle at first. People disengage—they stop sharing ideas, they contribute less, or they mentally check out. Over time, that can turn into higher turnover, especially among younger employees who are looking for environments where they feel heard and valued.
It also affects innovation. If only certain voices are consistently heard, organizations miss out on a range of perspectives that could lead to better solutions. So it’s a cultural issue and at the same time a strategic one.
Is the traditional idea of “generations” still useful?
I think it’s a helpful framework, but it shouldn’t be taken too rigidly. Generational categories can provide a starting point for understanding trends or shared experiences, but they can also oversimplify.
In practice, I’ve found that structuring programs around shared contexts—like students and older adults—can be more effective than focusing strictly on generational labels. At the same time, those labels are often still necessary, for example when it comes to funding or program design.
Ideally, we move toward a more holistic approach to intergenerational engagement—one that focuses less on labels and more on meaningful interaction across age groups.
Does identifying as Gen Z play a role in your work?
In a professional context, yes. Being part of Gen Z gives me a certain platform and perspective that is particularly relevant right now, especially in conversations about the future of work, leadership, and policy.
But on a personal level, it’s not something I strongly center in my identity. It’s more a lens that becomes useful depending on the context. In my field, it helps create visibility and connection, but it’s not the defining aspect of how I see myself.
There’s a perception that Gen Z is especially outspoken and confident. Do you see that as accurate?
There are elements of truth to it, but it’s also shaped by how society talks about younger generations. Gen Z is often framed as disruptive or change-oriented, and that narrative can reinforce certain behaviors.
At the same time, there is a real sense of urgency among many young people. There’s a desire to address challenges—whether social, environmental, or economic—more immediately rather than waiting years to have influence. That can come across as confidence or directness.
But it’s important to remember that every generation has gone through phases of being seen as disruptive or challenging the status quo. It’s part of a broader cycle.