Towards a model of human resource solutions for ... - Ingenta Connect

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0590.htm

JEIT 31,8

592

Towards a model of human resource solutions for achieving intergenerational interaction in organisations David McGuire

Received 19 February 2007 Revised 3 May 2007

School of Management, Napier University Business School, Edinburgh, UK

Rune Todnem By School of Buisness and Enterprise, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, UK, and

Kate Hutchings Department of Management, Monash University, Clayton, Australia Abstract Purpose – Achieving intergenerational interaction and avoiding conflict is becoming increasingly difficult in a workplace populated by three generations – Baby Boomers, Generation X-ers and Generation Y-ers. This paper presents a model and proposes HR solutions towards achieving co-operative generational interaction. Design/methodology/approach – This paper adapts Park’s theory of race relations to explain the distinctiveness of generational work groups and the challenges and opportunities that these groups present when interacting in organisations. Rashford and Coghlan’s cycle of organisational change, based on the Ku¨bler-Ross grief cycle, is then mapped onto Park’s race relations cycle in order to link generational interaction to emotional reactions to change over time. Findings – The paper sets out a research agenda for examining how generations interact in the workplace. It acknowledges the limitations of using Park’s theory of race relations, in particular the criticisms levelled at assimilationist approaches. Originality/value – The paper provides an alternative viewpoint for examining how generations co-exist and interact and shows how HR solutions can respond to the needs of different generations. Keywords Baby boomer generation, Social stratification, Organizational change, Organizational culture Paper type Conceptual paper

Journal of European Industrial Training Vol. 31 No. 8, 2007 pp. 592-608 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0309-0590 DOI 10.1108/03090590710833651

Widespread change in the composition and shape of organisational workforces has placed increasing emphasis on understanding and managing the expectations of different generational groups. While much discussion has been devoted to the organisational diversity that has resulted from the increased cultural diversity of workplaces, less attention has been given to issues associated with generational diversity within organisations. With most industrialised nations recording declining birth rates and greater life expectancies, the nature of the ages represented in the The authors acknowledge the useful comments provided by the reviewers.

workplace is significantly different than in previous generations (Yu and Miller, 2005). Whereas some employees retire earlier than in previous generations, many others are being encouraged to stay longer in the workplace, prolonging workforce regeneration cycles (Report, 1993). Coincidentally, an increasing uptake of tertiary education has resulted in many employees commencing their working lives much later than in previous generations. Differences in outlook and approach have also emerged between generations. While the ageing sector of the workforce is highly experienced, work-oriented and stable in employment, younger employees are increasingly mobile, exhibit less organisational commitment, but are entrepreneurial and technologically literate (Loomis, 2000). In contrast to the social communitarian outlook of ageing workers, young workers are fuelled by a propensity towards self-fulfilment and the pre-eminence of the self (Tulgan, 1996). These differences in approaches and attitudes to work may result in intergenerational conflict that compromises organisational performance. Organisational diversity poses challenges to management styles (Dobbs, 1996; Kandola and Fullerton, 1994; Liff, 1997), and organisations that fail to deal with diversity in their workplaces face the likelihood of intergenerational conflict (Steane and Christie, 2001). Patota et al. (2007) argue that misunderstandings and strife from intergenerational conflict are particularly acute in times of reorganisation and downsizing, where members of different groups view each other with suspicion and antipathy as they compete for fewer and fewer jobs. Research evidence also suggests that a failure to acknowledge and adjust for generational differences can affect employee productivity, innovation and corporate citizenship, resulting in problems with employee retention and turnover (Westerman and Yamamura, 2007; Kupperschmidt, 2000). Organisations must therefore seek to optimise the talents of all age groups, reconciling differences in the workplace, educating and developing employees to utilise this diversity for individual and organisational advantage, and creating new organisational cultures that value, and optimise, generational diversity. This article examines the potential of human resource management practices in reconciling intergenerational conflict and promoting greater interaction among workers of different age groups. It begins by profiling the characteristics of generational workgroups, exploring differences in outlook and approach. A new model for understanding generational differences and conflict within organisations, adapted from Park’s (1950) theory of race relations and Rashford and Coghlan’s (1989) cycle of organisational change is presented. The elements of the model are discussed and a range of HR solutions are explored in supporting greater intergenerational interaction and reducing conflict. The article concludes by offering suggestions to HR managers on how to create organisational cultures that achieve generational interaction. Profiling generational workgroups Organisations are now characterised by growing levels of workforce heterogeneity. Such a situation is leading managers to examine the underlying values, attitudes and characteristics of generational groups. Research has indicated that different generations exhibit different learning styles (Costello et al., 2004), different memories (Schuman and Scott, 1989) and different value priorities (Bogdanowicz and Bailey, 2002). However, as Patota et al. (2007) point out, generational groups describe general characteristics and are not mutually exclusive, homogenous categories; consequently,

Intergenerational interaction in organisations 593

JEIT 31,8

594

not all Baby Boomers believe in lifetime employment, nor are all Generation Y individuals technologically minded. Baby Boomers can be characterised historically as the generation born in the era of American world pre-eminence, which followed the Second World War and lasted until the early 1960s (Tulgan, 1996). Growing up in an era of economic prosperity, this generation became great believers in lifetime employment, company loyalty and paying one’s dues in order to gain respect and receive seniority (Elsdon and Lyer, 1999). While it is often also assumed that Baby Boomers are more resistant to change, less technologically savvy and less trainable (Paul and Townsend, 1993; Taylor and Walker, 1994), research has shown that the productivity of Baby Boomers compares favourably with other age groups, with experience, organisational commitment and stability (and hence, lower turnover) seen as real advantages over the highly mobile younger generations (Appelbaum et al., 2005). While the Baby Boomer generation have followed traditional needs fulfilment stages starting from education, career, marriage and promotion towards self-achievement, Generations X and Y have circumvented the process, seeking self-achievement from their jobs and fulfilment of basic needs simultaneously (Yu and Miller, 2005). Hill (2002) argues that Baby Boomer involvement in their children’s lives has meant that they have raised a generation of employees, known as Generation X (aged in their late twenties to early forties), who do not share their parents’ commitment to competition, but rather have emphasised participation and esteem development. He claims that this philosophy, imbued by their Baby Boomer parents, has not prepared Generation X-ers well for the real world’s focus on outputs. Generation X-ers do not show the same organisational loyalty as the Baby Boomers; rather, they highly value working for themselves, and capitalise on job opportunities elsewhere (O’Bannon, 2001). Yet, they also are highly entrepreneurial and innovative in their approach to work. A study of Generation X women by Feyerheim and Vick (2005) found that Generation X individuals need to prove to themselves and others that they have valuable contributions to make and receive outward manifestations of that value. They discovered that professional success and personal fulfilment are linked with individuals seeking immediate gratification and outward tangible signs of success. In summary, the values of Generation X may be considered to be teamwork, collaboration, quality of life and developing human relationships. The work style and belief systems of Generation Y or Millenials (employees aged from late teens to mid-twenties) are regarded as fundamentally different from any other group of young people in the last 50 years (O’Reilly and Vella-Zarb, 2000). The so-called “me-generation” are much more likely than their parents to leave school and take time out from study to take on non-career jobs or to go travelling for a couple of years. They are much more likely than their parents to delay purchasing a house, getting married, or having children. Martin (2005) describes them as the “latch key” generation, who are the product of their parents high-divorce rate or dual-income family and were left to their own devices and taught to take care of themselves. She argues that many managers misread the independent spirit of Generation Y as reluctance to conform; however, this generation do want clear direction and management support, but seek flexibility and autonomy in task achievement and possess the real advantage of being very technologically literate and highly educated. In rebelling against what they view as the overly structured lives of their parents, these

individuals will prove very difficult to manage because of their short attention spans (Hill, 2002). Likewise, Manuel (2002) maintains, with regard to learning, that Generation Y has rejected traditional educational interventions in favour of active, kinesthetic learning environments. The clear differences in values and outlooks of generational work groups have made workforce and succession planning more challenging for HR managers. Managing the expectations of different generational groups in the workplace has forced HR departments to design separate sets of motivational drivers to optimise the performance of each group (Appelbaum et al., 2005). In the case of Baby Boomers, the key challenges faced include ensuring a strong balance of work and family life (Yu and Miller, 2005), recognition of loyalty, commitment and achievement (Southard and Lewis, 2004) and ensuring skill sets are aligned to changing job requirements (Arsenault, 2004). Indeed, Acompora and Boissoneau (1997) suggest that many organisations see older workers as a better investment for their training efforts because they remain on the job longer than young people, and organisations receive a higher return on investment because of greater longevity in the employer/employee relationship. Consequently, employee retention is the critical challenge for organisations in managing Generations X and Y (Yu and Miller, 2005). Hutchings (2006) argues that mobility of younger workers is increasing and employers in the ageing, slow-growing industrialised nations are eager for talent, some of which they are acquiring through emigration from the developing world that is educating more workers than it can productively employ. To retain these workers, Cetron and Davies (2003) argue that organisations need to provide challenging work and opportunities for advancement and training. Generational identity in organisations The identity of individuals and groups in organisations is important to the emergence of social relationships, norms and interaction processes. Hogg and Terry (2000) argue that organisations are comprised of internally structured groups that are located in complex networks of intergroup relations characterised by power, status and prestige differentials. They maintain that people, to varying degrees, derive part of their identity and sense of self from the organisations or work groups to which they belong. The attraction of individuals to certain work groups derives from an in-built need for belonging, security and companionship. In this regard, Herriot (2002) argues that social identity is taken to result from perceived membership of a social group or category of persons and to result in the assumption more or less strongly by the individual of the beliefs, values and norms held by the group. The psychological importance of group membership is emphasised by Tajfel (1972), who argues that social identity encompasses an individual’s knowledge that he/she belongs to certain social groups together with some emotional and value significance to him/her of this group membership. Similarly, Hogg and Terry (2000) maintain that social identity processes are motivated by a need to reduce subjective uncertainty about ones perceptions, attitudes, feelings and behaviours and, ultimately, one’s self-concept and place within the social world. Individual self-categorisation forms the basis for group selection within organisations. Ely (1994) argues that identity has two components:


JEIT 31,8

596

(1) a personal component derived from idiosyncratic characteristics, such as personality and values; and (2) a social component derived from salient group characteristics such as gender, race and age. Hogg and Terry (2000) argue that people in organisations or work units compare their own demographic characteristics with those of other members of the group or the group as a whole, and that perceived similarity enhances work-related attitudes and behaviour. Herriot (2002) introduces the concept of “prototypicality”, which he states refers to an ideal type of the members of a category, which embodies a fuzzy set of the features that best define that category. He maintains that the more prototypical an individual’s membership of a category is, the more firmly they define themselves in terms of the prototype, and others in terms of stereotypes hostile to the prototype. This process of increasing the salience of in-group membership instigates a depersonalisation of the self, causing the individual to perceive himself or herself as an interchangeable exemplar of the social category (Turner, 1985). This similarity of identity was previously captured by the similarity-attraction paradigm, which posited that similarity in attitudes is a major source of attraction between individuals (Byrne, 1971; Tsui et al., 1992). Individual psychological attachment to groups has important implications in how individuals perceive achievement and success. Ely (1994) argues that when individual identification with the group is strong, individuals may perceive their own capacity to succeed as related to, and dependent upon, the success of other members in the group. In collectivist organisations, group membership assumes greater importance, and because of the heightened priority placed on interdependence and cooperation, success is defined in terms of shared objectives and commonalities of interests amongst members (Chatman et al., 1998). Attachment to the group and commitment to its goals is directly related to the degree of homogeneity amongst group members. In the case of generational groups, Tsui et al. (1992) argues that if an individual categorises himself/herself by age, satisfaction in a group will be highest if that group is made up of members falling within the boundary of a specific age category. A new model of human resource solutions for achieving intergenerational interaction in organisations The identification of different generational groups with distinctive value sets within the organisation poses challenges for both academics and practitioners in understanding and managing the expectations and interactions of different groups as well as dealing with conflicts, which may occasionally arise. The present article derives a model for understanding and achieving generational interactions within organisations (Figure 1). The model outlines an ecological approach to the study of the organisation and distinguishes four separate stages in generational group interaction. At the core lies the organisation, within which different generational groups co-exist. Generational diversity is defined as the age characteristics of individuals, which may be made explicit through dress, values or appearance, which increases the individual’s visibility and by doing so makes more obvious his/her identity with a particular generational group and serves to enforce and maintain social distances with other generational


Figure 1. Organisation generation interaction model

JEIT 31,8

598

groups. In seeking to explore generational interaction, the present article draws upon Park’s (1950) race relations cycle, which examines how diverse cultures are merged, acculturated and assimilated. Park (1950) identifies four stages in order to explain relationships amongst diverse groups: (1) initial contact; (2) conflict; (3) cooperation; and (4) assimilation. In exploring individual and group reactions to change, Rashford and Coghlan’s (1989) cycle of organisational change is examined. The cycle consists of the following stages: . denying; . dodging; . doing; and . sustaining. The cycle has an impact on the behaviour of organisations on four levels: (1) individual; (2) team; (3) group; and (4) organisation. The cycle has evolved from the Ku¨bler-Ross (1969) grief cycle, which details a sequence of states by which individuals cope and adapt to change. Although this cycle was initially designed to describe the different emotional stages of individuals dealing with trauma, serious illness and death, there is a clear similarity between these stages and the stages individuals experience when dealing with organisational change (Burke, 2002; Elrod and Tippett, 2001; Rashford and Coghlan, 1989; Vakola et al., 2004; Vakola and Nikolaou, 2005). For the purpose of the model, Rashford and Coghlan’s cycle (1989) is mapped onto Park’s (1950) race relations cycle. Finally, the appropriate HR interventions for dealing with generational group interaction at each stage of the Park (1950) and Rashford and Coghlan (1989) cycles are outlined. While the roots of both intergenerational diversity and racial diversity lie in group-level beliefs and values and are observable demographic attributes, there are important differences between the concepts. It is argued that the source of intergenerational diversity lies in economic, political and social events that impact upon individuals of a similar age at a particular point in time. Patota et al. (2007) maintain that the shared experiences and collective memories of each generation lead them to a common set of values, beliefs and behaviours. For instance, there is some evidence to suggest that the events of 11 September 2001 have had an effect on the outlook of Generation Y, causing them to become more socially minded, patriotic and less likely to travel abroad (Glass, 2007; Jayson, 2006). It is important to note that differences between members can often occur through the selective participation in economic, political and social subgroups. In contrast, racial identity is often determined or inherited through the values specific to a particular race or subculture (Peppas,

2001). Harris and Moran (1996) explain that society is comprised of a series of subcultures with their own unique particular values sets. While this literature shows that differences exist between intergenerational and racial diversity, it is the similarities between the concepts that permit the application of Park’s (1950) model to intergenerational diversity. The model recognises that the organisation represents an arena in which several intergenerational groups work and interact. Such groups are not only distinguishable on the grounds of age, but collectively exhibit distinctive sets of beliefs and values. Frequently, employees become aware of the conditions of group membership through informal socialisation processes and individuals cannot always escape their group membership (Kirton and Greene, 2003). Central to the model is the premise advanced by Arsenault (2004) who argues that the misunderstanding and under-appreciation of generational differences arises from the erroneous belief that people change their values, attitudes and preferences as a function of age. He maintains that generational values and preferences are life-long effects, which remain stable over time and are resistant to change, despite social and cultural advances. In agreement, Stauffer (1997) argues that such groups are not only distinguishable on the grounds of age, but collectively exhibit distinctive sets of beliefs and values. As such, the organisation is destined to remain a centre for diverse groups with unique value sets. Moreover, workplace change is interpreted and understood through the prism of values that each generational group possesses. The model may be described as an escalation model. While recognising the cyclical nature of, and reactions to, change through the Park (1950) and Rashford and Coghlan (1989) cycles, it posits that these cycles may be interrupted with intergenerational conflict resolved and intergenerational differences being accommodated through the adoption of appropriate HR interventions. Furthermore, the model acknowledges the potency of strategically deployed HR interventions in the successful resolution of conflict. However, the model also acknowledges that not all individuals will move through the stages identified. Some will become stuck, and just as a number of individuals will never assimilate, some will never sustain change or even move beyond dodging, there may be individuals that will always have difficulties working in an integrated workforce. Stage 1: initial contact Organisations have become a melting pot of individuals from different genders, ages, races, backgrounds and educational experiences (Greller, 1990). Within organisations, individuals will seek to establish ties of identity and friendship with others and form networks within which to interact and both provide and receive support (Mehra et al., 1998). Eriksen (2002) argues that one of the first aspects of group identity is the application of systematic distinctions between insiders and outsiders: between “us” and “them”. He argues that the constitution of groups presupposes an institutional relationship along delineated lines whose members consider each other to be culturally distinct and where difference is reinforced through social contact. Likewise, Hogg and Terry (2000) maintain that self-categorisation of self and others into in-group and out-group accentuates the perceived similarity of the target to the relevant in- or out-group prototype. Ely (1994) argues that the motivation for drawing intergroup


JEIT 31,8

600

comparisons is to achieve and maintain a favourable self-image. He argues that this self-enhancement motive promotes in-group solidarity, cooperation and support. Chatman and Flynn (2001) acknowledge that greater demographic heterogeneity generates important benefits, such as increasing the variance in perspectives and approaches to work by different groups. They also suggest that increased competition may result from perceived intergroup differences. Competition both reinforces the self-efficacy of the group and places the group in opposition with other groups in the battle for resources. Opposing groups question each other’s motives and can become suspicious of each other (Messick and Mackie, 1989). While Cascio and Rhodes (1996) argue that Baby Boomers are fearful of stereotypes attaching to their generational cohort such as declining job performance, decreased need for job development, increased rigidity and increased absenteeism, McEvoy and Cascio (1989) maintain that Generation X are fearful of stereotypes pertaining to them such as being less honest, less dependable, less trustworthy, career fatalistic and having disrespect for authority. Such perceptions can lead to an organisational climate of hostility, and distrust may consequently arise in the organisation. Change reaction: denying According to Rashford and Coghlan’s (1989) cycle, the initial response to change is denial. Individuals may first question the relevance, value or timeliness of change and later deny the change’s actual affect on them. Cameron and Green (2004) suggest that individuals commonly react to change through experiencing a sense of disbelief and numbness. Thus, individuals and groups will passively resist the change (Maurer, 1996). Because the response to the creation of heterogeneous groups is also one of emphasising distinctiveness, accentuating differences and competition (Eriksen, 2002), it may be suggested that different generational work groups will isolate themselves. HR interventions During the initial contact stage, the focus of HR interventions is to gain acceptance of the relevance and validity of change (Rashford and Coghlan, 1989). HR needs to facilitate the introduction of new organisational members for whom socialisation is critical to their retention and level of commitment to the organisation. Moreover, effective induction and orientation programmes can result in a more unified and cohesive workforce. Chatman and Flynn (2001) argue that increasing contact amongst demographically heterogeneous organisational members can lead to the recategorisation of groups along non-demographic characteristics. Intergenerational teams may therefore represent a valuable method for organisational members to negotiate shared interests and experiences. Dovidio et al. (1998) argue that greater interdependence will occur where organisational members perceive a shared fate. Consequently, the espousal of strategic HRM policies regarding communalities of staff interests and unitarist conceptions of the organisation may affect how staff relate to each other and the types of groups created in the organisation (Mabey et al., 1998). Stage 2: conflict Eriksen (2002) argues that conflict is an aspect of the relationship between groups and is caused by threats, real or imaginary, to an existing “ecological pattern” of mutual adjustment. By this, he suggests that the social mobility of any group leads to tensions

in relation to other groups. Pfeffer (1983) argues that diverse employees have the potential to experience more conflict with one another because they are likely to have fewer shared experiences and more differences of opinion than similar employees. While Legge (1995) views conflict as a functional means of energising the organisation, stimulating learning and change and facilitating mutual accommodation through exploring and resolving, rather than suppressing differences, Jehn and Mannix (2001) argue that conflict between groups is unlikely to be beneficial at any time. Change reaction: dodging At this stage, individuals acknowledge that change is about to occur, but the significance of the change is still questioned (Rashford and Coghlan, 1989). Individuals and groups may try to ignore and avoid getting involved with the change. This dodging is suggested to be equivalent to anger “expressed in a passive-aggressive non-participation” (Rashford and Coghlan, 1989, p. 17), and Cameron and Green (2004, p. 28) argue that such anger is a “way of displacing (our) real feelings about the situation”. HR interventions At this stage, HR interventions need to focus on securing individual ownership of the need for change (Rashford and Coghlan, 1989). The resolution of conflict among generational groups is a difficult and challenging endeavour. In conflict situations, Legge (1995) maintains that power is the medium for resolving differences. HR interventions typically take the form of persuasion or change recognition, usually resulting in the expression of underlying norms or values. Langer (1999) argues that the roots of conflict often lie in the struggle for power and maintains that economic power does not reside in generations, but in the intersection of generation with class, race, gender and ethnicity. While immediate conflict resolution interventions may look at reframing differences and encouraging a spirit of common collectivism amongst employees (Clausing et al., 2003), longer-term solutions need to clarify developmental paths for all groups and ensure equity and equal opportunities exist for all. Stage 3: co-operation In order to instil co-operative norms amongst generational groups, the social differences which separate such groups needs to be decreased. Park (1950) argues that differences in generation and custom mutually reinforce each other and generational conflict can only be lessened through greater interaction. He argues that values and customs are inherited through socialisation processes and that generational co-operation can arise through the establishment of shared norms and experiences. Research by Zenger and Lawrence (1989) found that individuals are less inclined to share task information with those who are demographically different, highlighting the need for organisational interventions to promote generational interaction. Given that perceptions of a widening generation gap and even outright generational conflict prevail in the minds of many individuals (McManus, 1997), achieving a co-operative working environment is a critical challenge facing HR managers. Chatman and Flynn (2001) differentiate between a culture of independence where individuals differentiate themselves from others and focus on their own interests and abilities and characteristics and a cooperative culture where importance is placed on


JEIT 31,8

shared pursuits and outcomes. Encouraging greater task participation and focusing upon outcomes creates a mutuality of interest and forces a realignment of priorities and interests. Engaging in bargaining often recognises a loss of situational control and can be accompanied by individual withdrawal and grudging recognition of changed circumstances.

602

Change reaction: doing When entering this stage individuals and groups will acknowledge change as important. Some will decide to participate and give it a chance (Rashford and Coghlan, 1989), while others will be looking for a solution to the situation. Thus, although consent and involvement may be obtained, there is still a need for bargaining the content of change. O’Brien (2002) argues that it is only through participation that the conditions for change evolve and that change becomes accepted. HR interventions HR interventions should ensure a critical focus for change and prevent change overload (Rashford and Coghlan, 1989). In the case of intergenerational conflict, the concept of functional antagonism is an important one (Chatman and Flynn, 2001). It describes an inverse relationship whereby as generational differences become more salient, groups will focus more on their differences than on their similarities. They argue that when this occurs, groups will be less likely to acknowledge and act in accordance with factors that tie them together. Stage 4: assimilation Moving from cooperation to assimilation tends towards the creation of an integrated workforce. As multigenerational work groups become more prevalent in the organisation, group differentiation and distinctiveness become based upon characteristics such as departmental affiliation and interest. In this way, Pickett and Brewer (2001) argue that such groups can meet individual needs for assimilation (group inclusion and belonging) and differentiation (distinctiveness from others). Clausing et al. (2003) argue that building a strong intergenerational workforce and embracing diversity can successfully create a satisfying and rewarding work environment. Creating a committed workforce espousing values of mutual dependence, achievement and investment requires an acknowledgement of the strengths that each generational group contributes to the organisation (Clausing et al., 2003). Generational strengths need to be conceptualised as benefits rather than threats within the organisation. Change reaction: sustaining At this stage individuals and groups accept the new way of proceeding and integrate it into the routine patterns of behaviour (Rashford and Coghlan, 1989). This may not be an enthusiastic acceptance, but can also be a reluctant recognition of the situation and inevitability of change (Cameron and Green, 2004). However, Ford (2006) maintains that sustaining change can only occur through appropriate organisational policies and practices; particularly, the creation of open processes and empowering communicative interaction.

HR interventions The aim of HR interventions at this point is to encourage teamwork and generate greater levels of involvement and participation across all generational groups. Clausing et al. (2003) argue that creating environments that respect the needs of all generations is critical to a co-operative integrated workforce. They propose teambuilding events as a means of promoting unity and allowing different generations to work alongside each other as prejudices are usually diminished in small group settings. They also advocate the use of pairing amongst older and younger generations to promote confidence and self-esteem. In relation to reward systems, Beersma et al. (2003) maintains that while the general logic of collaborative reward allocations for interdependent teams persists, such logic ignores the reality that performance levels of individual members vary and the “social loafing” phenomenon amongst poor performers in groups. Likewise, Ntatsopoulos (2001) suggests that employees who want to avoid ageist policies need to ensure that performance management processes are implemented in the same way for all employees irrespective of age. Research by Southard and Lewis (2004) has established that HR programmes that appeal to all generations include: telecommuting, alternative work schedules, employee assistance programmes, floating holidays, performance-related pay and merit-based increases. Conclusion Generational diversity poses an important challenge to the management of organisational workforces. Research studies have shown that not only do different generational groups possess unique values sets (Bogdanowicz and Bailey, 2002), but heterogeneity in age can affect performance ratings (Judge and Ferris, 1993), team turnover (Jackson et al., 1991; Wagner et al., 1984), organisational attachment (Tsui et al., 1992) and social integration (O’Reilly et al., 1989). The proposed model identifies the challenges faced by organisations in adapting to a multigenerational workforce. It argues that the need for assimilation and differentiation will lead to the creation of generational groups and identifies the importance of HR interventions in achieving and managing interaction amongst such groups in order to create a positive empowering work environment. The model incorporates Park’s (1950) race relations cycle in order to explore the distinctiveness of generational work groups and the challenges and opportunities of achieving intergenerational interaction. Furthermore, Rashford and Coghlan’s (1989) organisational change cycle has been utilised for the purpose of linking emotional reactions to change over time to generational interaction. A number of specific implications for organisations arise from this paper. Firstly, organisations need to pay greater attention to generational diversity issues in the workplace. As illustrated in the paper, each generation has a unique value set and outlook marking their particular approach to work and life. Creating harmonious relations among generational groups therefore requires an acknowledgement of the differences and strengths of each group. Secondly, organisational structures and workplace arrangements should be carefully considered to avoid creating generational silos. Where possible, mixing of the generations is to be encouraged as a means of creating shared values and experiences. Events and social gatherings can also be arranged to facilitate greater generational interaction. Finally, the paper highlights the


JEIT 31,8

604

role that HR interventions can play in resolving generational differences and dealing with conflict, should it occur. It recognises that improved communication is crucial to successful change in the workplace and that new generational groups in the workplace can complement and support the efforts of existing employees in creating a strong viable future for the whole organisation. Model limitations The article acknowledges that several limitations attach to the model. First, assimilationist approaches have attracted criticism for their attempts to submerge differences and integrate individuals to the norms of the prevalent group. Both Awbrey (2007) and Young (1990) outline a series of problems with assimilation. They argue that assimilation means that groups who differ from the conventional culture cannot participate in defining the rules and standards used to make meaning. Second, it allows a dominant in-group to ignore its own distinctiveness and act as if its views are universal, neutral and accepted by all. Third, assimilation promotes self-alienation by engendering self-denigration where individuals differ from the neutral, accepted norm. Furthermore, it encourages that a potential consequence of assimilation is the adoption of false or dual identities or as a means of masking individual beliefs and values. References Acompora, A. and Boissoneau, R. (1997), “The needs of older workers in marketing organisations”, Journal of Professional Services Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 105-18. Appelbaum, S.H., Serena, M. and Shapiro, B.T. (2005), “Generation ‘X’ and the Boomers: an analysis of realities and myths”, Management Research News, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 1-33. Arsenault, P.M. (2004), “Validating generational differences: a legitimate diversity and leadership issue”, Leadership & Organisation Development Journal, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 124-41. Awbrey, S.M. (2007), “The dynamics of vertical and horizontal diversity in organization and society”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 7-32. Beersma, B., Hollenbeck, J.R., Humphrey, S.E., Moon, H., Conlon, D.E. and Ilgen, D.R. (2003), “Cooperation, competition and team performance: toward a contingency approach”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 572-90. Bogdanowicz, M.S. and Bailey, E.K. (2002), “The value of knowledge and the values of the new knowledge worker: Generation X in the new economy”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 26 Nos 2-4, pp. 125-9. Burke, W.W. (2002), Organization Change: Theory and Practice, Sage Publications, London. Byrne, D.E. (1971), The Attraction Paradigm, Academic Press, New York, NY. Cameron, E. and Green, M. (2004), Making Sense of Change Management, Kogan Page, London. Cascio, W.F. and Rhodes, S.R. (1996), “Age related differences in work attitudes and behaviour: a review and conceptual analysis”, Psychological Bulletin, March, pp. 328-67. Cetron, M.J. and Davies, O. (2003), “Trends shaping the future: technological, workplace, management and institutional trends”, The Futurist, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 30-43. Chatman, J.A. and Flynn, F.J. (2001), “The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the emergence and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 956-74.

Chatman, J.A., Polzer, J.T., Barsade, S.G. and Neale, M.A. (1998), “Being different yet feeling similar: the influence of demographic composition and organizational culture on work processes and outcomes”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 43, pp. 749-80. Clausing, S.L., Kurtz, D.L., Prendeville, J. and Walt, J.L. (2003), “Generational diversity – the Nexters”, AORN Journal, Vol. 78 No. 3, pp. 373-9. Costello, B., Lenholt, R. and Stryker, J. (2004), “Using Blackboard in library instruction: addressing the learning styles of Generations X and Y”, Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 452-60. Dobbs, M. (1996), “Managing diversity: lessons from the private sector”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 25, pp. 351-67. Dovidio, J.F., Gaertner, S.L. and Validzic, A. (1998), “Intergroup bias: status, differentiation, and a common in-group identity”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 109-20. Elrod, P.D. and Tippett, D.D. (2001), “The ‘death valley’ of change”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 15, pp. 273-91. Elsdon, R. and Lyer, S. (1999), “Creating value and enhancing retention through employee development: the Sun Microsystems experience”, Human Resource Planning, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 39-48. Ely, R.J. (1994), “The effects of organisational demographics and social identity on relationships among professional women”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39, pp. 203-38. Eriksen, T.Y. (2002), Ethnicity and Nationalism: Anthropological Perspectives, Pluto Press, New York, NY. Feyerheim, A. and Wick, Y.H. (2005), “Generation X women in high technology: overcoming gender and generational challenges to succeed in the corporate environment”, Career Development International, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 216-27. Ford, R. (2006), “Organizational learning, change and power: towards a practice-theory framework”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 495-524. Glass, A. (2007), “Understanding generational differences for competitive success”, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 98-103. Greller, M.M. (1990), “The changing workforce and organisation effectiveness: an agenda for change?”, Journal of Organisational Change Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 4-15. Harris, P.R. and Moran, R.T. (1996), Managing Cultural Differences, Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, TX. Herriot, P. (2002), “Selection and self: selection as a social process”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 385-402. Hill, R.P. (2002), “Managing across generations in the 21st century: important lessons from the ivory trenches”, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 60-72. Hogg, M.A. and Terry, D.J. (2000), “Social identity and self-categorisation processes in organizational contexts”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 121-40. Hutchings, K. (2006), “Diversity and HRD”, in Holland, P. and De Cieri, H. (Eds), Contemporary Issues in Human Resource Development: An Australian Perspective, Pearson, Melbourne. Jackson, S.E., Brett, J.F., Sessa, V.L., Cooper, D.M., Julin, J.A. and Peyronnin, K. (1991), “Some differences make a difference: interpersonal dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotion and turnover”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76, pp. 675-89. Jayson, S. (2006), “Generation Y gets involved”, USA Today, 24 October, p. D1.


JEIT 31,8

606

Jehn, K.A. and Mannix, E.A. (2001), “The dynamic nature of conflict: a longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 238-51. Judge, T.A. and Ferris, G.R. (1993), “Social context of performance evaluation decisions”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 80-105. Kandola, R. and Fullerton, J. (1994), Managing the Mosaic: Diversity in Action, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, London. Kirton, G. and Greene, A.M. (2003), The Dynamics of Managing Diversity: A Critical Approach, Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford. Ku¨bler-Ross, E. (1969), On Death and Dying, Touchstone, New York, NY. Kupperschmidt, B.R. (2000), “Multigenerational employees: strategies for effective management”, The Health Care Manager, Vol. 19, pp. 65-76. Langer, B. (1999), “Blaming the Baby Boomers”, Arena Magazine, December, p. 38. Legge, K. (1995), Human Resource Management: Rhetorics and Realities, Macmillan, London. Liff, S. (1997), “Two routes to managing diversity: individual differences of social group characteristics?”, Employee Relations, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 11-23. Loomis, J.E. (2000), Generation X, Rough Notes Co., Indianapolis, IN. Mabey, C., Salaman, G. and Storey, J. (1998), Human Resource Management: A Strategic Introduction, Macmillan, London. McEvoy, G.M. and Cascio, W.F. (1989), “Cumulative evidence of the relationship between employee age and job performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, pp. 11-17. McManus, S.A. (1997), “The nation’s changing age profile: what does it mean?”, in Thau, R.D. and Heflin, J.S. (Eds), Generations Apart: Xers vs. Boomers vs. the Elderly, Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY, pp. 110-39. Manuel, K. (2002), “Teaching information literacy to Generation Y”, Journal of Library Administration, Vol. 36 Nos 1/2, pp. 195-217. Martin, C.A. (2005), “From high maintenance to high productivity: what managers need to know about Generation Y”, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 39-44. Maurer, R. (1996), Beyond the Wall of Resistance: Unconventional Startegies that Build Support for Change, Bard Press, Austin, TX. Mehra, A., Kilduff, M. and Brass, D.J. (1998), “At the margins: a distinctiveness approach to the social identity and social networks of underrpresented groups”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 441-52. Messick, D. and Mackie, D. (1989), “Intergroup relations”, in Rosenzweig, M.R. and Porter, L.W. (Eds), Annual Review of Psychology,Vol. 40, Annual Reviews, Palo Alto, CA. Ntatsopoulos, J. (2001), “Managing a blended workforce”, Australian Master Human Resources Guide 2002, CCH Australia, Sydney, pp. 1055-69. O’Bannon, G. (2001), “Managing our future: the Generation X factor”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 95-109. O’Brien, G. (2002), “Participation as the key to successful change: a public sector case study”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 442-55. O’Reilly, B. and Vella-Zarb, K. (2000), “Meet the future”, in Luhman, R. (Ed.), The Sociological Outlook: A Text with Readings, 7th ed., Collegiate Publishing Group, San Diego, CA.. O’Reilly, C.A., Caldwell, D.F. and Barnett, W.P. (1989), “Work group demography, social integration, and turnover”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 34, pp. 21-37.

Park, R.E. (1950), “The nature of race relations”, in Back, L. and Solomos, J. (Eds), Theories of Race and Racism: A Reader, Routledge, New York, NY. Patota, N., Schwartz, D. and Schwartz, T. (2007), “Leveraging generational differences for productivity gains”, Journal of American Academy of Business, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 1-10. Paul, R. and Townsend, J. (1993), “Managing the older worker – don’t just rinse away the gray”, Academy of Executive Management, Vol. 7, pp. 67-74. Peppas, S.C. (2001), “Subcultural similarities and differences: an examination of US core values”, Cross-Cultural Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 59-70. Pfeffer, J. (1983), “Organisational demography”, in Cummings, L.L. and Staw, B.M. (Eds), Research in Organisational Behaviour, Vol. 5, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 299-357. Pickett, C.L. and Brewer, M.B. (2001), “Assimilation and differentiation needs as motivational determinants of perceived in-group and out-group homogeneity”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 37, pp. 341-8. Rashford, N.S. and Coghlan, D. (1989), “Phases and levels of organisational change”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 4, pp. 17-22. Report, C.F. (1993), Commonwealth Fund, New York, NY. Schuman, H. and Scott, J. (1989), “Generations and collective memories”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 54, pp. 359-81. Southard, G. and Lewis, J. (2004), “Building a workforce that recognises generational diversity”, Public Management, April. Stauffer, D. (1997), “For Generation Xers, what counts isn’t work or all play”, Management Review, Vol. 86 No. 11, pp. 7-19. Steane, P. and Christie, M. (2001), “Nonprofit boards in Australia: a distinctive governance approach”, Corporate Governance: An International Review, Vol. 9 No. 1. Tajfel, H. (1972), “Social categorisation” (English manuscript of “La Categorisation Sociale”), in Moscovici, S. (Ed.), Introduction a la Psychologie Sociale, Vol. 1, Larousse, Paris. Taylor, P. and Walker, A. (1994), “The aging workforce: employer’s attitudes towards older people”, Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 569-91. Tsui, A.S., Egan, T.D. and O’Reilly, C.A. (1992), “Being different: relational demography and organizational attachment”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 37, pp. 549-79. Tulgan, B. (1996), Managing Generation X: How to Bring Out the Best in Young Talent, Capstone, Oxford. Turner, J.C. (1985), “Social categorisation and the self concept: a social cognitive theory of group behaviour”, Advances in Group Processes, Vol. 2, pp. 77-121. Vakola, M., Tsaousis, I. and Nikolaou, I. (2004), “The role of emotional intelligence and personality variables on attitudes toward organisational change”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 19, pp. 88-110. Vakola, M. and Nikolaou, I. (2005), “Attitudes towards organizational change: what is the role of employees’ stress and commitment?”, Employee Relations, Vol. 27, pp. 160-74. Wagner, W.G., Pfeffer, J. and O’Reilly, C.A. (1984), “Organisational demography and turnover in top management groups”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 29, pp. 74-92. Westerman, J.W. and Yamamura, J.H. (2007), “Generational preferences for work environment fit: effects on employee outcomes”, Career Development International, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 150-61. Young, I.M. (1990), Justice and the Politics of Difference, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.


JEIT 31,8

Yu, H.C. and Miller, P. (2005), “Leadership style: the X Generation and Baby Boomers compared in different cultural contexts”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 35-50. Zenger, T.R. and Lawrence, B.S. (1989), “Organisational demography: the differential effects of age and tenure distributions on technical communication”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32, pp. 353-76.

608 About the authors David McGuire is a Lecturer in Human Resource Development at Napier University Business School, Edinburgh, UK. He is an Editorial Board member of Advances in Developing Human Resources and Journal of European Industrial Training. His research interests include boundary setting in human resource development (HRD), critical approaches to HRD, and the use of competency frameworks. He is a former recipient of the Irish American Fulbright Scholarship and also received a government of Ireland scholarship for his doctoral dissertation from the University of Limerick. David McGuire is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected] Rune Todnem By is a Lecturer in Organisational Change Management at the School of Business & Enterprise, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh. He delivers sessions on change management at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels, including MBA, MSc, Executive Master’s in Public Services Management and the Professional Doctorate Programme in Health Management. His research interest is organisational change management focusing on change readiness, public services management and sustainable development. His article “Organisational change management: a critical review” was identified the most downloaded article from the Journal of Change Management in 2006. Kate Hutchings (PhD, UQ) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Management, Monash University, Australia. She was previously employed at the Queensland University of Technology and prior to that at the University of Queensland. She has taught in China and Malaysia as well as having held visiting positions in the USA, Denmark, and France. Amongst others, her research has appeared in Human Resource Management Journal, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Journal of Management Studies, Journal of Organizational Change Management, and Thunderbird International Business Review. Her current research interests include expatriate management, HRM in China, OFDI in China, and intercultural knowledge sharing. She is the Asia-Pacific editor for the International Journal of Emerging Markets, and is on the editorial board of several international journals.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints