Search results

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.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the presence of generational differences in items measuring workplace attitudes (e.g. job satisfaction, employee engagement).

Data from two empirical studies were used; the first study examined generational differences in large sample, multi-organizational administrations of an employee survey at both the item and general-factor levels. The second study compared job satisfaction ratings between parents and their children from a large nationwide longitudinal survey.

Although statistically significant, most generational differences in Study 1 did not meet established cutoffs for a medium effect size. Type II error was ruled out given the large power. In Study 2, generational differences again failed to reach Cohen’s cutoff for a medium effect size. Across both studies, over 98 percent of the variance in workplace attitudes lies within groups, as opposed to between groups, and the distributions of scores on these variables overlap by over 79 percent.

Prior studies examining generational differences in workplace attitudes focused on scale-level constructs. The present paper focused on more specific item-level constructs and employed larger sample sizes, which reduced the effects of sampling error. In terms of workplace attitudes, it appears that generations are more similar than they are different.

The purpose of this paper is to determine how employees in different generational groups (or cohorts) and different career stages perceive their psychological contracts.

A survey of 345 working adults included psychological contract obligations, incentives and importance and the cognitive responses of job satisfaction, affective commitment and intention to leave. Super's “Adult career concerns inventory” measured career stage.

Small but significant differences between individuals' psychological contract perceptions were based on both career stage and generational cohort: higher levels of balanced obligations and fulfilment were found than either relational or transactional obligations and fulfilment; relational and transactional obligations were significantly higher for Baby Boomers than Generation Xers; a stronger negative relationship was found between transactional fulfilment and intention to leave for Generation Xers than Generation Yers; higher balanced fulfilment had a significantly stronger positive relationship with job satisfaction for exploration compared with other career stages and commitment for exploration compared with maintenance stages.

Cross‐section methodology and difference scores in the female‐dominated sample limits generalisability. The study's key theoretical contribution is the need to further investigate whether the protean career concept is operating within employees' perceptions of their psychological contractual terms.

Despite widespread colloquial use of generational cohort groupings such as Baby Boomer, Generation X and Generation Y, small effect sizes were found. Implications for employers looking to manage employees' psychological contracts include that there are greater similarities than differences between the different career stages and generational cohorts.

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.

The study aims to define the term “generation” by proposing an integrated design based on age-period-cohort effects and by proposing an Indian generational cohort framework categorizing Indian generational cohorts into four categories, namely, Baby Boomers, GenX, GenY, and GenZ. The study further aimed to capture the existing generational differences between GenY and GenZ cohorts in the Indian teams on team climate, transactive memory system, and team leader humility.

For the first two objectives a literature review methodology along with the author's proposition was adopted. An integrated design was proposed by reviewing the relevant sociological literature to define generations. Thereafter, an Indian cohort framework was proposed categorizing them into four groups Baby Boomers, GenX, GenY, and GenZ. Following that, for the last objective, i.e. to identify the differences between cohorts, empirical data were collected by a structured questionnaire that was disseminated to GenY and GenZ Indian working professionals. A total of 229 responses were used for observing the differences or similarities between GenY and GenZ cohorts on the study variables by employing an independent samples t-test.

The study proposed an integrated design (age, period, and cohort effect). Following that, an Indian generational cohort's framework has been outlined categorizing Indian cohorts based on their birth years, age groups, developmental stages, formative years, major Indian historical events, and various characteristics possessed by them. Moreover, the empirical findings support the existing generational disparities and depict that GenZ holds a higher inclination towards transactive memory systems and team climate whereas GenY holds more inclination toward leader humility.

The study put forth its contribution to research scholars by categorizing Indian generational cohorts in a rationalized manner based on an integrated design (age-period-cohort) effect. The study would further assist concerned authorities and managers in formulating HR policies to deal with the underlying generational differences highlighted by the study.

As there lies a paucity of generational frameworks in the Indian context, this study is the first attempt in this direction which categorizes Indian generational cohorts based on a unique integrated design including age-period-cohort effects. In addition, the study also investigated these cohorts in Indian organizations to observe the existing variations.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the microgeneration between Generation X and the Millennial generation. The research question addressed was “What makes the Xennial generation unique and how might the knowledge of these differences be beneficial to organizations?”

The research question was analyzed by a review of literature through the lens of generational theory. This study reviewed current literature on generational theory, years encompassing specific generations, and differences between recent generations in the workplace.

It was discovered the exact years distinguishing generations were unclear because generations fade into one another without a distinct starting and stopping point. This overlap creates a cusp generation or microgeneration. The presented findings suggest microgeneration employees could aid in reducing workplace generational tensions.

Organizations can benefit from creating flexible workplaces accommodating the desires of multi-generational employees while still meeting the goals of the organization as a whole. It is important managers approach generational differences with a clear perspective of what information is valid and what may simply be popular. It is crucial to remember employees are individuals who never completely fit a stereotype, generational, or otherwise.

Very few academic articles on generational differences mention cusp generations and none address their unique opportunities for organizations in the workplace. Members of microgenerations between major generational cohorts may be a key to reducing workplace friction between employees of different generations.

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.

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.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the structural relationship model among narcissism, work centrality, employee engagement and discretionary effort.

Respecting the quantitative approach, the data were gathered by means of the survey completed by 1,190 respondents of Generation X, Y and Z working in the Thai service and manufacturing industries.

The findings of the study indicated positive associations between narcissism and work centrality, narcissism and employee engagement, work centrality and employee engagement and employee engagement and discretionary effort. It was observed that work centrality played a partially mediating role in the relationships between narcissism and employee engagement, while employee engagement fully mediated the associations between work centrality and discretionary effort, as well as between narcissism and discretionary effort. The structural model demonstrated variations across different generational cohorts, suggesting that the relationships differed among generations. However, the model did not exhibit any variations across different types of industries. Furthermore, the findings from the Thai samples indicated that generational differences had a moderating effect on the path relationships between narcissism and work centrality (with Generation Y having a stronger effect compared to Generation Z and Generation X), narcissism and employee engagement (with Generation Y having a stronger effect compared to Generation Z and Generation X) and narcissism and discretionary effort (with Generation X having a stronger effect compared to Generation Y and Generation Z), all with a significance level of 95%. Additionally, the relationship between employee engagement and discretionary effort showed a significant difference across generations, with Generation Z exhibiting a stronger effect compared to Generation Y and Generation X, at a significance level of 99%.

This study provides empirical evidence supporting the positive relationships between narcissism and work centrality, as well as narcissism and employee engagement, contrary to previous research findings. The results reveal that employee engagement fully mediates the associations between work centrality and discretionary effort, as well as between narcissism and discretionary effort, offering valuable contributions to the existing literature. Furthermore, this study expands on previous research by examining the moderating effect of industry type, specifically comparing manufacturing and service industries. The findings suggest that the model exhibits variations across different generational cohorts, highlighting the importance of considering generational differences in understanding these relationships. However, the model does not exhibit variations across different types of industries.