Coaching generation Z: A response to Gould et al from a critical cultural perspective

TL;DR: This commentary critiques Gould et al's generational approach to coaching Gen Z, arguing that it oversimplifies individual differences and neglects the complex interplay between technology, aging, genetics, and lifestyle in shaping human cognition and behavior.

Abstract: Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size AcknowledgementWe would like to acknowledge the JYU Visiting Fellow Programme 2022, which awarded a grant to Dr. Michael McDougall allowing him to visit JYU so that ideas for this commentary could be discussed and developed. We would also like to thank the reviewers for their thoughtful comments and encouragement.Notes1 The term typically used to classify groups of people born during the same time period, and who owing to chronological age similarity, have had similar life experiences (Rudolph & Zacher, Citation2020).2 For instance, understanding that explaining the purpose of a request (i.e., to connect practice to performance) can increase motivation to complete the task or that exposure to adversity can facilitate resilience, are people observations (i.e., widespread, that relates to many groups and types of people) rather than strictly generational ones.3 There are clear practical implications of such counter-generational findings for sport coaches. By assuming that Gen Z members are technologically savvy and integrating technology into communication and training practices, it is easy to exclude Gen Z members who have not had high exposure to technology (e.g., from underserved communities).4 Drawing on our own experiences as educators, we discern that our students are not proficient with all technology, as if technology is a uniform thing. For instance, they may be skilled with the apps on their phone and quick adopters of the latest social media, but they can struggle with basic features of Microsoft Word and be generally unaware of the applications and implications of new technological developments, such as Chat-GPT4.5 The findings could also be presented in a way that honors the complex interplay between several factors including technology usage (type and frequency), aging, genetics, and lifestyle. These are essential to judge the effect of technology on human cognition (such as attention) and cannot be underemphasized at the expense of a generational "catch all" framing.Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by funding provided by the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture and OKM grant.