There is a particular stubbornness that shows up in people born in the 1960s and 1970s. It is not a quaint trait or a nostalgia prop. It is a pattern visible in careers that stretch decades long and in hobbies that survive moves houses and marriages. I will argue that this generation is better at finishing what they start and that the reason is not simply character or luck. This piece is part observation part argument and part stubborn refusal to accept easy answers.
What finishing really looks like
Finishing is not the moment you close the book. It is the sequence of small, unremarked choices that lead to closure. For a person born in 1965 it might mean finishing a college degree while working nights. For someone born in 1978 it might mean returning to a stalled film project fifteen years later and seeing it through. The forms vary but the pattern is consistent. They tend to see projects as trajectories rather than weekend tasks. That attitude flickers through boardrooms studios allotments and kitchens alike.
Memory matters more than you think
People raised in an era before constant digital backups developed a different relationship to memory and commitment. You could not rely on cloud saves or scheduled reminders. The consequence is that memory and responsibility became intertwined. When you promised something you were also promising to hold it in your head and in your daily life. That created a mental economy where obligations occupied valuable cognitive real estate and were therefore more likely to be resolved rather than linger indefinitely. This is not romanticising. It is a functional description.
Structures that trained them to finish
School systems of the 1970s and 1980s emphasised long projects and public presentations. Apprenticeships and early career paths rewarded sustained attendance more than rapid reinvention. Many workplaces expected you to stay long enough to understand the backstory of problems. That produced a muscle for follow through.
Those structures do not exist in the same form today. Modern careers reward pivot agility and rapid reskilling. That is valuable but different. The 60s and 70s cohorts often carry a residue of older institutional expectations that reinforce completion. Not always. But often enough to notice.
Economy of consequence
Another invisible force is consequence. When failure meant a long term hit to reputation or finance people learned to manage projects until they reached a clean end. In recent decades the rise of short term gigs and the dilution of reputational memory reduced those stakes. Finances may be the blunt instrument but social memory plays its role too. People born in the 60s and 70s had reputations that traveled with them through towns workplaces and communities. It made quitting messy in a different way.
A temperament that was selected for
Temperament matters. There is a selection bias within the cohort. The adults who raised children then often rewarded perseverance what we now call grit. Angela Duckworth a professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania says Grit is living life like its a marathon not a sprint. That sentence is short but it captures the difference between trying many things and committing to a direction long enough to reach a meaningful end. The presence of that attitude in the educational and professional advice networks of the time meant children internalised finishing as a virtue.
Angela Duckworth Professor of Psychology University of Pennsylvania Grit is living life like its a marathon not a sprint.
Not a moral superiority
I will be blunt. Claiming that a whole generation is morally superior because they finish projects is petty. What I am saying is narrower and more useful. Their era shaped cognitive habits and incentives in ways that make completion likelier. That is descriptive not prescriptive. It does not mean younger people cannot develop the same habits. It means the path to those habits is different now.
Practical differences in how they work
People from those decades are likelier to accept incremental progress as acceptable progress. They were raised to expect friction. They have lower threshold for seeing small wins as real indicators. That matters when projects stall. They are more willing to tweak rather than abort. In short they manage friction differently.
Tools versus tradecraft
New tools create new behaviours. A person born in 1995 might use an app to juggle tasks and therefore treat many efforts as experiments. A person born in 1969 developed a tradecraft independent of tools. That tradecraft is about rituals rituals that create a structure that nudges a project to an end. Rituals are clumsy and unglamorous but astonishingly effective.
Why this matters now
We live in an era that prizes novelty and speed. That offers benefits but also leaves many things unfinished. Urban gardens fall to weeds leadership projects collapse midstream and stories are left half told. Recognising the finishing advantage of the 60s and 70s generation is not a call to freeze time. It is a prompt to borrow tactics. Practical rituals memory economy responsibility and a tolerance for friction can be learned and adopted without nostalgia.
There is also an unresolved question. As retirement patterns change and longer working lives become common will finishing habits migrate across generations or will they remain cohort specific? I do not know. I suspect fragments will transfer as older colleagues mentor younger ones but complete cultural transfer is unlikely. These are the things that make organisational anthropology interesting and irritating.
How to borrow the habit without copying the era
Take three modest ideas. First commit to a timeframe long enough to force depth. Second reduce digital friction by creating one simple analogue ritual. Third externalise memory through trusted people not just apps. None of this is revolutionary. But transplanted consciously it changes outcomes because it aligns cognitive resources and social accountability.
I find it useful to end with a small admission. My own tendency to finish comes from habit and irritation. I dislike loose ends intensely. That is a personal bias and it colours this essay. I do not claim universality. I claim observation and some stubborn conviction.
Summary table
| Factor | How it encourages finishing |
|---|---|
| Memory economy | Obligations stored mentally become tasks to resolve rather than postpone. |
| Institutional structures | Schools and workplaces rewarded sustained effort and public completion. |
| Reputational consequence | Local social memory made quitting more costly. |
| Temperament selection | Social norms encouraged perseverance as a virtue. |
| Tradecraft over tools | Rituals and habits outlast technology cycles and carry projects across time. |
FAQ
Are people born in the 60s and 70s inherently more committed than later generations?
No they are not inherently more committed as a matter of genetics. The differences come from social structures upbringing and the technology environment that shaped habits. Commitment can be cultivated across generations but the cues and incentives differ. What looks like inherent commitment is usually a product of long practice within supportive or demanding institutions.
Can younger people learn to finish more often?
Yes they can. The techniques are straightforward though not easy. Deliberate practice of long projects reducing digital friction establishing small rituals and creating durable social accountability are the central moves. It is a slow process and it requires redesigning incentives not merely adding apps. The cultural signal must change for the habits to stick.
Does finishing mean staying stuck in one career or role?
Not at all. Finishing what you start does not preclude change. It simply means seeing commitments through to a clean or honest pause. That practice supports future pivots because it preserves reputation and creates a record of completed work. There is a difference between drifting and deliberately ending a chapter before beginning another.
Are these observations universal across the UK?
They are patterns not laws. Regional class and economic differences modulate these tendencies. The core idea is about how an era shapes cognitive and social routines. That influence will vary across communities but the underlying mechanisms are widely observable in British workplaces civic groups and households.
How do organisations use this insight?
Smart organisations do not fetishise age. They mine the finishing skills across cohorts by pairing people with complementary habits and by institutionalising rituals that support follow through. Mentoring apprenticeship and long form projects are practical ways to transmit finishing craft without excluding other forms of creativity.
