There is a stubborn truth I keep noticing in meetings and in the corner of my local pub. When a plan needs completing or a long slow job needs a person to see it over the line the ones who reliably do the finishing are often the people born in the 1960s and 1970s. This essay is not an ode. It is an interrogation and a small cheer. I will argue that something cultural structural and psychological about those birth years gives a higher chance of completion. I will also say I am biased and I do not mean to erase individual struggle or the very real strengths of younger cohorts.
The feel of a generation that learns to finish
Ask someone born in the 60s or 70s about a half done project and you will get a narrative. They confess. They repair. They keep the receipts. Their stories do not end with abandonment. The pattern is so frequent it cannot be wishful thinking. There is an economy of endings in these people. That economy is made of small rituals and informal rules. They file things away rather than delete them. They treat promises as small contracts. These are practices formed before the constant reframe economy of apps and notifications took over life.
Not just grit but infrastructure
When journalists slap the word grit on a generation they flatten the messy scaffolding that supports stubbornness. People born in the 60s and 70s benefited from an infrastructure that rewarded follow through. Employment patterns expected longer tenures. Local services ran on timetables that were steady. Parental routines often emphasized seeing things through because resources were scarcer and waste had a heft that shaped behaviour.
This is not to romanticise scarcity. Scarcity can crush not only opportunity but hope. Yet scarcity also forces a different relationship with projects. When you could not replace a broken tool with a click you learned to mend. This hardened a practical muscle for finishing.
Technology rewired how we start and stop
Face it. The ease of creating a new thing now is intoxicating. Young adults can start a podcast a side hustle a microbrand and an online petition within hours. Initiation has been gamified. Finishing has not. The sheer rate of starting creates a cultural noise where the act of stopping and completing is less visible and less rewarded.
Contrast that with a person who grew up when launching required more deliberate logistics. Writing a letter arranging a meeting booking a call meant a slower cadence. The tempo trained patience. That patience often translated into finishing because there was a cost to abandonment that carried weight beyond social media metrics.
Gen X is the glue in the workforce. Our research shows they really are the glue and they should be the focus of retention. Jason Dorsey President and Co founder The Center for Generational Kinetics.
I use that quote because it locates a fact we can feel. Those born in the 60s and 70s frequently occupy the connective tissue in organisations. They pass knowledge keep projects alive and tolerate the small agonies of long tasks. It is not mystical. It is practice and position.
Discipline plus craft over spectacle
Another ingredient is a quieter valuation of process. Their sense of competence often relies on craft rather than performance. It is possible to be proud of a well sanded table more than a viral photo. That means finishing matters because the finished product signals competence. The person who grew up wiring their first radio or learning a trade internalised an end point. They learned that completion equals utility which equals trust.
Social architecture and obligation
We cannot ignore the social architecture that nudged this behaviour. Community obligations were clear and tangible. Neighbours minded gardens. Employment contracts were straightforward. When you promised your shift you showed up. The social penalties for walking away were immediate and visible. Today many of those mechanisms are frayed. Work can be remote. Social ties disperse. The intangible nature of many modern commitments makes walking away easier and the cost of doing so less visceral.
Why this matters now
We are in an era that prizes novelty and speed. But institutions still need finishers. A community project a charity campaign a company pivot all choke without people who habitually complete. Those born in the 60s and 70s often provide the stabilising resource younger colleagues need. That is not to say the younger cohorts cannot learn this. They can. Learning is contingent on mentorship time and structural incentives that reward completion rather than mere startability.
There is one serious caveat. I have met many people from these decades who burn out or who feel stuck. The same habits that produce completion can calcify into inevitability and poor boundaries. Completion without reflection is not laudable if it comes with exploitation of time or emotional labour. That is where the conversation must remain ambivalent. Finish but do not forget to ask why.
The iPhone isnt the only shaping influence but it has had an outsize impact. So many causes of happiness and depression are out of our control. But we can control how we spend our leisure time. Jean M Twenge Professor of Psychology San Diego State University.
Twenges words are useful because they remind us that context shifts how generations behave. The tools people have change the incentives for starting and for stopping. The people born in the 60s and 70s grew up with a different set of incentives. That matters when we try to export their habits into a new era.
How organisations lose or gain finishing power
Organisations that want more finishing power must stop assuming it is a personality trait and start seeing it as a cultural capability. Design incentives for completion. Reward people who close loops. Make handoffs explicit. When endings are celebrated publicly they become an organisational skill not an individual quirk.
But there is also a moral choice here. Do we extract the finishing labour from older workers without sharing power and knowledge. Or do we cultivate it and pass it on. I know which side I am on. Teach the rhythm of small completions. Make it visible. Make it valued. Do not fetishise sacrifice. Recognise limits.
Personal reflections
When I was younger I idolised the flash of newness. Then I watched a neighbour complete a twenty year garden renovation and felt something shift inside me. The satisfaction of the finished beds the neat edges the composted soil lingered longer than any week of novelty. That memory is partial evidence not proof. But repeated stories accumulate. They create a pattern that has weight.
So yes I take a side. I prefer people who finish. I do not prefer their youth or age. I prefer their attention. And I am willing to change if the evidence suggests younger cohorts have developed the same muscles in new ways. I do not yet see widespread structural incentives that harvest starting energy into finishing energy. But I would like to.
Conclusion
People born in the 60s and 70s are often better at finishing what they start because of layered reasons. Their life environments required practical completion. Their work patterns rewarded tenure and follow through. Their social networks enforced obligations. Technology disrupted those incentives for later cohorts and made starting easier. This is not a moral indictment of younger people. It is an invitation to design cultures where completion matters as much as invention.
Summary table
| Key idea | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Practical upbringing | Scarcity and slower tempos trained repair and completion. |
| Work patterns | Longer tenures and predictable roles rewarded follow through. |
| Social obligations | Visible community consequences made abandonment costlier. |
| Technology differences | Modern ease of starting reduces the social value of finishing. |
| Organisational design | Institutions can cultivate finishing by rewarding closure. |
Frequently asked questions
Is finishing what you start only a trait of older generations
No. Finishing can be taught modelled and incentivised. The observation is that certain cohorts had stronger external reasons to finish. Those reasons can be recreated in workplaces and communities through clear expectations rituals for handover and public recognition of completion.
Are younger people less capable of completion because of technology
Technology changes incentives. It makes starting easier and visible. It can also assist finishing if used intentionally. Tools alone do not determine behaviour. Structure incentives and social norms do. Young people can finish at high rates when the environment supports it.
What harms come from overvaluing finishing
Overemphasising finishing can encourage poor boundaries and exploitation. It can normalise unpaid labour and silence necessary endings. Completion is valuable but so is reassessment. Organisations must balance closure with wellbeing and choice.
How do managers encourage finishing across generations
Make end states explicit. Break long projects into visible milestones. Celebrate closures not just launches. Reward those who hand off well as much as those who initiate. Pair people who are strong at starting with those who are strong at finishing and give both real credit.
Can someone change their tendency to start and not finish
Yes. Habit change is possible. Start by creating micro rituals for completion. Create deadlines that matter publicly. Reduce the friction of finishing by carving small predictable time blocks. Seek mentors who model the full arc from idea to finished product.
Does this mean we should favour older workers for certain roles
Not necessarily. Experience is one component. The real solution is distributing finishing skills through training structural supports and fair reward systems. Age can correlate with completion but it should not be a blunt tool for hiring or promotion.
