International Journal of Hospitality Management 32 (2013) 40–48
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
International Journal of Hospitality Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhosman
Generational differences in work values and attitudes among frontline and service contact employees Dogan Gursoy a,∗ , Christina Geng-Qing Chi b , Ersem Karadag c a
Washington State University, College of Business, School of Hospitality Business Management, 479 Todd Hall, PO Box 644742, Pullman, WA 99164-4742, United States Washington State University, College of Business, School of Hospitality Business Management, United States c Hospitality & Tourism Management, Robert Morris University, United States b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Keywords: Generational differences Baby boomers Generation X Millennials Generation Y Work values Hospitality Service Contact employees
a b s t r a c t Utilizing data collected from frontline and service contact employees, this study identifies employees’ work values for a hospitality business, and then examines differences among employees belonging to different generations. Through an exploratory factor analysis, seven dimensions of employees’ work values are identified. Results of a series of one-way ANOVA tests reveal significant differences among three generation of employees’ work values. Managerial implications and recommended strategies to manage those differences to create and maintain a work environment that foster leadership, motivation, communication and generational synergy are discussed. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction In today’s business environment, it is not surprising to see people from different generations working side-by-side. Because each generation has its own unique values, set of skills, and characteristics, having employees from different generations has created its own challenges and opportunities for managers (Gursoy et al., 2008). According to the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) (2004), work values are the source of most significant differences among generations and major source of conflict in the workplace. However, studies also suggest that if managed well, those differences can be a source of significant strengths and opportunities (Lancaster and Stillman, 2002). Therefore, it is vital for managers to understand the underlying value structure of each generation and differences in values among those generations if they want to create and maintain a work environment that foster leadership, motivation, communication and generational synergy (Smola and Sutton, 2002). Studies have consistently shown that understanding work values of different generations may enable businesses and industries to develop motivational strategies, improve working conditions and job structure, change/improve social atmosphere, add/remove benefits, redesign compensation packages, and develop human resources policies that may satisfy the needs of employees from
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 509 335 7945; fax: +1 509 335 3857. E-mail addresses:
[email protected] (D. Gursoy),
[email protected] (C.G.-Q. Chi),
[email protected] (E. Karadag). 0278-4319/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.04.002
different generations (Egri and Ralston, 2004; Kupperschmidt, 2000; Lyons et al., 2005). Success also comes by recognizing and valuing differences and working to create of inclusion in which every employee can thrive and work toward common goals (Mikitka, 2009). Understanding generational differences may also be used as a tool by managers to improve employee productivity, innovation and to create good corporate citizens (Kupperschmidt, 2000). This is especially important as managers from younger generation will gradually fill the management positions vacated by retiring Baby Boomer managers (Lyons et al., 2005). Studies reported fundamental differences in work values among employees from different generations (Lancaster and Stillman, 2002; Mikitka, 2009; Smola and Sutton, 2002). However, majority of those studies focused on work values of employees working in manufacturing sector (Mikitka, 2009; Smola and Sutton, 2002). There is little research focusing on generational differences among frontline and service contact employees in service businesses such as the hospitality business (Chen and Choi, 2008; Gursoy et al., 2008; Walsh and Taylor, 2007). Knowledge on work value differences among frontline and service contact employees can have significant implications for service organizations. Therefore, this study focuses on generational differences in work values among frontline and service contact employees from three different generations. Utilizing data collected from hotel employees, this study will attempt to identify frontline and service contact employees work values, and then examine differences among employees from three different generations: Baby Boomers, Generation X and Millennials.
D. Gursoy et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 32 (2013) 40–48
2. Values and work values Values define what people believe to be fundamentally right or wrong. The term value is defined differently by different discipline such as psychology, sociology, and economics (Rohan, 2000). For example, in psychology, value theory refers to the study of the manner in which human beings develop, assert and believe in certain values (Crain, 1985; Kohlberg, 1973). In sociology, value theory is concerned with personal values which are popularly held by a community (Adler, 1956; Feather, 1992). An economic value is the worth of a good or service as determined by the market (Debreu, 1959). Values also are defined differently by many scholars. For example, Schwartz (1992, p. 2) defines values as, “desirable states, objects, goals, or behaviors transcending specific situations and applied as normative standards to judge and to choose among alternative modes of behavior.” Rokeach (1973, p. 5) on the other hand, defines value “as beliefs and personal standards that guide individuals to function in a society and thus, values have both the cognitive and affective dimensions.” According to Kalleberg (1977) values are judgmental in the sense that they convey an individual’s ideas about what is right, good, or desirable. As seen, values have been defined in a number of ways, but there are certain qualities that are common among definitions (Roe and Ester, 1999): they are treated as being latent constructs involved in evaluating activities or outcomes, as having a general rather than a specific nature, and as applying at multiple levels. Work values by implication have a more specific meaning than general values. “Work values” are the end-values such as satisfaction, quality or reward individuals seek from their work (Super, 1970). Elizur (1984) defined work values as the importance individuals place on certain outcomes related to attributes of work. The relationship between general values and work values are being conceived in different ways. One view is that values have a particular cognitive structure which produces a structural similarity between general values and work values (Roe and Ester, 1999). Another view is that general values produce work values; for example, work values emerge from the projection of general values onto the domain of work (Dose, 1997). Work values shape employees’ perceptions of preferences in the workplace, exerting a direct influence on employee attitudes and behaviors (Dose, 1997). There is a general agreement in the literature that values do not influence people’s activity directly, but rather indirectly, through attitudes and goals. Thus, values are seen as a source of motivation for individual action. Values also tend to define norms and shared goals, which elicit and guide collective action (Roe and Ester, 1999). Previous studies suggest that several personal and social characteristics may influence work values (Parry and Urwin, 2011). Parry and Urwin’s (2011) review of generational differences in work values suggests that some of the differences in work values may be due to age (maturation effects), period effect, cohorts or generation effects (please see Parry and Urwin, 2011 for more details). However, as they argue for both the birth cohort and a shared experience of historical and political events, collective culture and the competition for resources are needed to define a generation. As Parry and Urwin (2011) suggest, the concept of “generations” is the one that has a strong theoretical foundation compared to age, period or cohort.
3. Generations in the workplace Researchers and scholars who study the effects of population on society, use the term “generation” to refer to the people who were born and raised in the same general time span. A generation is defined as an identifiable group that shares birth years, age,
41
location and significant life events (Kupperschmidt, 2000). Researches claim that values of a generation tend to be influenced by those key historical and social life experiences they share during the era they were born and raised (Kupperschmidt, 2000; Smola and Sutton, 2002). While they exhibit differences, many of whom grew up in the same time period have a strong identification with their own time in history and may feel, think and act in similar ways (Beldona et al., 2008). Those similarities among members of a generation tend to be evident in the ways they live their lives, including their participation in the workforce (Patterson, 2008). A generation tends to develop a personality that influences a person’s feeling toward authority and organizations, what they desire from work, and how they plan to satisfy those desires (Kupperschmidt, 2000), because as suggested by Bilsky and Schwartz (1994) “values may, indeed, be conceived as a type of personality disposition” (p. 178). Studies suggest that three generations that are most represented in today’s workplace are: Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Millenials (also known as gen Y) (Glass, 2007). A brief profile of each generation will be discussed in the next section. 3.1. Baby Boomers (born 1946–1964) Born between 1946 and 1964, the Baby Boom Generation is the largest generation in the workplace (Bureau of Labor Statistics in AARP, 2007). This generation is referred to as the Baby Boom generation because of the extra 17 million babies born during that period relative to previous census figures (O’Bannon, 2001). Baby Boomers were brought up in an abundant, healthy postwar economy. Comprising 44 percent of the U.S. workforce with 66 million workers, Baby Boomers continue to hold most of the power and control (Bureau of Labor Statistics in AARP, 2007). More than anything, work, for Baby Boomers, has been a defining part of both their self-worth and their evaluation of others (Sherman, 2005). Boomers have been characterized as individuals who believe that hard work and sacrifice are the price to pay for success (Patterson and Pegg, 2008). They live to work. They have also been characterized as being goal-oriented. This is a significant tension point between them and the younger generations because they expect others to have the same work ethic and work the same hours. They are also result driven, loyal and accept hierarchical relationship in the workplace (Burke, 2004). 3.2. Generation X (born 1965–1980) Born between 1965 and 1980, Generation X accounts for 33 percent of the U.S. labor force with 50 million employees, and is poised to move into – or at least to share – leadership and authority (Bureau of Labor Statistics in AARP, 2007). Generation X was the first generation raised on “to do lists” and grew up with high rate of blended families. They were also brought up in the shadow of the influential Boomer generation. They witnessed their parents sacrifice greatly for their companies. As a consequence, they developed behaviors (not values) of independence, resilience and adaptability more strongly than previous generations. In contrast to hard driving Boomers who live to work, they work to live and view the world with a little cynicism and distrust (UNJSPF, 2009). Generation X desires a sense of belonging/teamwork, ability to learn new things, autonomy, entrepreneurship, flexibility, feedback, and short-term rewards (Tulgan, 2004). However, they tend to be skeptical of the status quo, and hierarchical relationship, and expect managers to earn respect rather than gain respect by virtue of a title (Tulgan, 2004). They are found to be technologically savvy, informal, quick learners, value work-life balance and embrace diversity (Burke, 2004).
42
D. Gursoy et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 32 (2013) 40–48
3.3. Millennials (Generation Y) (born 1981–2000) Born between 1981 and 2000, the fastest growing generation, Millennials comprises 25 percent of the U.S. workforce (Bureau of Labor Statistics in AARP, 2007). Millennials has been portrayed as the next big generation with 76 million people. An enormously powerful group that has the sheer numbers to transform every life stage it enters. They were brought up during the “empowerment” years where everyone won and everyone got a medal. Raised by parents who nurtured and structured their lives, they were drawn to their families for safety and security. They were also encouraged to make their own choices and taught to question authority (Nobel et al., 2009). As a result, they expect employers to accommodate their “consumer” expectations in this regard. They do not necessarily see that they should get more, but that an employer should give more to their employees. This generation grew up with technology. They (as well as X, to a lesser degree) were also the first to grow up with computers and the Internet as a significant part of their lives. Twenty percent of the college students surveyed in 2002 (i.e., born approximately 1980–1984) stated that they first used computers between the ages of five and eight (PEW, 2002). Constant experience in the networked world has had a profound impact on their style in approaching problem-solving situations. The advent of interactive media such as social networking, instant messaging, text messaging, blogs, and especially multi player games have generated new skills and styles of collaborating in the Generation X and the Millennials to such degree that it has made them different (Kim et al., 2009). The X and Millennials generations are challenged by the rigidity of eight to five workdays. However, studies also suggest that this generation is need of constant supervision and guidance (Burke, 2004).
4. Generational differences The literature on generational differences is rich and many researchers have documented the generational differences between Baby Boomers and Generation X’ers that have constituted the two largest employee generational groups (Cennamo and Gardner, 2008; Davis et al., 2006; Dwyer, 2008; Glass, 2007; Kupperschmidt, 2000; Meriac et al., 2010; Mensik, 2007; O’Bannon, 2001; Smola and Sutton, 2002; Twenge, 2010; Twenge et al., 2010; Yrle et al., 2005;). While some studies that examined generational work values found little to distinguish one generation’s work values from other generations’ (Eskilson and Wiley, 1999), others concluded that work values are “more influenced by generational experiences than by age and maturation”, and that those differences have implications for developing, motivating, and communicating with employees (Smola and Sutton, 2002). Understanding those differences is crucial because around 58 percent of human resource professionals report observing conflict among employees as a result of generational differences (Society for Human Resource Management, 2004). Several other studies (e.g., Mitra et al., 1992) also argued that whenever there is a discrepancy between an individual’s work values and workplace norms, the individual’s job satisfaction is likely to decrease significantly resulting in withdrawal from work through absenteeism and tardiness. Those discrepancies are also likely to increase the employee’s intentions to leave. Furthermore, those discrepancies between employees’ work values and work environment are likely to place major restrictions on career development (Greenhause et al., 1983). In order to minimize those discrepancies, many leading companies that have taken into consideration the changing work values of new generations have added new amenities focusing on work-life balance, relaxation, and
leisure activities. For example, SAS has an in-house gym, Google offers free laundry machines, and employees can bring their dogs to work. In addition, stressed-out workers can get subsidized massages. eBay set aside two rooms for meditation, and KPMG now offers workers five weeks of paid time during their first year (100 Best, 2008) (in Twenge et al., 2010). 4.1. Work values and generational differences among hospitality service employees Studies on work values and generational differences among hospitality service employees are limited and many of them are relatively new (Chen and Choi, 2008; Gursoy et al., 2008; Main, 1998; Miller, 2006; Park and Gursoy, in press; Paxson, 2009; Walsh and Taylor, 2007). However, most of those studies reported that generational differences are likely to influence hospitality employees work values. For example, Main (1998) reported that Baby Boomers views work related constructs (such as work ethics, relationship, etc.) differently than generation X’ers. Miller (2006) reported significant generational differences among hotel front office personnel, housekeeping supervisors and hourly employees in terms of organizational commitment, job satisfaction with extrinsic and intrinsic work rewards, and intent to leave. Walsh and Taylor (2007) concluded that Generation X and Millennials tend to look for challenging jobs that offer growth opportunities, continuing skill development, increased responsibility and active participation in the decision-making process. Chen and Choi (2008) explored the underlying dimensions of hospitality managers’ work values. Among the 15 work values they examined, “way of life” and “achievement” ranked as the most important work values by all three generational groups. Generation X’ers and Millennials ranked “supervisory relationships” higher than Baby Boomers. Generation X’ers viewed “security” and “independency” higher than the other two generations. Millennials ranked “economic return” as one of the top five work values. The rankings of “achievement” and “intellectual stimulation” were highest among baby Boomers followed by Generation X’ers and then by Millennials. Gursoy et al. (2008) examined the work values and generational gaps in the hospitality workforce utilizing a focus group approach. Their study revealed the characteristics that define each generation and differences among generations. They reported significant differences between generations on attitudes toward authority and perceived importance of work in their lives. 5. Research methodology Data for this study were collected from the employees of a North American branded hotel chain with over 50 hotels owner operated, franchised and leased. The hotel company is positioned as a mid-to upper scale brand with full service hotels, restaurants and convention centers. A cross-sectional, self-administered survey instrument was developed to gather data from the employees working for the chain hotel. Development of the survey instrument followed the procedures recommended by Churchill (1979) and DeVellis (1991). A total of 74 items were generated from a series of focus group meetings with front line and service contact employees of the chain. The composition of the focus groups was determined according to generation (Baby Boomer, Generation X, Millennial) and job type (managerial associates and hourly associates). Employees from only one generation were included in each focus group, with each having a minimum 11 and maximum of 15 participants. Afterwards, a group of faculty members and industry professionals assessed the content validity of the items that were identified from the focus groups and the literature. They were asked to provide comments on the content and understandability
D. Gursoy et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 32 (2013) 40–48
of each item. They were then asked to edit and improve the items to enhance their clarity, readability, and validity. After this process, the survey questionnaire was pre-tested on a small group of frontline and service contact employees before being finalized. Based on the feedback and the results of the pretest, redundant and/or look-alike questions were eliminated reducing the number of items used from 74 to 67. A 5-point Likert Scale, ranging from 5 = strongly agree to 1 = strongly disagree, was utilized to measure each item. The questionnaire was also translated into Spanish in order to accommodate Hispanic frontline and service contact employees. To ensure conceptual consistency, back translation approach was utilized (Brislin, 1970). Translations and back translations were performed by native Spanish speakers. Data were collected from the frontline and service contact employees of 29 randomly selected hotels owned and or operated by the chain. A total of 1577 survey questionnaires were sent to frontline and service contact employees. A cover letter, individually signed in blue ink was enclosed with each questionnaire. A selfaddressed, stamped envelope was included in the package. At each hotel, the original survey was administered in a paper and pencil format during a scheduled meeting. During the meeting, the purpose of the study was explained in detail and it was clearly indicated that the participation was voluntary, and only aggregated results would be presented to the management. Assurances were also given to employees that the management would not see the surveys completed by individuals. Questionnaires were sealed upon completion, and mailed directly to the researchers. Each employee participated in the scheduled meeting was paid by the company for their time. Out of 1577 employees, 814 surveys were completed for a return rate of 52 percent. However, only 717 of the responses were used in this study because the rest of the respondents did not belong to any of the generations examined in this study.
43
Table 1 Demographic profile of the respondents (N = 717).
Age Younger than 25 25–34 35–44 45–54 55 and older Gender Male Female Not specified Education level Less than high school High school graduate/GED Some college or technical school Associate degree/certificate Bachelor’s degree Graduate work Graduate degree Other Not specified Ethnicity American Indian/Alaska Native Black/African American Hispanic/Latino Asian American/Pacific Islander Caucasian/White Other Not specified Marital status Single Married Divorced Widowed Other Not specified Children Yes No Not specified
Frequency
Percent
171 151 169 151 75
23.8 21.1 23.6 21.1 10.5
235 465 17
32.8 64.9 2.4
89 279 229 45 24 10 2 7 32
12.4 38.9 31.9 6.3 3.3 1.4 .3 1.0 13.0
41 16 91 24 488 10 47
5.7 2.2 12.7 3.3 68.1 1.4 6.6
333 249 90 14 22 9
46.4 34.7 12.6 2.0 3.1 1.2
435 267 15
60.7 37.2 2.1
6. Data analysis 7. Results and discussions In order to detect scale dimensionality of frontline and service contact employees work values, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with a principal component method was conducted. Two statistics were used to test the appropriateness of the factor analysis: (1) the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy test, and the (2) Bartlett’s test of sphericity. A value of .60 or above from the KMO test indicates that the data is adequate for exploratory factor analysis (EFA) (Tabachnick and Fidel, 1989). A significant Bartlett’s test of sphericity is also required. In order to make sure that each factor identified by EFA had only one dimension and each attribute loaded only on one factor, attributes that had factor loadings of lower than .40 and attributes loading on more than one factor with a loading score of equal to or greater than .40 on each factor were eliminated from the analysis (Hattie, 1985). The factor correlation matrix was examined to ensure discriminant validity of the underlying dimensions identified. Even though there are not any accepted thresholds, correlations greater than 0.7 between factors are considered as high because a correlation greater than 0.7 indicates a majority of shared variance. In addition, a Cronbach alpha’s reliability test was also conducted to measure the reliability of each construct. Afterwards, a series of one-way ANOVA tests were employed to determine if there were any significant differences among three generation of employees’ work attitudes. To identify significant differences, the Tukey HSD post hoc comparisons were performed. Given a set of three means, one for each generation, the Tukey HSD procedure tested all possible 2-way comparisons: (a) Baby Boomers and Generation X, (b) Baby Boomers and Millennials, and (c) Generation X and Millennials.
Table 1 presents the demographic profile of the sample. As presented in Table 1, most of the respondents were Caucasian/white and the age distribution of respondents among age categories was similar except for the 55 and older age category. There were relatively less number of respondents from the 55 and older age category compared to other age categories. Most of the respondents were females. A large portion of respondents were either high school graduate or had some college or technical school education. While only 49.3 percent of the respondents indicated that they were married, divorced or widowed, around 61 percent reported having kids. 7.1. Item reduction and investigation of dimensionality As indicated earlier, based on the feedback and the results of the pretest, redundant and/or look-alike questions were eliminated reducing the number of items used to measure employees’ work values from 74 to 67. Following this outcome and, as recommended by Churchill (1979), the number of items were further reduced by examining coefficient alpha and plotting the item-tototal scale correlations for each dimension. Items that produced a sharp drop in the plotted pattern were eliminated. After this, 41 items remained. Afterwards, a seven-dimensional principal components analysis with varimax rotation was conducted to check for a possible overlap of items across dimensions. A clear factor pattern emerged. After the iterative deletion of a number of items that had their highest loading on an incorrect factor or had factor loadings
44
D. Gursoy et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 32 (2013) 40–48
Table 2 Explanatory factor analysis of work values. Factors Work centrality Job security is very important for me I am willing to work hard and long hours When it comes to my job, I am very idealistic and driven I take my job and professional development very seriously I am willing to wait for my turn for promotions and rewards Non-compliance I am likely to challenge workplace norms such as dress codes, flex time, and employee-supervisor relations I truly believe the cliché that rules were meant to be broken I have low tolerance for bureaucracy and rules I am deeply cynical about management Technology challenge Technology makes my job harder I feel like my computer is out to get me Using latest technology makes my job easier (recoded) Work-life balance I work to live, not the other way around My philosophy is “Leave work at work.” I will not sacrifice my leisure time for the company My priorities are with my friends and my family, not the boss I want to work as many hours as I have to but not a minute longer Leadership I work best when there is strong leadership I work best when there is direction Power I strive to be “in command” when I am working in a group I strive to gain more control over the events around me at work I find myself organizing and directing the activities of others I take moderate risks and stick my neck out to get ahead at work Recognition They treat younger employees like kids No one respects younger employees because they are young Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy test Bartlett’s test of sphericity Approx. chi-square df Sig.
Loadings
Eigenvalue
%of variance explained
4.72
16.04
Reliability alpha .77
3.38
12.99
.71
1.20
4.61
.73
1.57
6.04
.63
1.30
5.01
.74
1.85
7.12
.70
1.07
4.12
.81
.74 .67 .66 60 .63 .75 .71 .69 .65 .81 .81 .48 .69 .65 .63 .60 .53 .86 .80 .80 .73 .71 .61 .86 .85
of lower than .40 and attributes loading on more than one factor with a loading score of equal to or greater than .40 on each factor, 25 items remained. The result of the principle component factor analysis indicated that there were seven underlying dimensions (factors). As presented in Table 2, results of both the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy test (.80) and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity (p < .001) indicated that the set data was appropriate for exploratory factor analysis. Each item loaded only on one factor and all of the factor loadings were significant. As presented in Table 3, all of the correlations between factors were low assuring discriminant validity of each underlying dimension. The Cronbach’s alpha tests indicated that reliability coefficients of all of the constructs were .70 or above 70, except for the “work-life balance” construct (0.63). However, it was determined to be close enough to consider due to the fact that reliability scores that are between .60 and .70 represent the lower limit of acceptability (Hair et al., 1998). The contents of the seven factor dimensions were named and analyzed as follows: Work centrality: Among seven factors (work values), the first factor was named “work centrality.” This dimension emphasizes the importance of one’s job in his/her life. People with this value are likely to be very job oriented and their life is likely to rotate around their job. Non-compliance: The second factor was named “noncompliance”. This dimension deals with outside of the box type behavior, and the need to challenge conventional norms and superiors. Employees with this type of work value are likely to challenge conventional norms. Those employees are not likely to
.803 5730.28 325 .00
buy into the phrase, “because that’s how we’ve always done it.” When corporate begins to feel too big and bureaucratic, employees with this work value are likely to challenge the rules, their superiors, and their peers. Technology challenge: The third factor was named “technology challenge” because of its emphasis on how technology may influence employees work. This dimension could be result of a couple of very different sources; either the individual does not have the proper training to be comfortable with the technology or the individual feels the technology is old and outdated. Both groups would experience frustration when dealing with their particular situation. Work-life balance: The forth factor was named “work-life balance”. This dimension focuses on the need for separation of work and personal life. When people with this value are asked to describe themselves, what they do for a living or where they work may never enter the conversation. For them, work is something to be done for sheer survival—life outside of work is far more important than anything at work. Friends and family have a tremendous influence on these individuals and work will likely never be the first priority in their lives. Leadership: The fifth factor was named “leadership”. This dimension focuses on employees’ need for direction and leadership. Employees with this value are likely to be in search of strong, competent leadership with a vision because they tend to work best when they know where they are going and how their work fits into the overall mission of the organization. They will likely remain loyal to a great leader, but may begin to look elsewhere for employment if the leader does not measure up to their standards.
D. Gursoy et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 32 (2013) 40–48
45
Table 3 Factor correlation matrix. Work centrality Work centrality Non-compliance Technology challenge Work-life balance Leadership Power Recognition
1 −.193 −.258 −.069 .312 .264 −.201
Non-compliance
Technology challenge
.250 .409 −.032 .196 .417
Work centrality M 4.03 SD (.57) Non-compliance M 2.40 SD (.77) Technology challenge M 2.46 SD (.68) Work-life balance M 3.09 SD (.60) Power M 2.95 SD (.85) Leadership M 3.79 SD (.66) Recognition M 2.20 SD (.86)
Power
Recognition
1 .143 .114 .296
1 .197 −.051
1 .068
1
1 .137 −.082 −.106 .204
Table 4 Mean scores for seven workplace values and behaviors for Baby Boomers, Generation X and Millenials. Baby Boomer
Leadership
1
Power: The sixth factor was called “power.” This dimension focuses on power struggle among employees. Employees with this value tend to strive for power and are likely to organize their own daily duties and will probably tell those around them how to organize theirs. Even when not put in charge, employees with these values will likely find a way to take over a task or project and guide it to completion. Even with lines of authority clearly delineated, these people will find a way to be in charge of someone or something. Recognition: The seventh factor was named “recognition” focusing on the perception of employees of younger ones. This dimension suggests that people feel younger employees do not get the respect or consideration they deserve simply because of their age. The perception is because the individual is young; it is okay to treat him or her like a kid. This treatment could take on many forms—not taking them seriously, not really listening to their comments or suggestions, giving them meaningless tasks, or perhaps bossing them around all the time. As presented in Table 4, results of the one-way ANOVA tests indicated significant differences in all underlying dimensions. In order to identify the source of those significant differences, the Tukey HSD post hoc comparisons were utilized by performing a series of pair wise comparisons. All possible 2-way comparisons were performed among Baby Boomers and Generation X, Baby Boomers and Millennials, and Generation X and Millennials. As seen in Table 5, there was a significant effect of employees’ generation on all underlying dimensions identified in this study. Effects of employees’ generation on each dimension are discussed below. Work centrality: Findings revealed that there was a significant effect of generation on “work centrality” dimension at the p < .05 level [F(2, 714) = 11.57, p = 0.00]. Post hoc comparisons using the
Factors
Work-life balance
Generation X
Millennials
F
3.83 (.67)
3.76 (.67)
11.57*
2.49 (.76)
2.67 (.89)
6.68*
2.30 (.68)
2.18 (.72)
9.23*
3.26 (.62)
3.37 (.68)
10.87*
3.19 (.76)
3.08 (.81)
5.66*
3.82 (.62)
3.98 (.54)
6.32*
2.31 (.82)
2.65 (1.08)
14.48*
Note. For Baby Boomers, n = 257; for Genration X, n = 260; for Millennials, n = 200. * p < .05.
Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for Baby Boomers (M = 4.03, SD = 0.57) was significantly higher than both Generation X (M = 3.83, SD = 0.69) and Millennials (M = 3.76, SD = 0.66). However, there was no significant difference between Generation X and Millennials. Taken together, these results suggest that work is likely to be more central to Baby Boomers generation and they are likely to place more importance on their jobs compared to the other two generations. This finding is consistent with the results of other studies that reported work being a defining part of both baby boomers self worth and their evaluation of others (Sherman, 2005). Since most of the supervisory and management positions are still held by baby boomers and they are likely to evaluate others by the importance they place on work. This difference may create significant tensions in the workplace unless boomers realize and understand the fact that people from younger generations have different work values and perspectives. Non-compliance: Significant differences were also found in “non-compliance” dimension at the p < .05 level [F(2, 714) = 6.68, p = 0.00]. Post hoc comparisons suggested that the mean score for Millennials generation (M = 2.67, SD = 0.89) was significantly higher than both Generation X (M = 2.49, SD = 0.76) and Baby Boomers (M = 2.40, SD = 0.77). No significant differences were found between the mean scores for Generation X (M = 2.49, SD = 0.76) and Baby Boomers (M = 2.40, SD = 0.77). These findings suggest that Millennials generation is more likely to show outside of the box type behavior, and challenge conventional norms and superiors compared to Baby Boomers and Generation X. Showing outside the box type behavior is likely to bother both Baby Boomers and Generation X but especially Baby Boomers who have traditionally been brought up in a work environment that respected authority and hierarchy (Gursoy et al., 2008). Power: There were also significant differences in “power” dimension at the p < .05 level [F(2, 714) = 5.66, p = 0.00]. Post hoc comparisons suggested that the mean score for Generation X (M = 3.19, SD = 0.76) was significantly higher than both Millennials (M = 3.08, SD = 0.81) and Baby Boomers (M = 2.95, SD = 0.85). No significant differences were found between the mean scores for Millennials (M = 3.08, SD = 0.81) and Baby Boomers (M = 2.95, SD = 0.85). These findings suggest that Generation X is more likely to strive for power compared to other two generations. They are likely to try to find a way of taking charge of activities around them in the workplace. This may be due to the fact that Baby Boomers generation who are already holding a managerial position in their workplace may not have any intention to strive for top executive positions or the Baby Boomers who do not hold a managerial position may have no desire to strive for power because as suggested by Jorgensen (2003) they are approaching the end of their careers and they may be less interested in career management and more interested in their retirement. Another reason might be that some of the Baby Boomers may assume they cannot compete with Generation X employees who have strong desire and energy for power (Gursoy et al., 2008). Since Millenials do not have yet sufficient experience and are not yet ready to take additional responsibilities required by managerial positions, they may be willing to wait until they gain experiences required by those positions (Espinoza et al., 2011).
46
D. Gursoy et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 32 (2013) 40–48
Table 5 Tukey HSD post hoc test results.
Work centrality Non-compliance Technology challenge Work-life balance Leadership Power Recognition
Baby Boomers–Generation X
Baby Boomers–Millennials
Generation X–Millennials
.20* −0.09 .16* −.17* −0.03 −.24* −0.11
.27* −.27* .28* −.28* −.19* −0.13 −.45*
.06 −.18* 0.12 −0.11 −.16* 0.11 −.34*
Mean differences among three generational cohorts. Note. For Baby Boomers, n = 257; for Genration X, n = 260; for Millennials, n = 200. * p < .05.
Work-life balance: The study findings also suggested a significant effect of generation employees belong to on “work-life balance” dimension at the p < .05 level [F(2, 714) = 10.87, p = 0.00]. Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean scores for both Millennials (M = 3.37, SD = 0.68) and Generation X (M = 3.26, SD = 0.62) were significantly higher than Baby Boomers (M = 3.09, SD = 0.60). Findings further suggested significant differences between the mean score for Millennials (M = 3.37, SD = 0.68) and Generation X (M = 3.26, SD = 0.62). Taken together, these results suggest that both Millennials and Generation X are strong believer of separation of work and personal life, compared to Baby Boomers. Millennials are likely to be the ones with the least attachment to their work. While Baby Boomers’ life rotates around work, for both Millennials and Generation X, work is something to be done for sheer survival; life outside of work is far more important than anything at work. Friends and family have a tremendous influence on these associates and work will likely never be the first priority in their lives. Leadership: Findings also suggested a significant effect of generation employees belong to on “leadership” dimension at the p < .05 level [F(2, 714) = 6.32, p = 0.00]. Post hoc comparisons indicated that the mean score for Millennials (M = 3.98, SD = 0.54) was significantly higher than both and Generation X (M = 3.82, SD = 0.62) and Baby Boomers (M = 3.79, SD = 0.66). However, there was no significant difference between Generation X and Baby Boomers generation. Taken together, these results suggest that while Millennials generation looks for direction, guidance and leadership; Baby Boomers and Generation X tend to be less reliant on strong, competent leadership. Technology challenge: Results also indicated significant differences in “technology challenge” dimension at the p < .05 level [F(2, 714) = 9.23, p = 0.00]. Post hoc comparisons suggested that the mean score for Baby Boomers generation (M = 2.46, SD = 0.68) was significantly higher than both and Generation X (M = 2.30, SD = 0.68) and Millennials (M = 2.18, SD = 0.72). No significant differences were found between the mean scores for Millennials (M = 2.18, SD = 0.72) and Generation X (M = 2.30, SD = 0.68). These findings indicated that the Baby Boomers generation is likely to be less comfortable with technology compare to the other two younger generations. This finding is consistent with previous studies that suggested that age tends to be the largest determinant of technology usage and its acceptance (McFarland, 2001; Yang and Jolly, 2008). Recognition: Finally, the study findings also suggested a significant effect on “recognition” dimension at the p < .05 level [F(2, 714) = 14.48, p = 0.00]. Post hoc comparisons suggested that the mean score for Millennials generation (M = 2.65, SD = 1.08) was significantly higher than both Generation X (M = 2.31, SD = 0.82) and Baby Boomers (M = 2.20, SD = 0.86). However, no significant differences were found between the mean scores for Generation X (M = 2.31, SD = 0.82) and Baby Boomers (M = 2.20, SD = 0.86). These findings suggest that Millennials generation is more likely to be troubled by the fact that they are seen as just kids and they do not
get the respect and recognition they think they deserve from their colleagues compared to Baby Boomers and Generation X. 7.2. Implications for managers and suggested strategies As the findings of this study suggest, generational differences in work values and attitudes exist between older and younger generations of employees. Those generational differences can be viewed as an obstacle or an opportunity to improve the workplace (Brennan, 2010). Some managers may see those differences as superficial and may ignore them. However, those differences may have a substantial influence on workplace attitudes, and influence interactions between employees and managers, employees and customers, and employees and employees. If not managed well, those differences can be a source of significant frustration for everyone in the workplace (Lancaster and Stillman, 2002). If managers and coworkers do not understand each other’s generational differences, tension among employees are likely to increase, and job satisfaction and productivity are likely to decrease (Kupperschmidt, 2000). On the other hand, managers who understand those differences and the priorities of each generation are likely to create a workplace environment that foster leadership, motivation, communication and generational synergy (Gursoy et al., 2008; Smola and Sutton, 2002). It is important to understand that the cost of failing to manage generational differences in an effective way may increase turnover rate, losing valuable employees, and affect profitability. Since majority of upper level managerial positions are held by Baby Boomers, and partly by Generation X’ers, they should realize that strategies used in the past to select, manage and motivate Baby Boomers and Generation X employees may not be as effective for Millennials. They need to accept the fact that employees from different generations tend to have differing value sets (Zemke et al., 2000). For example, findings of this study indicate that younger employees are seeking a balance between their personal life and their work life. This may be difficult for managers from the Baby Boom generation to understand because their job tends to play a significant role in their life, maybe more important than their personal life. Findings of this study suggested that Millenials and Generation X employees are more technology savvy compared to the Baby Boomer generation. This finding is likely to have critical implications for the mode of communication methods used by managers to communicate with employees. Managers need to understand individuals from different generations may have different communication styles and expectations. For example, Millenials and Generation X employees are likely to prefer technology such as email, text, etc. as a major means of communication, which may enable managers to provide more immediate and frequent feedback to those employees (Lancaster and Stillman, 2002). However, communication with an employee from an older generation may require a different strategy such as communicating face to face or by phone rather than sending an email. It is also important
D. Gursoy et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 32 (2013) 40–48
for managers to remember that when it comes to workplace communication, younger generations are especially keen on transparency (Salopek, 2006). It may be a good idea for corporations to develop online platforms where employees, especially the younger ones, can share information and where managers can send frequent updates to employees. It may also a good idea to offer generational information awareness/sharing sessions to provide a platform where people from different generations can get together and share information (American Management Association, 2007). Findings of this study suggested that employees from Millennials generation value strong leadership in the workplace. They also expect managers to be mentors and role models. Most of the generational gaps identified in this study can easily be addressed by developing and offering intergenerational training and mentoring programs. These programs may give opportunities to managers and employees from different generations to interact with each other while training and mentoring one another. Intergenerational mentoring can be particularly rewarding, as it is a way to learn about the beliefs and coworkers across different generations and backgrounds (Patricelli, n.d.). Older workers can train and mentor younger employees on critical skills and job knowledge ensuring that those skills and knowledge are transferred while younger workers can mentor older employees on technology and computers skills (Roberts, 2005). It is also important to create an atmosphere where expectations of each generation can be accommodated. For example, Millennials want work environments that are flexible because they want to have the time to spend on things that are important for them when they need it (Mikitka, 2009). Therefore, developing flexible policies and practices will help companies to attract and retain those talented younger employees. This strategy can also be used to address the power struggle among generations. Findings suggested that employees from Generation X are more likely to strive for power compared to other two generations. Providing an environment that offers various leadership opportunities may fulfill Generation X employees’ desire for power. Making a few minor changes in the organizational chart of each department may enable management to come up with more leadership opportunities for Generation X employees. For example, instead of having a single shift supervisor without any assistants, assistant positions can be created. Also, Generation X employees can be asked to lead internal events and activities. Having a policy that favors internal promotions for leadership positions may also have significant impact on Generation X employees’ view of an organization. Clearly, the current study is just one step toward development of management and leadership strategies through understanding of generational differences and similarities among frontline and service contact employees. This study argues that successfully managing a diverse workforce requires managers to accept the fact everyone is different yet each employee is likely to have something good to offer and might bring something better to the table if they are given a chance (Gursoy et al., 2008). This is why if managers learn to appreciate differences by focusing on positive attributes and take time to consider the strengths each co-worker brings to the workplace, they are likely to manage those differences effectively and create a positive work environment (Mann, 2006). 7.3. Limitations Like any other study, this study is not free from limitations. Data for this study were gathered using a self-administered survey questionnaire from the frontline and service contact employees of a single hotel chain. Even though the data were collected from employees of 29 randomly selected hotels, findings of this study may not be generalized beyond the frontline and service contact employees of the single hotel chain participated in this study.
47
Because it is possible that some of the findings may result from the human resource or operational policies of the chain. Future studies should be conducted on a larger sample of hospitality employees, preferably a national sample that includes several large chains. Following the procedure recommended by Churchill (1979) and Hair et al. (1998), the number of items that were used to measure employees’ work values were reduced from 74 to 25. Since only one set of data was utilized in this study, validity of item reduction process and the resulting factorial structure could not be validated. Therefore, future studies are needed to validate findings of this study. Also, the sample of this study was dominated by female respondents, which may have introduced biased. When interpreting the findings, readers should consider the possibility of gender bias in responses. Another limitation of this study is that this study only examined the impact of generational differences on work values and, therefore, all of the findings were attributed to generational differences. However, it is possible that some of those differences reported in this study may be attributable to changes in values as a result of age or a stage in the life cycle. Also, this study examined each generation as a homogeneous group. However, studies suggest that there may be more heterogeneity within generations than between generations (Denecker et al., 2008). Gender, race, ethnicity or culture of employees within the same generation may cause significant differences in work values (Parry and Urwin, 2011). Future studies should examine if socio-demographic variables cause significant variations in work values within a generation. 8. Conclusions Findings of this study provided further evidence that differences in work values among employees from different generations exists. Awareness of those differences among generations can help managers to create a more pleasant and productive workplace. Findings suggested that Boomers respect authority, and hierarchy (Zemke et al., 2000), while Millennials tend to challenge authority (Gursoy et al., 2008). Findings also suggest that while Boomers live to work, Millennials work to live. Boomers are willing to wait their turn for promotions and rewards, and they are very loyal. On the other hand, younger generations want immediate recognition through title, praise, promotion, and pay. They also want a life outside of work; they are not likely to sacrifice theirs for the company. Millenials believe in collective action and are optimistic. They like teamwork, showing a strong will to get things done with great spirit. This study is one step further toward a thorough understanding of generational differences and similarities among frontline and service contact employees and managers. Identification of generational issues is likely to result in development of leadership strategies that increases employee morale and productivity by lowering workplace tensions and generational conflicts in the workplace. Therefore, this study holds the potential for helping companies and managers to better understand generational issues in the workplace. In addition, the results of the study, will hopefully serve as a base for more comprehensive research. References AARP, 2007. Leading a Multigenerational Workforce, Retrieved on September 18, 2010 from: http://assets.aarp.org/www.aarp.org / articles/money/employers/leading multigenerational workforce.pdf. Adler, A., 1956. The value concept in sociology. American Journal of Sociology 62, 272–279. American Management Association, 2007. Leading the Four Generations at Work, Retrieved on: October 24, 2010 from: http://www.amanet.org/training/articles/ Leading-the-Four-Generations-at-Work.aspx. Beldona, S., Nusair, K., Demicco, F., 2008. Online travel purchase behavior of generational cohorts: a longitudinal study. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 18, 406–420.
48
D. Gursoy et al. / International Journal of Hospitality Management 32 (2013) 40–48
Bilsky, W., Schwartz, S.H., 1994. Values and personality. European Journal of Personality 8, 163–181. Brennan, B., 2010. Generational Differences. Paper Age January–February 2010, Retrieved on September 29, 2010 from: http://www.paperage.com/issues/ jan feb2010/01 2010generational differences.pdf. Brislin, R.W., 1970. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology 1, 185–216. Burke, M.E., 2004. Generational Differences Survey Report. Society for Human Resource Management. Retrieved on October 14, 2010 from: http://www.shrm.org/Research/SurveyFindings/Documents/Generational%20 Differences%20Survey%20Report.pdf. Cennamo, L., Gardner, D., 2008. Generational differences in work values, outcomes and person-organisation values fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology 23 (8), 891–906. Chen, P., Choi, Y., 2008. Generational differences in work values: a study of hospitality management. International Journal of Contemporary, Hospitality Management 6 (20), 595–615. Churchill, G.A., 1979. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing 16, 64–73. Crain, W.C., 1985. Theories of Development, 2nd revised ed. Prentice-Hall. Davis, J.B., Pawlowski, S.D., Houston, A., 2006. Work commitments of Baby Boomers and Gen-Xers in the IT profession: generational differences or myth? Journal of Computer Information Systems 46, 43–49. Debreu, G., 1959. Theory of Value. Wiley, New York. Denecker, J.C., Joshi, A., Martocchio, J.J., 2008. Towards a theoretical framework linking generational memories to attitudes and behaviours. Human Resource Management Review 18, 180–187. DeVellis, R.F., 1991. Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Applied Social Research Methods Series, vol. 26. Sage Publications, Inc., Newbury Park, CA. Dose, J., 1997. Work values and integrative framework and illustrative application to organizational socialization. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 70, 219–241. Dwyer, R., 2008. Prepare for the impact of the multi-generational workforce! Transforming government. People, Process and Policy. 3 (2), 101–110. Egri, C.P., Ralston, D.A., 2004. Generation cohorts and personal values: a comparison of China and the United States. Journal of Organizational Science 15 (2), 210–220. Elizur, D., 1984. Facets of work values: a structural analysis of work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology 69 (3), 379–389. Eskilson, A., Wiley, M.G., 1999. Solving for the X: aspirations and expectations of college students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 28, 51–70. Espinoza, C., Ukleja, M., Rusch, C., 2011. For leading today’s workforce. Leader to Leader 2011 (59), 18–23. Feather, N.T., 1992. Values, valences, expectations, and actions. Journal of Social Issues 48, 109–124. Glass, A., 2007. Understanding generational differences for competitive success. Industrial and Commercial Training 39 (2), 98–103. Greenhause, J.H., Hawkons, B.L., Brenner, O.C., 1983. The impact of career exploration on the career decision-making process. Journal of College Personnel 24, 495–502. 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. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Hattie, J., 1985. Methodology review: assessing the unidimensionality of tests and items. Applied Psychological Measurement 9 (2), 139–164. Jorgensen, B., 2003. Baby Boomers, Generation X and Generation Y? Policy implications for defence forces in the modern era. Foresight 5 (4), 41–49. Kalleberg, A.L., 1977. Work values and job rewards: a theory of job satisfaction. American Sociological Review 42 (1), 124–143. Kim, H., Knight, D.K., Crutsinger, C., 2009. Generation Y employees’ retail work experience: the mediating effect of job characteristics. Journal of Business Research 62, 548–556. Kohlberg, L., 1973. The claim to moral adequacy of a highest stage of moral judgment. Journal of Philosophy 70 (18), 630–646. Kupperschmidt, B., 2000. Multigeneration employees: strategies for effective management. The Health Care Manager 19 (1), 65–76. Lancaster, L.C., Stillman, D., 2002. When Generations Collide: Who They Are. Why They Clash. How to Solve the Generational Puzzle at Work. Harper Collins, New York, NY. Lyons, S., Duxbury, L., Higgins, C., 2005. Are gender differences in basic human values a generational phenomenon? Sex Roles 53 (9/10), 763–778. McFarland, D.J., 2001. The role of age and efficacy on technology acceptance: implications for e-learning. In: Proceeding of Web Net 2001 World Conference WWW and Internet, Orlando, FL. Main, B., 1998. The Generation Phenomenon: Adapting to the Fast-Changing Workforce, The Voice of Foodservice Distribution, vol. 33, p. 59. Mann, A., 2006. An Appreciative Inquiry Model for Building Partnerships, Retrieved October 24, 2010 from http://appreciativeinquiry. case.edu/gem/partnerships.htmlS.
Mensik, J.S., 2007. A view on generational differences from a Generation X leader. Journal of Nursing Administration 37 (11), 483–484. 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. Mikitka, M., 2009. Managing the Multi-Generational Workforce. MHMonline, Retrieved on September 14, 2010 from: http://mhmonline.com/news/managing-multi-generational-workforce-0809/. Miller, E., 2006. The Effect of Rewards, Commitment, Organizational Climate, and Work Values on Intentions to Leave: is there a Difference among Generations? University of New York, Albany, NY (published dissertation). Mitra, A., Jenkins Jr., D., Gupta, N., 1992. A meta-analytic review of the relationship between absence and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology 77, 879–889. Nobel, S.M., Haytko, D.L., Phillips, J., 2009. What drives college-age Generation Y consumers? Journal of Business Research 62 (6), 617–628. O’Bannon, G., 2001. Managing our future: the generation X factor. Public Personnel Management 30 (1), 95–109. Park, J.D., Gursoy, D. Generational effects on work engagement among U.S hotel employees. International Journal of Hospitality Management, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.02.007, in press. Parry, E., Urwin, P., 2011. Generational Differences in work values: a review of theory and evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews 13, 79–96, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00285.x. Patterson, I., Pegg, S., 2008. Marketing the leisure experience to baby boomers and older tourists. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 18, 254–272. Patterson, M.L., 2008. Back to social behavior: mining the mundane. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 30 (2), 93–101. Patricelli, K., n.d. Generational Differences in the Workplace for Supervisors, http://www.veridianbh.com/poc/view doc.php?type=doc&id=12956&cn=301. Paxson, M.C., 2009. Boomer boom for hospitality: opportunities and challenges. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 18, 89–98. Pew Internet and American Life Project, The Internet Goes to College: How Students Are Living in the Future with Today’s Technology, (September 2002). 2. Available at www.pewinternet.org. Roberts, A., 2005. Generation Y: what it means for chartered accountants. Chartered Accountants Journal of New Zealand 84 (11), 42–43. Roe, R., Ester, P., 1999. Values and work: empirical findings and theoretical perspectives. Applied Psychology: An International Review 48 (1), 1–21. Rohan, M.G., 2000. A rose by any name? The values construct. Personality and Social Psychology Review 4 (3), 255–277. Rokeach, M., 1973. The Nature of Human Values. Free Press, New York. Salopek, J., 2006. Leadership for a new age. Training & Development Management 60 (6), 22–23. Schwartz, S.H., 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In: Zanna, M.P. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 25. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 1–65. Sherman, R.O., 2005. Growing our future leaders. Nursing Administration Quarterly 29 (2), 125–132. Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM), 2004. 2004 Generational Differences Survey. Society for Human Resources Management, Alexandria, VA. Smola, K.W., Sutton, C.D., 2002. Generational differences: revisiting generational work values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior 23 (4), 363–382. Super, D.E., 1970. Work Values Inventory. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA. Tabachnick, B., Fidel, L., 1989. Using Multivariate Statistics, 2nd ed. Harper Collins, New York. Tulgan, B., 2004. Trends point to a dramatic generational shift in the future workplace. Employment Relations Today 30 (4), 23–31. Twenge, J.M., Campbell, S.M., Hoffman, B.J., Lance, C.E., 2010. Generational differences in work values: leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values decreasing. Journal of Management (NY) 36 (5), 1117. Twenge, J.M., 2010. A review of the empirical evidence on generational differences in work attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology 25 (2), 201. UNJSPF, 2009. Overcoming Generational Gap in the Workplace, Traditionalists, Baby Boomers, Generation X, Generation Y (and Generation Z) Working Together. Retrieved on December 10, from http://un.org/staffdevelopment/pdf/Designing%20Recruitment,%20Selection %20&%20Talent%20Management%20Model%20tailored%20to%20meet%20UNJSPF’s%20Business%20Development%20Needs.pdf. Walsh, K., Taylor, M., 2007. Developing in-house careers and retaining management talent: what hospitality professionals want from their jobs. Cornell Hotel & Restaurant Administration Quarterly 48 (2), 163–182. Yang, K., Jolly, L.D., 2008. Age cohort analysis in adoption of mobile data services: Gen Xers versus baby boomers. Journal of Consumer Marketing 25 (5), 272–280. Yrle, A.C., Hartman, S.J., Payne, D.M., 2005. Generation X: acceptance of others and teamwork implications. Team Performance Management 11 (5/6), 188–199. Zemke, R., Raines, C., Filipczak, B., 2000. Generations at Work: Managing the Clash of Veterans, Baby Boomers, Xxers, and Nexters in Your Workplace. American Management Association, New York.
