Giving negative feedback to Millennials

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-8269.htm

MRR 39,6

Giving negative feedback to Millennials How can managers criticize the “most praised” generation

692

Emylee Anderson and Aaron A. Buchko Received 21 May 2015 Revised 14 July 2015 Accepted 18 July 2015

Foster College of Business, Bradley University, Peoria, Illinois, USA, and

Kathleen J. Buchko College of Education, Bradley University, Peoria, Illinois, USA Abstract Purpose – Demographic data indicate that the Millennial generation (those born between 1982 and the early 2000s) are entering the workforce and will become an increasingly significant component of the workforce in the near future. The Millennial generation appears to have significant differences in values, attitudes and expectations regarding work than prior generations. Design/methodology/approach – The authors reviewed the literature on the “Millennial” generation (those born between 1982 and the early 2000s) and the research on giving negative feedback to identify issues that are significant with respect to the manner in which managers give negative information to this new generation of workers. Findings – To be effective, negative feedback to Millennials needs to be consistent and ongoing. The feedback must be perceived by Millennials as benefitting them now or in the future. Managers must be assertive enough to make sure the employee understands the concerns, but sensitive to the fact that many Millennials have difficulty accepting such feedback. Research limitations/implications – These findings offer suggestions for future research that needs to explicitly examine the differences in the new generation of workers and how these persons respond to current managerial practices. Practical implications – Millennials are now entering the workforce in significant numbers. Managers will find increasing opportunities to address the organizational and individual needs of these workers. Managers must learn how to effectively direct and motivate this generation of workers, including how to provide constructive negative feedback. Social implications – Demographic data indicate that the so-called “Baby Boom” generation will be leaving the workforce in large numbers over the next few years, and will be replaced by the Millennial generation. Originality/value – To date, there has been little attempt by management researchers to address the organizational implications of the generational shift that is occurring. We seek to draw attention to one specific area of management practice – delivering negative feedback – and explore how the knowledge may be changing as a new generation of workers enter the workplace. Keywords Millennials, Managing information, Negative feedback Paper type Literature review

Management Research Review Vol. 39 No. 6, 2016 pp. 692-705 © Emerald Group Publishing Limited 2040-8269 DOI 10.1108/MRR-05-2015-0118

Introduction As children, the majority of us were told “no” when we did something that our parents or superiors disliked or we were encouraged with a “good job” when we performed

successfully. Then, as we grew older and enrolled in primary education, this feedback continued to develop and cultivate into a graded feedback routine that judged our performance based on the completion of various assessments, projects and assignments. As we continued our journey through the education system, our behavior was critiqued by the usage of detentions and suspensions to act as a deterrent from behaving inappropriately or by distributing awards and recognition for positive behavior. We were raised and tailored to fit a set of standards that can be enforced through the practice of feedback. This feedback inevitably continues as we further our education through college and university study and join the working class as eager, educated adults. Common approaches to monitor employee feedback that many of us will experience involve performance appraisals and reviews, or similar methods that allow the manager to formally express feedback to the employee. Through these approaches, it has been observed that managers are more likely to easily and readily provide positive feedback as opposed to negative feedback because of personality conflicts and the lack of comfort that is revealed while administering these unwanted, but necessary responses (Chur-Hansen and McLean, 2006). The lack of comfortableness is, in part, because of to the questionable and uncertain reaction that is received from the employee after providing the negative comments. In previous studies, it was concluded that most employees consider themselves as above-average performers, so the reaction toward negative or even “satisfactory” feedback was tested, resulting in support for the hypothesis that employees and managers experience negative attitudes about the organization when receiving satisfactory or below satisfactory feedback (Pearce and Porter, 1986). However, this study, along with many others, was conducted in previous decades with a workforce that may be very different from the workforce of today, so additional research is warranted on the reactions toward negative feedback among the multigenerational workforce that is present in contemporary working society. The purpose of this paper is to examine the generational differences between the Millennial generation and prior generations to see if additional research on employees’ reactions to negative feedback is necessary. We examine various work-related and need-based characteristics and relatable customs of the Millennial generation that differ from preceding generations, as well as explore research on the topic of employee feedback, specifically on negative feedback. As the overwhelming literature on the Millennial generation has focused on those in the USA, we will draw our analyses and findings from this cohort, recognizing that the work to date has been culturally bound. This research is important to managers because the Millennial generation is quickly entering the workplace and replacing previous generations, so it is necessary for organizations and employers to understand how to handle and work cohesively with this generation (Howe and Nadler, 2010; Myers and Sadaghiani, 2010). Data from the Pew Research Center (2015) indicate that Millennials have now surpassed Gen Xers as the largest generation in the US labor force. Therefore, feedback techniques may need to be altered or adapted to fit the needs of the “new kids on the block”. Who are the Millennials? The Millennial generation, containing approximately 80 million people, consists of the youth who were born between 1982 and the early 2000s, commonly perceived as ending in 2000 or 2001 (Gilbert, 2011). Some refer to this group as Gen Y, while some designate them as “The Baby Boom Echo”, as they consist primarily of the children

Giving negative feedback to Millennials 693

MRR 39,6

694

born to the Baby Boomer generation (Ng et al., 2010). As of today, the Baby Boomers are the largest generation of active workers in the USA; however, within the next 20 years, the Baby Boomers will be exiting the work force while the Millennials will be taking over, making their emergence the greatest since the Baby Boomers (Gilbert, 2011). As a whole, Millennials are frequently described as a well-educated, open-minded, optimistic, collaborative, influential and sociable group of individuals (Raines, 2002). Research on Millennials: what do we know? Several studies have been conducted that identify generational traits and characteristics that are embedded in the Millennial generation. Millennial formative generational traits include being raised by active parents during the “decade of the child”, or the child-centered decade, and cultural wars, such as equal rights for homosexuals and the debate on abortion rights, being racially and ethnically diverse, and sheltered because of the child safety and security phenomenon. The various style characteristics consist of, but are not limited to, idealism, conventionalism (taking pride in one’s behavior), confidence and high levels of personal scrutiny (Chen and Choi, 2008). Values involving monetary, leisure and technology are also expressed in the research (Twenge et al., 2010); Millennials are reportedly financially intelligent and search for retirement benefits when selecting jobs. Also, work–life balance is highly esteemed and appreciated among this generation and the usage and understanding of technology is profound (Taylor, 2014). With today’s emergence of the Millennial workforce, stereotypes and negative interpretations toward this generation are surfacing from past generations. A TIME magazine reporter published an article that provided statistical support for the premise that Millennials are the “Me Me Me Generation” (Stein, 2013). According to the National Study of Youth and Religion, 60 per cent of Millennials believe that in any given situation, they will be able to feel what is right based on their personal perspective of their own greatness (Stein, 2013). Developmental capabilities were tested in the 2012 Clark University Poll of Emerging Adults, which insists that development is stunted because of the fact that more adults in the age range 18 to 29 live with their parents rather than with a spouse (Clark University, 2013). In addition, the Families and Work Institute concluded that in 1992, 80 per cent of people under 23 years reportedly wanted to someday acquire a job with greater responsibility, 10 years later, only 60 per cent wanted to accomplish the same goal (Families and Work Institute, 2009). Significant research has contributed to the theory of Millennials as “trophy kids”. Trophy kid is a label given to those individuals, primarily the Millennials, who grew up and experienced the trend of receiving a participation trophy. Participation trophies are given to everybody who shows up for an event, essentially eliminating the concept of winners and losers. The 1970s movement on enhancing self-esteem in children and young adults has been linked to the narcissistic perception of the Millennial generation (Arnett et al., 2001). Parental favoritism and overbearing praise, mixed with lack of punishment for misbehavior is the fundamental foundation for the “trophy kid syndrome” that many Millennials experience or have experienced (Alsop, 2008). A study by Valkenburg et al. (2006) that tested the effects of positive versus negative feedback on adolescents’ emotions concluded that positive feedback enhanced adolescents’ social

self-esteem and well-being, while negative feedback decreased their overall self-esteem and well-being. Millenials have also been referred to as the “most praised” generation as a result of parental and social upbringing that has tended to emphasize building self-esteem through positive feedback, praise and recognition (Zaslow, 2007). Research suggests that the results of such approaches to child development have led to the Milllenial generation feeling confident and assertive, and entitled to continuous praise and recognition (Twenge, 2006). However, this generation also reports greater feelings of depression (Twenge, 2006; Twenge and Campbell, 2009). Research indicates that narcissistic personality disorder is more likely for individuals in their 20s versus those over 65 years of age (Dingfelder, 2011; Twenge and Foster, 2010; Twenge and Campbell, 2008), which can lead to increased difficulties in personal and work relationships (Twenge and Campbell, 2003a). Other research suggests that Millennials are a generation of “conflicting characteristics” (Alsop, 2008). For instance, Millennials are described as self-absorbed, but civic minded, which are clearly two opposing traits. This conflict inevitably results in two distinct contrasting views of this generation – narcissistic (Bergman et al., 2010; Westerman et al., 2012) and progressive. The difference in perspectives adds complexity to society and the workforce. With the current multigenerational workforce, it is essential to recognize the key differences among these generations so managers are able to adapt accordingly. Generational differences in the workplace As society continues to evolve and older generations fade, new generations are being born and entering into new life stages. With this inevitable cycle, organizational life shifts to adapt to new demands and expectations of employees. Today, we are in the midst of experiencing an organizational shift as the Baby Boomers retire and the Millennials graduate college with credible degrees and enter the workforce. To better assist managers in the direction of how to effectively deliver negative feedback to the novel employees, it is helpful to examine basic differences among the present generations. We focus on three major groups: Baby Boomers (those born between 1946 and 1964), Gen Xers (those born between 1965 and 1980) and Millennials (those born between 1981 and 2000). Research on generational differences in the workplace Experiences and upbringings lead to variations in characteristics and expectations across multiple generations. The Baby Boomers experienced the Vietnam War, the Watergate scandal, Woodstock, the Civil Rights Movement, the assassinations of Kennedy and King and the sexual revolution, while the Gen Xers experienced economic uncertainties, recessions, high unemployment, inflation, downsizing and high divorce rates among parents (Becton et al., 2014). The Millennials have never known a time prior to cell phones and computers and have been impacted by the globalization of the marketplace (Becton et al., 2014) and the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the USA. The characteristics that are descriptive of the generations differ. For example, the Baby Boomers, born between the years 1946 and 1964, were raised in accordance with the traditional structured family during the education and economic expansions, whereas the Gen Xers, born between 1965 and 1981, grew up as latchkey kids, or kids

Giving negative feedback to Millennials 695

MRR 39,6

696

that returned from school to an empty home as a result of working parents, during economic instability and common poverty (Chen and Choi, 2008). The style associated with Baby Boomers include independence, individualism, possession of multiple jobs or careers, rejection of social norms or protest and entitlement. However, the Gen Xers prefer realism, entrepreneurism, independence, reluctance toward commitment and self-reliance (Chen and Choi, 2008). Millennials, by contrast, gravitate toward group activities, are fascinated by new technologies, are far more racially and ethnically diverse and often have one immigrant parent. They identify with their parents’ values and feel close to their parents (Oblinger, 2003). They are likely to marry later in life, are less religious in their views, are less likely to view issues in terms of race or ethnicity and do not necessarily expect to have the financial success their parents enjoyed (Taylor, 2014). Monetary implications and attitudes specified by the Boomers are “I deserved it – I spent it”, while the Gen Xers are “I demand it – I invest it” (Chen and Choi, 2008). Millennials are more likely to view money as a means to an end and are not as concerned about financial success (Taylor, 2014). Technological perspectives of the Baby Boomers involve expedient commodities and the Gen Xers view it as a fact of life and have an “if you can’t beat them, join them” attitude (Chen and Choi, 2008). Millennials embrace technology and are “wired” into the digital age (Taylor, 2014). For purposes of our analysis, we focus on research that examines the differences in workplace behavior, which have been shaped by the previously mentioned experiences. Baby Boomer professional stereotypes derived from the experiences that are empirically supported through academic evidence consist of achievement orientation, independence, respectfulness of authority, loyalty and attachment to organizations, work centrality and on the job diligence (Becton et al., 2014; Tolbize, 2008). In comparison to the Boomers, Gen Xers are more tolerant to change values and attribute less importance to self-enhancement values (Becton et al., 2014). Millennials, in comparison to the others, value leisure more and are typically more hard working than Gen Xers (Becton et al., 2014). While Baby Boomers want recognition for their efforts from colleagues and superiors, Gen Xers seek opportunities to learn and improve themselves. Millennials, by contrast, desire meaning and value in their workplace contributions to feel involved in their work (Glass, 2007). Leisure values increase steadily from Baby Boomers to Millennials, while extrinsic values (e.g. money and status) peak with Gen Xers – though Millennials are higher than Baby Boomers. Intrinsic values (e.g. interesting work) and social values (e.g. making friends) are rated lower by Millennials than by Baby Boomers (Twenge et al., 2010). One consistent finding of the research is that the work ethic of Millennials is lower than that of Baby Boomers (Tang and Tzeng, 1992; Twenge, 2010). Conversely, desire for life–work balance is higher for Millennials than among the Baby Boomers (Twenge, 2010; Wey Smola and Sutton, 2002) and there are clearly differences among various dimensions of life–work balance among the generational cohorts (Deal et al., 2010; Meriac et al., 2010). Feedback in the workplace Feedback has been used as a useful tool for employers to manage the behavior of their employees for generations past and present. The traditional form of feedback was adopted in the 1950s, primarily to provide negative feedback down the hierarchical

structure from supervisor to subordinate (Coffin et al., 2012). As feedback continued to evolve, a direct link between feedback and motivation was cultivated and supervisors and subordinates were able to work toward specific goals (Coffin et al., 2012). In the 1970s, Baby Boomers experienced a feedback system that was considered non-discriminatory, work-related and reliable (Lepsinger and Lucia, 2009). The Gen Xers encountered a feedback system that allowed for upward feedback from the subordinate to the supervisor. Then, during the 1990s, the 360 degree feedback model, which incorporated input from supervisors, colleagues, customers and self, was adopted, which provided a more holistic evaluation of the employee (Lepsinger and Lucia, 1997). Most forms of feedback in prior research have emphasized formal feedback systems through performance appraisal processes (Bretz et al., 1992; Smither, 1998). Research on the effectiveness of performance appraisal feedback processes has generally found mixed results and differing views toward performance appraisal feedback (Fletcher, 2001; Ilgen et al., 1979; Lawler, 1994; Pearce and Porter, 1986). Factors such as negative affectivity (Lam et al., 2002), perceptions of procedural justice (Korsgaard and Roberson, 1995) and impression management (Wayne and Kacmar, 1991) have been found to influence the effectiveness of performance appraisal feedback. Other factors found to affect employee reactions to performance appraisals include giving employees an opportunity to state their views of the issues, the perceived relevancy of the job factors on which employees were evaluated and developing objectives and plans based on the performance appraisal (Dipboye and de Pontbriand, 1981). Another form of feedback mechanism in the workplace is referred to as feedback interventions (FIs) (Kluger and DeNisi, 1998). FIs are “actions taken by (an) external agent(s) to provide information regarding some aspect(s) of one’s task performance” (Kluger and DeNisi, 1996, p. 255). FIs take several different forms, but generally include some pattern of consistent reporting of outcomes or behaviors to employees or individuals on various dimensions of behavior. While such direct interventions improve performance on average, a meta-analysis by Kluger and DeNisi (1996) found that performance actually decreased in one-third of the reported FI cases. This suggests that direct efforts to provide employees with specific information or interventions about behavior do not necessarily produce higher levels of performance. The examination of feedback in given clinical supervision settings has shed some light on how feedback can best be given so that the receiver is able to hear it accurately and make use of it appropriately. First and foremost, feedback should be provided consistently and based primarily on standards defined behaviorally to avoid subjectivity and bias. In addition, it should be provided in a timely manner, and in a manner that can be clearly understood by the supervisee (Goodyear and Bernard, 1998). Feedback is also more likely to be accepted by the supervisee when it is delivered with a balance between positive and negative feedback, and it is primarily about the actual performance (Farnill et al., 1997). Thus, when possible, feedback is based on observation of the supervisee by the supervisor (Norcross and Halgin, 1997). A study by Lehrman-Waterman and Ladany (2001), which examined the evaluation process within supervision, found that supervisees rated their supervision experience “good” and “effective”, if the supervisor provided balanced feedback. In contrast, supervisees rated supervision to be “bad”, if the supervisor gave an “overabundance” of negative feedback.

Giving negative feedback to Millennials 697

MRR 39,6

698

The “best” supervision, as defined by supervisees, has been found to include very direct and clear feedback, with adequate direction. In addition, supervisees indicated that getting adequate feedback was essential to having a strong supervision experience (Allen et al., 1986; Bradley and Ladany, 2001; Leddick and Dye, 1987). A particularly sensitive area of performance feedback is administering negative feedback (Pearce and Porter, 1986). The presence of negative information in performance feedback can affect how information is received and processed cognitively (DeNisi et al., 1984). Negative performance feedback has been linked to workplace aggression (Geddes and Baron, 1997), development of performance goals, employee effort and workplace performance (Ilgen and Davis, 2000). The effects of negative feedback as destructive criticism has been shown to increase conflict, lower self-efficacy and negatively impact attitudes toward superiors and the performance appraisal process (Baron, 1988). Millennials and feedback As our analysis of the literature suggests, many popular types of feedback exist in today’s workplace. These typically include performance appraisals, monetary incentives, mentoring and informal verbal acknowledgements. Alone, each source of feedback does not substantially satisfy the demands of the Millennial generation, but together the satisfactory ratings increase (Coffin et al., 2012). The Corporate Leadership Council found that monetary rewards or incentives were the single most influential and successful source of feedback for the Millennials (Ng et al., 2010). This is likely linked to the sense of entitlement that this generation seeks (Ng et al., 2010). The same council also concluded that constant and consistent feedback from supervisors is preferred and demanded among the new entrants. In addition to the immediate feedback, rapid results, such as promotions or pay increases, are expected (Chen and Choi, 2008). These individuals desire favorable feedback of their performance and fear negative feedback because they often believe this type of feedback is a challenge of their self-worth (Alsop, 2008). This strict and demanding feedback routine presents a potential problem for managers who are accustomed to providing traditional forms of feedback. Providing negative feedback to Millennials The literature review on the Millennial generation creates a prevailing theoretical standpoint that this generation favors and requests positive and consistent feedback. Positive feedback is undoubtedly an essential managerial priority because it creates an environment for motivation and encourages desirable performance; however, positive feedback is a mere component of the entire feedback process. Negative feedback is a necessary developmental element that many managers reluctantly distribute to their employees. This type of feedback plays an important role in employee self-regulation (O’Malley and Gregory, 2011). If administered properly, a healthy balance of positive and negative feedback provides an authentic view of the employee’s current state in the organization (O’Malley and Gregory, 2011). To effectively administer negative feedback, the manager must be aware of whom they are conversing with so that they can decide how to present the developmental criticism. In light of the generational differences in the contemporary workplace, the issue of providing negative feedback to Millennial generation employees will be a challenge for

managers. As has been noted in our review of the extant literature, the values, expectations and attitudes of Millennial employees differ from other groups in the workplace. Further, we note that many managers and supervisors will be of different generations than Millennial workers at present; though with time, demographics indicate that Millennials will come to represent an increasingly large share of the workforce. The differences in values, beliefs and expectations between Millennial employees and Gen Xers and/or Baby Boomers are such that providing negative feedback – whether in the context of performance appraisals or in other less formal contexts – may differ. This suggests that managers may need to consider the nature of Millennial employees when faced with the task of providing negative feedback in the workplace for the feedback to produce the desired results in behavior, performance and work outcomes. Based on our review of the research to date, we would offer the following research propositions for future investigation: P1. Millennials will respond more favorably to negative feedback that they perceive enables them to make a positive contribution to their workplace. For example, “This task is critical to the success of the project, so it’s important for you to change your approach to working with clients”. P2. Millennials will respond more favorably to negative feedback that they perceive to be instrumental in providing them with greater leisure time and life–work balance. For example, “The way you’re handling your work team means you have to spend more time here at the office reviewing their work. Perhaps we might consider some alternative methods?” As noted in the research, managers are accustomed to deliver feedback to Baby Boomers and Gen Xers, which has evolved into an everyday, repetitive task because the work force has been structured to function in accordance with these generations; however, a new generation with new demands requires modification to avoid the setbacks of a foreseeable cultural clash. Essentially, the manager must remember that Millennials are open-minded individuals who have high standards of self-fulfillment. With this in mind, a manager needs to be assertive enough to make sure the employee understands the concern, but sensitive enough to ensure that a high potential employee does not terminate their experience and seek employment elsewhere. This can only be done by respecting the development of the individual: P3. Millennials will respond more favorably to negative feedback that they perceive enhances their individual development. For example, “The approach you’ve been taking to working with clients may be limiting your effectiveness. Perhaps an alternative method would enable you to better achieve your career goals”. The available research suggests that effective feedback to Millennials needs to be ongoing, not at annual, semi-annual or quarterly formal performance appraisals (Gilbert, 2011; Tyler, 2007), as this generation seeks continuous feedback (and hopefully approval) as a means of self-validation (Meister and Willyerd, 2010; Olson, 2009) and to develop attitudes of engagement with the organization (Gilbert, 2011). Those with more positive self-esteem and stronger egos will seek both positive and negative feedback, while those with lower self-esteem may seek only positive feedback (Bing-You and Trowbridge, 2009):

Giving negative feedback to Millennials 699

MRR 39,6

700

P4. Millennials with more positive self-esteem will respond more favorably to negative feedback than those with lower self-esteem. For Millennials who seek instant gratification and frequent rewards, quality feedback is essential to their investment in work and development (Benfer and Shanahan, 2013). They are particularly concerned with feedback that they perceive as benefitting them in the future, whereas older workers tend to desire feedback that conveys a positive relationship with their supervisor (Burlacu, 2011). However, giving negative feedback can be difficult, as Millennial workers can be uncomfortable with criticism and may become aggressive or even caustic when subject to such forms of perceived negative feedback (Hartman and McCambridge, 2011): P5. Millennials will respond more favorably to negative feedback that they perceive to have future benefits to them individually. For example, “In order to position you for the next promotion, you might want to consider changing your approach to dealing with the customer service representatives”. On average, Millennials are likely to maximize their employment at one company for five years before they continue their search in the workforce (Sujansky and Ferri-Reed, 2009). This statistic can be linked to the self-fulfillment need that is a characteristic of this generation. To satisfy this need, managers should provide meaningful tasks that contribute to organizational success. At the start of the task, managers need to be available to provide clear expectations and communicate the importance of the employee’s role. Throughout the Millennial’s experience, managers should frequently (weekly, bi-weekly or monthly, not semi-annually or quarterly) provide feedback that is structured in a way that leaves no room for misinterpretations. Although this may seem expensive (in terms of time consumption) and monotonous for management, it could potentially decrease the expected turnover rate, which is often a great cost for the organization, and create employee engagement. Suggestions for providing effective feedback to Millennials include (Caraher, 2014): • Articulating expectations and providing regular reminders of those expectations. • Avoiding the use of “why” questions (which tend to put Millennials on the defensive). • Not sounding “preachy”. • Providing feedback in a timely manner. • Providing feedback continuously; not waiting until the issue is severe and requires corrective action. • Reinforcing expectations often and in novel ways. As the trophy generation enters the workforce, the manner in which negative feedback is delivered will need to accommodate the employee’s sensitivity toward personal criticism. It is likely that Millennials will feel attacked or angry as a result of the constructive criticism because this generation has been nurtured to feel high levels of self-worth and praise from their superiors. This suggests that managers must focus on the “how” of administering negative feedback. It is important to compliment positive performance and balance praise with negative feedback. This balance will allow Millennials to understand that their work is valuable, but there is always room for

improvement. The key to boost their confidence is to encourage motivation, but provide concise criticism with realistic solutions that will lead the Millennial down the path of success. The way in which a manager can successfully do this is by confronting the individual face-to-face, reinforcing positive behavior, explaining in detail the issue(s), making suggestions on how to improve the situation, and maintaining consistent interaction and feedback.

Giving negative feedback to Millennials 701

Conclusion To effectively direct negative feedback, managers must understand who their employee is as an individual. The available research on the Millennial generation can be used as a fundamental guide for managers to use when providing critical feedback. Understanding basic characteristics and experiences of an employee will allow managers to connect to their subordinates and build a sense of trust and appreciation, which will increase the likelihood that the information received will be processed in a serious and influential manner. After review of the current literature available on the topics of negative feedback and Millennials, we conclude that additional research is required to link the two topics and provide organizations and managers with detailed guidelines on how to best approach a Millennial with negative feedback. While there are numerous articles on feedback, Millennials and how Millennials react to specific types of feedback, the available research lacks specific information on the importance of effective communication of negative feedback to Millennials and solutions for the uncomfortable encounter. In addition, we note that the issue of the Millennial generation in the workplace and the associated characteristics and managerial prescriptions may be culturally bound and may be predominantly a US phenomenon. Research on Millennials in non-US settings do not appear to provide similar results to those based on analyses of the US workforce (Fletcher and Perry, 2002; Macky et al., 2008; Wong et al., 2008). Research is clearly needed to examine workforce generational differences across different cultures, as well as national and regional boundaries. The Millennial emergence in America’s workforce is an inevitable occurrence that can prove to be beneficial to society if organizations are willing to adjust and adapt to new standards. Working in a multigenerational workforce generates a magnitude of ideas and suggestions that come from backgrounds of various experiences from a range of different characteristics and visions. Avoiding a clash between opposing generations and encouraging the growth and optimization of each employee through a balance of positive and negative feedback can further enhance the diverse workforce and prepare the corporate world for the future. References Allen, G.J., Szollos, S.J. and Williams, B.E. (1986), “Doctoral students’ comparative evaluations of best and worst psychotherapy supervision”, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 17 No. 2, p. 91. Alsop, R. (2008), The Trophy Kids Grow Up: How the Millennial Generation is Shaking Up the Workplace, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Arnett, J., Robins, A. and Rehm, D. (2001), Emerging Adulthood, WAMU, American University, Washington, DC.

MRR 39,6

702

Baron, R.A. (1988), “Negative effects of destructive criticism: impact on conflict, self-efficacy, and task performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 2, p. 199. Becton, J.B., Walker, H.J. and Jones-Farmer, A. (2014), “Generational differences in workplace behavior”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 175-189. Benfer, E.A. and Shanahan, C.F. (2013), “Educating the invincibles: strategies for teaching the Millennial generation in law school”, Clinical Law Review, Vol. 20 No. 301, pp. 1-267. Bergman, J.Z., Westerman, J.W. and Daly, J.P. (2010), “Narcissism in management education”, Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 119-131. Bing-You, R.G. and Trowbridge, R.L. (2009), “Why medical educators may be failing at feedback”, JAMA, Vol. 302 No. 12, pp. 1330-1331. Bradley, L.J. and Ladany, N. (Eds) (2001), Counselor Supervision: Principles, Process, and Practice, Taylor & Francis, New York, NY. Bretz, R.D., Milkovich, G.T. and Read, W. (1992), “The current state of performance appraisal research and practice: concerns, directions, and implications”, Journal of Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 321-352. Burlacu, G. (2011), “Employee age differences in formal performance feedback reactions: examining the effects of perceived valence, content, and delivery”, Unpublished Master’s thesis, Portland State University, Portland. Caraher, L. (2014), Millennials & Management: The Essential Guide to Making it Work at Work, Bibliomotion, Brookline, MA. Chen, P.J. and Choi, Y. (2008), “Generational differences in work values: a study of hospitality management”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 595-615. Chur-Hansen, A. and McLean, S. (2006), “On being a supervisor: the importance of feedback and how to give it”, Australasian Psychiatry, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 67-71. Clark University (2013), Clark Poll of Emerging Adults Finds most in Constant Touch with Parents, Clark News Hub, Worcester. Coffin, J., McGivern, S., Underwood-Price, L., Xiong, S. and Zander, H. (2012), “Feedback in an intergenerational workplace”, available at: http://wp.stolaf.edu/sociology/files/2013/06/ Feedback-in-an-Intergenerational-Workplace.pdf Deal, J.J., Altman, D.G. and Rogelberg, S.G. (2010), “Millennials at work: what we know and what we need to do (if anything)”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 191-199. DeNisi, A.S., Cafferty, T.P. and Meglino, B.M. (1984), “A cognitive view of the performance appraisal process: a model and research propositions”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 360-396. Dingfelder, S.F. (2011), “Reflecting on narcissism”, Science, Vol. 1 No. 1. Dipboye, R.L. and de Pontbriand, R. (1981), “Correlates of employee reactions to performance appraisals and appraisal systems”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 66 No. 2, p. 248. Families and Work Institute (2009), “Three millennial myths….. DEBUNKED!”. Farnill, D., Gordon, J. and Sansom, D. (1997), “The role of effective feedback in clinical supervision”, Australian Journal of Clinical & Experimental Hypnosis, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 155-161. Fletcher, C. (2001), “Performance appraisal and management: the developing research agenda”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 473-487. Fletcher, C. and Perry, E.L. (2002), “Performance appraisal and feedback: a consideration of national culture and a review of contemporary research and future trends”, in Anderson, N.,

Ones, D., Sinangil, H.K. and Viswesvaran, C. (Eds), Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology, Sage Publications Ltd, Thousand Oaks, CA, Vol. 1, pp. 127-144. Geddes, D. and Baron, R.A. (1997), “Workplace aggression as a consequence of negative performance feedback”, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 433-454. Gilbert, J. (2011), “The Millennials: a new generation of employees, a new set of engagement policies”, Ivey Business Journal, Vol. 75 No. 5, pp. 26-28. Glass, A. (2007), “Understanding generational differences for competitive success”, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 98-103. Goodyear, R.K. and Bernard, J.M. (1998), “Clinical supervision: lessons from the literature”, Counselor Education and Supervision, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 6-22. Hartman, J.L. and McCambridge, J. (2011), “Optimizing millennials’ communication styles”, Business Communication Quarterly, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 22-44. Howe, N. and Nadler, R. (2010), Millennials in the Workplace: Human Resource Strategies for a New Generation: Implications for Educators, Employers, and Policy Makers, Lifecourse Associates, Great Falls. Ilgen, D. and Davis, C. (2000), “Bearing bad news: reactions to negative performance feedback”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 550-565. Ilgen, D.R., Fisher, C.D. and Taylor, M.S. (1979), “Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 4, pp. 349-371. Kluger, A.N. and DeNisi, A. (1996), “The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 119 No. 2, pp. 254-284. Kluger, A.N. and DeNisi, A. (1998), “Feedback interventions: toward the understanding of a double-edged sword”, Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 67-72. Korsgaard, M.A. and Roberson, L. (1995), “Procedural justice in performance evaluation: the role of instrumental and non-instrumental voice in performance appraisal discussions”, Journal of Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 657-669. Lam, S.S., Yik, M.S. and Schaubroeck, J. (2002), “Responses to formal performance appraisal feedback: the role of negative affectivity”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 192-201. Lawler, E.E. (1994), “Performance management: the next generation”, Compensation & Benefits Review, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 16-19. Leddick, G.R. and Dye, H.A. (1987), “Effective supervision as portrayed by trainee expectations and preferences”, Counselor Education and Supervision, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 139-154. Lehrman-Waterman, D. and Ladany, N. (2001), “Development and validation of the evaluation process within supervision inventory”, Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 168-177. Lepsinger, R. and Lucia, A.D. (1997), “360 feedback and performance appraisal”, Training, Vol. 34 No. 9, pp. 62-70. Lepsinger, R. and Lucia, A.D. (2009), The Art and Science of 360 degree Feedback, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Macky, K., Gardner, D. and Forsyth, S. (2008), “Generational differences at work: introduction and overview”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 857-861. Meister, J.C. and Willyerd, K. (2010), “Mentoring millennials”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 68-72.

Giving negative feedback to Millennials 703

MRR 39,6

704

Meriac, J.P., Woehr, D.J. and Banister, C. (2010), “Generational differences in work ethic: an examination of measurement equivalence across three cohorts”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 315-324. Myers, K.K. and Sadaghiani, K. (2010), “Millennials in the workplace: a communication perspective on Millennials’ organizational relationships and performance”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 225-238. Ng, E.S., Schweitzer, L. and Lyons, S.T. (2010), “New generation, great expectations: a field study of the Millennial generation”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 281-292. Norcross, J.C. and Halgin, R.P. (1997), “Integrative approaches to psychotherapy supervision”, in Watkins, C.E., Jr (Ed.), Handbook of Psychotherapy Supervision, John Wiley & Sons Inc, Hoboken, NJ, pp. 203-222. Oblinger, D. (2003), “Boomers Gen-Xers Millennials”, Educause Review, Vol. 500 No. 4, pp. 37-47. Olson, M.E. (2009), “The ‘Millennials’: first year in practice”, Nursing Outlook, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 10-17. O’Malley, A.L. and Gregory, J.B. (2011), “Don’t be such a downer: using positive psychology to enhance the value of negative feedback”, The Psychologist-Manager Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 247-264. Pearce, J.L. and Porter, L.W. (1986), “Employee responses to formal performance appraisal feedback”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 211-218. Pew Research Center (2015), “Millennials surpass Gen Xers as the largest generation in the US labor force”, available at: www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/11/millennials-surpassgen-xers-as-the-largest-generation-in-u-s-labor-force/ (accessed 13 July 2015). Raines, C. (2002), “Managing millennials”, Connecting Generations: The Sourcebook. Smither, J.W. (1998), Performance Appraisal: State of the Art in Practice, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco. Stein, J. (2013), “Millennials: the me me me generation”, Time, Vol. 181 No. 19, p. 20. Sujansky, J. and Ferri-Reed, J. (2009), Keeping the Millennials: Why Companies are Losing Billions in Turnover to this Generation-and What to do About it, John Wiley & Sons, New Yok, NY. Tang, T.L. and Tzeng, J.Y. (1992), “Demographic correlates of the protestant work ethic”, Journal of Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 163-170. Taylor, P. (2014), The Next America: Boomers, Millennials, and the Looming Generational Showdown, Perseus Publishers, New York, NY. Tolbize, A. (2008), “Generational differences in the workplace”, Research and Training Center on Community Living, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 1-21. Twenge, J.M. (2006), Generation Me: Why Today’s Young Americans are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled – and More Miserable than Ever Before, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY. Twenge, J.M. (2010), “A review of the empirical evidence on generational differences in work attitudes”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 201-210. Twenge, J.M. and Campbell, S.M. (2008), “Generational differences in psychological traits and their impact on the workplace”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 862-877. Twenge, J.M., Campbell, S.M., Hoffman, B.J. and Lance, C.E. (2010), “Generational differences in work values: leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values decreasing”, Journal of Management, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 1117-1142. Twenge, J.M. and Campbell, W.K. (2003), “Isn’t it fun to get the respect that we’re going to deserve?” Narcissism, social rejection, and aggression”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 261-272.

Twenge, J.M. and Campbell, W.K. (2009), The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY. Twenge, J.M. and Foster, J.D. (2010), “Birth cohort increases in narcissistic personality traits among American college students, 1982-2009”, Social Psychological and Personality Science, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 99-106. Tyler, K. (2007), “The tethered generation”, HR Magazine, Vol. 52 No. 5, p. 40. Valkenburg, P.M., Peter, J. and Schouten, A.P. (2006), “Friend networking sites and their relationship to adolescents’ well-being and social self-esteem”, CyberPsychology & Behavior, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 584-590. Wayne, S.J. and Kacmar, K.M. (1991), “The effects of impression management on the performance appraisal process”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 70-88. Westerman, J.W., Bergman, J.Z., Bergman, S.M. and Daly, J.P. (2012), “Are universities creating Millennial narcissistic employees? An empirical examination of narcissism in business students and its implications”, Journal of Management Education, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 5-32. Wey Smola, K. and Sutton, C.D. (2002), “Generational differences: revisiting generational work values for the new millennium”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 363-382. Wong, M., Gardiner, E., Lang, W. and Coulon, L. (2008), “Generational differences in personality and motivation: do they exist and what are the implications for the workplace?”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 878-890. Zaslow, J. (2007), “The most-praised generation goes to work”, Wall Street Journal, Vol. 4 No. 1, p. 20. About the authors Emylee Anderson is a graduate student at Bradley University in Peoria, Illinois. Her research interests include leadership, feedback processes in organizations and generational effects in the workplace. Aaron A. Buchko is Professor of Management in the Management and Leadership Department of the Foster College of Business at Bradley University. His research interests include organizational effectiveness, strategy and planning, business ethics and managerial development. Aaron A. Buchko is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected] Kathleen J. Buchko is Associate Professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Human Development, College of Education and Health Sciences, Bradley University. She is also the Director of the Counseling and Research Training Clinic at Bradley University. Her research interests include group counseling, psychopathology and counseling and aging.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

Giving negative feedback to Millennials 705

This article has been cited by: 1. BealBrian Brian Beal Brian Beal is a Freelance Writer. . 2016. Feedback fears for the “Me, Me, Me” generation. Human Resource Management International Digest 24:6, 27-29. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]