Search results

This paper aims to examine generational formative referents as factors that influence meeting attendees’ adoption and technology use within virtual and hybrid meetings, and test the applicability of the technology acceptance model (TAM) as presented by Davis (1986). This study investigates how attendees’ experiences from their respective formative years (i.e. generational formative referents), the basis of the Generational Cohort Theory (GCT), influence the TAM model constructs.

A partial least squares analysis test is utilized to determine technology acceptance within meetings across three generations: Baby Boomers (1946-1964), Generation X (1965-1978) and Generation Y (1979-2000).

The multi-group comparison determined all three generations responded similarly with regard to the paths being tested, indicating each of the three generational cohorts within this study are influenced by the experiences of their formative years, which are different for each generation.

The findings add to the limited foundation for scholars wanting to further analyze technology use within meetings, and for those interested in generational influences.

This study provides useful information for marketers and planners to increase meeting attendance, enhance attendee satisfaction, and further explore meeting engagement opportunities.

Underpinning the GCT, this study is the first within hospitality and tourism studies to investigate a theoretical model on generational technology use within meetings.

This study aims to address demographic variables believed likely to restrain or modify homogeneous attitudes and values purported as inherent in each generational cohort and associated with divergence of workplace preferences and expectations.

Using a subsample of data collected from a larger study conducted as part of the General Social Survey and supported by the National Science Foundation, this study contributes to the emerging generational differences in literature by using Kruskal–Wallis tests in the analysis of five generational research questions.

In one sense, the results of this study appear to reflect the mixed and confusing disarray of evidence regarding the influence of generational differences on job preferences and workplace behaviors. On only two of the five job characteristics in this study did generational cohort membership demonstrate beyond random chance divergence in generational preference. However, the analysis of the interaction of cohort membership and demographic covariates on these two job characteristics points toward merit in further examination of relationship of subgroup differences relative to overarching assumptions about generational attitudes and norms of behavior.

A number of limitations to the interpretation of this study merit reflection. First, given that the data for this study were cross-sectional in nature, the relationships in our study may be subject to temporal change. Second, the data were secured by self-report and is subject to all the limitations of self-reported data. Third, some of the demographic variables in this study were the result of aggregation in an attempt to secure adequate observations in each cell, and as such, important variance may have been concealed. Fourth, the study did not control for the confounding influence of age difference on cohort preferences.

In a rush to adapt and develop different approaches to human resource management in hope of meeting the needs of successive generational cohorts, it behooves scholars and practitioners alike to acknowledge the confused state of research on generational cohorts and to question the assumed monolithic model of generational cohort job-related likes and dislikes.

This study would suggest that the assumed homogeneity of generational values and attitudes and their influence on the US workplace frequently fails to consider the heterogeneity evolving from the rural/urban characteristics where cohort members experienced adolescence.

Scholars will appreciate the broad perspective presented in this study and the potential new avenues for research. For practitioners, the study provides valuable insights into the three dominant generational cohorts currently in the workplace, thus enabling practitioners to understand the underpinnings of performance and work climate with greater depth and breadth of perspective.

The purpose of this paper is to examine, utilising the Kaleidoscope Career Model, whether members of the Baby Boom generation and Generation X differ in their needs for authenticity, balance, and challenge.

Survey data were obtained from 982 professionals located across the USA. Correlations, t‐tests, and multiple regressions were performed to test the hypotheses.

Members of Generation X have higher needs for authenticity and balance than Baby Boomers. There was no difference in needs for challenge between Baby Boomers and members of Generation X.

A limitation in the study, as well as in most of the research on generational differences, is the use of cross‐sectional designs that fail to capture the influence of the aging process. A longitudinal, multi‐survey design over the lives of individuals would enable scholars to capture within‐ and between‐person differences and to permit a better understanding of whether differences are in fact due to generational effects or to aging.

Knowledge of the differences and similarities among the various generations in the workforce can help organizational leaders make important decisions about human resource policies and practices.

Many studies in the popular press stress the prevalence and importance of generational differences in the workplace. However, the little academic research that has been conducted has shown mixed results. The study uses the theoretical framework of the Kaleidoscope Career Model to examine generational differences in work attitudes.

This paper compares the work values of the People's Republic of China's (PRC) millennials with their parents.

The Chinese version of the multidimensional work ethic profile (1. productive use of time; 2. centrality of work; 3. hard work; 4. delay of gratification; 5. leisure; 6. self-reliance; and 7. moral reasoning) was used to survey PRC millennials and their parents. A repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for comparing work values for a subsample of 68 same-gender parent/child dyads. A one-way ANOVA was used for comparing the work values of the total sample of 217 PRC millennials and their parents.

The repeated measures ANOVA found that one of the seven work values for the male dyads and three of the seven work values for the female dyads were significantly different. The one-way ANOVA found that four of the seven work values for males grouping and five of the seven work values for the females grouping were significantly different.

Social norms and socialization by parents may moderate the influences of changing social conditions on personal values formation predicted by the theory of generations. Researchers need to sample across demographic and socioeconomic subgroups to understand subgroup differences when conducting cross-generational research. Taking large samples, aggregating data and drawing conclusions about cross-generational values may not be a valid approach in trying to understand the complexity of cross-generational values differences.

Managers should be wary of broad declarations about cross-generational values differences. The differences in generational values are nuanced.

This paper shows when controlling for same-gender parents, cross-generational values are very similar. This contrasts other findings on cross-generational values.

This paper examines the potential relationship between the history of American generations and the development of American management thought. The paper reviews the recently developed generational theory of American history, along with the generational concept itself. Then, the leading thinkers in the history of the management discipline are classified according to their generational membership. The potential theoretical and research implications of the interplay of managerial and historical generations are then discussed.

The purpose of this paper is to report on a study examining the existence and perceived influence of “generational collide” for teachers and leaders across three generations – Baby Boomers, Generation X (Gen X) and Generation Y (Gen Y). The study sought to further determine if a teacher’s generation, gender, school level or position influenced their beliefs about generational leadership change.

This study employed a cross-sectional survey using an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. A random sample of teachers and leaders from schools in the Sydney metropolitan area participated in a questionnaire (n=244) and a purposive sample of eight participants from each of the three generational groups (n=24) participated in a follow up interview.

The data revealed that teachers and leaders across all three generations agreed that “generational collide” is real and is currently happening in some schools. Each generation has their own perceptions about the “collide” and often do not recognise that this may differ for other generations. In relation to the key variables, this study demonstrated that primary teachers were significantly more likely to believe that generational leadership change was happening than secondary teachers and that Baby Boomers were significantly more likely to view their staying on past retirement age as positive compared to both Gen X and Gen Y.

The findings from this study have practical implications for system leaders charged with the responsibility of providing the supply of quality leadership for schools through effective succession planning programmes and policies.

The findings from this study have social implications for principals’ (and deputy principals’) professional associations who have the responsibility for the personal, professional and career welfare of principals and aspiring principals.

This paper adds to the growing body of evidence around generational collide in schools by providing an Australian perspective on the phenomenon. Moreover, this paper raises important concerns for school leaders and administrators involved in leadership development initiatives at the micro, meso and macro levels. Teachers in each generation have specific beliefs around promotion, career pathways, knowledge transfer and talent retention that need to be recognised and considered in future succession planning.

This paper seeks to enhance team performance by intersecting two existing literature streams, generational influences and working teams. This paper aims to boost project objective achievement through the instrumental use of generational competencies despite temporary and provisional project team environments. This supports project team leaders in harnessing diverse generational competencies of contributors to maximize outcomes.

The authors adopt the simultaneous use of social categorization and information processing to connect these diverse literature streams, highlighting the value system and skills of each generation to maximize working benefits.

Project team leader’s tactical deployment of generational competencies may positively contribute to execution and increased goal achievement. The increasingly provisional nature of workforce teams magnifies the need for intentional team management. Embracing generational competencies may elevate team members, increase productivity and decrease turnover.

This paper offers a pathway to couple team execution and generational differences by identifying generational traits which may benefit execution-focused, but provisional teams.

Rather than managing team members to fit into a specific work process, this paper explores the benefits associated with team leader acceptance and strategic use of diverse generational behaviours.

The authors expand upon team diversity by intersecting execution-based and provisional project teams with the intentional use of generational influences to build trust and further positive outcomes.

This paper aims to compare the levels of status consumption for Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y (Millennials).

With an email sample of 220 adult consumers living in the southeast USA, this study measures status consumption, generational cohort, and demographics.

The study finds significant differences in the level of status consumption by generational cohort. The average level of status consumption was highest for Generation Y, followed by Generation X and then Baby Boomers. In looking at the significance of these differences between individual cohorts, there was a significant difference between Generation Y and Baby Boomers. This suggests that while there are differences in the level of status consumption by generation, this difference is only significant between Generation Y and Baby Boomers. This paper then examines if this relationship between generational cohort and status consumption is impacted by demographic variables, such as gender, income, and education. The results illustrate that, holding generation constant, there is no significant relationship between gender, income, or education with status consumption. There is also no significant interaction between generational cohort and the demographic variables of gender, income, and education. This suggests that the relationship between generational cohort and status consumption is due only to generation and is not being impacted by other demographic variables.

Limitations of the study include that it was a convenience sample of predominately white, educated, and younger adult respondents. Additional research is needed to specifically examine ethnic group differences and cohorts prior to the Baby Boomers.

For luxury marketers they need to consider generational cohort, rather than other demographic variables, when segmenting their market.

This paper addresses a gap in the literature by examining if there are differences in the motivation to consume for status based on generational cohort, focusing on the cohorts of Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y. Additionally, this paper proposes that generational cohort is a better means to segment the status consumer than other demographic variables.

This introduction seeks to provide a brief background to the notion that there are generational differences at work and to introduce the papers included in this special issue of the Journal of Managerial Psychology.

The current context concerning generational differences at work is briefly outlined followed by a description of the core theory underpinning the notion of generational cohorts. Criticisms of this theoretical premise are provided before a brief outline is given to each article in the special issue.

There is evidence for changes in personality profiles across generations, and for differences in attitudes towards work and careers. However, effect sizes tend not to be large, and some findings are inconsistent with popular stereotypes regarding generational differences. Little support was found for differences in work values or motivation.

Contrary to popular hype concerning generational differences at work, managerial time may be better spent considering employee needs relating to age (maturity), life‐cycle and career stage differences than developing generationally specific management policies and practices. Significant methodological problems remain in generational research.

The papers facilitate a critical understanding of the challenges facing generational research and its limitations, and provide a litmus test against which popular stereotypes can be compared.

A cross-country comparison of generational earnings mobility is offered, and the reasons for the degree to which the long-run labour market success of children is related to that of their parents is examined. The rich countries differ significantly in the extent to which parental economic status is related to the labour market success of children in adulthood. The strength of these associations should not be interpreted as offering a target or menu for the conduct of policy. A framework for understanding the underlying causal process as well as the conception of equality of opportunity is reviewed as a guide for public policy.