Generational Differences in the Workplace.

Generational Differences in the Workplace
Asha Ries
Roosevelt University

Table of Contents
Research questions 3
Research objectives 4
Significance of generational differences in work values 4
Focus area rationale 5
Understanding generations and generational differences 5
Differences among generations 5
Generational differences in work values 10
Criticisms of generational differences IN work values 12
The concept of employability 15
Types of employment and affective commitment 16
Recruiting, managing and motivating employees 18
Multi-Generational workplaces 18
Psychological aspects 21
Conclusion 21
References 24

Generational Differences in the Workplace
For the first time in history, the current American workforce is composed of four separate generational cohorts: Traditionalists, Baby Boomers, Generation Xers, and Millennials. Of these generations, Traditionalists are the oldest and only represent about five percent of the workforce. The Baby Boomers are the largest group comprising 38% of the American workforce. Generation Xers account for 32% of today’s workforce, leaving the youngest generation, the Millennials, to make up the remaining 25% of the American workforce (De Meuse & Mlodzik, 2010).
Introduction
Cultural and demographic changes, as well as technological and healthcare advances have contributed to this generational diversity in the workplace. Around 85% of professionals are related to at least three different generations in the workplace, and the maximum age difference is 51 years. These individuals grew up in markedly different environments and bring with them distinct values and priorities, contrasting expectations and understandings about the form and nature of work, have varying attitudes towards authority, and have different notions of responsibilities and lifestyles.
This phenomenon of generational diversity is a challenge for all employers, professionals, governments and educational institutions. Generational differences in objectives, principles and values can lead to personal and professional conflicts in the workplace. Organizations now have to face the challenge of creating a work environment that addresses the needs and values (Bradley et al., 2012), as well as maximize the strengths, of each generation (Hansen & Leuty, 2012; Crumpacker & Crumpacker, 2007).
At the same time, if employers are able to identify points of convergence and complementary synergies across generations, the organizations can benefit from the variety of perspectives, experiences, approaches, reflections and attitudes of these individuals (Kinnie & Swart, 2012).
This review aims to examine these generational differences in work values and separate mere stereotypes from characteristics that have empirical bases. This information will provide managers and human resource personnel with a clearer picture of how to recruit, retain, and motivate a multigenerational workforce.
This review will first outline the research questions and objectives, and then discuss the significance and rationale for the topic. The sixth section, “Understanding Generations” will discuss generational cohort theory and the differences among four generations. It will also discuss the criticisms of generational differences. The next three sections will look at factors other than generational differences in the workplace that might affect job commitment and satisfaction. These factors are: employability, type of employment and affective commitment, and approaches to recruiting, managing and motivating different generational cohorts in the workplace. The final section of this review will conclude the topic’s findings and significance.
Research Questions
The primary research question is as follows: What are the differences and similarities in the workplace of Traditionalists, Baby Boomers, Generation Xers, and Millennials? In order to answer this broad question, the following sub-research questions were developed.
1. How committed are Traditionalists, Baby Boomers, Generation Xers, and Millennials to their workplace and how does this sense of commitment affect business in the United States?
2. How does the length of employment in the same organization affect the level of productivity of Traditionalists, Baby Boomers, Generation Xers, and Millennials?
3. What factors could increase the productivity of Traditionalists, Baby Boomers, Generation Xers, and Millennials workers?
4. What are the major differences in the work values of Traditionalists, Baby Boomers, Generation Xers, and Millennials?
Research Objectives
The research objectives of this review are the following:
1. To analyze the significance of different levels of commitment and work values of Traditionalists, Baby Boomers, Generation Xers, and Millennials;
2. To understand how to increase the productivity and effectiveness of Traditionalists, Baby Boomers, Generation Xers, and Millennials;
3. To analyze the differences in work values among Traditionalists, Baby Boomers, Generation Xers, and Millennials; and,
4. To understand how these different work values can be engaged to generate loyalty, commitment and competitive advantage to the company.
Significance of Generational Differences in Work Values
In the past decade, several studies have examined how perceptions of employability affect the work attitudes of Traditionalists, Baby Boomers, Generation Xers and Millennials. These studies reached inconclusive results regarding the impact of human resource management (HRM) practices on workers’ attitudes under conditions of high job insecurity (Mäkelä & Rabbiosi, 2012). Research has shown that when labor markets enter times of crises, workers are strongly motivated to show their value to the organization by demonstrating that they are capable of performing their jobs and that they are highly committed to their organization. Other research has shown that when workers perceive that they have high internal employability, their level of satisfaction and affective commitment to the organization increases (MacLeod& Clarke, 2009).
Focus Area Rationale
Many differences among workers have been attributed to their particular generation. For example, Traditionalists are said to accept hierarchies because these are natural sources of leadership, while Generation Xers are said to be indifferent to authority, with leadership seen as the product of competition. This contrast, however, is not solely a function of age: Millennials, even younger than Generation X, respect authority and see leadership as a collective activity (Rubery & Urwin, 2011).
Nevertheless, these differences are relevant to the extent that each age group has distinctive values, attitudes and behaviors. The generations have their own cultural icons and popular references, and have experienced different technological breakthroughs which are reflected in their particular behaviors. Sometimes, these differences in priorities, orientations and values become stereotypes, both positive and negative, which affect inter-generational interaction (Chambel & Castanheira, 2012).
Understanding Generations and Generational Differences
Differences among Generations
Although the term “generation” more accurately describes genealogical kinship, the term is commonly used to describe broader social trends (Lyons & Kuron, 2014). From a sociological perspective, a “generation” refers to a group of individuals who share common life experiences, such as world events, natural disasters, politics, economic conditions and pop culture (Hansen & Leuty, 2012).
Generational cohort theory views a generation as a social construct (Crumpacker & Crumpacker, 2007). Defining who belongs to a generation depends on two factors. First, a generation is comprised of individuals born within the same time period. The beginning of a “new” generation is usually marked by increasing birth rates, while the “end” of generations is marked by declining birth rates. The second factor is the unique historical events and social contexts that unfolded during their formative years (Crumpacker & Crumpacker, 2007; Hansen & Leuty, 2012). These events must be so significant that individuals born after such events live in a society that is quite distinct from those who were born prior to such changes. It is not necessary that each and every individual had personally experienced those defining events; rather, all individuals in the same cohort are assumed to have a shared awareness of, or an appreciation for, these historical episodes (Crumpacker & Crumpacker, 2007). As a result, the group develops unifying commonalities. The unique life experiences of each generation inevitably contribute to their common values (Hansen & Leuty, 2012).
Although precise birth years for each generation can vary, this study uses the definitions for each generational cohort that was used by a majority of scholars knowledgeable on the topic. Traditionalists are those born between 1925 and 1945; Baby Boomers include those born between 1946 and 1964; Generation Xers are individuals born between 1965 and 1981; and Millennials are those born between 1982 and 2000 (Crumpacker & Crumpacker, 2007; Twenge, 2010).
Traditionalists. Traditionalists are the least populous in American history. Of the four generations in this study, the Traditionalists were the ones who married very early and raised families (Hansen & Leuty, 2012). This generation is also referred to as the Greatest Generation. In 1951 they were labelled by Time Magazine as the Silent Generation because the individuals were generally withdrawn and cautious. This cohort endured very difficult times such as the Great Depression and World War II (Hansen & Leuty, 2012).
Most of the country’s government and business leaders come from this generation. They are seen as practical, patient, loyal and hardworking, as well as respectful of authority and rules. They view work as an obligation and are most likely to maintain a long-term working commitment with one organization. This is also a result of their substantial faith in institutions and hierarchies. This generation strongly values monetary earnings and savings, which partly explains why many individuals of this generation are wealthy.
Baby Boomers. They are considered the largest generation in American history, numbering about 78 million (Hansen & Leuty, 2012). The cohort’s size has forced this generation to compete for resources and opportunities. Boomers, being raised at a time of great prosperity attributed to the Traditionalists economic success, are viewed as individuals who are optimistic in nature and responsible for initiating many social movements. This generation was profoundly affected by the Vietnam War, the civil rights and women’s movements, the Kennedy administration, the assassinations of John F. Kennedy Jr. and Martin Luther King Jr., Watergate, the first man to ever walk on the moon, the sexual revolution, and Woodstock (De Meuse & Mlodzik, 2010).
Individuals from this generation are viewed as workaholics who value their careers and find satisfaction and meaning in their work (Hansen & Leuty, 2012). Their “do whatever it takes” mentality is their most prominent characteristic (Crumpacker & Crumpacker, 2007). With regard to work-life balance and feedback, Boomers are said to value workplace priorities over non-workplace priorities and look to managers for formal feedback as a way to increase their financial compensation adjustments or improve their status through promotions (Lyons & Kuron, 2014).
Baby Boomers are believed to value collaboration, consensus and a relatively formal and moderately-paced organizational environment. They are also considered to be competitive micromanagers who possess a moderate level of disrespect for authority. This generational cohort prefers face-to-face interactions and conventional mail, but can be persuaded to use online tools in the workplace.
Generation Xers. Generation Xers are considered to be a cynical and skeptical cohort which might be a response to have seen a number of disconcerting events in their childhood. These individuals grew up in a time of financial, family, political and societal insecurity. The rapid changes and diversity of this generation during this time period led to a very fluid environment where solid traditions were not apparent (Sessa, Kabacoff, Deal, & Brown, 2007).
With the television and media revolution, Generation Xers were more exposed to world events and pop culture than the previous generations (Lancaster & Stillman, 2002). They witnessed the Persian Gulf War, an increase in criminality, high divorce rates and the spread of AIDS. This was also the time when it became normal for both parents to work full-time. Generation Xers also came to be known as “latchkey kids” who would take care of themselves for hours at a time.
All of these events have had several effects on this generation. First, they learned to be independent, adaptable and resilient, but they also have a tendency to challenge authority. Second, they prefer more informal and flexible working arrangements compared to previous generations. They also strive to maintain a work-life balance where personal and family activities are the priority (Twenge, 2010; Hansen & Leuty, 2012). Because of these, some describe Generation Xers as having a weaker work ethic than previous generations, and are also described as “lost” and misguided by other generations (Strauss & Howe, 1991). These individuals also prefer technology-based interactions and avoid unnecessary face-to-face meetings as much as possible (Lester, Standifer, Schultz, & Windsor, 2012). The majority of empirical literature, however, suggests that Generation Xers are resourceful self-starters who are motivated to achieve (Hansen & Leuty, 2012). Alternative rewards, such as workplace autonomy and flexibility, are believed to be strong motivators for this generation (Lancaster & Stillman, 2002). Like the Baby Boomers, Generation Xers also value direct communication with, and feedback from, managers.
Millennials. The stereotypical view of Millennials is that they are disloyal, needy, entitled and overly casual. These stereotypes are rooted in the Millennials’ upbringing. Millennials grew up in a positive social environment where they received an exaggerated amount of positive reinforcement and attention during their formative years. Parents rewarded children for participation, rather than performance, which led some to refer to this generation as “trophy kids.” As a result, this generational cohort has developed a high self-esteem, a strong sense of entitlement, often times, unrealistic and grandiose expectations for promotions and rewards, and a seemingly general lack of patience and willingness to drudge through unglamorous components of work (Thompson & Gregory, 2012). It is for these reasons that this generation is also called “GenME.”
Scholars posit that another factor that affected this generation is the shift in education standards – instead of learning the value of “how” to do something, the students learned that the “outcome” was more important than the process, i.e. it does not matter how an individual got there as long as they did indeed get there. This goal-oriented mentality has led to an inordinate need for quality feedback and a desire to be told exactly how to tackle a certain problem or complete a task. This contributed to the perception of Millennials as high-maintenance. They are stereotyped as “disloyal” because of their tendency to switch jobs quite often, especially if the organization does not re-engage them and remind them why they should stay. (Thompson & Gregory, 2012).
Finally, recent technological advances and societal changes have affected the Millennials. Considered to be the first high-tech generation and the first socially-active generation since the 1960s, Millennials do multiple things at a time and value fast-paced, instantaneous and continuous technological interaction with, and feedback from, leaders. This generation of technology-enabled, knowledge workers no longer views work as a place to go to, but rather a thing that can be done anywhere. Millennials believe that if they are doing their work well, their attire or workplace should not matter. Nevertheless, they are committed to creating a workplace that is culturally sensitive, optimistic and fun; i.e. they want a work-play balance that prioritizes engagements with family and friends over work commitments (Lester et al., 2012). They prefer to work in teams with their peers and work with managers whom they believe can identify with them and value their input.
Generational Differences in Work Values
Values are defined as “adherence to specific mode[s] of conduct or [an] end-state of existence [as being] personally or socially preferable to the opposite conduct or end-state of existence” (Crumpacker & Crumpacker, 2007). While values are the “criteria” used for evaluating an action or object, attitudes are considered the barometer of an individual’s emotions. Attitudes are formed through personal development and social interactions. Although attitudes are closely related to values, they differ in the sense that factors, such as age, education and life experiences influence attitudes, making them likely to change over time; while values are relatively stable over time (Crumpacker & Crumpacker, 2007).
The term “work values” refers to the aspects of work that influence an employee’s job satisfaction. In this sense, “work values” may be an objective or material condition or goal (e.g. high income), a psychological state (e.g. a sense of fulfillment), or a relationship (e.g. teamwork) (Hansen & Leuty, 2012). Empirical research has found that work values predict job satisfaction and vocational interests, and that work values are associated with career choice and work performance (Hansen & Leuty, 2012). When appropriately reinforced in the workplace, work values are found to be an accurate predictor of tenure, intentions to stay in the position and job satisfaction for up to eight years, thus meaning that employees whose work values are reinforced are both satisfied for eight years and are much more likely to stay in the position they are currently in for eight years as well (Hansen & Leuty, 2012).
Previous studies on work values across generations focus on ten predominant values and their defining characteristics. These are:
• Universalism (tolerance, social justice, equality);
• Benevolence (loyalty, honesty, forgiving, responsible);
• Conformity (obedience, politeness, self-discipline, respect for elders);
• Tradition (respectful, traditional, adhering to custom, accepting one’s position in life, humble);
• Security (social order, family security, duty, national security);
• Power (authority, wealth, social power);
• Achievement (influential, capable, ambitious);
• Hedonism (pleasure, enjoyment of life);
• Stimulation (daring, variety, seeking an exciting life)
• Self-Direction (independence, creativity, freedom) (Crumpacker & Crumpacker, 2007).
Several studies have discussed the ways in which the various generations differ from each other. Compared to the Baby Boomers and the Millennials, Generation Xers give the least value on technology, social media and professionalism (Lester et al., 2012). Generation Xers, however, place more value on job security and on intrinsic work values than Baby Boomers and Millennials.
The Millennials appear to value continuous learning more than the Baby Boomers and Generation Xers (Lester et al., 2012). Many scholars believe that this is a result of the Millennials’ parents emphasizing the need for education so that the children will be able to build marketable skills and become successful.
Finally, Millennials value additional freedom at work more than previous generations and place more importance on intrinsic social values (Smola & Sutton, 2002). In regards to job satisfaction and intention to leave, Millennials are the most satisfied with their job and seek more job security than previous generations (Twenge, 2010).
Criticisms of Generational Differences in Work Values
There are several criticisms to the theory that there are generational differences in work values. First, there are differences as to how many generations actually exist – are there four, should there be more, should there be fewer? Those that argue there are more generations than the four recognized by popular press and media believe that individuals born on the cusp of a generation identify with both generations and can be considered as a “bridge” generation (Smola & Sutton, 2002). Individuals who feel that there are actually fewer generations than four say that Generation Xers and Millennials share many of the same values (Twenge, 2010).
A second criticism states that while historical events do have a role in shaping the life experiences of a group, this approach does not take into consideration how other factors such as race, social status, ethnicity, religion, gender or even regional location impact and shape life experiences (Smola & Sutton, 2002). In addition, while members of a generation share similar experiences, one should not jump to the conclusion that these individuals have a shared agreement on what those events represent or how they were interpreted by individuals (Crumpacker & Crumpacker, 2007). Other studies showed that age and career stages were more important determinants of differences in work values than the generational cohort to which the individual belongs (Schaie 1965; Twenge 2010).
A final criticism is the extent to which empirical evidence supports the existence of generational gaps in the workplace (Crumpacker & Crumpacker, 2007). The work of scholars on work values provides only moderate support for some of the popular media’s portrayal of intergenerational differences (De Meuse & Mlodzik, 2010). Hansen and Leuty (2012) conducted a study investigating popular assumptions about the work values of three cohorts –Traditionalists, Baby Boomers and Generation Xers. They made three significant findings.
First, there are few overarching generational differences in work values amongst the Traditionalists, Baby Boomers and Generation Xers. Second, there can be gender variations within generations. For example, male Traditionalists reportedly valued Recognition, Creativity, and Responsibility, but Traditionalist women placed considerable value on Advancement. Third, the differences appear to be slight. Although the gap between Generation Xers and previous generations is sparse, previous literature has identified that Generation Xers value Compensation and Working Conditions slightly more than previous generations (Mencl & Lester, 2014). In addition, compared to prior generations Generation Xers are somewhat more prone to leave organizations if their needs are not met (Schullery, 2013). However, again, the gap between Generation Xers and previous generations is sparse.
There are also several similarities between generations. Generation Xers, like Millennials, value a fun and challenging work environment. (Hansen & Leuty, 2012). They value leisure and seek more freedom and work-life balance than the Baby Boomers. Furthermore, these two cohorts place value on status and quick promotions (Twenge, 2010) and embrace many opportunities early in their career.
Another study found that there were no significant differences in terms of perspectives towards formal authority – individuals in all cohorts valued formal authority equally (Lester et al., 2012). Similarly, Generation Xers and Millennials do not seek any more meaning in their work nor do they expect their work to be an expression of their identity any more than the Baby Boomers and the Traditionalists (Twenge, 2010).
Using a time-lag study, Twenge (2010) found that intrinsic values were relatively consistent across generations, with the exception of Millennials favoring intrinsic values slightly less than Baby Boomers. There were also no significant differences in the value placed on technology by three generations, Baby Boomers, Generation Xers and Millennials, or in using traditional forms of communication, i.e. face-to-face interaction. Generational differences in communication, however, occurred when using technologically-based communication methods (i.e. email, social media) (Hansen & Leuty, 2012).
Twenge (2010) also found that there were no differences in terms of extrinsic work values, such as salaries, benefits and job security. Moreover, all generations preferred flexible work schedules and paid time off, rather than sick days (Byrd, 2008). Byrd’s study also found the attractiveness of certain work benefits depended not on generational difference, but on their life circumstances. For example, new parents would prefer to have child care benefits and education subsidies, while individuals with older parents or even prospective retirees might be more interested in elder care.
Other studies also found discrepancies in how each generation views the other. One study found that Baby Boomers actually valued technology, team-work, flexibility, and fun-at-work more than other generations thought they did. Generation Xers and Millennials also believed that the Boomers valued formal authority and structure more than they actually did. Nevertheless, Boomers do value professionalism more than any other generation while Generation Xers values professionalism the least. Finally both Boomers and Millennials value collaboration, but Generation Xers prefers to work independently (Lester et al., 2012).
The Concept of Employability
There are other possible factors for job commitment and job satisfaction. Employability is defined as a psycho-social construct that embodies individual characteristics that foster adaptive cognition, behavior, and affect, and enhance the individual-work interface (Fugate, Kinicki &Ashforth, 2004). There are two types of employability. Internal employability refers to: (a) the worker’s perception of the availability of other career opportunities in his current organization; (b) his appreciation of his skills that could facilitate internal mobility; (c) the proper application of these skills; and (d) his feeling that he is valued by his organization. An employee with a perception of high internal employability may be more satisfied with his job which, in turn, might increase his affective commitment to the organization. Workers with perceptions of high internal employability are, therefore, more likely to remain with their current employment (Rubery & Urwin, 2011). One measure, affective commitment, refers to an individual’s emotional attachment, identification with and involvement in the organization (Allen and Meyer, 1990; Meyer et al., 2002) and reflects an employee’s subjective assessment of their probability of leaving within a specific time (Tsui et al., 1992; Zhao et al., 2007).
External employability refers to the worker’s perception of his value in the external job market. A high level of external employability coupled with a favorable market situation means that there is a high probability that the employee will find a job in another organization with better career prospects or higher levels of compensation and benefits. A high perception of external employability also means that the worker will exude professional confidence and show high levels of motivation. In addition, a perception of high external employability would make the worker feel that it would not be difficult to find alternative employment. This perception of external employability, therefore, gives workers a strong sense of job security (Singer & Obach, 2013).
The field of human resource management has developed several instruments to measure perceptions of employability. One example is the Career Exploration Employment Outlook Survey (Baetschmann & Winkelmann, 2012) which has only three items. Another widely-used instrument scale was developed by Baetschmann and Winkelmann (2012). This instrument has only four items with five possible responses arrayed on a Likert scale (from 1 – Strongly Disagree to 5 – Completely Agree). This instrument was adopted for this study because it places perceived employability within specific labor market contexts.
Types of Employment and Affective Commitment
Another factor that could affect job commitment and satisfaction are the types of employment – permanent or temporary – that are available (Connelly et al., 2011). Scholars who studied the attitudes of workers with permanent and temporary employment did not reach firm conclusions about their differences in attitudes (Chambel & Castanheira, 2012). There are several possible reasons for this lack of conclusive evidence. These reasons include: the nature of the jobs, the type of tasks performed, the organizational culture, and the management practices of human resources departments. The system adopted in each country to promote professional qualifications and provide social protection mechanisms for the unemployed may also affect results. An economic recovery may also lead workers to search for greater labor flexibility, especially through the use of temporary labor divisions (Connelly et al., 2011). As the results showed, greater job insecurity does not necessarily lead to lower job satisfaction or commitment (Lang et al., 2013).
Several studies have found that permanent employees exhibit high affective commitment to their organization, which means that they desire to continue working in the organization. However, when the affective commitment of temporary workers rises, this may mean that they see good prospects for linking with the organization (Chambel & Castanheira, 2012). In addition, their commitment to the organization does not depend on how long they have been working with the organization. For temporary employees, showing a high level of commitment might improve their chances of permanently working with an organization (Dürsch et al., 2012).
Thus, it seems that the level of affective commitment may be one of the criteria used to determine if a temporary worker will be given permanent status. Temporary workers who show that they value the organization have a strong expectation for changing their employment type. However, workers who do not see any prospect of continuing with the organization will, upon completion of service, look for temporary employment in another organization (Connelly et al., 2011).
Moreover, temporary employment need not be a disadvantage. Young people might find temporary employment as an important gateway to the labor market, and workers who have been laid off may view temporary employment as a means to upgrade their skills (Connelly et al., 2011). Managers and executives of organizations can observe the skills, behaviors, attitudes and productivity of temporary workers and can make informed decisions on whether to hire workers on a permanent basis. This screening process can lead temporary workers to develop positive job satisfaction and increase their organizational commitment (Chambel & Castanheira, 2012; Connelly et al., 2011).
Recruiting, Managing and Motivating Employees
Given the generational diversity in the workplace, as well as the different types of employment now available, human resources departments face important challenges in recruiting, managing and motivating employees. Put another way, how can human resources department influence perceptions of employability, affective commitment and job satisfaction?
Multi-generational Workplaces
These stereotypes of the four generations can create day-to-day problems in the workplace and it is important to understand the true differences and similarities across generations since managers will soon face many recruitment, retention, and motivation challenges (Twenge 2010). By understanding the values and attitudes of workers and how they relate to organizational norms and culture, human resources departments can improve their ability to add strategic value and sustain the current organization or even to drive change and realize their vision for their organization (Crumpacker & Crumpacker, 2007).
There are several examples of problems associated with believing stereotypes and acting on those beliefs. Many organizations have deemed Millennials as “unmanageable” or a manager’s worst nightmare because of their sense of entitlement, their need for constant feedback and guidance, the expectation for personalized attention, and their preference for informal interactions and work relationships. This could lead human resources departments not to hire Millennials, but in doing so, they might not be able to harness the strengths of this cohort. Research has shown that Millennials are potentially the most productive group in the labor market today (Hansen & Leuty, 2012). Organizations can make adjustments that could accommodate the cohort’s needs as well as ensure the organization’s success. Data shows that Americans are working longer hours than ever before (Hansen & Leuty, 2012), so perhaps employers can offer flexible work schedules. The organization thus ensures continued productivity while addressing the concerns of Millennials, as well as Generation Xers, of a good work-life balance (Byrd, 2008).
Sometimes, the problems are manifested in seemingly “minor instances.” For example, the Millennials’ use of language and communication has been influenced by new media such as SMS, Facebook or Twitter. This kind of communication follows very different rules from those used by the three older generations. Organizations need to be flexible and adapt in some way to these different kinds of codes and communication (Twenge, 2010).
Generational diversity, therefore, means that managers need to adopt leadership and management styles suited to the work values of the different generational cohorts. Thompson and Gregory (2012) hypothesized that managers who follow a transformational leadership style will be the most successful at attracting, motivating, and retaining Millennial employees. This approach to managing entails coaching, mentoring, developing, and providing frequent feedback to employees. Other studies have shown exemplary employers are continuously updating their policies and practices with work/life concerns in mind (Byrd, 2008).
Transformational leadership is just one type of adjustment that is necessary in today’s workplace. A welcoming attitude towards participation, new ideas, different opinions and new technologies, will enable managers to minimize conflicts in the workplace, take advantage of the different experiences and knowledge of their multi-generational staff, and increase perceptions of employability and affective commitment. There are several benefits to such an approach.
First, it widens the pool of “mentors.” Today, mentors need not only be the older employees. Younger employees can help older ones understand how new technologies impact our society, while older ones can share their experiences and demonstrate how to master jobs in the workplace (Dürsch et al., 2012). As another example, Traditionalists and Baby Boomers can teach the Net generation, who are inclined to multitask, the value of paying attention to detail and quality in order to become more efficient in the workplace (Bernhardt, 2014). The different generations can also give each other support, advice, positive feedback, leadership and coaching.
Second, this kind of interaction can increase motivation and sense of belonging in a company that is enriched by generational diversity. Dialogue with, and openness of, older professionals can help integrate young people in decision-making; this participation can make younger employees feel more involved and motivated, as well as value the experience and knowledge of older employees.
Third, this dynamic interaction can help organizations leverage new tools management with work responsibility. It would also make possible the adoption of flexible work strategies that gives value to the individuals themselves. In the end, the more effort an organization puts into employee development and professional valorization, the greater the perception of external employability (Baetschmann & Winkelmann, 2012).
Age is not as important as understanding the importance of diversity, learning from each other and keeping an open mind. In this way, the organization can become more innovative and competitive and profitable, while helping the employees develop professionally.
Psychological Aspects
One key to retaining employees is the ability of the organization to provide support and fulfillment of the psychological aspects of job satisfaction. The many costs associated with hiring and training new staff can be avoided or lessened if employees feel valued and supported. Employees who feel pride and importance in the value of their work are more likely to perform at a higher level (Connelly et al., 2014). Many tactics can be used to increase employee commitment including communication mechanisms, transparency in decision-making processes and the opportunity for employees to take ownership of their work. Other procedural and interpersonal remedies may be employed to restore or reduce adverse consequences worker’s psychological state (Rubery & Urwin, 2011). This can be particularly beneficial for employees who are seasonal or part-time. By supporting employees and making them feel valued, the organization is ultimately investing in its own success.
Conclusion
Organizations today are undergoing a number of changes due to the organizational workforce being comprised of four generations, whom work side-by-side with one another and can be found at all levels of management throughout the organization. Today’s diverse workforce brings with it many benefits and challenges for an organization. However, for an organization to reap the benefits of generational diversity, it must first tend to, and overcome, generational diversity’s largest challenge: creating a work environment that addresses the needs and values of each generation, while maximizing their strengths. Identifying points of convergence and complementary synergies across generations can provide organizations with immense benefits stemming from the diverse generational workforce’s varying perspectives, experiences, approaches, reflections, and attitudes.
As previous literature has noted, there are significant differences and similarities across generation in today’s workforce. These differences and similarities affect organization health; whether generational diversity affects an organization positively or negatively depends on the extent to which the organization understands their workforce.
Each generation is unique in the way it was formed, thus being the reason each generation has distinct values, attitudes, and behaviors. Traditionalists, the oldest generation represented in today’s workforce, value hierarchies, authority, and monetary earnings and savings. The subsequent generation, Baby Boomers, also value hierarchical organizational structure because they look to managers for formal feedback, financial compensation, and status promotions. These individuals value their careers more than any other generation in today’s workforce. Baby Boomers get a great deal of satisfaction from their careers, and place more value on workplace priorities than they do on non-workplace priorities. Unlike Traditionalists, Baby Boomers hold an inadequate amount of respect of authority. The Baby Boomers’ moderate level of disrespect for authority carried over to the next generation, Generation Xers. Generation Xers tend to challenge authority, are independent, adaptable, and resilient. This generation values work arrangements that are notably more informal and flexible than arrangements made for previous generations. Generation Xers strive to maintain a healthy work-life balance, which has caused individuals from other generational cohorts to view Generation Xers as possessing a weak work ethic. Nevertheless, Generation Xers are deemed resourceful, self-starters. Generation Xers value on informal and flexible work arrangements is more apparent in the last generation represented in today’s workforce, Millennials. Millennials have been labelled “disloyal” because they have a tendency to switch jobs when the organization they are working at does not put forth effort to keep them at the company and re-engage them in their work. This generation is known to be great multitaskers, involved in fast-paced, instantaneous and continuous technological interactions, culturally sensitive, optimistic, and fun.
These four generations, having grown up in different time periods and experiencing different historical events and circumstances, do hold varying work values that affect all organizations today regardless of the many oppositions the topic of generational differences in the workplace receives. Recruiting, retaining, and managing a generationally diverse workforce posits many challenges for employers, but overcoming the challenges posited offers organizations a tremendous degree of benefit.

References
Arnett, J. J. “The Evidence for Generation We and Against Generation Me.” Emerging Adulthood 1.1 (2013): 5-10. Web.
Baetschmann, G., & Winkelmann, R. (2012). Modelling zero-inflated count data when exposure varies: with an application to sick leave. University of Zurich Department of Economics Working Paper, (61).
Bernhardt, A. (2014). Labor Standards and the Reorganization of Work: Gaps in Data and Research.
Blyton, P., & Jenkins, J. (2012). Life after Burberry: shifting experiences of work and non-work life following redundancy. Work, Employment & Society, 26(1), 26-41.
Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM–firm performance linkages: The role of the “strength” of the HRM system. Academy of management review, 29(2), 203-221.
Boynton, P. M., & Greenhalgh, T. (2004). Selecting, designing, and developing your questionnaire. Bmj, 328(7451), 1312-1315.
Bradley, S., Green, C., & Leeves, G. (2014). Employment protection, threat and incentive effects on worker absence. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 52(2), 333-358.
Brinkley, I. (2013). Flexibility or insecurity? Exploring the rise in zero hours contracts. London: The Work Foundation, August. Campos, C., Dent, A., Fry, R. and Reid, A.(2011)‘Impact of the recession’, Regional Trends, 43(10/11), 379-93.
Byrd, Virginia. “Work Life Values of Four Generations.” Career Planning and Adult Development Journal 24.3 (2008): 9-14. Web. 3 Apr. 2015.
Chadwick, C., & Flinchbaugh, C. (2013). The effects of part-time workers on establishment financial performance. Journal of Management, 0149206313511116.
José Chambel, M., & Castanheira, F. (2012). Training of temporary workers and the social exchange process. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(2), 191-209.
Connelly, C. E., Gallagher, D. G., & Wilkin, C. L. (2014). The Potential “Spillover” of Temporary Agency Work. Management and Organization of Temporary Agency Work, 103.
Connelly, C. E., Wilkin, C. L., & Gallagher, D. G. (2011). Understanding underemployment among contingent workers. In Underemployment (pp. 145-162). Springer New York.
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(4), 349-369.
De Meuse, Kenneth P., and Kevin J. Mlodzik. “A Second Look at Generational Differences in the Workforce: Implications for HR and Talent Management.” People & Strategy 1 June 2010: 50-58. Web.
Dürsch, P., Oechssler, J., & Vadovic, R. (2012). Sick pay provision in experimental labor markets. European Economic Review, 56(1), 1-19.
Eversole, B. A., Venneberg, D. L., & Crowder, C. L. (2012). Creating a flexible organizational culture to attract and retain talented workers across generations. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 1523422312455612.
Finfgeld-Connett, D. (2014). Use of content analysis to conduct knowledge-building and theory-generating qualitative systematic reviews. Qualitative Research, 14(3), 341-352.
Foss, N. J., Minbaeva, D. B., Pedersen, T., & Reinholt, M. (2009). Encouraging knowledge sharing among employees: How job design matters. Human Resource Management, 48(6), 871-893.
Gatenby, M., Rees, C., Soane, E., & Truss, C. (2009). Employee engagement in context.
Giancola, F. (2006). The generation gap: More myth than reality. Human Resource Planning, 29(4), 32.
Gursoy, D., Chi, C. G. Q., & Karadag, E. (2013). Generational differences in work values and attitudes among frontline and service contact employees. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32, 40-48.
Gursoy, D., Maier, T. A., & Chi, C. G. (2008). Generational differences: An examination of work values and generational gaps in the hospitality workforce. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(3), 448-458.Jensen, N., & Wills, J. (2013). The prevalence and impact of the Living Wage in the US: A survey of organizations accredited by the Living Wage Foundation.
Hansen, J. I. C., & Leuty, M. E. (2012). Work values across generations. Journal of Career Assessment, 20(1), 34-52.
Kinnie, N., & Swart, J. (2012). Committed to whom? Professional knowledge worker commitment in cross‐boundary organisations. Human Resource Management Journal, 22(1), 21-38.
Lang, C., Schömann, I., & Clauwaert, S. (2013). Atypical forms of employment contracts in times of crisis.
Lester, S. W., Standifer, R. L., Schultz, N. J., & Windsor, J. M. (2012). Actual versus perceived generational differences at work an empirical examination. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19(3), 341-354.
Levenson, A. R. (2010). Millennials and the world of work: An economist’s perspective. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 257-264.
Li, W., Liu, X., & Wan, W. (2008). Demographic effects of work values and their management implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 81(4), 875-885.
Little, B., & Little, P. (2006). Employee engagement: Conceptual issues. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 10(1), 111-120.
Lyons, S., & Kuron, L. (2014). Generational differences in the workplace: A review of the evidence and directions for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(S1), S139-S157.
MacLeod, D., & Clarke, N. (2009). Engaging for success: enhancing performance through employee engagement: a report to government.
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Salenger Incorporated, 1987.
McDowell, L., Batnitzky, A., & Dyer, S. (2012). Global flows and local labour markets: precarious employment and migrant workers in the UK. Gendered Lives: Gender Inequalities in Production and Reproduction, 123-152.
Mencl, J., & Lester, S. W. (2014). More alike than different what generations value and how the values affect employee workplace perceptions. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21(3), 257-272.
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 and Psychology, 25(2), 315-324.
Mihalcea, A. D., Mitan, A., & Vițelar, A. (2012). Generation Y: Views on Entrepreneurship”. Economia. Seria Management, 15(2), 277-287.
Minbaeva, D. B., Mäkelä, K., & Rabbiosi, L. (2012). Linking HRM and knowledge transfer via individual‐level mechanisms. Human Resource Management, 51(3), 387-405.
Murphy Jr, E. F., & Gibson, J. W. (2010). Analyzing Generational Yalues Among Sustainable Org anizational Effectiveness. SAM Advanced Management Journal.
Murray, A. (2011). Mind the gap: technology, millennial leadership and the cross-generational workforce. The Australian Library Journal, 60(1), 54-65.
Notarianni, M. A., Curry-Lourenco, K., Barham, P., & Palmer, K. (2009). Engaging learners across generations: the Progressive Professional Development Model. Journal of continuing education in nursing, 40(6), 261-266.
Rodriguez, R. O., Green, M. T., & Ree, M. J. (2003). Leading Generation X: do the old rules apply?. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 9(4), 67-75.
Rubery, J., & Urwin, P. (2011). Bringing the employer back in: why social care needs a standard employment relationship. Human Resource Management Journal, 21(2), 122-137.
Rummel, A., & Viggiana, F. A. (2011). Generational warfare: The new workplace. International Journal of Busines and Social Science, 2(1).
Schullery, N. M. (2013). Workplace engagement and generational differences in values. Business Communication Quarterly, 76(2), 252-265.
Shragay, D., & Tziner, A. (2011). The generational effect on the relationship between job involvement, work satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 27(2), 143-157.
Singer, M., & Obach, J. J. (2013). Listening to workers: The overtime versus hiring dilemma. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 1771-1779.
Subramony, M. (2011). Antecedents and outcomes of contingent workers’ attitudes toward their temporary help services firm: A unit level longitudinal investigation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(6), 850-868.
Twenge, J. M. (2010). A review of the empirical evidence on generational differences in work attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 201-210.
Veen, E., Hans, E. W., Veltman, B., Berrevoets, L. M., & Berden, H. J. (2012). Cost-efficient staffing under annualized hours.
Zikmund, W., Babin, B., Carr, J., & Griffin, M. (2012). Business research methods. Cengage Learning.
Zin, S. M., Ahmad, N., Ngah, N. E. B., Ismail, R. B., Ibrahim, N. B., & Abdullah, I. H. T. B. (2012). Motivation Model for Employee Retention: Applicability to HRM Practices in Malaysian SME Sector. Canadian Social Science, 8(5), 8-12.

Internship Summaries
John Behr Group, LLC
150 Hours
February 2014 – October 2014
Organizational Contact Information:
John Behr Group, LLC
Supervisor Contact Information:
I. John Behr
Job Title and Job Description:
Management Consulting Intern
Job Content:
Evaluation

HBK Engineering, LLC
860 Hours
October 2014 – Present
Organization Contact Information
Human Resources
HBK Engineering, LLC
921 W Van Buren St, Suite 100
Chicago, IL 60614
Supervisor Contact Information
I. Heather Shearer – Director of Human Resources
hshearer@hbkengineering.com
312-432-0076
Job Title and Job Description
HR Generalist / Recruiter
Provide recruitment strategy and consultation to HBK Engineering, LLC’s management and support the HR team with onboarding, benefits, and employee relations.
Job Content
I. Applicant Tracking System Implementation
Researched multiple Applicant Tracking Systems. Determined key components of the company’s recruitment process to evaluate each ATS in terms of its compatibility in meeting the identified key components. Recommended and successfully implemented company’s Applicant Tracking System. Prepared training manuals for Applicant Tracking System users within the company.
II. Recruitment Strategy Update
Establish recruitment needs analysis, strategy plans, and selection process. Analyze potential candidates alongside available positions to provide hiring recommendations. Effectively optimize the recruitment processes to reflect current industry standards and best practices.
III. Job Descriptions
Design and manage the production of a CareerBuilder recruitment video intended to aid in improving recruiting efforts for Distribution Associates across the organization. Support contractors with implementing and managing high-potential leadership development program.
IV. Recruitment Contact
Provide senior-level management with a snapshot of current company growth and forecasts needs by formulating recruitment deliverables, and identifying any personnel needs.
V. Various Recruitment Initiatives
Negotiate terms of employment, interprets employment contracts, and drafts all compensation and benefits packages for potential new hires.
Evaluation

Last Completed Projects