Some believe the generational divide could start as early as the mid-2020s. Among them is Mark McCrindle, the Australian demographer who coined the term “Generation Alpha” to define the cohort following Gen Z—and who also introduced “Generation Beta” as its successor.

A more apparent distinction might not come until the 2040s, argues Jessica Kriegel, chief strategy officer at workplace culture advisory firm Culture Partners. She contends that generations need more than just a shift in technology or social trends; they require defining historical moments with real cultural significance.

Mausam Kumar Garg, an expert in demography and quantitative research, echoes this sentiment, warning that a rush to define new generations might lead to an oversimplified view of complex, ongoing societal changes. “We haven’t yet pinpointed a clear technological or societal change that allows us to draw a definitive line marking the start of Generation Beta,” he says.

Workplace realities vs. generational myths

The problem is not unique to Generation Beta. Similar issues arose with Gen Z. Initially, their generational starting point was assigned to the mid-’90s. However, the boundaries shifted repeatedly to fit emerging narratives rather than a clear, well-documented historical moment. These shifting definitions highlight how generational labels are often adapted based on external factors rather than being grounded in rigorous, long-term societal change. For Kriegel, generational labels aren’t just imprecise—she says they can be “a destructive way of simplifying the complexity of human behavior into buckets of stereotypes,” undermining the unique qualities of individuals within these groups.

Why, then, do generational labels persist in workplace conversations? Employers and analysts often rely on them to predict behaviors, values, and work ethics. This is especially true when strategizing about recruitment and retention. However, the portrayal of Gen Z in the workplace—especially in the media—proves how flawed this approach can be.

At first, Gen Z was hailed as the tech-savvy, socially conscious, and adaptable generation set to take the workforce by storm. However, as they started filling roles, the narrative began to shift. Gen Z was suddenly labeled as entitled, difficult to manage, and prone to “quiet quitting.” These contradictions aren’t the result of inherent flaws in Gen Z but of how generational labels are applied without acknowledging the diversity of experiences within any given cohort. The labels are often more about reinforcing a narrative than reflecting any concrete, verifiable trends.

Instead of asking how Gen Z differs from millennials or predicting how Gen Beta might behave, a better question would be: What workplace conditions help all employees—regardless of their generation—thrive? Overgeneralizing workers based on birth year creates artificial divides that overlook more pressing issues affecting people in the workforce today. Wage stagnation, work-life balance, and evolving workplace norms are just a few examples of factors that affect people of all ages, often in ways that are more meaningful than simple generational divides.

The problem with premature labels

When new generational labels are pushed before we’ve fully examined the impact of previous ones, we risk perpetuating stereotypes that do more harm than good. The truth is that social and technological changes don’t adhere to neat 15- or 20-year cycles.

“We can’t assign a fixed time period to each generation,” says Garg. “It should be based on the significance and impact of changes occurring in the world.”

Given that Generation Beta has already been named, what are the consequences of officially adopting this label moving forward? For today’s young people—those who are growing up in a world marked by rapid advancements in artificial intelligence, automation, and climate change—the premature labeling of their future could create misguided expectations before they’ve had the opportunity to shape their own paths. It could lead businesses to make assumptions about how they will behave in the workplace instead of addressing the evolving needs of a workforce that spans multiple generations.

It’s crucial to consider the long-term impacts of these labels. If we hastily assign a generational title, we risk framing an entire group of workers according to assumptions that may not stand up to reality. History has shown that generational divides, while convenient, are far from perfect predictors of behavior. What might be more productive is focusing on the changing dynamics of the workforce as a whole and how companies can adapt to meet the diverse needs of workers across all age groups.

Time to shift the conversation

Generational labels may offer some convenience in broad discussions, but they’ve outlived their usefulness when navigating the modern workplace. Instead of defining workers by the year they were born, the focus should shift to the economic, technological, and social conditions that shape the professional experiences of all workers.

Before we jump to conclusions about who Generation Beta is, let’s take a deeper look at Gen Z—beyond the headlines—and understand how they’re contributing to the workforce. Perhaps more importantly, it’s time to ask whether generational labels are still helpful at all in the ever-evolving world of work. Instead of further dividing workers into categories that may not reflect their reality, the conversation needs to shift to the structural issues that affect every generation in the workplace.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

Read more:

• Gen Z doesn’t lack a work ethic. They’re just uninspired by today’s workplace
• Managers are puzzled by Gen Zers as giving feedback becomes a lost art in the era of the ‘coddled mind’
• Gen Z are demanding more in the workplace. Here’s how we changed our culture for them to thrive
• Gen Zers walk into the workplace with one foot out the door—slandering them won’t solve the future-of-work conundrum