Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies http://jlo.sagepub.com/
Actual Versus Perceived Generational Differences at Work : An Empirical Examination Scott W. Lester, Rhetta L. Standifer, Nicole J. Schultz and James M. Windsor Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 2012 19: 341 originally published online 25 April 2012 DOI: 10.1177/1548051812442747 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jlo.sagepub.com/content/19/3/341
Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Midwest Academy of Management
Additional services and information for Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jlo.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jlo.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
>> Version of Record - Jul 5, 2012 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Apr 25, 2012 What is This?
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN EAU CLAIRE on August 21, 2012
442747 al.Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies © Baker College 2012
JLO19310.1177/1548051812442747Lester et
Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Actual Versus Perceived Generational Differences at Work: An Empirical Examination
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 19(3) 341–354 © Baker College 2012 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1548051812442747 http://jlo.sagepub.com
Scott W. Lester1, Rhetta L. Standifer1, Nicole J. Schultz1, and James M. Windsor1
Abstract As the amount of generational diversity increases among today’s workforce, a common topic of conversation is how to handle differences between generational cohorts. But to what extent do generations believe they are different and to what extent are generations actually different? This study examines this question. Using generational cohort theory as a theoretical underpinning, this study considers 15 work-related concepts and the degree to which workers personally value them. Subjects also provide their perceptions of how much they believe Boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y value these items. Results reveal the differences subjects perceive among the generations significantly outnumber the actual value differences individuals reported. The authors discuss both actual and perceptual differences in detail and theorize why the nature of these actual differences may lead to generational misconceptions. By doing so, this study provides a meaningful contribution to the discussion of generational diversity and its impact on the workplace. Keywords generational diversity, multigenerational workforce, workplace preferences
One of the biggest challenges facing managers today is learning how to effectively lead a multigenerational workforce. Currently, many organizations have four generations of employees working alongside one another. Employees from different generations may have varying expectations of what they want (or “value”) from the workplace, both from an intrinsic and extrinsic standpoint, and therefore may approach work, and how they prefer to be motivated, differently. This increased generational diversity in the workforce has prompted scholars to offer both anecdotal as well as some empirical evidence addressing these differences. Despite the increased attention being placed on generational diversity, there are still questions that remain. One highly debated topic is whether generational cohorts actually desire different things in a work context or if, in fact, it is a matter of perceived differences that have been perpetuated through commonly held biases. The main purpose of this article is to provide meaningful contributions to this debate by comparing actual and perceived workplace preferences within a multigenerational organization. In doing so, this study advances our understanding of generational interactions by empirically testing commonly held beliefs and assumptions related to generational perceptions. Specifically, subjects were asked to answer questions about what they desire in the workplace as
well as what they perceive other generations desire in the same context. Our results enabled us to compare crossgenerational perceptions to the actual preferences reported by the individual respondents within each generation. We asked people their age so that we could place them into generations based on established age ranges associated with each generation in previous research rather than have them self-select a generational category. We also included control variables to increase our confidence that these differences were driven by generational cohort rather than other demographic characteristics. Below, we review previous literature on generational cohorts. Next, we identify aspects of the work context in which we expect actual generational differences. In addition, we explore reasons as to why these actual differences in workplace preferences exist. We then discuss the ways in which generations perceive differences between each other and why we believe the number of perceived differences significantly exceed the number of actual differences. 1
University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire, Eau Claire, WI, USA
Corresponding Author: Scott W. Lester, Department of Management and Marketing, University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire, 451 Schneider Hall, Eau Claire, WI 54702, USA Email:
[email protected]
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN EAU CLAIRE on August 21, 2012
342
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 19(3)
Literature Review on Generational Cohorts Generational cohort theory, developed by Inglehart (1977) and later made popular by Strauss and Howe (1991), posits that a generation is a social construction in which individuals born during a similar time period experience, and are influenced by, historic and social contexts in such a way that these experiences differentiate one generational cohort from another (Jurkiewicz & Brown, 1998; Sessa, Kabacoff, Deal, & Brown, 2007). Furthermore, previous researchers note that generational differences in attitudes about work are particularly prevalent (Cennamo & Gardner, 2008; Jurkiewicz & Brown, 1998). Four different generational cohorts currently exist in the American workforce: (a) Traditionalists, (b) Boomers, (c) Generation X, and (d) Generation Y. Although the specific name/labels and dates associated with each generation varies when referenced in the literature, it is generally agreed that Traditionalists are individuals born prior to 1946, Boomers between 1946 and 1964, Generation X between 1965 and 1981, and Generation Y between 1982 and 2000 (Reynolds, Bush, & Geist, 2008). Popular culture and academic literature suggest that each generational cohort possesses a unique set of characteristics and preferences that distinguish their workplace tendencies (Hill, 2002; Jurkiewicz & Brown, 1998; Kupperschmidt, 2000; Martin, 2005). These bodies of literature attribute potential tensions and conflicts between different generations to a lack of understanding among cohorts resulting from disparity in values, cognitions, and behaviors, and that such outcomes negatively affect organizational dynamics (Dittman, 2005; Twenge & Campbell, 2008). Perceived differences in what generations value in the workplace tend to revolve around such things as technology, communication, work climate, leadership and feedback, work– life balance, team orientation, and involvement/empowerment (Crumpacker & Crumpacker, 2007; Fogg, 2009; Kupperschmidt, 2000; Lancaster & Stillman, 2005; Martin, 2005; Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010; Steele & Gordon, 2006; Twenge & Campbell, 2008). While Traditionalists are still present in the workforce, the common age bracket delineated for this generation places the youngest Traditionalist at 65 years of age. Given that 65 is commonly viewed as a benchmark age for retirement, our discussion focuses on the three generations (Boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y) that will be working with one another for the next 15 to 20 years. Each of these generations is discussed below in terms of common conceptualizations of their views of work-related values.
Boomers Boomers are viewed as consensus seekers who are competitive micromanagers and possess a moderate level of disrespect for authority and, above all else, approach work
with a “do whatever it takes” mentality (Crumpacker & Crumpacker, 2007; Westerman & Yamamura, 2007). Individuals from this generation are seen as valuing collaboration and aiming to maintain a somewhat formal and moderately paced organizational climate (Fogg, 2009; Reynolds et al., 2008). Boomers are presumed to prefer face-to-face interaction and conventional mail but are presumed to be open to using online tools and resources in their work (Reynolds et al., 2008). They are also seen as placing workplace priorities over all nonwork life, including family, and having a strong desire for formal feedback from supervisors and management that yields financial compensation and/or promotion (Crumpacker & Crumpacker, 2007; Fogg, 2009).
Generation X Generation X is often perceived as a cohort of fairly cynical/ skeptical individuals who prefer a relatively informal work climate and have a weaker work ethic than previous generations (Twenge, 2010). Members of this generation are said to challenge authority, crave autonomy and independence, and strive for a work–life balance in which personal activity takes priority (Reynolds et al., 2008; Twenge, 2010). These individuals are seen as preferring technologybased interactions, avoiding unnecessary face-to-face meetings, and valuing direct communication and feedback with leaders (Crumpacker & Crumpacker, 2007; Martin, 2005). Generation X is perceived to be strongly motivated by intangible rewards, such as workplace autonomy and flexibility (Lancaster & Stillman, 2005).
Generation Y Generation Y is typically viewed as a technology-driven, multitasking group of individuals who are committed to generating a culturally sensitive, optimistic, and fun workplace (Sessa et al., 2007; Steele & Gordon, 2006). This generational cohort is said to prefer working with peers in a teamoriented work environment and with bosses with whom they can relate and who value employee input (Crumpacker & Crumpacker, 2007; Lancaster & Stillman, 2005). Generation Y is said to strongly value fast-paced, technological interactions and constant and instantaneous feedback from leaders (Crumpacker & Crumpacker, 2007; Fogg, 2009; Sessa et al., 2007). With regard to work–life balance, members of Generation Y are seen as desiring a balance that allows them to balance play with work in a manner that prioritizes engagements with family and friends over work commitments (Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010).
Actual Differences Versus Perceived Differences Although many perceptions and assumptions exist for each generational cohort regarding the items discussed above,
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN EAU CLAIRE on August 21, 2012
343
Lester et al. little empirical evidence exists to substantially support implications related to such (Macky, Gardner, & Forsyth, 2008; Meriac, Woehr, & Banister, 2010; Sessa et al., 2007). This lack of empirical evidence has led to the generational cohort approach to research being criticized as more relevant to popular culture than social science (Giancola, 2006). While we would contend that this assessment is a bit severe, we do believe that it is important to identify quantifiable differences and to separate those differences from possibly inaccurate perceptions. Thus, as stated earlier, the purpose of this research is to contribute empirically based research findings that reveal which generational differences actually exist versus those that may be more perception-based. Our first task was to determine what aspects of the workplace to include when asking subjects about their preferences. After examining the extant literature, we selected 15 specific aspects of one’s work context as our focus. (A more detailed description of these selections is provided in the Method section.) The next step was to delineate the items in which we expected to find actual differences across the generations. In the end, we hypothesized that less than half of these measured items would exhibit significant differences in preference across generations. Our reasoning was grounded in generational cohort theory, which states that adults have core values shaped by the historic and social aspects of society they experience at critical developmental stages throughout childhood (Kupperschmidt, 2000). It is important to note that for the purposes of this study we are not using the term value as it is applied in the work values and personal values literature. In that literature, work values commonly include things such as concern for others, honesty, fairness, and achievement (e.g., Ravlin & Meglino, 1987). Instead, our use of the term value denotes what individuals desire or appreciate in terms of characteristics of their work context. In other words, value is used more as a verb, rather than as a noun. Given this usage of the term, we first ask subjects to indicate what they value (i.e., their own preferences) in their work context. We then ask subjects to indicate the extent to which they believe or perceive other generations value these same work aspects. It is also worth noting the importance of placing subjects into generational categories as objectively as possible, given our research focus. To accomplish this, we had subjects provide their age, after which we placed them into generational categories based on the age ranges commonly used in the literature. (We discuss this process further in the Method section.) We expect the greatest actual disparity in generational preferences to include (a) technology, (b) face-to-face communication, (c) e-mail communication, (d) social media, (e) formal authority, and (f) fun-at-work. The reasoning behind our selection of these six items is grounded in generational cohort theory. Using this theory, we discuss the first three items in terms of their relevance to the technological means by which employees communicate, and the last three items in terms of how they relate to work culture.
The expectation that actual differences occur among the generations as a result of formative experiences is not without precedence; recent work by Hannay and Fretwell (2011) and Crumpacker and Crumpacker (2007) focused on identifying events that might be considered defining moments during each generation’s formative years. We turn to an area in which individuals are likely to differ across generational lines—namely, technological means of communication. Actual differences. The extent to which a generation values technology is logically driven by the extent to which technology was available, reliable, and understood as they were growing up. Much of the Boomer generation grew up without significant exposure to the technology that is common place today. Generation X individuals enjoyed more exposure to technological advances during their formative years; as such, the majority of their work-life experience has included much of the workplace technology used today. However, certain aspects of technology (especially those associated with interactive and/or social media communication) emerged after Generation Xers entered the workforce. At the far end of the spectrum is Generation Y, whose members have existed within a digital world their entire lives. Because of these differences in exposure, we would therefore expect Generation Y to place the highest value on technology. There exists a natural symbiosis between technology and communication. Indeed, one primary way in which technology has affected the world is through changes in the way we communicate with one another. To illustrate, Boomers entered the workforce at a time when communication was predominantly conducted face-to-face, by phone, or through traditional mail. By the time Generation Xers began to join the ranks of the employed, the advent of electronic mail (e-mail) and early use of the Internet had arrived. One could argue, however, that the social media mechanisms that appeared thereafter (e.g., Facebook, texting, Twitter, LinkedIn.) have radically changed the ways in which Generation Y members learned to communicate with others. Based on when these newer communication-related technologies emerged, we would expect Boomers to hold the value of face-to-face communication to a greater esteem than the younger generations. We would expect Generation X to place some value on more traditional forms of communication; however, because of their experiences, we would also expect this generation to place greater value on e-mail communication than their predecessors. Finally, we anticipate a significant difference in the extent to which Generation Y values technologically-oriented communication forms (e.g., social media) compared with the other two generations. Preference regarding work culture is another area in which individuals are likely to differ across generational lines. These differences are related to one’s view of formal authority and its association with leadership as well as to one’s view of the appropriate ways work should be
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN EAU CLAIRE on August 21, 2012
344
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 19(3)
conducted. Again, these differences are believed to arise from the historic events that defined different generations. For example, Boomers entered the workplace at a time when “leadership” and formal authority were considered to be synonymous. The boss was usually an older worker with seniority in terms of organizational tenure (Crampton & Hodge, 2007). In addition, Boomers grew up in a time of postwar prosperity and embraced the idea of growth, competitiveness, and hard work. This generation, although not as traditionally formal in their views of leadership as the previous generation, believed that work was a priority and that through loyalty and paying one’s dues came reward and seniority (Crumpacker & Crumpacker, 2007; Elsdon & Lyer, 1999; Fogg, 2009). Work, in other words, was work, and “life” (e.g., fun, enjoyment) was separate. The environment in which Generation X formed values and beliefs was in stark contrast to the one experienced by Boomers. This was a “latchkey” generation, taught to be self-reliant and independent (Crampton & Hodge, 2007). In addition, historical events, such as Watergate, the economic crisis brought on by the fall of savings and loan (S&L) banks, and the Iranian hostage situation, resulted in a generation with a healthy skepticism about formal authority and a strong desire for autonomy. Leadership, as defined by Generation Xers, equates to competency. In other words, seniority is not as valued as proving one’s ability to lead. This generation also resisted the workaholic mindset of their predecessors, demonstrating a desire for less formality in the workplace and a greater balance between work and life (Crampton & Hodge, 2007; Reynolds et al., 2008; Twenge, 2010). Generation Y’s experiences represent yet another contrast to those of Generation X and the Boomers. Sometimes referred to as the “me-generation,” these individuals have grown up in an era where instant gratification is possible through technology and where a higher premium has been placed on work–life balance (McGuire, By, & Hutchings, 2007). Others have referred to Generation Y as the “Nintendo Generation,” meaning they prefer a work environment with clear, well-defined expectations, instant access to information, and consistently high levels of feedback (Herman & Eckel, 2002; Westerman & Yamamura, 2007). As children of Boomers, collaboration and involvement in decision making are valued, with more interaction and less formality at work. In summary, we anticipate the differences described above to represent actual variations in generational preference. As such, we propose the following: Hypothesis 1: Actual generational differences exist regarding the extent to which technology, faceto-face communication, e-mail communication, social media, formal authority, and fun-at-work are valued.
Perceived differences. While we propose actual generational differences in workplace preferences above, we expect a far greater number of perceived differences between generational cohorts in terms of what they desire in their work context. The reasons for these expectations come from several sources. First, attribution theory posits that individuals are always searching for explanations for other people’s behavior (Heider, 1958). One interesting and robust phenomenon related to attributions is the actorobserver effect (Jones & Nisbett, 1972). This phenomenon highlights the tendency to attribute others’ behaviors to internal causes (i.e., something inherent in them) while attributing one’s own behavior to external causes (i.e., something inherent in the situation) because of differences in perspective and the salience of different information. Thus, it would not be surprising to see generations who are observing actors from other generations to make inaccurate attributions. Another reason to expect perceptual differences is previous research on discriminating views that arise from generational stereotyping. Interestingly, we see negative stereotypes working both ways. For example, despite the fact that older generations are living longer, healthier, more productive lives, younger generations persistently hold negative stereotypes of them (Yoon & Kolomer, 2007). Although these negative stereotypes do not occur across all life domains, the older generation’s approach to work is one area where misperceptions may occur. For example, older workers are consistently evaluated as possessing less flexibility (Kornadt & Rothermund, 2011). Turning our attention to how younger generations view older generations, we see evidence of similar stereotyping. Arnett (2010), while questioning whether it is fair, acknowledges that older generations portray the younger generation negatively and view them as being selfish. Part of this negative view may arise from their high expectations for work. Generation Y’s expectation of finding the perfect job right away may be seen by the older generations as Generation Y’s unwillingness to pay their dues (Arnett, 2004). These negative portrayals of the younger generations is not new; in fact, Trzesniewski and Donnellan (2010) trace these negative perceptions back to the time of Socrates. Finally, in addition to expecting generational value differences regarding technology, communication, views of authority, and work culture, we also expected these actual value differences to influence perceived generational differences. We expect that how generations view power, status, technology, and ways of conversing with others will affect how members of each generation interpret/perceive others during cross-generational interactions. In other words, we believe these impressions contribute to and often exacerbate perceived differences between generations. For example, consider the interaction between a Boomer who prefers
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN EAU CLAIRE on August 21, 2012
345
Lester et al. face-to-face communication and a Generation Y individual who likes to communicate via social media. Each will interpret the behaviors of the other, filtered through their own value set and preferences. Subsequently, these perceptions may lead to attributions, such as the Boomer labeling the younger party as “unprofessional” or “disrespectful” and the Generation Y person labeling the older counterpart as “inflexible” or “outdated.” Actual value differences in the technology/communication area could also easily influence assessments of the extent to which generational cohorts value workplace phenomenon, such as teamwork and continuous learning. Actual differences in the value placed on formal authority versus an informal, fun work culture may also influence attributions made regarding another generation’s views on adaptability, recognition, and involvement in decision making. In expectation of these perpetuated generational stereotypes, we propose the following: Hypothesis 2: There are more perceived value differences between generations than actual value differences.
Method Participants and Procedure Data for this study were gathered from a Midwestern organization in the United States. From a total employee pool of 466, we received responses from 263 employees, providing a 56% response rate. The organization was identified through past relationships with the researchers and their association with the researchers’ affiliated university. Among our subjects, 84% were female and 16% were male. The ages of subjects ranged from 17 to 65 years, with a mean age of 40.7 years. The educational level of subjects varied as follows: 4% reported having a graduate degree, 30% reported having a bachelor’s degree, 19% reported having a 2-year associate’s degree, 30% reported having attended “some college,” and 17% reported having completed high school. The positions and status of participants represented a wide range within the organization. No constraints were placed on employee involvement; in fact, researchers endeavored to obtain data from as wide a sample of employees as possible. Employee titles may not be divulged for reasons of confidentiality; however, employee job positions at all levels of the organization were represented from frontline employees to the CEO. All data were collected through an online survey. The average time it took subjects to complete the survey was approximately 20 minutes. Other than demographic data, the survey consisted of statements to which the subject responded on 6-point Likert-type scales. Demographic data
were requested only after the subject completed value item portions of the survey to decrease bias.
Measures Generational designation. Subjects were asked to indicate their age; using this information, we placed them into one of the four following categories: (a) Generation Y (coded 1) for subjects born in or after 1982, (b) Generation X (coded 2) for subjects born between 1965 and 1981, (c) Boomers (coded 3) for subjects born between 1946 and 1964, and (d) Traditionalists (coded 4) for subjects born prior to 1946. However, we found only three of our subjects fell into the Traditionalist category. Closer inspection revealed these three subjects to be only 1 year beyond Boomer range; as such, we recategorized those subjects as Boomers and tested for three generational groups. Age ranges used to demarcate generations vary slightly in the extant literature; however, the ranges selected for our study reflect common range series used by multiple researchers (Egri & Ralston, 2004; Reynolds et al., 2008; Strauss & Howe, 1991). Across the 263 subjects, 62 were categorized as “Generation Y,” 99 were categorized as “Generation X,” and 102 were categorized as “Boomers.” “I Value” and “Generations Value” assessments. “I value” data were collected first. Subjects were asked the extent to which they personally valued (i.e., appreciated) 15 different items that could be representative of their work context. These items included (a) teamwork, (b) autonomy, (c) security, (d) professionalism, (e) flexibility, (f) formal authority, (g) technology, (h) face-to-face communication, (i) e-mail communication, (j) social media, (k) structure at work, (l) involvement, (m) continuous learning, (n) fun-at-work, and (o) recognition. Subjects rated the extent to which they would appreciate these items using a Likert-type scale with verbal descriptors ranging from 1 = No extent to 6 = Very great extent.” The 15 items were derived from extant literature (e.g., Anetzberger & Teaster, 2010; Bright, 2010; Giancola, 2008; Simons, 2010). We tested the items through exploratory factor analysis. Responses to the 15-item scale were analyzed using a principal component analysis with a promax rotation. We conducted the Bartlett test of sphericity, and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy to determine the appropriateness of the analysis. The KMO sampling adequacy was .841 and the p value for the Bartlett’s test was less than .01, indicating the model was appropriate for analysis. Examination of eigenvalues and the scree plot revealed four factors, accounting for 51% accumulated variance. These four groupings are presented in Table 1. It should be noted that the items we hypothesized for actual differences were selected based on generational cohort theory, not the factors that emerged. Therefore, we were not testing the factors themselves as a group; rather, this analysis was conducted to better understand how the 15 items could be categorized.
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN EAU CLAIRE on August 21, 2012
346
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 19(3)
Table 1. “I Value” Measure Groupings Engagement
Nature of Job
Technology
Structure
Teamwork Face-to-face communication Participation Continuous learning Fun at work Recognition
Autonomy Security Professional Flexible
Technology E-mail communication Social media
Formal authority Structure
Table 2. Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations of Study Variables M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Generation Gender Race Educational level Teamwork Autonomy Security Professionalism Flexibility Formal authority Technology Face-to-face communication E-mail communication Social media Structure Involvement Learning Fun at work Recognition
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
2.15 .78 1.84 .37 .03 4.97 .36 .03 .06 3.70 1.21 −.17 −.12 .06 5.25 .84 .09 .15 .12 −.10 5.02 .88 −.02 .12 .13 .00 .32 5.40 .78 .03 .04 .15 −.12 .24 .41 5.29 .81 .00 .03 .10 .00 .21 .28 5.36 .73 −.09 .07 −.05 .00 .37 .32 4.08 1.11 −.02 −.03 −.07 −.15 .30 .26 4.97 .87 −.12 −.09 .00 .03 .18 .27 4.66 1.10 .04 .00 .00 −.09 .26 .12 4.59 1.04 −.21
.04
-.05
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
.14 .24 .20 .32 .17 .16
.46 .43 .40 .37 .32 .20 .29 36 .41 .29 .17 .27 .23 .23 .12
01 .40 .27 .21 .20 .26
.05 .36 .41 .31 .12 .18
.21 .29 .33 .30 .35 .32
.14 .53 .33 .19 .16 .27
.21 .33 .35 .31 .21 .24
17
18
.00 .26 .27 .18 .21 .32 .27 .39 .17
.10 −.14 −.08 .12 2.91 1.50 −.38 4.87 .94 −.11 .07 .00 −.07 .38 4.87 .97 .03 −.02 −.06 −.03 .42 4.92 .95 −.08 .00 −.02 .01 .31 5.15 .98 −.11 .01 .02 −.14 .48 .05 .00 −.07 .31 4.87 1.06 −.09
16
.11 .23 .38 .34 .27 .30
.41 .25 .31 .31 .34 .25
.12 .12 .21 .26 .15
.46 .35 .24 .25
.64 .39 .40 .40 .29 .48
NOTE: N = 263. Correlations with absolute values from .13 and higher are significant at p < .05; correlations with absolute values of .16 and higher are significant at p < .01.
After rating the 15 items for personal value, subjects were asked to rate the same items based on the extent to which they believed each of the three generations valued the items. Specifically, subjects rated each item according to how much (or how little) they believed a Boomer would appreciate that item in the workplace. Then the subject repeated this process twice more, once for Generation X and once for Generation Y.
Results Hypotheses Tests Correlations, means, and standard deviations for study variables are presented in Table 2.
Gender, ethnicity, and educational level were used as control variables. As Table 2 indicates, gender was significantly related to teamwork at the .05 level; female subjects rated this item higher than male subjects. The level of education received was significantly related to fun-at-work and to formal authority; in both cases, these items decreased in value as the level of education increased. Although significance was technically found between race and a few of the value items (at the .05 level), we hesitate to overstate these findings, given the skewed distribution of our sample (i.e., 96% reported to be Caucasian). Hypothesis 1 proposed that generations would display actual differences in the degree to which they value: technology, face-to-face communication, e-mail communication, social media, formal authority, and fun-at-work. To
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN EAU CLAIRE on August 21, 2012
347
Lester et al. Table 3. Hypothesis 1: Actual Differences Between Generations on “I Value” Items Value
Generation Y
Generation X
Boomers
Mean Differencea
4.19
0.71**
E-mail communication Social media
4.90
3.90
Fun at work
5.48
5.48
4.82
0.66**
Continuous learning
5.33
4.82
0.51*
5.43
0.38*
Professionalism
3.90
2.74
1.16*** 2.40
4.79
5.06
1.50*** 0.69**
Interpretation Generation Y reports valuing it more than Boomers report valuing it Generation Y reports valuing it more than Generation X reports valuing it Generation Y reports valuing it more than Boomers report valuing it Generation Y reports valuing it more than Generation X reports valuing it Generation Y reports valuing it more than Boomers report valuing it Generation Y reports valuing it more than Boomers report valuing it Boomers report valuing it more than Generation X reports valuing it
a. The values represent absolute difference mean scores. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.
test this hypothesis, a multivariate analysis was conducted testing the relationship between generational designation and the 15 “I Value” items, with control variables added. Control variables gender, ethnicity, and educational level were entered as fixed factors, as was generational designation. The 15 “I Value” items were entered as dependent variables. The findings are presented in Table 3. It should be noted that absolute difference scores were used to present the mean difference scores in Table 3 based on the theoretical rationale of the relationship. Because the variable measured by the difference (e.g., pairwise comparison of values from each generation) was insensitive to which component score is larger, absolute difference scores were deemed appropriate (Johns, 1981). An examination of the pairwise comparisons of mean difference scores between Generation Y, Generation X, and Boomers revealed significant differences for three of the six hypothesized “I Value” items. First, Generation Y indicated a higher value score than Boomers with regard to e-mail communication. Second, for social media, a significant difference in valuation occurred between both Generation Y and Generation X as well as between Generation Y and Boomers, with Generation Y reporting the higher value score for both comparisons. A similar result was found for the fun-at-work variable; again, Generation Y’s valuation score was significantly higher than the other two generations. In addition, we found a significant difference in valuation scores for two of the “I Value” items not hypothesized. For continuous learning, a significant difference in valuation was found between Generation Y and Generation X; specifically, Generation Y’s value ratings were higher than Generation X’s ratings.
In terms of professionalism, Boomers reported a higher value score than their Generation X counterparts, and this finding represents the only real significant difference found between Generation X and Boomers. In summary, while differences were found for three of the six “I Value” items, we did not find significant differences for all six hypothesized differences. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was partially supported. Hypothesis 2 held that perceived differences would significantly outnumber actual differences among the three generations in terms of what they valued. To test this hypothesis, a series of multivariate analyses were conducted. These analyses were performed to examine how each generation perceived the other generations with regard to the 15 “I Value” items. For these analyses, the control variables were again included. One analysis focused on the degree to which the generations believed the Boomers felt about the 15 “I Value” items. A second analysis focused on the degree to which the generations believed the Generation X felt about the 15 “I Value” items. And, a third analysis focused on the degree to which the generations believed the Generation Y felt about the 15 “I Value” items. With regard to the first Boomer analysis, our results indicated significant perceived generational differences for 8 of the 15 “I Value” items. The findings are presented in Table 4. For teamwork, flexibility, technology, and fun-at-work, Boomers indicated they valued the item more than Generation X believed Boomers valued it. We also found that Boomers indicated they valued flexibility and technology more than Generation Y believed the Boomers did. In contrast, Generation Y believed Boomers valued formal authority and structure more than the Boomers actually reported.
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN EAU CLAIRE on August 21, 2012
348
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 19(3)
Table 4. Pairwise Comparisons Between Generation and “What Boomers Value” Perception Items Generation Y
Generation X
Boomers
Mean Differencea
Teamwork
4.70
4.26
5.01
0.75*
Flexible
4.17
4.92
0.75*
4.92
0.71*
4.49
0.98**
Value
4.21
Formal authority
5.48
5.48
Technology
3.48
4.76
0.72* 4.42
0.95**
3.52
4.42
0.91**
4.93
5.08
0.60*
4.96
0.48*
Face-to-face communication Structure
5.53
5.44
4.76
Fun-at-work
3.91
3.58
4.49
0.91**
Recognition
4.98
4.27
4.44
0.71*
5.44
0.68**
Interpretation Generation X does not think Boomers value it as much as Boomers think they value it Generation Y does not think Boomers value it as much as Boomers think they value it Generation X does not think Boomers value it as much as Boomers think they value it Generation Y thinks Boomers value it more than Boomers think they value it Generation Y thinks Boomers value it more than Generation X thinks Boomers values it Gen Y does not think Boomers value it as much as Boomers think they value it Gen X does not think Boomers value it as much as Boomers think they value it Generation Y thinks Boomers value it more than Generation X thinks Boomers values it Generation Y thinks Boomers value it more than Boomers think they value it Generation Y thinks Boomers value it more than Generation X thinks Boomers values it Generation X does not think Boomers value it as much as Boomers think they value it Generation Y think Boomers value it less than Generation X think Boomers values it
a. Mean difference scores are displayed as absolute values. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01.
Interestingly, we also found four instances in which Generation Y and Generation X appeared to differ in their perceptions about the extent to which Boomers valued a particular item. These included formal authority, face-toface communication, structure, and recognition. In all four cases, Generation Y’s ratings suggested that they believed Boomers to value these items more than the Generation X subjects believed the Boomers valued them. For perceptions about the values of Generation X, results indicated perceived generational differences for 5 of the 15 “I Value” items. These findings are presented in Table 5. Generation X indicated they valued security more than Boomers believed Generation X valued it. In contrast, Generation X indicated that they valued technology and social media less than Boomers believed Generation X valued them. Only professionalism revealed a perceptual difference between Generation X and Generation Y; in this case, Generation Y believed Generation X valued it more than Generation X’s actual ratings would suggest. Generation Y and Boomers appeared to differ in their perceptions about what Generation X valued across three items: security, professionalism, and formal authority. In each case, Generation Y indicated that they believed
Generation X to value these items more than Boomers believed Generation X valued them. The analysis to determine the generations’ perception of what Generation Y valued revealed the most perceptual differences of all the analyses; in fact, technology was the only value item in which there was not any statistically significant perceptual difference among the three generations. Findings are presented in Table 6. For eight of the items (teamwork, security, professionalism, flexibility, involvement, continuous learning, fun-at-work, and recognition), Generation X did not think Generation Y valued these things as much as Generation Y indicated they did. For 10 of the items, Boomers indicated that they did not think Generation Y valued these concepts as much as Generation Y participants revealed they did (see Table 6 for these items). We found four instances in which Generation X and Boomers appeared to differ in their perceptions about how Generation Y valued a specific item. These included security, e-mail, social media, and fun-at-work. For the first two, Generation X ratings suggested they believed Generation Y to value these items more than the Boomers believed Generation Y valued them. For the latter two items, the reverse was found; the Boomers’ ratings suggested they
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN EAU CLAIRE on August 21, 2012
349
Lester et al. Table 5. Pairwise Comparisons Between Generation and “What Generation X Values” Perception Items Value
Generation Y
Security
5.15
Professionalism
5.10
5.10
Formal authority Technology
4.56
Social media
Generation X
Boomers
Mean Differencea
5.09
4.66
0.43*
4.66
0.49* 0.44+
4.66 4.60
0.50*
4.32
4.02
0.54*
4.88
4.73
5.23
0.50*
4.04
3.45
4.64
1.19**
Interpretation Boomers do not think Generation X values it as much as Generation X thinks they value it Boomers do not think Generation X values it as much as Generation Y thinks Generation X values it Generation Y thinks Generation X values it more than Generation X thinks they value it Boomers do not think Generation X values it as much as Generation Y thinks Generation X values it Boomers do not think Generation X values it as much as Generation Y thinks Generation X values it Boomers think Generation X values it more than Generation X thinks they value it Boomers think Generation X values it more than Generation X thinks they value it
a. Mean difference scores are displayed as absolute values. +p < .10. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01.
believed Generation Y to value these items more than Generation X believed Generation Y valued them. Considering all analyses, we were examining 45 potential value differences. In other words, for each of the 15 value items, we were comparing Boomers to Generation X, Generation X to Generation Y, and Boomers to Generation Y. As noted above, we found 8 actual value differences across generations relating to five of the value items (because Generation Y was different from both Generation X and Boomers on three of these five values). In contrast, we found 27 out of the 45 perceived value difference comparisons to be statistically significant. Furthermore, these perceived differences pertained to all 15 value items studied. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was strongly supported.
Discussion In today’s diverse workforce, it is necessary for different generations to work side by side and interact effectively together. This study benefits both researchers and practitioners through the realization that perceived differences outnumber actual differences between generational cohorts in work contexts and demonstrates where actual differences in generational preferences exist. Our results demonstrated actual generational differences for five of the value items: three items where we had expected differences and two items where the differences that were not hypothesized. Subjects provided value perceptions about each generation in turn, which ultimately produced a total of 27 instances of perceptual disagreements related to the 15 items considered. These findings are discussed in more detail below.
We first examined the five actual differences that emerged. These included (a) e-mail communication, (b) social media, (c) continuous learning, (d) fun at work, and (e) professionalism. Using the categories described earlier, the first two differences would fall under the technology/ communication grouping whereas the latter three would be placed in the formal authority/work culture category. Unexpectedly, the three generations examined did not express significant differences in the extent to which they valued technology in general. A common misperception is that the older generations are resistant to technology. Our results suggest that all generations currently active in the workforce understand the value of technology when it comes to competing successfully in today’s business environment. Where actual value disagreements emerged with respect to technology was in the realm of communication. Specifically, two of the five significant items related to the extent to which e-mail communications and social media communications were valued. These results revealed that individuals who would be considered Boomers and Generation Xers valued these technology-driven modes of communication less than their younger counterparts. More traditional forms of communication (e.g., face to face) did not reveal a significant actual difference, as originally hypothesized. In other words, disagreement in value among generations appeared to be restricted to communication in the technological context. Whereas Boomers may be more likely to rely on face-to-face communication, Generation Y workers may value face-to-face communication as a means of maintaining an effective exchange of information with older generations. This could be due to their fear that older generations may not reciprocate or
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN EAU CLAIRE on August 21, 2012
350
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 19(3)
Table 6. Pairwise Comparisons Between Generation and “What Generation Y Values” Perception Items Value
Generation Y
Generation X
Teamwork
4.88
4.21
4.88
Autonomy
5.38
4.95
Security
4.73
4.07
4.73
4.07
Professionalism
4.58
4.58
Flexible
5.70
5.70
Formal authority
4.06
Face-to-face communication E-mail communication Social media
4.01
Boomers
Mean Differencea 0.67*
4.10
0.78**
4.75
0.64* 0.66*
3.49
1.23**
3.49
0.58*
3.67
0.92** 3.54
4.85
1.05** 0.85**
4.64
1.06***
3.04
1.02***
3.38
0.64+
3.76
3.38
0.40*
5.24
4.93
5.57
0.74**
Structure
4.40
4.13
3.73
0.67*
Involvement
4.81
4.07
4.81
Continuous learning
5.11
5.11
Fun-at-work
5.48
Recognition
5.30
3.49
0.75** 4.14
4.56
0.68* 0.55*
4.55 4.64
0.57* 0.85**
4.64
5.15
0.51*
4.64
5.05
0.65**
Interpretation Generation X does not think Generation Y values it as much as Generation Y thinks they value it Boomers do not think Generation Y values it as much as Generation Y thinks they value it Boomers do not think Generation Y values it as much as Generation Y thinks they value it Generation X does not think Generation Y values it as much as Generation Y thinks they value it Boomers do not think Generation Y values it as much as Generation Y thinks they value it Generation X thinks Generation Y values it more than Boomers think they value it Generation X does not think Generation Y values it as much as Generation Y thinks they value it Boomers do not think Generation Y values it as much as Generation Y thinks they value it Generation X does not think Generation Y values it as much as Generation Y thinks they value it Boomers do not think Generation Y values it as much as Generation Y thinks they value it Boomers do not think Generation Y values it as much as Generation Y thinks they value it Boomers do not think Generation Y values it as much as Generation Y thinks they value it Generation X thinks Generation Y values it more than Boomers think they value it Boomers think Generation Y values it more than Generation X thinks they value it Boomers do not think Generation Y values it as much as Generation Y thinks they value it Generation X does not think Generation Y values it as much as Generation Y thinks they value it Boomers do not think Generation Y values it as much as Generation Y thinks they value it Generation X does not think Generation Y values it as much as Generation Y thinks they value it Boomers do not think Generation Y values it as much as Generation Y thinks they value it Generation X does not think Generation Y values it as much as Generation Y thinks they value it Boomers think Generation Y values it more than Generation X thinks they value it Generation X does not think Generation Y values it as much as Generation Y thinks they value it
a. Mean difference scores are displayed as absolute values. +p < .10. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01.
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN EAU CLAIRE on August 21, 2012
351
Lester et al. appreciate communication through social media outlets. This explanation appears to have merit given the perceptual differences found (and discussed later in this section). Three other actual differences were found, one (fun at work) was expected and the other two (continuous learning and professionalism) were not. In addition, we did not find a significant difference for formal authority as expected. Instead, value disagreements regarding formal authority were perceptual (rather than actual) among the generations. Individuals appeared to value formal authority equally, regardless of their generational cohort. However, we believe this has to do with the conceptualization of formal authority and what it means to each generation. Individuals may recognize and appreciate the need for some degree of formal authority. But the manner in which that authority is wielded, coupled with the unlikelihood that each generation equates that authority with leadership, could produce perceptual differences in other ways. One unexpected finding pertained to Boomers valuing professionalism in the workplace to a greater degree than Generation X did. Interestingly, Generation X had the lowest mean on this value item of all three generations surveyed. Looking at previous research and perceptual classifications, one possible explanation for this finding is that Boomers and Generation Y appear to group together in their desire to operate in collaborative settings whereas Generation X craves more independence. Perhaps, because of an intensified focus on preserving their independence and autonomy, Generation X places less importance on professionalism in their work context because this relates to styles of interactions with others. The other unexpected finding of an actual value difference related to the greater value placed on continuous learning by Generation Y. This might be attributed to the emphasis placed on education and the desire to build and retain marketable skills, which both educators and parents have often stressed as key concerns for Generation Y. Ironically, however, older generations do not appear to perceive this concern within their younger coworkers, as demonstrated in the perceptual differences we discuss below. To clearly delineate the different ways in which generations perceived each other, we consider each separately. In the case of the Boomers, the value they reported having for technology was significantly greater than what other generations attributed to them. Similarly, Boomers also expressed a greater value for teamwork, flexibility, and funat-work than other generations believed them to hold. In contrast, the younger generations believed that their older counterparts valued formal authority and structure more than Boomers self-reported. Generation Xers reported placing less value on technology, social media, and professionalism than Generation Y or the Boomers believed them to hold. The sole instance
where Generation X placed a higher value than the other two generations perceived they held was for security. In the case of Generation Y, there was a clear divergence of perception in regards to how much younger workers valued these work-related items. In fact, with the exception of technology, e-mail communication, and social media, Generation Y professed holding a higher value for all other items than was attributed to them by the two older generations. An examination of perceptual differences across the generations highlights the mistaken beliefs each generation holds for the other. Many of these misconceptions align to stereotypical profiles that have been perpetuated in our culture. For instance, younger generations were more likely to believe that older generations downplay work-related issues, such as flexibility, technology, and fun. Conversely, older generations tended to view younger workers as valuing professionalism, involvement, formal authority, face-to-face communication, and continuous learning to a significantly lesser extent than Generation Y professed to. Boomers perceived themselves as not valuing formal authority and structure as much as Generation Y believed them to. Likewise, Boomers felt Generation X valued technology and social media to a much greater extent than was actually reported by Generation X, whereas Generation Y felt Generation X valued professionalism to much a greater extent than Generation X reported. These findings paint a very familiar picture: one in which “older” workers are rigid and inflexible, “younger” workers are irresponsible and entitled, and the workers in the “middle” are misunderstood by both younger and older generations. Why is it that the generations hold such inaccurate images of each other, when in fact the similarities in what they value greatly outnumber actual value differences? The explanation for this may lie in the actual differences themselves. A closer examination of the actual value differences illustrates that each of these value items has the ability to significantly influence perceptions in other areas. For example, when generational counterparts have different “default” modes of communications (i.e., actual differences in the extent to which they value e-mail communications and social media communications) and hesitate/refuse to use the communication mechanisms commonly used by other generations, this is going to lead to a number of frustrations surrounding ineffective exchange of information. This failure to communicate effectively is likely to produce attributions about one’s willingness to be a team player, to be flexible/adaptable, and to embrace technology. In a similar vein, whether one places value on continuous learning and whether one perceives the work environment as a place to have fun will play a significant role in how they perceive coworkers who place greater value on the separation of work and life and those who respect how
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN EAU CLAIRE on August 21, 2012
352
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 19(3)
things have been done in the past. Not surprisingly, these actual value differences are also likely to influence perceptions of how one’s colleagues view value items, such as formal authority, structure at work, and security/stability. What all five actual value differences have in common is that they are likely to affect how coworkers interact with one another. These dyadic interactions that workers share with colleagues from other generations affect the perceptions they hold and consequently may lead them to reach a mistaken conclusion that reinforces generational stereotypes. These mistaken beliefs are problematic because they reduce the ability of cross-generational colleagues to function together at the highest level possible.
Limitations Although the current study produced a number of significant findings, it is not without methodological limitations. First, the sample came from a single organization, which constrains our ability to generalize our findings to all populations. That being said, we did have a good response rate from employees representing all levels within the organization. While the work-related value items used were based on previous research, we recognize that this is not an exhaustive list of all possible values of interest. One could explore other values that may grow in importance as the workplace continues to evolve. A final limitation is the unequal cell sizes across the three generations, with Generation Y having about one third less participants in the sample than their Generation X and Boomer counterparts. On the positive side, the Generation X and Boomers subsamples were very similar in size and the degree of disparity across cells was less than previous studies in the literature.
Implications Our findings suggest that both researchers and managers could benefit from the lessons already provided in the extant diversity literature; namely, the need for a work climate that fosters nonjudgmental attitudes, tolerance, and an open exchange of information. Given that only eight actual differences were found across 5 of the 15 value items studied, managers should not just educate workers on these real differences, but more important, highlight the surprising commonalities that exist across generational cohorts. In so doing, it allows managers to reveal the fallacy of generational perceptions and help all generations in the workforce to understand just how similar they really are. One major implication of our findings is the importance of educating employees in ways to capitalize on the common value all generations place on face-to-face communication while also embracing the benefits inherent in more contemporary (e.g., technological) forms of communication. Given that
many misperceptions across generations may evolve from the different ways they prefer to use (or not use) technology in their communications, a promising area for future research would be to compare and contrast the efficacy of different training interventions geared toward helping employees of all generations better understand different communication styles and mechanisms. Specifically, these interventions could be evaluated on the extent to which they enable employees to (a) become more comfortable and proficient with new forms of communication as well as (b) learn which workplace situations lend themselves more to a specific mode of communication.
Directions for Future Research Obviously, it would be worthwhile to replicate these findings across different samples. Furthermore, from a methodological standpoint, future research would benefit from surveying multiple organizations and by randomly selecting the same number of participants from each generation being studied. The current investigation addressed one of two pressing questions in the generational diversity literature. This study directly addresses the question, “Are there actual differences in what generational cohorts value in their work context?” and then highlights which work-related concepts generated these significant value differences. However, the current data set does not contain the information needed to address a second key question, “Do these value differences matter in terms of work-related outcomes?” A priority of future research in the area should be to examine if (and how) actual value differences affect workplace outcomes, including the bottom line. The scope of this investigation was targeted at examining the value placed on various aspects of one’s work context across different generational cohorts. There are two ways in which this scope could be expanded in future research. First, researchers could change the focus to intra-generational differences and possibly look at some more fine-grained measures of value differences. For example, Arnett (2001) would suggest that future studies could examine value differences within the youngest generation in the workforce by comparing adolescents (defined by an age in the teens) versus emerging adults (defined by an age in the 20s). Another potential area of interest concerns constructs that would be considered antecedents to the ones we study; one such area is personal work values (e.g., concern for others, achievement.). Is there systematic variance on personal values between generations? If so, how does this influence the work-related preferences we studied here?
Conclusion We work in an increasingly diverse environment where success derives from frequent and effective interactions
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN EAU CLAIRE on August 21, 2012
353
Lester et al. among employees and managers. As individuals from different generations work together to achieve goals, to innovate, and to problem solve, it is important to embrace the differences between generations and recognize them as strengths rather than as challenges to overcome. In so doing, however, managers and employees alike would benefit from the awareness that their similarities actually outnumber their differences. By establishing common ground and a clearer understanding of what our colleagues really value, we can work together in a more positive and productive manner. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References Anetzberger, G. J., & Teaster, P. B. (2010). Future directions for social policy and elder abuse: Through the looking glass of generational characteristics. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 22, 207-215. Arnett, J. J. (2001). Conceptions of the transitions to adulthood: Perspectives from adolescence through midlife. Journal of Adult Development, 8, 133-143. Arnett, J. J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Arnett, J. J. (2010). Oh, grow up! Generational grumbling and the new life stage of emerging adulthood—Commentary on Trzesniewski and Donnellan (2010). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 88-92. Bright, L. (2010). Why age matters in the work preferences of public employees: A comparison of three age-related explanations. Public Personnel Management, 39, 1-14. Cennamo, L., & Gardner, D. (2008). Generational differences in work values, outcomes and person-organization values fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 891-906. Crampton, S. M., & Hodge, J. W. (2007). Generations in the workplace: Understanding age diversity. The Business Review, 9, 16-22. Crumpacker, M., & Crumpacker, J. M. (2007). Succession planning and generational stereotypes: Should HR consider age-based values and attitudes a relevant factor or a passing fad? Public Personnel Management, 36, 349369. Dittman, M. (2005). Generational differences at work. Monitor on Psychology, 36, 54-55. Egri, C. P., & Ralston, D. A. (2004). Generation cohorts and personal values: A comparison of China and the United States. Organization Science, 15, 210-220.
Elsdon, R., & Lyer, S. (1999). Creating value and enhancing retention through employee development: The Sun Microsystems experience. Human Resource Planning, 22, 39-48. Fogg, P. (2009). When generations collide. Education Digest, 74, 25-30. Giancola, F. (2006). The generational gap: More a myth than reality. Human Resource Planning, 29, 32-37. Giancola, F. (2008). Should generation profiles influence rewards strategy? Employee Relations Law Journal, 34, 56-68. Hannay, M., & Fretwell, C. (2011). The higher education workplace: Meeting the needs of multiple generations. Research in Higher Education Journal, 10, 1-12. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley. Herman, A., & Eckel, R. (2002). The new American worker: What Generation ‘Y’ brings to the workplace. Work Matters, May, 1-2. Hill, R. P. (2002). Managing across generations in the 21st century: Important lessons from the ivory trenches. Journal of Management Inquiry, 11, 60-66. Inglehart, R. (1977). The silent revolution: Changing values and political styles among western publics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Johns, G. (1981). Difference score measures of organizational behavior variables: A critique. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 27, 443-463. Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (1972). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, & H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 79-94). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. Jurkiewicz, C. L., & Brown, R. G. (1998). GenXers vs. Boomers vs. Matures: Generational comparisons of public employee motivation. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 18, 18-37. Kornadt, A. E., & Rothermund, K. (2011). Contexts of aging: Assessing evaluative age stereotypes in different life domains. Journal of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 66, 547-556. Kupperschmidt, B. R. (2000). Multigenerational employees: Strategies for effective management. The Health Care Manager, 19, 65-76. Lancaster, L. C., & Stillman, D. (2005). When generations collide. New York, NY: HarperCollins. Macky, K., Gardner, D., & Forsyth, S. (2008). Generational differences at work: Introduction and overview. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 857-861. Martin, C. A. (2005). From high maintenance to high productivity. Industrial & Commercial Training, 37, 39-44. McGuire, D., By, R. T., & Hutchings, K. (2007). Towards a model of human resource solutions for achieving intergenerational interaction in organizations. Journal of European Industrial Training, 31, 592-608. Meriac, J. P., Woehr, D. J., & Banister, C. (2010). Generational differences in work ethic: An examination of measurement equivalence across three cohorts. Journal of Business Psychology, 25, 315-324.
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN EAU CLAIRE on August 21, 2012
354
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 19(3)
Myers, K. K., & Sadaghiani, K. (2010). Millenials in the workplace: A communication perspective on Millenials’ organizational relationships and performance. Journal of Business Psychology, 25, 225-238. Ravlin, E. C., & Meglino, B. M. (1987). Effect of values on perception and decision making: A study of alternative work values measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 666-673. Reynolds, L., Bush, E. C., & Geist, R. (2008). The Gen Y imperative. Communication World, 25, 19-22. Sessa, V. I., Kabacoff, R. I., Deal, J., & Brown, H. (2007). Generational differences in leader values and leadership behaviors. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 10, 47-74. Simons, G. (2010). Leveraging generational work styles to meet business objectives. Information Management, 44, 28-33. Steele, M. J., & Gordon, V. N. (2006). Advising in a multigenerational workplace. Retrieved from http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/ Clearinghouse/AdvisingIssues/generations.htm#gen Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (1991). Generations: The history of America’s future. New York, NY: William Morrow. Trzesniewski, K. H., & Donnellan, M. B. (2010). Rethinking “Generation Me”: A study of cohort effects from 1976-2006. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 58-75. Twenge, J. M. (2010). A review of empirical evidence on generational differences in work attitudes. Journal of Business Psychology, 25, 201-210. Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, S. M. (2008). Generational differences in psychological traits and their impact on the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 862-877. Westerman, J. W., & Yamamura, J. H. (2007). Generational preferences for work environment fit: Effects on employee outcomes. Career Development International Journal, 12, 150-161.
Yoon, E., & Kolomer, S. R. (2007). Refining the measure and dimensions of social values of older people (SVOP). Educational Gerontology, 33, 649-663.
Bios Scott W. Lester is a Professor of Management and the Director of the Center for Leadership at the University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire. He received his Ph.D. in Organizational Behavior from the University of South Carolina. His current research interests include trust, work values, work-life balance and generational differences in the workplace. Rhetta L. Standifer is an Associate Professor of Management at the University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire. She received her MBA and Ph.D. in Business Administration from the University of Missouri-Columbia. Her research interests include generational and age-related diversity, temporal aspects of organizations, and multi-team systems. Nicole J. Schultz earned her Ph.D. in communication and graduate certificate in women’s studies from Bowling Green State University. She is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication and Journalism at University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire. Her research interests are focused on work-life balance, training and development, pedagogy, generational diversity, and organizational communication. James M. Windsor was a Graduate Assistant while earning his MBA degree from the University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire. James’ research efforts range in the areas of multi-generational workforces, student perceptions of online courses, mixed method research and lean operations.
Downloaded from jlo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WISCONSIN EAU CLAIRE on August 21, 2012
