Generational Diversity in the Workplace: A Systematic ...

Generational Diversity in the Workplace: A Systematic Review in the Hospitality Context (Paper accepted in Cornell Hospitality Quarterly) Malinvisa Sakdiyakorn* Business Administration Division Mahidol University International College, Thailand and Walanchalee Wattanacharoensil Tourism and Hospitality Management Division Mahidol University International College, Thailand *Corresponding author

Abstract This paper marks the first systematic review that focuses on generational diversity in the hospitality workplace in the period from 2000 to 2016. A comprehensive search was conducted in the five dominant databases, namely, Scopus, SAGE, Emeralds, Science Direct and EBSCOhost‟s Hospitality and Tourism Complete, resulting in 49 articles for systematic content analysis. This paper maps out the existing landscape of generational studies within a hospitality context before providing five areas of recommendations for future studies to fully capture the intricacy of the generational phenomenon. This study serves as a funnel for academics and practitioners within the hospitality field as it gears their attention and research directions towards the crucial, yet under-examined, context of generational studies. Keywords: Generational Diversity, Human Resource Management, Systematic Review, Hospitality

The Generational Phenomenon Generational diversity in the workplace is an ongoing „organizational phenomenon‟ (Joshi et al., 2011) that has gained widespread attention in academic literature and the popular press. The root cause stems predominantly from the sociological underpinning that stipulates how groups of individuals or cohorts born within the same historical and socio-cultural context, who experience the same formative experiences in their early life (between the age of 16-25), develop shared identities that direct their lifelong values, attitudes and behaviors (Mannheim, 1952, Ryder, 1965) or „generational imprinting‟ (Parry and Urwin, 2011). Clashes that occur within the workplace, when existing norms and behaviors of one cohort group are challenged by those of others in different or defying ways, are often viewed as a result of this phenomenon. Inter-generational conflicts, in the form of increased tension, distrust, poor communication, and misunderstandings, have been constantly reported (Zopiatis et al., 2012) and have been shown to affect key organizational outcomes, such as job satisfaction, turnover, absenteeism, work commitment, organizational citizenship behavior and productivity outcomes (Chi et al., 2013; Choi and Kwon, 1

2013; Josiam et al., 2009; Park and Gursoy, 2012). Such a standpoint resonates through the majority of generational studies that approach the phenomenon through the „cohort perspective‟ by demarcating demographic groups of the last century into four prominent cohorts – Traditionalists, Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y – based on shared birth years and assumed youth experiences. Against this backdrop, however, lies a few academics that have critiqued the theoretical, methodological and empirical substances surrounding this popular cohort perspective as largely opaque and monolithic, arguing for further consideration of the following points (Chi et al., 2013; Constanza et al., 2012; Lyons and Kuron, 2014; Parry and Urwin, 2011). First, a greater awareness of the term „cohort‟ that is commonly used to define a „generation‟ is needed. „Cohort‟ is seen as a proxy for the generational groupings that bring together individuals based on the cutoff points of birth dates. While this approach provides a simplistic theoretical construct for generational studies, it disregards the predominant significance that historical events and socioeconomic and cultural phenomena may have on the creation of generational groupings. Therefore, the interpretation of results using this narrowly „pre-defined cohort‟ approach needs to be thorough (Parry and Urwin, 2011; Urwin et al., 2014). Second, particular attention should be drawn towards other time-related effects, namely, age effects and period effects that may provide alternative explanations about generational understanding beyond a cohort effect. Most cohort studies have relied on a cross-sectional design that supports an identification between age groups based on a single point of time, hence leading to methodological limitations as to whether differences found among people are actually due to generational groupings (cohort effect), changes in a person over the course of life (age effect) or the time in which the study was conducted (period effect) (Campbell and Twenge, 2014; Lub et al., 2014). Segers et al. (2014) have gone a step further to introduce the seven dimensions of age known as the „Matrix of Age‟ (chronological, generational, physical-cognitive, socio-emotional, occupational, organizational and life events age), which supports the prediction of workplace outcomes in conjunction with or beyond the chronological age. Third, it is also worth acknowledging that, within and across generations, other variances exist, such as educational level, race, gender, sexual orientation, and geographical location, which may better explain the complexity of generational issues (Campbell and Twenge, 2014; Lub et al., 2014; Parry, 2014). Different national cultures have been examined as a key moderating effect, leading to generational differences across countries (Josiam et al., 2008; Ladkin and Weber, 2010; Leask et al., 2013); however, Lyons and Kuron (2014) urge future studies to look into organizational variables, such as industry context, organization size, organizational culture and structure, to gain deeper insights into the phenomenon. Taking Lyons and Kuron‟s (2014) proposition to explore the „industry context‟ as a variance to generational studies, the „hospitality‟ context in particular is chosen as the focal point of this study. This is because, despite the bulk of generational studies in the mainstream business context, little is known about how a hospitality context posits the generational studies. From the fact that managing and nurturing human capitals is one of the key success factors of this industry, due to its labor-intensive and service-oriented nature (Law et al., 2012), and creating an effective and coherent working environment among the generations has been a challenging task for hospitality managers, it is therefore necessary to have an overview of the existing studies, particularly in this industry context, to enhance our advanced understanding. In doing so, this

2

study provides a systematic review of the academic articles relating to generational diversity in the hospitality industry. Our review gives three key contributions to the literature. First, from the up-to-date systematic reviews, the study provides both general overviews of the existing studies and a specific discussion based on two work-related constructs or themes of the studies: individual and group versus organization. Second, it lays out the empirical generalization or repeated empirical evidence found across the studies. Third, it analyzes the current positions as well as the limitations of existing research and proposes directions for future generation study, particularly in the hospitality context. Overall, the study of generational diversity in the hospitality workplace provides a major research contribution for understanding the social and demographic change of human capital in this industry (Donnison, 2007 in Leask et al., 2013) and, as such, constitutes a human resource management topic that deserves „its own line of inquiry and sphere of academic journals separate from generic HRM theory‟ (Solnet and Hood, 2008: 59; Lub et al., 2012). Despite the variety of studies on generational differences within the hospitality industry, little has been explored from the human resources perspective (Park and Gursoy, 2012). The relevancy of generational studies within the hospitality context is further explored in the next section.

The Hospitality Context and Generational Challenges The hospitality industry is a key element of tourism, which is the largest and fastest growing economic sector in the world (World Tourism Organization, 2016), and one that is also heavily reliant on human capital. The current industry conditions are impacted by three contending forces –a demographic shift, an industry image and a shift in the workforce composition – that have implications tied to the generational phenomenon and, together, exacerbate the longstanding difficulty of attracting and retaining employees. The following part discusses the generational challenges brought about by these forces. First, from a demographic standpoint, falling birth rates and an aging population constitute key concerns for the hospitality industry, which is „chronically understaffed‟ (Solnet and Hood, 2008; Lub et al., 2012). Compounded by studies that found a softening demand for hospitality programs (Barron, 2008), along with the majority of hospitality graduates not choosing to join the industry upon graduation (Barron et al., 2007), these scenes provide a frightening scenario for a sector that is predominantly reliant on youth workers (Baum, 2010; Barron et al., 2014). With a shrinking labor pool, the competition to fill the hospitality workplace with quality workers is therefore at stake. Developed countries are now experiencing this demographic shift, and many developing countries will follow suit in the decades to come. Adding to this challenge is the need for hospitality organizations to understand their multi-generation workforce and to ensure assimilation among them. Many organizations are likely to see the Baby Boomers and Generation X continue working beyond their retirement age, which will require them to adapt to the upcoming generations that seem equipped with a different mindset and attitude towards work. Second, the „confusing complexity of its own image‟ (Barron et al., 2007: 120) further heightens the employment constraints in the hospitality industry. This perplexity is evident through the positive image, which sees the hospitality setting as fun, adventurous, challenging, and glamorous, and the more negative image, which sees hospitality as an unappealing career choice, ridden by factors ranging from the employment nature to various HR- and customer-related issues, 3

as shown in Figure 1. As a consequence, the hospitality industry has been experiencing a „turnover culture‟ (Richardson and Butler, 2012; Lub et al., 2012), even more so with Generation Y in the workplace (Choi et al., 2013; Brown et al., 2015). The significance of Generation Y is undeniable, as they currently represent 25 percent of the world population (Leask et al., 2013) and will constitute 50 percent of the global workforce by 2020 (PWC, 2011). What makes this generation interesting is their radical and unconventional approach to work (Solnet and Kralj, 2011). Based on several studies, the members of Generation Y, in comparison to previous generations, are the hardest to retain, having lower commitment and higher turnover intentions (Brown et al., 2015; Lub et al., 2012). Different expectations, motives and values from the older generations have been used to explain the variances in attitudes and behaviors, where, for example, a study by Oliver (2006) found that expectations of pay, conditions, promotion and advancement are higher among Generation Y compared to others. Though it is not in the scope of this study to describe the characteristics of each generation, organizations have found Generation Y‟s characteristics to be so distinct that they need to customize their HR practices for them (Barron et al, 2007). The poor image of a career within the industry is believed to inhibit Generation Y from choosing hospitality as a viable, long-term prospect (Barron, 2008) and makes it increasingly necessary for organizations to understand their ways of thinking. Figure 1 Negative Image of the Hospitality Industry Employment nature Labor intensive, High number of low skilled jobs, Low levels of formal qualifications, Poor utilization of student labor, Large number of migrant staffs

HR-related issues Low pay, Excessive workload, Anti-social work hours, Low job autonomy, Menial work, Repetitive work, Limited career progression, Poor social status, Unpleasant physical working conditions, Work-family conflict, Low job security

Customer-related issues Excessive interaction with customers, Demanding customers, Contempt from customers

Turnover culture Source: Barron, 2008; Barron et al., 2007; Barron et al., 2014; Josiam et al., 2009; Ladkin and Weber, 2010; Lu and Gursoy, 2013; Lub et al., 2011; Maxwell et al., 2010; Richardson, 2010; Richardson and Butler, 2012; Zopiatis et al., 2012

Finally, the shift in workforce composition provides a supporting argument towards the need to constantly update the body of knowledge on generational diversity. In retrospect, the concerns of hospitality managers three decades ago were on Generation X entering the workforce, moving up the ladder and interacting with the Baby Boomers (Brown et al., 2015). The past decade draws upon a similar pattern, with Generation Y being the main target of studies as they emerge in the workforce (Barron et al., 2007; Josiam et al., 2008; Josiam et al., 2009; Josiam et al., 2010; Kong et al., 2015; Maxwell et al., 2010; Richardson, 2010; Richardson and Thomas, 2012). Today, little has been discussed so far about Generation Z, who are about to replace Generation Y as the youngest employees. In a similar vein to the past, a new cycle of „fresh contact‟ will likely emerge between Generation Z and the elderly generations, creating further inter-generational disagreements with the existing corporate norms (Manheim, 1970). Making sense of how 4

Generation Y and Generation X react to this new breed as they move up the career ladder and Baby Boomers retire from the workplace scene will be valuable. Since most organizations are „not designed to integrate the needs and preconceptions of successive generations of employees‟ (Behrens, 2009 in Kapoor and Solomon, 2011), ongoing studies towards understanding generation diversity is needed. How this study contributes to a comprehensive learning of the generational phenomenon within the hospitality industry is explained next.

Significance of the Review A good indicator of how generational studies are researched is to look at the synthesis reviews relating to the phenomenon. This paper applies the definitions and categorizations of synthesis reviews by referring to Petticrew and Roberts‟s (2006) work on the Systematic Reviews in the Social Science. Some common approaches to the synthesis literature reviews that were found from the existing generational studies include the following:  Systematic review – refers to a review that aims to comprehensively identify, appraise and synthesize all the relevant studies on a given topic (Ibid, p. 19);  Meta-analysis – refers to a review that uses a specific statistical technique for synthesizing the results of several studies into a single quantitative estimate (Ibid, p. 19);  Conceptual review – refers to a review that synthesizes areas of conceptual knowledge that can contribute to a better understanding of these issues (Ibid, p. 39);  Critical review – sometimes refers to a literature review that assesses a theory or hypothesis by critically examining the methods and results of the primary studies, often with a wealth of background and contextual material, though it does not use the formalized approach of a systematic review (Ibid, p. 41);  Traditional review – refers to a literature review that does not use systematic review methods. Such reviews can still represent excellent overviews of wider literature and concepts, just not reviews of outcomes (Ibid, p. 41). Table 1 provides a description of the twelve synthesis reviews within the business and hospitality contexts that are related to chronological age, birth cohort and generation and have been conducted in the forms of meta-analysis, literature reviews, conceptual reviews and critical reviews. While the different types of synthesis reviews have their own values, this study marks the first systematic review paper aimed at comprehensively identifying areas of focus, uncertainty, and gaps on generational studies within the hospitality context during the period of 2000 to 2016. Table 1 Synthesis Reviews Relating to Generational Studies Studies 1. Age and Work-related Motives 2. Age Diversity and Team Outcomes 3. Age and Birth Cohort Differences in Selfesteem 4. Birth Cohort Changes in Extraversion

Authors Kooij et al., 2011 Schneid et al., 2016 Twenge and Campbell, 2001

Synthesis Review Meta-analysis Meta-analysis Meta-analysis

Business Business Business

Twenge, 1999

Meta-analysis

Business

5

Context

5. Generation Me, the Origins of Birth Cohort Differences in Personality Traits 6. Generational Differences in Work Values 7. Generation Differences in Work-Related Attitudes 8. Generational Differences in the Workplace: A Review of the Evidence and Directions for Future Research 9. Generation Y as Hospitality Employees: Framing a Research Agenda 10. A Conceptual Framework for Attracting Generation Y to the Hotel Industry Using a Seamless Hotel Organizational Structure 11. Education and Talent Management: Implications for the Hospitality Industry 12. Understanding and Managing Generational Differences in the Workplace

Twenge, 2008

Meta-analysis

Business

Parry and Urwin, 2011 Costanza et al., 2012

Critical review Meta-analysis

Business Business

Lyons and Kuron, 2014

Critical review

Business

Solnet and Hood, 2008

Conceptual review Conceptual review

Hospitality

Traditional literature review Traditional literature review

Hospitality

Chacko et al., 2012

Barron, 2008

Kapoor and Solomon, 2011

Hospitality

Hospitality

Unlike most of the synthesis reviews in Figure 2, which examine a specific construct in relation to generational studies (e.g., Kooij et al., 2011 on work motives, Parry and Urwin, 2011 on work values, Costanza et al. 2012 on work attitudes, Twenge, 2008 on personality, Schneid et al., 2016 on team outcomes) or focus on Generation Y in particular (Chacko et al., 2012; Solnet and Hood, 2008; Twenge, 2008), this systematic review provides a scientific summary of the evidence relating to the broader framework of multi-generations and serves as guidance on where future studies are needed (Petticrew and Roberts, 2006). The following parts discuss the methodology, findings and discussions.

Methodology This paper presents a systematic review of peer-reviewed journal articles related to multigenerations within the hospitality workplace. A rigorous method of data collection and analysis was conducted via a four-step screening process to identify, select and critically appraise relevant research on the topic (Petticrew and Roberts, 2006; The Cochrane Collaboration, 2005) (Figure 2). Two researchers and two research assistants were actively involved in the whole process to enhance its credibility, confirmability, and inter-rater reliability, to reduce personal bias and to ensure a realistic timeframe for conducting the research. Figure 2. Systematic review screening process and data extraction Step 1: Source identification and keyword-based selection Five key databases EBSCOhost Emerald SAGE Science Direct Scopus

Step 2: HR and generation-related article screening

Initial screening’s keywords (1,982 articles) “Millennials” or “Generation Y” + Hospitality” “Generation X + Hospitality” “Baby Boomers + Hospitality” “Generation + Age Cohort + Hospitality”

Redundant articles From 1,982 down to 1,124 articles

6

Article screening criteria (1,124 articles) (A) HR and highly generation-related articles (91 articles) (B) HR and maybe generation-related articles (39 articles) (C) HR but non-generation-related articles (101 articles) (D) Non-related or not full articles (893 articles)

Database selection

Keyword selection in articles from Jan 2000 to Dec 2016

Elimination of double counting

Step 4: Final selection and data extraction Data extraction categorization The Studied Generations, Cohort Terminologies and Year Span, Respondents and Hospitality Sectors, Geographical Context and National Differences, Research Methods and Designs, Areas of Focus and Findings

Title and abstract screening (C) and (D) (994 articles) Full text screening for (A) and (B) (130 articles)

Step 3: Additional identification of articles

Final selection of eligible studies (49 articles)

Bibliographical search 3 additional articles from bibliographical search in the 46 articles

Article selection from Step 2 From 130 down to 46 articles

4 conceptual studies 45 empirical studies

Include more articles from the bibliographical search

All results recorded in Excel spreadsheet

Inclusion criteria: HR and generation-related papers from hospitality journals / using hospitality industry respondents

Source identification and keyword-based selection constituted the first step. Five key databases – Scopus, SAGE, Emeralds, Science Direct and EBSCOhost‟s Hospitality and Tourism Complete – were selected for data searches as they contained the highest percentage of overall published journal articles using peer reviews and are among the most reputable databases. Relevant keywords were chosen by the two researchers after a few trials on keyword combinations and evaluation of their results. The final decisions on the combination of key words, namely, “Millennials” or “Generation Y + Hospitality”, “Generation X + Hospitality”, “Baby Boomers + Hospitality”, “Generation + Age Cohort + Hospitality” were agreed upon. The research assistants were independently assigned to conduct the literature search before comparing all of the results. Only full-length articles dated from January 2000 to December 2016 were chosen based on the growing discussions of generation diversity that have popped up since the beginning of the millennium. All research notes, studies of literature reviews, short articles, book reviews and industry news were excluded in the final screening. A total of 1,982 articles were selected from this search. In the second step, the key emphasis was on screening only HR and generation-related articles. The HR perspective constitutes one of the three main literature streams concerning generational studies beyond the marketing perspective and the education and training perspective (Solnet and Hood, 2008). It adds value to the understanding of organizations‟ internal customers, their general patterns of beliefs, values, attitudes and behaviors and the impacts on all areas of people management, from recruiting to training and development, compensation and management style (Lub et al., 2012). First, the double counting of articles that could be found in more than one of the five databases was eliminated, bringing the list down to 1,124 articles. Four categories of articles were defined and used as screening criteria. They are as follows: (a) HR and highly generational-related articles; (b) HR and possible generational-related articles; (c) HR but not generational-related articles; and (d) non-related articles or not full papers. While the articles 7

under categories (c) and (d) were easily screened out based on the consensus of the two researchers via title and paper abstract scrutinization, a more thorough investigation by reading the full text was used to identify the papers that fell under (a) and (b). In the latter process, the two researchers – one being an expert in HR and generational studies and, the second, an expert in tourism and hospitality studies – worked independently on their spreadsheets before a crosscomparison was conducted. A total of 46 papers were derived from the process using the inclusion criteria that it had to be an HR and generation-related paper published in a hospitality journal and/or it used respondents from within the hospitality industry. The third step was aimed at broadening the coverage of the search to ensure that additional generational papers related to the hospitality workplace were not missing from the list. A bibliographical search from the 46 papers was conducted and resulted in 3 additional papers. In the fourth step, all the researchers individually read through the 49 articles to make a final decision. All the papers met the criteria – 45 were empirical papers and 4 were conceptual papers. In conducting the content analysis of the 49 studies, the researchers partially adopted the qualitative research guideline introduced by Miles and Humberman (1994). The two researchers read the content individually before jointly developing the coding scheme together. Two main types of pre-specified codes were pinpointed, namely descriptive coding (e.g. authors, year of publication, journal, journal ranking, database source, the studied generation(s), respondents, hospitality sectors, research methods and design, geographical context) and pattern coding (i.e. the areas of focus in categorizing generational studies). Where inter-coding disagreements were found, a third-party reader was asked to help resolve the issue. Open coding is further pursued to generate the conceptual analysis of this study.

Review findings A general overview of the generational study in the hospitality context During the 16-year time span, the number of generational studies within the hospitality industry more than doubled every five years (Table 2). The figures suggest a growing interest in the generation phenomenon, with the majority of studies (59.2%) directed towards an understanding of Generation Y as a single generation and the rest (40.8%) investigating Generation Y vis-à-vis other generations or older employees. This comes with no surprise given the hype also found within the popular press about this „difficult-to-manage‟ generation. Moscardo and Benckendorff (in Leask et al., 2013: 19) describe Generation Y as „a new culture with a unique set of values, skills and behaviors‟, whose rapid rate of entrance into the industry by the turn of the century has led organizations to adapt their HR practices in many interesting ways. The study of Chacko et al. (2012), for example, suggests that modern hotels adopt a seamless hotel organization structure where only two job categories – Guest Service and Internal Service – are established to replace the traditional hierarchical organization structure adopted by most organizations. Under this flexible structure, which is attractive to Generation Y, the Internal Service‟s main function is to support the needs of employees in Guest Service, who directly addresses guests, to ensure that employees are also treated in the same way as the customers. Other studies similarly discuss how „millennial-friendly‟ organizations are keen at adopting an „employee-friendly‟ approach (Kapoor 8

and Solomon, 2011), calling for open work environmental structures that encourage transparency and frequent feedback (Chi et al., 2013), as well as workplace fun (Tews et al., 2015). At another level, the key finding of most studies that compare Generation Y to other generations suggests that differences exist among generations, whether in terms of diverse psychological contracts (Lub et al., 2012), work engagements (Park and Gursoy, 2012), work attitudes (Solnet and Kralj, 2011; Young et al., 2013) or work values (Chen and Choi, 2008; Gursoy et al., 2008; Gursoy et al., 2013). The study of Lu and Gursoy (2013), in particular, found significant moderating effects due to generational differences on the impact of job burnout on satisfaction and turnover, whereas Gladwell et al. (2010) examined the importance and satisfaction of different generations with organizational benefits. A specific look into the perceptions that employees hold about older and younger managers found that generational differences tend to be prominent, with favorability leaning towards those in the same generation (Chi et al., 2013). By contrast, only a few studies, such as that of Barron et al. (2014), highlighted that employees of different generations actually desire the same thing. Additionally, Becker and Gao (2010), in their study of hospitality workplace ethics, found no evidence to support differences in the assessment of ethical behavior based on whether the students were identified as Generation X or Generation Y. Table 2 Studied generations by years of publication The Studied Generations

2000-2005

Traditionalists, Baby Boomers, Gen X, Gen Y Baby Boomers, Gen X, Gen Y Gen X and Gen Y Gen Y and Older Employees Gen Y Total

1 1

2006-2010 2011-2016 Total N 1 1 4 11 15 3 3 1 1 9 19 29 13 35 49

% 2.0 30.6 6.1 2.0 59.2 100.0

Cohort Terminologies and Year Span It is interesting to see that all the studies take a cohort perspective (i.e., cohort as a proxy for generational grouping) as the main approach to describing the studied generation. In defining cohorts, an array of terminologies has been adopted. Table 3 highlights the names used – ranging from the oldest generation, which is most popularly called Traditionalists, to the following generations – Baby Boomers, Generation X and Generation Y. Again, a similar pattern to Table 2 can be observed where, because more attention is given to younger generations, more titles have also been attributed to them. Generation X, for example, has seven alternative names, whereas Generation Y has been dubbed in 16 other ways. In addition, there exists a lack of agreement on the precise year span or the start and end years of each cohort, which results from inconsistency in the defining life events of each generation (Solnet and Kralj, 2011). This has led to an overlapping of start and end years between the cohorts, often leading to a point of criticism in the evaluation of impact on the outcomes of the studies (Constanza et al., 2012; Parry and Urwin, 2011). The findings of studies aimed at exploring differing values, behaviors or attitudes among generations may therefore mean that either „cohorts are not good proxies for the generations described‟ or „a generation is not a significant behavioral or attitudinal dimension‟ (Urwin et al. (2014: 82). Such standpoints, however, have not been much debated among generational studies within a hospitality context. 9

Table 3 Cohort terminologies and year span Terminology by Cohort Traditionalists (N=4), Matures (N=2), Silent Generation (N=1), Builders Generation (N=1) Baby Boomers (N=24), Boomers (N=5), Driven Generation (N=1), Idealist Generation (N=1), Post World War Generation (N=1)

Generation X (N=21), Gen X (N=12), Gen Xers (N=10), Baby Busters (N=1), Cynical Generation (N=1), Lost Generation (N=1), Nomadic Generation (N=1), Thirteenth (N=1)

Generation Y (N=40), Millennials (N=22), Gen Y (N=15), Gen Yers (N=9), Echo Boomers (N=4), Nexters (N=4), Internet Generation (N=3), Me Generation (N=2), Next Generation (N=2), Dot.com Generation (N=1), Einstein Generation (N=1), Generation I (N=1), Generation Why (N=1), Google Generation (N=1), Myspace Generation (N=1), Net Generation (N=1), The 'Great Generation' (N=1)

Beginning birth year 1925 N=3 Gen X and Gen Y (48) Gen Y < Baby Boomers (33) Gen Y < Non-gen Y (46)

Commitment

Baby Boomers and Gen X > Gen Y (35) Gen X > Gen Y (38) Gen Y < Non-gen Y (46)

Time spent in job

Baby Boomers > Gen X > Gen Y (31)

17

Turnover

Gen Y > Baby Boomers (33) Gen Y > Gen X (35) Gen Y > Non-gen Y (46)

OCB

Gen Y > Gen X (34)

Note: Numbers in brackets (#, #) refer to the studies in Appendix 3 Lastly, several key recommendations derived from the 49 studies under review (Figure 4). In order to manage generation diversity, ten areas of HROD practices and policies were mentioned. Topping the list stood the issue of enhancing employee relations with several studies addressing on leadership, communication and socialization. Work-life balance, training, and job design were also mentioned in more than 10 studies with flexible work arrangements, intergenerational training and mentoring, and workplace fun being important for a multi-generation workplace. Figure 4 Key Recommendations for Managing Different Generations N=2 N=4 N=5

(Recognition system, Regular feedback) (Person-job fit, Value fit, Realistic job preview preview) (Communicative culture, fun culture, Person-organization fit)

N=8

(Professional and personal growth, supportive career activities)

N=8 4 N=8

(Personalized incentives and benefits, inexpensive rewards)

N=11 N=14 N=14 N=19

(Challenging projects, meaningful job tasks, variety of work) (Fun at work, Open work environment, Job sharing, Special projects, Self-job crafting, Self-initiated changes) (Intergenerational training & mentoring, Experiential learning, Digital-based learning) (Flexible work arrangements, innovative scheduling) (Participative leadership, Contemporary communication, Formal and informal socialization)

Mapping the Future Landscape of Generational Studies The previous section attempts to review the „as is‟ context of generational studies conducted at a time of growing interest in the phenomenon. The increasing number of studies from 2000 to 2016 suggests an upward trend that should continue in the future. Coupled by the decline in global workforce demography and the career preferences of younger generations, which favor freedom and fun over security and traditional career growth, the hospitality sector is likely to encounter continued workplace diversity issues as the newer generation comes in. This calls for future generational studies that can contribute to the existing body of knowledge within the hospitality context. Our systematic review uncovers the five areas of research focus in the generational studies that pose limitations in terms of the scope of study and the profundity of methodological approaches and theoretical underpinnings. Figure 5 summarizes the existing landscape of the generation phenomenon and subsequently suggests how the future gaps can be filled. 18

Figure 5 Existing and Future Generational Studies Landscape Existing Generational Studies Landscape and Recommendations for Future Generational its Limitations Studies Landscape Generation focus Dominated by studies on Generation Y

More studies on other generations, especially the upcoming Generation Z Dominated by studies of Generation Y as soonMore studies on Generation Y and Generation X to-be graduates or young employees as the leaders of organizations Dominated by a self-perception viewpoint in the More studies that look at the studied generation studied generation from external or multiple viewpoints Industry focus Dominated by studies in the hotel and lodging More studies into other sectors of hospitality, sector as well as hospitality programs in such as the wellness and spa sector, medical universities sector cruising sector, airline sector, sports and recreation sector, including small and medium size enterprises (SMEs) versus large players Cultural focus Generational studies across countries follow an More generational studies pertaining to the Anglo-American orientation socio-cultural and historical context of each country Cross-country comparison studies do not focus More studies on cross-country comparisons that on differences and similarities between look into generational differences and similarities generations across countries Area of study focus Dominated by studies relating to work values More studies in diverse areas of focus, especially and motivators, attitudes and behaviors those relating to organizational level constructs Research focus Dominated by generational studies adopting a More studies that explore the generation quantitative method phenomenon from a qualitative perspective Dominated by studies relating to cohort effect More studies related to age effect or period effect Heavy usage of causal and cross-sectional More studies that use over-time research and research designs case study research designs Lack theoretical grounding More studies that engage in theory building and discussion

Generation focus A dominating scene found in past research is the emphasis given to „Generation Y‟ as the studied generation. As previously mentioned, this comes as no surprise given their entrance into the industry during the past decade and their assumed differences to previous generations. If such is the case, future studies may consider including Generation Z in the picture. Also referred to as the Centennials, Generation Z has emerged as the latest generation, and it shares overlapping beginning birth years with that of Generation Y‟s ending birth years. Very limited academic research has been conducted on this new generation and much of what is available can be found mainly in the popular press and consultancy reports. The Futures Company (2015), for example, regards Generation Z as those born during 1997 or later with a mindset that includes „fun is not first‟, „risk is not worth it‟ and „conformity is not cool‟. These aspects seem to depart from the 19

general notion of Generation Y, seen as fun lovers and risk takers. For these reasons, Goldman Sachs (2015) has urged educators, employers and researchers to start looking into the mindset of Generation Z, emphasizing that „Gen Z matters more than Millennials‟. Provided that the hospitality industry employs its staff from a very young age, it is likely one of the few industries that already has Generation Z working alongside other generations. Upcoming research (some of which may currently be in submission) may want to explore the perception, attitudes and expectations of Generation Z towards the industry; organizational adaptation and changes required to meet with Generation Z‟s need; and Generation Z‟s behaviors within the workplace. Specific studies might also look into the technological usage among Generation Z in the workplace, or how they search for information on future job opportunities within the hospitality sector. At the same time, more focus can be given to the role of Generation X and Y as leaders in the organizations. With the Traditionalist and Baby Boomers withdrawing from the workplace scene, early Generation Y, dubbed by Aon Hewitt (2016) as the „adult millennials,‟ will find themselves increasingly challenged as they take on managerial and leadership roles for the first time alongside Generation X. It would be interesting to see what kind of leadership traits Generations X and Y exhibit; how Generations X and Y perceive the younger generation, and vice versa; or whether leaders in Generations X and Y have different perceptions of Generation Z. These kinds of topics emphasize the external and multiple viewpoints of the studied generation, which depart from the majority of existing studies that take a self-perception viewpoint of the studied generation. Industry Focus Extant literature on generational studies has been geared towards specific sectors of the hospitality context, namely, the hotel and lodging sector as well as hospitality programs in universities. While these sectors are traditional players within the hospitality industry, there are other sectors worth exploring. These may include sectors such as wellness and spa, healthcare, MICE, cruising, airline and airport, sports and recreation that also rely heavily on human capital. Future studies may want to investigate into the particular experiences of multi-generations working in these sectors. Given that certain sectors may be more attractive than others to the lifestyle and values of different generations, cross comparison studies between sectors and/or generations can provide evidence that can be used to design the value propositions needed to attract and retain different generations to these sectors. As noted by Chen and Choi (2008), „workrelated constructs of individuals among generations may vary according to the nature of work or different sectors of the hospitality industry.‟ In addition, future studies can choose to compare between large and SMEs players within the industry and how they differ in attracting and retaining different generations. Cultural Focus Despite the broad geographical location that the extant studies have covered, more countryspecific analysis is needed. Past studies have conveniently applied the Anglo-American orientation of generation cohorts to their design and analysis, yet left out the fact that different generational configurations exist in different countries based on the unique cultural and historical conditions that are produced (Lyons and Kuron, 2014). A study by Global Foresight (2013), for example, demarcates generations in China into five cohorts based on specific socio-cultural and 20

politico-economic changes – known as the War and PRC Generation (1920-1945), the Cultural Revolution Generation (1946-1955), the Recovery Generation (1956-1967), the Sandwich Generation (1968-1979) and the „Me‟ Generation (1980-2000). These country-specific demarcations of cohorts, in turn, can lead to more valid explanations of their values, attitudes and behaviors and whether they differ from the common ethnocentric standpoint of the past. In addition, the lack of cross-country studies that the compare similarities and differences across generations in multiple countries opens room for future studies within the hospitality context. Studies may find that generational cohorts in different countries perceive the hospitality industry in a differing way, or they may find that country-specific generational configurations lead to different service attitudes and predispositions that are essential in the hospitality context. Areas of Study Focus Moving forward, future generational studies may want to expand into other areas of focus beyond the popular constructs of work values and motivators and attitudes and behaviors of the past. Referring back to Table 8, this can include looking at how different generations within the hospitality workplace perceive and react to emotional and aesthetic labor, how personalities and emotional intelligence across generations impact service-oriented roles, and how teamwork is managed across generations within team-based organizations. Studies that look into organizational level constructs are also encouraged. Examining the alignment of business and HRM strategies of best practices in hospitality organizations that are favored by younger generations can provide interesting insights for others to learn from. There are also limited studies on topics related to communication and technology, organizational culture and climate as well as internal marketing, which are essential for the success of modern organizations. The study of Rosa and Hastings (2016) provides a good example from a communication perspective on the specific topic of rule violations among Generation Y regarding cell phone use, policies regarding requesting time off, and civility. Research Focus Much of what is reflected in this systematic review shares similar methodological limitations to that of generational studies within the mainstream business literature – first, it is dominated by cohort-based quantitative studies (Lyons and Kuron, 2014; Parry and Urwin, 2011). A deeper analysis of the generational phenomenon, rooted in the sociological concept of the self and the other, is needed and several qualitative methods, such as ethnography, participant observations, in-depth interviews, personal experiences, conversations and semiotics can help explain the complex thoughts and actions of individuals, which may be relatively linked to other time-related effects or socio-cultural conditions beyond purely birth year range. Case studies that adopt a qualitative research method can be designed to investigate the best practice hospitality organizations that are favored by young generations or multi-generation workplace conflicts within particular hospitality sectors. Second, the review is dominated by cross-sectional designs. Future studies may want to move away from a single point of time data collection (i.e., crosssectional studies) towards over-time designs using cohort-sequential, time-lag or longitudinal designs (Campbell and Twenge, 2014). Lastly, we call for greater theoretical rigorousness among generation studies within the hospitality context, as the current studies lack sufficient theoretical grounding. Of the 49 papers that we reviewed, a brief mentioning of the origin of generational theory existed in just a few papers that 21

sought to provide an introduction to the phenomenon (Lub et al., 2011; Lub et al., 2012; Leask et al., 2013; Brown et al., 2015). The use of „social exchange theory‟ and „psychological contract theory‟ were found in some studies that explored the perceptions and expectations of different generations or the relationship between employees and employers within the hospitality context (Lub et al., 2011; Lub et al., 2012; Kong and Yan, 2014), whereas several papers that looked into the career aspects of different generations linked their studies to the „career stage theory‟ (Josiam et al., 2008; Josiam et al., 2009; Josiam et al., 2010; Ladkin and Weber, 2010; Lu and Gursoy, 2013; Kong et al., 2015). Future studies may want to develop their research design using theoretical framing related to the generational phenomenon, such as the „social identity theory‟ that is starting to pick up in mainstream business research (Joshi et al., 2010; Lyons and Kuron, 2014; Roberto and Biggan, 2014; Urick and Hollensbe, 2014). An in-depth understanding of how individuals identify themselves with a generational grouping, known otherwise as generational identities, can provide better insights on inter-generation and intra-generation variations (Joshi et al., 2010; Lyons and Kuron, 2014). Given that today‟s individuals tend to define themselves with many groupings, the hospitality sector may derive a more holistic analysis of the studied population via this theoretical backdrop.

Conclusion This study originated from an interest in examining the pattern of generational studies in a hospitality context, where human-dependency and employee-sensitivity are pivotal to operational success. The nature of the hospitality industry, along with its ongoing HR challenges of attracting and retaining a quality workforce, provides an ideal setting for the study. Based on the syntheses of 49 studies conducted during the period of 2000-2016, our systematic review unearths the imbalanced research focus of the generational studies and highlights their limitations in aspects of generation, industry, cultural, areas of study and research focuses. Our findings also echo the needs for a paradigm change in the generational hospitality context, namely, that it should depart from the simplistic „cohort‟ perspective and the predominant cross-sectional research design to a more enriched context that incorporates historical and cultural phenomena as well as the application of qualitative methodology to fully capture the intricacy of the generational studies in this particular context. On one level, this makes room for future research agendas that can further contribute to the body of knowledge on the generational hospitality phenomenon. However, on a higher level, it confirms that the way that the hospitality context posits generational studies may not vary much from that of generational studies in the mainstream business context, in which (1) the narrowly pre-defined cohort is seen as a proxy for generational groupings; (2) age and period effects, including other-time related effects, are minimally discussed; and (3) variances within and across generations that may better explain the complexity of generational issues are still lacking. In addition, this study presents a collection of well-selected generational studies for policymakers and practitioners within the hospitality industry to study and serves as a foundation paper for other researchers aiming to conduct research in the area. Moreover, research in hospitality industry may want to focus on addressing its key and unique issue, where interactions between service agents and customers are profuse and inevitable in dayto-day operations. Research on generational studies in the hospitality context so far are mainly 22

directed towards testing the causal relationships among the organizational attributes with managers and employees as key contributors to the studies. Nevertheless, the incorporation of customers‟ voices into this context is still neglected, despite customers being the key receivers of the organizational service performance. Adding customers‟ viewpoints, particularly on how customers from different generations perceive service performances that are provided by heterogeneous service agents, who are also from different generations, can enhance the mangers‟ understanding of the different needs based on age in a much more enriching way. This outside-in approach - hearing customers‟ voices to improve internal operations - can promote a better internal organizational mechanism that enhances the overall service performance within the hospitality business. This notion is becoming more critical, especially in the upcoming phenomenon, where the generation-Z service agents will become an emerging workforce for the hospitality industry and the aging customers are rising and becoming a dominant target group. Handling encounters between these generations will be a new challenge for hospitality managers, calling for more research in generational studies with regard to customer versus service agent, and will be more prominent in the future. Despite its contribution, several limitations are apparent in this study. First, the researchers acknowledged that no specific assumptions or questions related to the generational phenomenon were used as guidance in forming this systematic review. While this may cast doubt on the specificity of the study, it allowed the researchers to freely examine the collection of studies at hand through an inductive approach and propose a framing of the existing and future landscapes of generational studies. Second, although the selection of studies was based on five key databases that are among the most reputable databases for peer reviews, this limited selection left out the opportunity to fully capture the generational phenomenon from a wider threshold. Future studies may want to include other database sources, such as Social Science Research Network (SSRN), PsycINFO, and PsycARTICLES, or even add in studies from leading consultancy firms and international agencies that discuss the generational phenomenon in the hospitality context. Lastly, through the use of content analysis, this study may limit its power of generalizability on the data and content that could be found through quantitative-systematic analysis. Nevertheless, this study still serves as a decent funnel, as it allows academics and practitioners within the field to gear their research directions toward the crucial, yet under-examined, aspects of the generational phenomenon. Acknowledgement The authors would like to send appreciation to Ms Elaine Yang and Asst. Prof. Benjamin Pier William Ellway for valuable comments to develop the paper.

23

References Aon Hewitt. 2016. People Trends 2016 What HR Will Be Thinking About in the New Year. Retrieved via http://www.aon.com/unitedkingdom/attachments/trp/People_Trends_White_Paper_2016.p df Arendt, S. W., Roberts, K. R., Strohbehn, C., Paez, P., Ellis, J., Meyer, J. 2014. Motivating Foodservice Employees to Follow Safe Food Handling Practices: Perspectives from a Multigenerational Workforce. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, 13 (4): 323-349. Barron, P. 2008. Education and talent management: Implications for the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20 (7): 730-742. Barron, P., Maxwell, G., Broadbridge, A., & Ogden, S. 2007. Careers in hospitality management: Generation Y's experiences and perceptions. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 14 (2), 119-128. Barron, P., Leask, A., & Fyall, A. 2014. Engaging the multi-generational workforce in tourism and hospitality. Tourism Review, 69 (4), 245-263. Baum, T. 2010. Demographic changes and the labour market in the international tourism industry. In Yeoman et al., How Demography Will Shape the Future of the Tourism and Leisure Industries: Where Have all the People Gone? Goodfellow, Oxford. Becker, C., & Gao, Y. 2010. Delineating the gray areas in Hospitality workplace ethics: Perceptions of international interns. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, 9 (2), 142-162. Brown, E. A., Arendt, S. W., & Bosselman, R. H. 2014. Hospitality management graduates‟ perceptions of career factor importance and career factor experience. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 37, 58-67. Brown, E. A., Thomas, N. J., & Bosselman, R. H. 2015. Are they leaving or staying: A qualitative analysis of turnover issues for Generation Y hospitality employees with a hospitality education. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 46, 130-137. Campbell, S. M. and Twenge, J. M. 2014. Is it Kids Today or Just the Fact that They‟re Kids?: Disentangling generational differences from age differences. In E. Parry (Ed.), Generational diversity at work: New research perspectives (pp. 1-8). New York: Routledge. Chacko, H. E., Williams, K., & Schaffer, J. 2012. A conceptual framework for attracting Generation Y to the hotel industry using a seamless hotel organizational structure. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, 11 (2), 106-122. Chen, P., & Choi, Y. 2008. Generational differences in work values: A study of hospitality management. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20 (6), 595-615. Chi, C. G., Maier, T. A., & Gursoy, D. 2013. Employees‟ perceptions of younger and older managers by generation and job category. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 34, 42-50. Choi, Y. G., Kwon, J., & Kim, W. 2013. Effects of attitudes vs experience of workplace fun on employee behaviors: Focused on Generation Y in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 25 (3), 410-427. 24

Costanza, D.P., Badger, J.M., Fraser, R.L., Severt, J.B. and Gade, P.A. 2012. Generational Differences in Work-Related Attitudes: A Meta-analysis. Journal of Business Psychology. 27: 375-394. Dhevabanchachai, N. and Muangasame, K. 2013. The preferred work paradigm for generation y in the hotel industry: A case study of the international tourism and hospitality international programme, Thailand. International Education Studies, 6 (10): 27-38. Egri, C. P. and Ralston, D. A. 2004. Generation cohorts and personal values: a comparison of China and US. Organization Science, 15 (2): 210-220. Fok, R.H.M. and Yeung, R.M.W. 2016. Work attitudes of Generation Y in Macau‟s hotel industry: management‟s perspective. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 8 (1): 83-96. Gladwell, N. J., Dorwart, C. E., Stone, C. F., & C. Andi, C. 2010. Importance of and Satisfaction with Organizational Benefits for a Multigenerational Workforce. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 28 (2), 1-19. Global Foresight. 2013. China’s 5 Generations: Diverging Lifestyles. Retrieved via http://www.globalforesight.dreamhosters.com/future-of-china-emerging-markets/chinas-5generations-diverging-lifestyles/ Goldman Sachs. 2015. Emerging Theme Radar: What if I Told You. Retrieved via http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/pages/macroeconomic-insights-folder/whatif-i-told-you/report.pdf 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. Gursoy, D., Chi, C. G., & Karadag, E. 2013. Generational differences in work values and attitudes among frontline and service contact employees. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32, 40-48. Hertzman, J. L., Moreo, A.P. and Wiener, P.J. 2015. Career Planning Strategies and Skills of Hospitality Management Students. Journal of Human resources in Hospitality and Tourism, 14 (4): 423-443. Joshi, A., Dencker, J. C., Franz, G. and Martocchio, J. J. 2010. Upacking Generational Identities in Organizations. Academy of Management Review, 35: 392-414. Joshi, A., Dencker, J.C., and Franz, G. 2011. Generations in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31, 177-205. Josiam, B. M., Reynolds, J. S., Thozhur, S., Crutsinger, C., Baum, T., & Devine, F. G. 2008. Attitudes to work of Generation Y students in hospitality management: A comparative analysis of students in the United States and the United Kingdom. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 11 (3), 295-314. Josiam, B. M., Crutsinger, C., Reynolds, J. S., Dotter, T., Thozhur, S., Baum, T., & Devine, F. G. 2009. An empirical study of the work attitudes of Generation Y college students in the USA: The case of hospitality and merchandising undergraduate majors. Journal of Services Research, 9 (1), 5. Josiam, B. M., Devine, F. G., Baum, T., Crutsinger, C., & Reynolds, J. S. 2010. Attitudes to work of Generation Y students in hospitality management: A comparative analysis of students in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 22 (1), 44-53. 25

Kapoor, C., & Solomon, N. 2011.Understanding and managing generational differences in the workplace. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 3 (4), 308-318. Kellison, T. B., Kim, Y. K., & Magnusen, M. J. 2013. The Work Attitudes of Millenials in Collegiate Recreational Sports. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 31 (1), 78-97. Kim, J., Erdem, M., Byun, J., & Jeong, H. 2011. Training soft skills via e‐ learning: International chain hotels. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 23 (6), 739-763. Kim, S., Kim, M., Han. H, Holland, S. 2016a. The determinants of hospitality employees‟ proenvironmental behaviors: The moderating role of generational differences. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 52: 56–67. Kim, M., Knutson, B.J. and Choi, L. 2016b. The Effects of Employee Voice and Delight on Job Satisfaction and Behaviors: Comparison Between Employee Generations. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, 25 (5): 563-588. Kong, H. 2013. Relationships among work-family supportive supervisors, career competencies, and job involvement. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 33, 304-309. Kong, H., & Yan, Q. 2014. The relationship between learning satisfaction and career competencies. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 41, 133-139. Kong, H., Wang, S., & Fu, X. 2015. Meeting career expectation: Can it enhance job satisfaction of Generation Y? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27 (1), 147-168. Kong, H., Sun, N. and Yan, Q. 2016. New generation, psychological empowerment: Can empowerment lead to career competencies and career satisfaction? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 28 (11): 2553-2569. Kooij, D., De lange, A. Jansen, P. G. W., Kanfer, R. and Dikkers, J.S.E. 2011. Age and workrelated motives: Results of a meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32: 197– 225. Kusluvan, S., Kusluvan, Z., Ilhan, I., & Buyruk, L. 2010. The Human Dimension: A Review of Human Resources Management Issues in the Tourism and Hospitality Industry. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 51 (2), 171-214. Ladkin, A., & Weber, K. 2010. Career aspects of convention and exhibition professionals in Asia. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22 (6), 871-886. Law, R., Leung, D., and Cheung, C. 2012. A Systematic Review, Analysis, and Evaluation of Research Articles in the Cornell Hospitality Quarterly. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 53 (4): 365-381. Leask, A., Fyall, A. and Barron, P. 2013. Generation Y: opportunity or challenge – strategies to engage Generation Y in the UK attractions‟ sector. Current Issues in Tourism, 16 (1): 1746. Lu, A. C., & Gursoy, D. 2013. Impact of Job Burnout on Satisfaction and Turnover Intention: Do Generational Differences Matter? Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 40 (2), 210-235. Lub, X. D., Blomme, R. J., & Bal, P. M. 2011. Psychological Contract and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: A New Deal for New Generations? Advances in Hospitality and Leisure, 7: 109-130. 26

Lub, X. D., Bijvank, M. N., Bal, P. M., Blomme, R., & Schalk , R. 2012. Different or alike?: Exploring the psychological contract and commitment of different generations of hospitality workers. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 24 (4), 553-573. Lub, X. D., Bal, P. M., Blomme, R. J. and Schalk, R. 2014. Why Do Generational Differences in Psychological Contracts Exist? In E. Parry (Ed.), Generational diversity at work: New research perspectives (pp. 1-8). New York: Routledge. Lyons, S. and Kuron, L. 2014. Generational differences in the workplace: A review of the evidence and directions for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, S139-S157. Maier, T., Tavanti, M., Bombard, P., Gentile, M., & Bradford, B. 2015. Millennial Generation Perceptions of Value-Centered Leadership Principles. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, 14 (4), 382-397. Mannheim, K. 1952. Essays on the sociology of knowledge. London: Routeledge & Kegan Paul. Maxwell, G. A., Odgen, S. M., & Broadbridge, A. 2010. Generation Y's Career Expectations and Aspirations: Engagement in the Hospitality Industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 17 (1), 53-61. Miles, MB. & Huberman, AM. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Mohsen, M.A.M.S. 2016. Committed generations: a case study on generations X and Y employees in Saudi hotels. Anatolia, 27 (4): 456-467. Oliver, D. 2006. An expectation of continued success: the work attitudes of Generation Y. Labour and Industry, 17 (1): 61-84. Park, J., & Gursoy, D. 2012. Generation effects on work engagement among U.S. hotel employees. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31 (4), 1195-1202. Parry, E. 2014. New perspectives on generational diversity at work. In E. Parry (Ed.), Generational diversity at work: New research perspectives (pp. 1-8). New York: Routledge. Parry, E., & Urwin, P. 2011. Generational differences in work values: A review of theory and evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(1), 79-96. Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. 2006. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden, MA: Blackwell. PWC. 2011. Millennials at Work: Reshaping the Workplace. Retrieved via http://www.pwc.com/m1/en/services/consulting/documents/millennials-at-work.pdf. Richardson, S. 2010. Generation Y's perceptions and attitudes towards a career in tourism and hospitality. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, 9 (2), 179-199. Richardson, S., & Butler, G. 2012. Attitudes of Malaysian tourism and hospitality students‟ towards a career in the industry. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 17 (3), 262276. Richardson, S., & Thomas, N. J. 2012. Utilising Generation Y: United States Hospitality and Tourism Students' Perceptions of Careers in the Industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 19 (1), 102-114. Roberto, K. J. and Biggan, J. R. 2014. Keen, Groovy, Wicked, or Phat, It is all Cool: Generational Stereotyping and Social Identity. In E. Parry (Ed.), Generational diversity at work: New research perspectives (pp. 1-8). New York: Routledge. 27

Rosa, N.B. and Hastings, S.O. 2016. “Texting in their pockets”: Millennials and rule violations in the hospitality industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 29: 33-40. Ryder, N. B. 1965. The cohort as a concept in the study of social change. American Sociological Review, 30, 843–861. Schneid, M., Isidor, R., Steinmetz, H. and Kabst, R. 2016. Age diversity and team outcomes: a quantitative review. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31 (1): 2-17. Segers, J., Inceoglu, I. & Finkelstein, L. 2014. The Age Cube of Work. In E. Parry (Ed.), Generational diversity at work: New research perspectives (pp. 1-8). New York: Routledge. Solnet, D., & Hood, A. 2008. Generation Y as hospitality employees: Framing a research agenda. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 15 (1), 59-68. Solnet, D., & Kralj, A. 2011. Generational differences in work attitudes: Evidence from the hospitality industry. Florida International University Hospitality Review, 29 (2). 37. Srinivasan, V, John, D. A. and Christine, M. N. 2014. Generational cohorts and personal values: An exploratory study in the Indian workplace. In E. Parry (Ed.), Generational diversity at work: New research perspectives (pp. 1-8). New York: Routledge. Tews, M. J., Michel, J., Xu, S., & Drost, A. J. 2015. Workplace fun matters … but what else? Employee Relations, 37 (2), 248-267. The Cochrane Collaboration. (2005). Glossary terms in the Cochrane collaboration. Retrieved via http://www.cochrane.org. The Futures Company. 2015. The Centennials: Introducing a New Generation of Youth. Retrieved via http://thefuturescompany.com/centennials-infographic/ Twenge, J. M. 1999. Birth cohort changes in extraversion: a cross-temporal meta-analysis, 19661993. Personality and Individual Differences, 30: 735-748. Twenge, J. M. 2008. Generation Me, the Origins of Birth Cohort Differences in Personality Traits, and Cross-temporal Meta-analysis. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2/3: 1440–1454. Twenge, J. M. and Campbell, K. 2001. Age and Birth Cohort Differences in Self-Esteem: A Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5 (4), 321344. Unite, J., Shen, Y., Parry, E. and Demel, B. 2014. In E. Parry (Ed.), Generational diversity at work: New research perspectives (pp. 1-8). New York: Routledge. Urick, M. J. and Hollensbe, E.C. 2014. Towards an Identity-Based Perspective of Generations. In E. Parry (Ed.), Generational diversity at work: New research perspectives (pp. 1-8). New York: Routledge. Urwin, P, Buscha, F. and Parry, E. 2014. Back to Basics: Is There a Significant Generational Dimension and Where Does it „Cut‟? In E. Parry (Ed.), Generational diversity at work: New research perspectives (pp. 1-8). New York: Routledge. Woodward, I. C., Vongswasdi, P. and More, E. A. 2015. Generational Diversity at Work: A Systematic Review of the Research. Working Paper Series 2015/48/OB. INSEAD‟s Leadership and Communication Research Group. Retrieved via http://sites.insead.edu/facultyresearch/research/doc.cfm?did=56531 World Tourism Organization. 2016. Why tourism? Retrieved via http://www2.unwto.org/content/why-tourism 28

Young, S. J., Sturts, J. R., Ross, C. M., & Kim, K. T. 2013. Generational differences and job satisfaction in leisure services. Managing Leisure, 18 (2), 152-170. Zopiatis, A., Krambia-Kapardis, M., & Varnavas, A. 2012. Y-ers, X-ers and Boomers: Investigating the multigenerational (mis)perceptions in the hospitality workplace. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 12 (2), 101-121.

29

Appendix 1 Themes of Investigation in Generational Studies from Key Synthesis Reviews in Business and Hospitality Contexts Themes

Kusluvan et al. (2010)

Personality and emotional intelligence Emotional and aesthetic labor Work values and motivators Work attitudes and work behaviors Teamwork

x

Solnet and Hood (2008)

Kapoor and Solomon (2011)

Chacko et al. (2012)

Twenge (2001, 2008)

Kooij et al. (2011)

Parry and Urwin (2011)

Constanza et al. (2012)

x

Internal marketing Organizational culture and climate Communication and technology Business and HRM strategy Context

Woodward et al. (2015)

Schneid et al. (2016)

x

x x x

x

x

x

x

Leadership Career patterns and behaviors HRM practices

Lyons and Kuron (2014)

x x x

x

x

x

x

x x x

x x

x

x x

x

x

x Hospitality

Hospitality

Hospitality

Hospitality

Business

Business

30

Business

Business

Business

Business

Business

Appendix 2 Operational definitions on constructs of investigation Individual/group-related constructs 1. Personality and Emotional Intelligence Characteristics of the person that account for consistent patterns of feeling, thinking and behaving and the ability to perceive, understand and manage one‟s own and others‟ emotions accurately (Kusluvan et al., 2010) 2. Emotional and aesthetic labor Act of displaying appropriate emotion and employee‟s capacities and attributes for looking good or sounding right at the point of entry into employment (Kusluvan et al., 2010) 3. Work values and motivators Unconscious needs, motivational orientations, and conscious values that an individual desires or maintains with respect to particular job characteristics and work outcomes (Kooij et al., 2011) 4. Work attitudes and work behaviors Disposition towards various aspects of work including job/career satisfaction, organizational commitment, employee engagement and turnover intention (Woodward et al., 2015)

5. Teamwork Team preference and behaviors that lead to team outcomes, such as performance quality, financial performance, innovation and creativity, effectiveness, satisfaction, and turnover (Lyons and Kuron, 2014, Schneid et al., 2016) 6. Leadership Preferences for different types of leaders and in different leadership behaviors (Lyons and Kuron, 2014)

Organizational-related constructs 7. HRM practices Design of formal systems in an organization to ensure the effective and efficient use of human talent to accomplish organizational goals (Kusluvan et al., 2010) 8. Career patterns and behaviors Various roles that individuals occupy and progress during their work lives, which includes mobility, willingness to work overtime, compliance with work rules (Lyons and Kuron, 2014, Woodward et al., 2015) 9. Internal marketing Application of marketing, HRM, and allied theories, techniques, and principles to motivate and manage employees at all levels of the organization to continuously improve the way that they serve external customers and each other (Kusluvan et al., 2010) 10. Organizational culture and climate Shared values, attitudes, beliefs, assumptions, and core values of the organization‟s members, which influence not only the behavior of members but also the systems created; and the changeable perceptions, interpretation, and attributions by employees about the work environment (Kusluvan et al., 2010) 11. Communication and technology The use of technology and communication preferences (Woodward et al., 2015)

12. Business and HRM strategy An identification of the relationship between business and HRM strategy (Kusluvan et al., 2010)

31

Appendix 3 Areas of Focus and Results of Studies No. 1

Authors Arendt et al.

Year 2014

Perspective Perception of others and Selfperception Perception of others

Theme of investigation HRM practices / Leadership / Work attitudes and behaviors

2

Barron

2008

3

Barron et al.

2007

Self-perception

Barron et al.

2014

Perception of others

Work values and motivators / Career patterns and behavior Work values and motivators

4

5

Becker and Gao

2010

Self-perception

Work attitudes and behavior

6

Bednarska

2016

Self-perception

Work values and motivators

7

Brown et al.

2014

Work values and motivators / Work attitudes and behavior

8

Brown et al.

2015

Perception of others and Selfperception Self-perception

9

Chacko et al.

2012

10

Chen and Choi

2008

11

Chi et al.

2013

12

Choi et al.

13

Dhevabanchachai and Muangasame

Perception of others Self-perception

Others

Work values and motivators / Work attitudes and behavior Internal marketing Work values and motivators

2013

Perception of others Self-perception

Leadership Work attitudes and behavior

2013

Self-perception

Work values and motivators

32

Results of the study Consistency training, supervisors‟ roles and employees‟ own behaviors relating to food safety are essential in motivating multigenerational foodservice employees to follow safe food handling practices. Literature review on thoughts of soon-to-graduate students (Gen Y) on education and career in hospitality industry (i.e., learning styles, achievement of outcomes, exposure to the industry, technological literate, limited commitment). Mixed excitement and enjoyment but with poor pay and unsociable hours are experienced by Gen Y students, which obscure their perception of a future career in the industry. Various generations in tourism and hospitality organizations are desirous of similar working conditions and benefits. Organizations should develop a range of packages that link employees with their purposes, colleagues and resources to engage them. No evidence to support differences in assessment of ethical behavior based on whether students were identified with Gen X or Gen Y. Gen Y students generally did not believe that a career in the hospitality sector would fulfill their needs, rating job attributes (person-job fit) slightly higher than organization attributes (person-organization fit). Perceptions of hospitality graduates who left the industry were different to those who stayed and hiring managers perceived their organizations offered more in a career than graduates expected. Gen Y stays in the hospitality industry because they find it exciting, challenging and enjoyable. They leave because of long hours and compensation Framework on organizational structure adapted to attract Gen Y into the hotel industry is proposed. Different priorities in work values found across three-generation hospitality managers with the revelation of four underlying dimensions of work value structure shared by hospitality workforce. Significant differences exist in employees‟ perceptions of younger and older managers by generation and job position across three generational cohorts. Gen Y employees‟ attitude towards workplace fun positively affects their experienced workplace fun, which in turn effects their job satisfaction, task performance and organizational citizenship behavior towards individual (OCBI). Effective leaders, a friendly environment, good pay and benefits, a flexible policy and culture and great facilities are influential factors for Gen Y to working effectively in the hotel industry.

Appendix 3 Areas of Focus and Results of Studies (Cont.) No. 14

Authors Fok et al.

Year 2016

Perspective Perception of others

Theme of investigation Work values and motivators / Work attitudes and behavior / Organizational culture and climate / Business and HRM Strategy Work values and motivators / Work attitudes and behavior Work values and motivators

Results of the study Attitudes of Gen Y lack key aspects that potential staff should carry, but the organizational culture and human resource management strategies as well as the external environment can influence Gen Y‟s work attitudes and loyalty.

15

Gladwell et al.

2010

Self-perception

16

Gursoy et al.

2008

17

Gursoy et al.

2013

Perception of others and Selfperception Self-perception

Work values and motivators / Work attitudes and behavior Career patterns and behaviors / HRM practices

Generational differences in work values and attitudes exist between older and younger generations of frontline and service contact employees. US Gen Y hospitality students who are closer to graduation, have work experience, participate in hospitality student clubs and attend on-campus career events have better developed career plans and report higher level skills than those who do not. Relatively strong attitudes towards work and low levels of work and promotion cynicism of Gen Y students in the UK and the US. Positive work attitude of Gen Y hospitality and merchandising students is enhanced and negative attitudes are ameliorated with increasing age and work experience. Relatively strong attitudes towards work and low levels of work and promotion cynicism of Gen Y students across the UK (England, Scotland, North Ireland). Literature review on the characteristics of Baby Boomers, Gen X and Gen Y, their perspectives on work, generational conflicts in the workplace and ways of managing generational differences. A range of relationships among motivators, member reactions (organizational identification, job satisfaction) and responses in productivity (organizational citizenship behavior, investment in work, turnover intentions) was found among Gen Y in a collegiate recreational sports context. Responsibility, self-esteem, sociability, and working with diverse groups were rated as social skills that were more important among younger hotel employees. However, no significant age difference was found in the salience of self-efficacy, technology anxiety, intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation on the intention to use e-learning. Work values characterized as generational differences between Gen X and Gen Y play a role in determining the impacts of hospitality employees‟ work motivation on environmental performance through their environmental concern and self-efficacy in the workplace.

18

Hertzman et al.

2015

Self-perception

19

Josiam et al.

2008

Self-perception

20

Josiam et al.

2009

Self-perception

21

Josiam et al.

2010

Self-perception

22

Kapoor and Solomon

2011

Perception of others

23

Kellison et al.

2013

Self-perception

Work values and motivators / Work attitudes and behavior

24

Kim et al.

2011

Self-perception

HRM practices

25

Kim et al.

2016a

Self-perception

Personality and emotional intelligence / Work values and motivators / Work attitudes and behavior

Work attitudes and behavior / Work values and motivators Work attitudes and behavior / Work values and motivators Work attitudes and behavior / Work values and motivators Work values and motivators

33

Parks and recreation employees from three multigenerational groups differ in the importance of and satisfaction with the organizational benefits offered. Significant generational differences in world views, attitudes toward authority and perspectives of work were found.

Appendix 3 Areas of Focus and Results of Studies (Cont.) No. 26

Authors Kim et al.

Year 2016b

Perspective Self-perception

Theme of investigation Internal marketing / Communication and technology / Work attitudes and behavior Leadership / Career patterns and behaviors / Work attitudes and behavior Career patterns and behaviors / HRM practices Work values and motivators / Work attitudes and behavior

27

Kong

2013

Self-perception

28

Kong and Yan

2014

Self-perception

29

Kong et al.

2015

Self-perception

30

Kong et al.

2016

Self-perception

31

2010

Self-perception

32

Ladkin and Weber Leask et al.

2013

Perception of others

33

Lu and Gursoy

2013

Self-perception

34

Lub et al.

2011

Self-perception

Work values and motivators / Work attitudes and behavior

35

Lub et al.

2012

Self-perception

Work attitudes and behavior

36

Maier et al.

2015

Self-perception

Leadership

37

Maxwell et al.

2010

Self-perception

Work values and motivators / Career patterns and behavior

Work values and motivators / Work attitudes and behavior Career patterns and behavior Personality and emotional intelligence / Work values and motivators Work attitudes and behavior

34

Results of the study Gen Y employees showed lower values of voice, delight, satisfaction and loyalty than did their older counterparts, while their turnover intent was greater.

Work-family supportive supervisor contributes positively to career competencies, job involvement and job satisfaction with career competencies acting as a mediator. Experiential learning and learning satisfaction are positively related, and learning satisfaction contributes positively to career competencies. Career expectation (especially extrinsic and intrinsic value dimensions) was positively related to job satisfaction and acted as a mediator between perceived hotel career management (HCM) and job satisfaction of Gen Y employees. Psychological empowerment (impact, competence, self-determination, meaning) contributed positively to career competencies and satisfaction of Gen Y. No specific career route into the convention and exhibition industry with a high level of commitment and variety of challenges found among professionals. Personality and attitude of Gen Y supports the nature of work in UK attractions‟ sector whereas the attraction sector provides a great and fun workplace that meets the need of Gen Y to build friendship, socialize and engage with customers. Generational differences between Baby Boomers and Millennials have significant moderating effects on the relationships between emotional exhaustion and job satisfaction and between job satisfaction and turnover intention. Generational differences between Gen X and Gen Y in the content of psychological contract and the process through which psychological contract impacts organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) can be found. Opportunities for development and challenge, variation and responsibility are more important for younger generations. Significantly lower commitment and higher turnover intention found among Gen Y. Gen Y values leaders that are inclusive, collaborative, committed and more oriented toward people rather than task and organizational mission. Gen Y has high initial career expectations and higher aspirations for long-term careers that involve employability factors, employee and employer inputs, determination to succeed and good pay.

Appendix 3 Areas of Focus and Results of Studies (Cont.) No. 38

Authors Mohsen

Year 2016

Perspective Self-perception

Theme of investigation Work values and motivators / Work attitudes and behavior

39

Park and Gursoy

2012

Self-perception

Work values and motivators / Work attitudes and behavior

40

Richardson

2010

Self-perception

41

Richardson and Butler Richardson and Thomas Rodríguez and Gregory Rosa and Hastings

2012

Self-perception

2012

Self-perception

2005

Self-perception

Work attitudes and behavior / Work values and motivators Work attitudes and behavior / Work values and motivators Work values and motivators / Work attitudes and behavior Internal marketing

2016

Perception of others

45

Solnet and Hood

2008

46

Solnet and Kralj

2011

Perception of others Self-perception

47

Tews et al.

2015

Self-perception

48

Young et al.

2013

Self-perception

49

Zopiatis et al.

2012

Perception of others and Selfperception

42 43 44

Organizational culture and climate / Communication and technology Work values and motivators / Work attitudes and behavior Work attitudes and behavior

Internal marketing / work attitudes and behavior Work attitudes and behavior

Work values and motivators

35

Results of the study All forms of organizational commitment (affective, continuance, normative) are significant to Gen X employees, while affective and normative commitment are significant to Gen Y employees. Levels of work engagement significantly differ by generations. Millennials were found to be a more distinct cohort from Gen X and Baby Boomers in their level of work engagement and relationship between work engagement and turnover intention. Working experience in the hospitality industry has an effect on negative views towards Gen Y pursuing a career in the industry or having a commitment to the industry. Gen Y Malaysian hospitality and tourism students do not believe that a career in tourism and hospitality will offer them the factors they find important. Gen Y US hospitality and tourism students were generally happy with careers being offered in hospitality and tourism and are committed to pursuing careers in the industry. On-the-job training, social support and training content are important for transfer of training among Gen Y student front-line employees, who served as internal customers. The collective assimilation of Gen Y affects organizational rules, with cell phone policies being the most likely to be violated, followed by time off of work requests. Incivility was, however, not seen as a problem for Gen Y. Proposed Gen Y research framework with propositions relating to Gen Y‟s work-related values and attitudes in relation to hospitality employment. Non-Gen Y are more satisfied with their jobs, more engaged and affectively committed to the organization. Gen Y are more likely to perform poorly if their co-workers do so and to switch jobs for no particular reason. Fun plays a role in enhancing Gen Y‟s embeddedness and accounts for significant additional variance beyond other important aspects of the employment experience. Attitude differences of different generations toward job satisfaction were found in three areas – working conditions, work and environment, resources and employee benefits. Baby Boomers were more satisfied with jobs than Gen X and Gen Y and no statistically significant differences were found in overall job satisfaction between Gen X and Gen Y. Generation differences between Baby Boomers, Gen X and Gen Y can be found with regard to overall perception and how each generation is perceived by its own members in comparison to members of the other two cohorts.