National Academies Press: OpenBook

Are Generational Categories Meaningful Distinctions for Workforce Management? (2020)

Chapter: Appendix A: Details of Literature Review

« Previous: References
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Details of Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Are Generational Categories Meaningful Distinctions for Workforce Management?. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25796.
×
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Details of Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Are Generational Categories Meaningful Distinctions for Workforce Management?. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25796.
×
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Details of Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Are Generational Categories Meaningful Distinctions for Workforce Management?. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25796.
×
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Details of Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Are Generational Categories Meaningful Distinctions for Workforce Management?. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25796.
×
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Details of Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Are Generational Categories Meaningful Distinctions for Workforce Management?. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25796.
×
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Details of Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Are Generational Categories Meaningful Distinctions for Workforce Management?. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25796.
×
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Details of Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Are Generational Categories Meaningful Distinctions for Workforce Management?. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25796.
×
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Details of Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Are Generational Categories Meaningful Distinctions for Workforce Management?. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25796.
×
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Details of Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Are Generational Categories Meaningful Distinctions for Workforce Management?. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25796.
×
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Details of Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Are Generational Categories Meaningful Distinctions for Workforce Management?. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25796.
×
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Details of Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Are Generational Categories Meaningful Distinctions for Workforce Management?. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25796.
×
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Details of Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Are Generational Categories Meaningful Distinctions for Workforce Management?. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25796.
×
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Details of Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Are Generational Categories Meaningful Distinctions for Workforce Management?. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25796.
×
Page 122
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Details of Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Are Generational Categories Meaningful Distinctions for Workforce Management?. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25796.
×
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Details of Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Are Generational Categories Meaningful Distinctions for Workforce Management?. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25796.
×
Page 124
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Details of Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Are Generational Categories Meaningful Distinctions for Workforce Management?. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25796.
×
Page 125
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Details of Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Are Generational Categories Meaningful Distinctions for Workforce Management?. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25796.
×
Page 126
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Details of Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Are Generational Categories Meaningful Distinctions for Workforce Management?. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25796.
×
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Details of Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Are Generational Categories Meaningful Distinctions for Workforce Management?. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25796.
×
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Details of Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Are Generational Categories Meaningful Distinctions for Workforce Management?. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25796.
×
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Details of Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Are Generational Categories Meaningful Distinctions for Workforce Management?. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25796.
×
Page 130
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Details of Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Are Generational Categories Meaningful Distinctions for Workforce Management?. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25796.
×
Page 131
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Details of Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Are Generational Categories Meaningful Distinctions for Workforce Management?. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25796.
×
Page 132
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: Details of Literature Review." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Are Generational Categories Meaningful Distinctions for Workforce Management?. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25796.
×
Page 133

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs   Appendix A Details of Literature Review This appendix describes the committee’s strategy for gathering and reviewing the business management and behavioral science literature on generational attitudes and behaviors in workforce management and employment practices. The committee’s primary objective was to identify and take stock of this body of literature: its size, the types of research questions examined, the types of research designs, and any agreement on findings among researchers. Our initial search of the literature uncovered a number of literature reviews that had already been conducted on this body of work, and our focus turned to understanding what these reviews had found. It was clear that there was much debate on the quality and value of research in this area. We found that where efforts had been made to synthesize findings across studies, the conclusions drawn were inconsistent, and there was disagreement on whether effect sizes on “generation effects” were significant enough to be meaningful and whether observed effects were even related to generations or had other explanations. The committee’s findings and conclusions that resulted from looking at the debates in the literature are discussed in Chapter 4. This appendix outlines the particular articles the committee reviewed and gives readers a sense of where the literature can be found, what topics are covered, and what primary research designs were used. Through the National Academies Research Center, the committee conducted electronic searches in Scopus and ProQuest (see the search syntax in Box A-1). We supplemented our electronic searches with suggestions made by committee members and invited presenters and citations of relevant articles in the previously published literature reviews on this topic identified during our search. We classified a long list of references by their research designs. Further, we reviewed and discussed the observations, findings, and conclusions of previously published literature reviews. Additionally, we conducted a small pilot review of a subset of the articles identified in our electronic search to appreciate the issues discussed in earlier critiques of this literature. LITERATURE SEARCH We conducted the first electronic search at the beginning of the study (March 2019) to identify articles published after 1979 in the United States and internationally. This search resulted in 306 articles (96% of which were published after 1999). Of these, we found 57 to be irrelevant to our study or duplicative. To ensure that we considered other work-related articles on generational attitudes and behaviors without attention to differences, we conducted a second electronic search in August 2019 for articles published after 1999 using the same databases and similar search syntax, but without the search terms for “differences” or “effect.” This second search resulted in another 121 articles. A ‐ 1   

Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs   BOX A-1 Database Search Syntax Scopus: TITLE-ABS-KEY(("generational difference*" OR "generational effect*" OR "age effect*" OR "period effect*" OR "cohort effect*") AND (employment* OR occupation* OR "at work" OR workforce* OR job OR workplace*) AND ("Analytical method*" OR "longitudinal study" OR "longitudinal studies" OR "longitudinal survey" OR "longitudinal data" OR "observational study" OR "observational studies" OR "cohort study" OR "cohort studies" OR "survey research" OR "survey method" OR Questionnaire* OR Interview* OR "empirical research")) AND PUBYEAR > 1979 TITLE-ABS-KEY((“Generational difference” OR “generational differences” OR (“baby boomer*” AND (“generation y” OR “generation z” OR “millennial generation” OR “generation me” OR “igen”)) AND ({a total of} OR {N=} OR {survey of} OR data OR empirical OR cohort*) AND (“meaningful work” OR workforce OR workplace OR employment OR “job satisfaction” OR “work values” OR “work life” OR “employee engagement”)) AND PUBYEAR > 1979 ProQuest Research Library: ti(("Generational difference" OR "generational differences")) AND noft(("Analytical method*" OR "longitudinal study" OR "longitudinal studies" OR "longitudinal survey" OR "longitudinal data" OR "observational study" OR "observational studies" OR "cohort study" OR "cohort studies" OR "survey research" OR "survey method" OR Questionnaire* OR Interview* OR "empirical research")) AND noft(("meaningful work" OR workforce OR workplace OR employment OR "job satisfaction" OR "work values" OR "work life" OR "employee engagement")) su(generations) AND noft((("Generational difference" OR "generational differences")) ) AND noft((("Analytical method*" OR "longitudinal study" OR "longitudinal studies" OR "longitudinal survey" OR "longitudinal data" OR "observational study" OR "observational studies" OR "cohort study" OR "cohort studies" OR "survey research" OR "survey method" OR Questionnaire* OR Interview* OR "empirical research" or data or empirical or cohort* OR survey))) AND noft((employment* OR occupation* OR "at work" OR workforce* OR job OR workplace*) ) NOTE: These databases were selected by the National Academies Research Center because they are comprehensive, multidisciplinary, accessible, and available to Academies staff and their committees. Scopus is one of the largest multidisciplinary abstract databases containing peer- reviewed literature. ProQuest Research Library nicely complements Scopus as it also targets multidisciplinary peer-reviewed literature, and it includes trade publications and magazines to round out the search. [END BOX] A ‐ 2   

Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs   Among the articles were 15 previously published literature reviews on this same body of research, each of which reflects a different approach. We categorized the reviews into four types: (1) meta-analyses (reviews that quantitatively compare findings across studies by calculating the effect sizes or other metric to quantify the relationship between generational membership or age- and work-related outcomes, values, or attitudes); (2) systematic or structured reviews (reviews that descriptively identify and synthesize information about findings across empirical studies); (3) sector-specific reviews (reviews that descriptively identify and synthesize information about findings from empirical studies focused on specific employment sectors); and (4) commentaries and methodological validations (articles that explore methodological, analytical, and/or theoretical issues in the literature). Table A-1 summarizes the methods, major findings, and conclusions from these reviews. An additional 16 articles were also flagged as literature reviews, as opposed to empirical studies, but the authors of these articles were less systematic or structured in their reviews relative to the reviews described in Table A-1, which were designed to reflect the state of the evidence. To finalize our list of generational literature, we compared our initial list with articles identified by other reviews, recording another 188 articles. We screened the titles and abstracts of these articles to ensure that they focused on generational attitudes and behaviors in the workforce and to determine their research designs where possible. In some cases, we relied on the assessment of other reviews to determine research designs, while in other cases we screened the full articles. The studies identified through the above search process are quite international in scope, with more than 25 countries represented among samples and authors; however, most of these studies use U.S. generational categories. A range of industries, from counseling to transportation, are represented—one to three articles each except for nursing and the hospitality industry, for which there are significantly more studies (see the listing of cross-sectional studies later in this appendix). The following list identifies journals with five or more articles regarding generations and work-related outcomes:  Career Developmental International  Employee Relations  Industrial and Commercial Training  Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice (special issue on this topic in 2015)  International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management  International Journal of Hospitality Management  Journal of Advanced Nursing  Journal of Business and Psychology (special issue on this topic in 2010)  Journal of Intergenerational Relationships  Journal of Managerial Psychology (special issue on this topic in 2015)  Journal of Nursing Administration  Journal of Nursing Management  Work, Aging and Retirement (special issue on this topic in 2017) The following are examples of topics/constructs covered in the articles: A ‐ 3   

Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs    age and perceptions of hiring, earnings inequality, ageism in young workers, reverse ageism;  anticipated and perceived organizational support;  balance in work–family and work–leisure, conflict and synergy;  communication styles, knowledge sharing;  distress and negative social environments, mistreatment;  employee engagement and motivation;  generational identities;  leadership styles and preferences;  social contracts, psychological contracts;  values—organizational, work, career;  work satisfaction, burnout, turnover;  research methodology, analysis, and theory for studying generations;  millenials and stereotypes, archetypes, employee development and commitment, turnover factors, managers’ perceptions of, leading millennials, characteristics of, health care motivations of, sense of entitlement; and  generation Y and female leaders, employee expectations, tenure in hospitality industry, nursing, preference for place of residence, empowerment, competencies, and satisfaction. TABLE A-1 Summary of Methods, Major Findings, and Conclusions from Meta-Analyses and Structured Reviews Sources Methods, Major Findings, Conclusions Meta-Analyses 1. Ng, T. W. H. and  This meta-analysis focuses on the relationship of age as Feldman, D. C. (2010). opposed to generation with job attitudes. It is an indication The relationships of age of how much more research is available on age and work. with job attitudes: A The review also touches on questions related to meta-analysis. generational differences and provides references to the Personnel Psychology generational literature. 63, 677–718.  Job attitudes are defined as summary evaluations of psychological objects in the work domain in three broad categories: task-based attitudes, people-based attitudes, and organization-based attitudes. A ‐ 4   

Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs    Studies were conducted in the 1970s to 2009.  Most studies are cross-sectional.  Studies used a standard protocol with meta-analytic correlations measuring the relationship between age and attitudes.  “Results of meta-analyses from more than 800 articles indicate that the relationships between chronological age and favorable attitudes (and/or to less unfavorable attitudes) toward work tasks, colleagues and supervisors, and organizations are generally significant and weak to moderate in strength. Moderator analyses also revealed that organizational tenure, race, gender, education level, and publication year of study moderate the relationships between age and job attitudes” (p. 677). 2. Costanza, D. P.,  The meta-analysis covers generational differences in three Badger, J. M., Fraser, work-related attitude areas: job satisfaction, organizational R. L., Severt, J. B., and commitment, and intent to turn over. Gade, P. A. (2012).  Review of published and unpublished research found 20 Generational studies that met inclusion criteria and contained sufficient differences in work- information to calculate effect sizes, allowing for related attitudes: A generational comparisons across four generations meta-analysis. Journal (traditionals, baby boomers, generation Xers, and of Business and millennials) on these outcomes using 19,961 total subjects. Psychology 27(4), 375–  Studies were conducted between 1995 and 2009. Four of 394. the studies were conducted outside the United States. All studies are cross-sectional.  The paper includes a table of all studies with effect sizes and study characteristics.  “The pattern of results indicates that the relationships between generational membership and work-related outcomes are moderate to small, essentially zero in many cases” (p. 375). Country was not an important factor. 3. Jin, J., and Rounds,  Reviews longitudinal studies to investigate stability and J. (2012). Stability and change in work values across the life span. change in work values:  Includes 22 studies that met inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis of  Uses four age categories collapsed into two: baby boomers longitudinal studies. (boomers; born 1946–1964), and generation X (genX; born Journal of Vocational 1965–1981). Behavior 80(2), 326–  Among other results, “with regard to generational 339 difference, boomers and genX differed little in terms of intrinsic values. However, boomers increased their extrinsic values over time (d = .06), while those of genX decreased at a similar level (d = −.07).a However, neither was significantly different from zero. For both boomers and A ‐ 5   

Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs   genX, social values decreased significantly over time, with the magnitude of decrease for genX (d = −.16) larger than that for boomers (d = −.12). With respect to status values, those of boomers remained unchanged over time, while those of genX decreased dramatically (d = −.13); however, the confidence intervals were 0 for both boomers and genX” (p. 335).b  “Consistent with [their] hypothesis, the authors found that while work values remained rather stable when indexed by rank-order stability, they did change when viewed from the mean-level perspective” (p. 335). Systematic or Structured Reviews 4. Twenge, J. M.  Reviews the available evidence—primarily papers (2010). A review of the published in peer-reviewed journals—on generational empirical evidence on differences in work values (in the categories of work ethic, generational differences work centrality, and leisure; altruistic values; extrinsic in work attitudes. versus intrinsic values; affiliation or social values; and job Journal of Business and satisfaction and intention to leave), and on personality Psychology 25(2), differences relevant to the workplace. 201–210.  The studies reviewed used time-lag (which can separate generation from age/career stage) and cross-sectional (which cannot) methods.  The studies reviewed used respondents from Australia, Belgium, Europe as a whole, New Zealand, and the United States.  Where possible, effect sizes are noted for generational differences in terms of d.  “Most studies, including the few time-lag studies, show that GenX and especially "GenMe" [author’s term for genY or millennials] rate work as less central to their lives, value leisure more, and express a weaker work ethic than Boomers and Silents. Extrinsic work values (e.g., salary) are higher in GenMe and especially GenX. Contrary to popular conceptions, there were no generational differences in altruistic values (e.g., wanting to help others). Conflicting results appeared in desire for job stability, intrinsic values (e.g., meaning), and social/affiliative values (e.g., making friends). GenX, and especially GenMe are consistently higher in individualistic traits” (p. 201).  Overall, the author believe that generational differences are important where they appear, as even small changes at the average mean that twice or three times as many individuals score at the top of the distribution. A ‐ 6   

Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs   5. Parry, E., and Urwin,  “This paper presents a critical review of the theoretical P. (2011). Generational basis and empirical evidence for the popular practitioner differences in work idea that there are generational differences in work values” values: A review of (p. 79). theory and evidence.  Reviews literature since 1983 that relates to Western International Journal of democracies, mainly the United States and Europe but also Management Reviews other parts of the world, to examine whether generations 13(1), 79–96. differ within different countries and cultures.  “The concept of generations has a strong basis in sociological theory, but the academic empirical evidence for generational differences in work values is, at best, mixed. Many studies are unable to find the predicted differences in work values, and those that do often fail to distinguish between ‘generation’ and ‘age’ as possible drivers of such observed differences. In addition, the empirical literature is fraught with methodological limitations through the use of cross-sectional research designs in most studies, confusion about the definition of a generation as opposed to a cohort, and a lack of consideration for differences in national context, gender and ethnicity" (p. 79). 6. Lyons, S., and  Provides a “critical review” of the research evidence Kuron, L. (2014). concerning generational differences in a variety of work- Generational related variables, including personality, work values, work differences in the attitudes, leadership, teamwork, work–life balance, and workplace: A review of career patterns. the evidence and  Presents longitudinal and cross-sectional evidence. directions for future  Comments on the degree to which context (e.g., historical, research. Journal of cultural, occupational, and organizational) is considered in Organizational Behavior the research. Distinguishes U.S. studies from those 35(SUPPL.1), S139– conducted elsewhere. S157.  Describes broader generational trends in each area, rather than pairwise comparisons.  Authors indicate that the “growing body of research, particularly in the past 5 years, remains largely descriptive, rather than exploring the theoretical underpinnings of the generation construct. Evidence to date is fractured, contradictory, and fraught with methodological inconsistencies that make generalizations difficult. The results of time-lag, cross-temporal meta-analytic, and cross- sectional studies provide sufficient "proof of concept" for generation as a workplace variable” (p. S139). 7. Woodward, I.,  This is not a peer-reviewed article but was identified at a Vongswasdi, P., and committee meeting as a study that was conducted by an A ‐ 7   

Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs   More, E. (2015). international business school and includes a number of Generational diversity references to the generational literature. at work: A systematic  The review is very descriptive. The authors claim it is the review of the research. only systematic review conducted to date. Working Paper Series  Reviews 50 studies, finding numerous differences among 2015/48/OB. INSEAD, generations. The Business School  The authors conclude that, “taken collectively, the findings for the World. provide sufficient support for the notion that generational differences are a valid and legitimate form of diversity in organizations. Overall, this empirical evidence suggests that although generations do share certain similarities (with some mixed results that are anything but conclusive), they also differ in various aspects ranging from work values and work attitudes to other work-related preferences and behaviors” (p. 42). 8. Ng, E. S., and Parry,  Reviews “evidence from existing research studies to E. (2016). establish the areas of differences that may exist among the Multigenerational different generations” (p. 1), with a particular emphasis on research in human the millennial generation. The review strategy is not clearly resource management. described. Research in Personnel  Describes differences found across studies in personality, and Human Resources work values, psychological contracts, and generational Management 34, 1–41. differences that are relevant to human resource management practices in such areas as new workforce entrants, retaining baby boomers, the changing nature of work and careers, the quest for work–life balance, and leadership preferences.  Although the authors recognize that “critics argue that the effect sizes in the differences are small…[they also recognize] sufficient research studies point to meaningful and material differences across the four generations with respect to their work values, attitudes, and career expectations….” (p. 26) 9. Stassen, L., Anseel, (This article had to be translated from the German.) F., and Levecque, K.  This is a systematic review of empirical studies, providing (2016). an overview of the evidence for generational differences in Generational the workplace. differences in the  The authors critique 6 randomly chosen cross-sectional workplace: A studies, then provide a more thorough review of 20 systematic analysis of a empirical studies from 2005 to 2014, using the following myth. Gedrag & inclusion criteria: (1) the study had to investigate a Organisatie Vol. 29, difference between generations, (2) one of the generations March 2016, nr. 1. had to be “generation Y,” and (3) the study had to have workplace attitude as a dependent variable or value. A ‐ 8   

Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs    The authors conclude that there is little evidence to date in the scientific literature for distinguishing generations with respect to the workplace. 10. Rudolph, C. W., Presents “a critical review of theory, empirical research, and Rauvola, R., and practical applications regarding generational differences in Zacher, H. (2018). leadership phenomena” (p. 44). The authors “call for a Leadership and moratorium to be placed upon the application of the ideas of generations at work: A generations and generational differences to leadership theory, critical review. research, and practice” (p. 44). Leadership Quarterly 29(1), 44–57.  The authors conducted a structured search only for empirical studies published in peer-reviewed journals to identify the literature relevant to leadership and generations.  They included 18 articles that used cross-sectional and mixed methods, with samples from a variety of industry sectors.  The review found “relatively little empirical research that studies leadership and generations, suggesting that most of the popular literature that claims evidence for generational differences in leadership phenomena is based on little more than (theoretical) supposition and (anecdotal) conjecture” (p. 48).  “Results of cross-sectional survey studies on leadership and generations provide mixed results regarding the existence of generational differences in leadership preferences” (p. 51).  “…results of mixed-method studies on leadership and generations are equivocal in nature: while some qualitative differences between generational cohorts were found, particularly in terms of leadership trait rankings, many of these thematic divergences are not mutually exclusive… and suggest overlap between generations” (p. 52). Sector-Specific Reviews 11. Sakdiyakorn, M.  This article presents a systematic review of peer-reviewed and Wattanacharoensil, journal articles related to multigenerations within the W. (2018). hospitality workplace. Generational diversity  Methods used were very systematic, following standard in the workplace: A procedures for systematic reviews. The authors identified systematic review in 49 articles published from 2000 to 2016. the hospitality  Most studies reviewed are cross-sectional. context. Cornell  “Certain patterns on levels of job satisfaction, commitment, Hospitality Quarterly turnover intentions, and [organizational citizenship 2018, Vol. 59(2) 135– behavior] among different generations were apparent. In A ‐ 9   

Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs   159. (Authors from particular, several studies showed baby boomers followed Thailand) by generation X to obtain higher level of desired organizational outcomes, such as higher job satisfaction, higher commitment, higher time spent in job, and lower turnover intention, compared with generation Y. Other studies reported similar findings from the angle of generation Y, showing lower job satisfaction, lower commitment, and higher turnover compared with other generations” (p. 146). 12. Stevanin, S., Palese,  This is a systematic review using standard methods. A., Bressan, V.,  Thirty-three studies met the inclusion criteria, with three Vehviläinen-Julkunen, main themes: (1) job attitudes, (2) emotion-related job K., and Kvist, T. aspects, and (3) practice- and leadership-related aspects. (2018). Workplace-  “Twenty-one (63.6%) studies used a quantitative design, related generational five (15.2%) a qualitative design, three (9.1%) a characteristics of triangulated methodology with both a qualitative and nurses: A mixed- quantitative design, and one (3%) a mixed method design; method systematic three (9.1%) did not report the design used” (p. 1248). review. Journal of  “Among the quantitative studies, only one was Advanced Nursing longitudinal…while the others were cross-sectional; the 74(6), 1245–1263. qualitative studies used primarily explorative, descriptive, and phenomenological designs” (p. 1248).  “Some intergenerational differences in workplace-related themes and subthemes emerged in the findings consistently, while others reported conflicting results” (p. 1258). Commentaries and Methodological Validations 13. Costanza, D. P.,  Reviews and assesses, through analyses of secondary data, Darrow, J. B., Yost, A. “the most common analytical methods that have been used B., and Severt, J. B. in studying generational differences in social science (2017). A review of research…group comparisons using cross-sectional data, analytical methods used cross-temporal meta-analysis using time-lagged panels, and to study generational cross-classified hierarchical linear modeling using time- differences: Strengths lagged panels” (p. 149). and limitations. Work,  The purpose of the review was “to provide evidence about Aging and Retirement the extent to which the analytic methods that have been 3(2), 149–165. used affect the conclusions drawn about possible differences among generational groups” (p. 153).  The authors “found that each analytic method produced slightly different results, yet none was able to fully capture differences attributable to generational membership” (p. 149). A ‐ 10   

Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs   14. Parry, E. and  Identifies “methodological challenges that highlight the Urwin, P. (2017). The inappropriateness of cross-sectional designs in the study of evidence base for generations, as it is impossible to identify whether generational generation, period, or age effects are driving differences differences: Where do between any age groups surveyed. Second, and more we go from here? Work, fundamentally, [the authors] argue that the approach taken Aging and Retirement across most generational studies is methodologically 3(2), 140–148. flawed, even when more appropriate datasets are used” (p. 141). “Ultimately, this derives from a “gap” that exists between the theoretical underpinnings claimed for this work and the empirical approaches that have been adopted in recent years” (p. 144).  The authors illustrate this gap by “using historical longitudinal data and, second, by looking for patterns within the data rather than applying generational categories a priori” (p. 141). They find that “cohort effects are predominant in early years, but then age effects dominate to demonstrate that different cohorts become less dissimilar in their 40s and beyond” (p. 145).  The authors “suggest that the patterns identified to date are simply a reflection of long-term trends in society rather than proposed differences between generational cohorts” (p. 145). 15. Rudolph, C. W. and  The authors “extend recent critiques of research on Zacher, H. (2017). generations in the work context by proposing a Considering differentiated lifespan developmental perspective” (p. 113). generations from a  The authors argue that “traditional sociological perspectives lifespan developmental on generations are too deterministic and reductionist for perspective. Work, understanding psychological phenomena concerning work Aging and Retirement and aging” (p. 120). They suggest “that a more 3(2), 113–129. contemporary model for understanding generations must be grounded in the traditions of lifespan developmental contextualism” (p. 120) and should be used to guide research with the following propositions “Proposition 1. Historical and sociocultural contexts impact experiences and behavior at the individual level, not as shared generational effects. Proposition 2. Developmental contextualism implies that age, period, and cohort effects are codetermined and inherently inextricable. Proposition 3. A contextualized understanding of individual lifespan development necessitates alternative A ‐ 11   

Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs   operationalizations of age, period, and cohort effects” (p. 120). a Captures the difference in standard deviations between two groups (d = 0.20 = small; d = 0.50 = moderate; and d = 0.80 = large). b The committee observes that “dramatically” is too strong given a d of -.13. Most would call that less than a small effect. If the confidence interval includes 0, then one cannot reject the idea that d = .00. PILOT REVIEW The committee’s pilot review was conducted on 14 articles (listed in Table A-2) selected randomly from our first set of articles (306 articles minus 57 of those identified as irrelevant to this study) as follows: Round 1: Every 7th article out of the 249 articles, sorted alphabetically by first author, dated 2000 or later, generating 35 articles for Round 2. Round 2: Every 3rd article out of the subset of 35, sorted by date from oldest to newest, yielding 11 articles. In this draw, there was only 1 article with a research design that aimed to separate cohort effects from age or period effects (i.e., other than a cross- sectional or qualitative design). We added 3 articles to oversample articles using other statistical methods. The final draw resulted in 14 articles. Based on our understanding from previous reviews, as well as our own knowledge of studies in this area, we believed the sample of articles generated for our pilot review allowed us to appreciate the different research designs used in this literature and a mix of conclusions with regard to generational differences. Cross-sectional designs were prominent (eight studies). We were initially surprised that eight studies were conducted outside of the United States but have come to appreciate that a large percentage of the generational research is conducted in other countries. Many of these international studies use the U.S. generational labels (e.g., baby boomers and millennials) to categorize their groups. These articles acknowledge the limits of these labels, often with a note recognizing that people in their countries would have had different experiences at different times. For our pilot review, we developed a coding scheme. Two members of the committee and two National Academies staff manually coded the following characteristics of each article: (1) author(s) and publication year, title, and source; (2) country/countries in which the study was conducted; (3) data source (primary versus secondary data) and type (quantitative or qualitative); (4) sampling strategy (nonprobability, probability); (5) sample type (e.g., student or working adult) and associated industry if relevant; (6) respondent demographic characteristics as reported (e.g., age groupings, men/women, and race/ethnicity); and (7) study design. Two articles (Danigelis et al., 2007; Milner et al., 2019) were determined to be irrelevant for our task. There were no disagreements among the four reviewers on the nature of the publications, just opportunities to clarify what we were observing among the reviewers, as well as with the larger committee. Initially, we attempted to capture authors’ definitions of generation, proposed antecedents to hypothesized differences, and theoretical approach, but this effort proved to be unsatisfactory. None of the authors provide an antecedent, i.e., defining events or a set of experiences that would have influenced generations. With some exceptions, they generally point to earlier sociological theories on generational change and assume that generational influences would be responsible for observed differences. All authors use birth cohorts to define A ‐ 12   

Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs   generations, and most use popular generational terminology (e.g., baby boomers, millennials) to label groups of workers. Most of the quantitative studies are cross-sectional, having used convenience samples to collect primary data from self-reports on questionnaires, and in some cases through interviews. Several of the studies utilized snowball sampling (e.g., Krajcsak et al., 2014). Most of these studies examined work-related attitudes/values, with a noticeable focus on “commitment” (e.g., Raineri et al., 2012). Many of the pilot articles break findings down by men and women. Only one article notes that most of the sample was Caucasian; otherwise, the race/ethnicity of the samples is not considered. Notably, a few studies measure educational attainment, employment status, and/or life stage (e.g., have children). The findings, whether age or generation effects, across this pilot sample are mixed, with some authors reporting that their findings indicate differences among generation groups and others finding no differences on the measured values/attitudes. One study (Trzesniewski and Donnellan, 2010) used secondary, nationally representative data and cohort analysis to test the plausibility of previously reported cohort effects on psychological constructs. These authors found little evidence for significant distinctions among generations.   TABLE A-2 Articles in the Committee’s Pilot Review A ‐ 13   

Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs   Reference Study Type Antonczyk, D., DeLeire, T., and Fitzenberger, B. The study examines wage (2018). Polarization and rising wage inequality: inequality in the United States and Comparing the U.S. and Germany. Econometrics 6(2), Germany using nationally 1–33. representative survey data from 1979 to 2004 (probability samples) and an approach developed by MaCurdy and Mroz (1995) to separate age, time, and cohort effects. Cennamo, L., and D. Gardner (2008). Generational The study is cross-sectional and differences in work values, outcomes and person- based on self-report data, limiting organisation values fit. Journal of Managerial the generalizability of findings. A Psychology 23(8), 891–906. total of 504 Auckland employees representing a range of industries completed an online questionnaire. Danigelis, N. L., Hardy, M., and Cutler, S. (2007). The article examines attitude Population aging, intracohort aging, and sociopolitical change in the U.S. population using attitudes. American Sociological Review Vol. 72, No. 5, data from the General Social 812–830. Survey, 1972–2004, but the focus is not work-related or generational. Heritage, B., Breen, L., and Roberts, L. D. (2016). In- The study examines and compares groups, out-groups, and their contrasting perceptions of self-ratings and out-group values among generational cohorts of Australians. perceptions of the importance of the Australian Psychologist 51(3), 246–255. four overarching clusters of values in Schwartz's circumplex model by generation. A convenience sample of 157 participants completed an online survey of self-rated values and perceptions of another generation's values. Krajcsák, Z., Jonás, T., and Henrietta, F. (2014). An The study is cross-sectional, based analysis of commitment factors depending on on data from 661 respondents to a generation and part-time working in selected groups of questionnaire designed to analyze employees in Hungary. Argumenta Oeconomica 33(2), factors related to employee 115–144. commitment. Lyons, S. T., Duxbury, L., and Higgins, C. (2007). An This cross-sectional study assesses empirical assessment of generational differences in generational differences in human A ‐ 14   

Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs   basic human values. Psychological Reports 101(2), 339– values as measured by the Schwartz 352. Value Survey among a combined sample of Canadian knowledge workers and undergraduate business students (N = 1,194). Raineri, N., Paillé, P., and Morin, Denis. (2012). The authors use social exchange Organizational citizenship behavior: An theory to investigate whether intergenerational study. Revue Internationale de membership in the baby boomer Psychologie Sociale 25(3–4), 147–177. versus generation X group influences the relationships of organization- and colleague- directed support and commitment with organizational citizenship behavior, and uses structural equation modeling to analyze data from voluntary survey responses (N = 943). Singh, U. and Weimar, D. (2017). Empowerment This cross-sectional study among generations. German Journal of Human Resource investigated differences in people’s Management 31(4), 307–328. attitudes toward empowerment by generation and other demographic variables using survey data from a convenience sample (N = 492). Soni, S. Upadhyaya, M., and Kautish, P. (2011). This cross-sectional study Generational differences in work commitment of examined generational differences software professionals: Myth or reality? Abhigyan 28(4), for five types of work commitment. 30–42. A total of 250 respondents working in software industries were administered a questionnaire. Takase, M., Oba, K., and Yamashita, N. (2009). The purpose of the study was to Generational differences in factors influencing job identify specific work-related needs turnover among Japanese nurses: An exploratory and values of nurses in three comparative design. International Journal of Nursing generations. The study was Studies 46(7), 957–967. conducted in three public hospitals in Japan. A convenience sample of 315 registered nurses participated. A survey was used to collect quantitative and qualitative data. Trzesniewski, K. H. and Donnellan, M. B. (2010). This is a study of cohort effects Rethinking “generation me”: A study of cohort effects using large samples of U.S. high school seniors from 1976 to 2006 A ‐ 15   

Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs   from 1976–2006. Perspectives on Psychological Science from the Monitoring the Future 5(1), 58–75. program (total N = 477,380). The goal of the study was to test the strength of cohort effects on 31 psychological constructs. Twenge, J. M., Konrath, S., Foster, J. D., Keith This was a cross-temporal meta- Campbell, W., and Bushman, B. J. (2008). Egos analysis with time-lagged data from inflating over time: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of 85 samples of American college the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of students who completed the Personality 76(4), 875–902. Narcissistic Personality Inventory between 1979 and 2006 (N = 16,475). Baker Rosa, N. M. and Hastings, S. O. (2018). The purpose of this qualitative Managing millennials: Looking beyond generational study was to examine managers’ stereotypes. Journal of Organizational Change perceptions of millennial Management 31(4), 920–930. employees in organizations. In total, 25 interviews were conducted with managers in the hospitality industry. Milner, S., Demilly, H., and Pochic, S. (2019). This study evaluated a sample of Bargained equality: The strengths and weaknesses of 146 workplace agreements and workplace gender equality agreements and plans in plans on gender equality submitted France. British Journal of Industrial Relations 57(2), 75– in 2014–2015, in 10 sectors, and 301. involved in-depth interviews in 20 companies. The study examined “generational effects” in terms of process change and not differences among workers. A ‐ 16   

Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs   SAMPLE OF GENERATIONAL LITERATURE The following list of references is intended to illustrate the types of empirical studies the committee found in assembling the literature related to generational attitudes and behaviors in the workforce. The list is organized by research design and then alphabetically by first author. For a full list of articles identified for this report, visit https://www.nationalacademies.org/our‐ work/consideration‐of‐generational‐issues‐in‐workforce‐management‐and‐employment‐practices. Multilevel Models Applied to Nested Datasets (APC Models) Multilevel models are a family of statistical tools appropriate for studying databases in which some observations are nested within others, such as when multiple individuals provide data in different years, as in the case of cross-sectional studies repeated across multiple years. Statistically speaking, individual responses then are nested within each year. Likewise, nesting can occur in longitudinal studies when the same people are observed repeatedly over time. In this case, observations on different occasions are nested within people. Donnelly, K., Twenge, J., Clark, M., Shaikh, S., Beiler-May, A., and Carter, N. (2016). Attitudes toward women’s work and family roles in the United States, 1976–2013. Psychology of Women Quarterly 40(1), 41–54. Jürges, H. (2003). Age, cohort, and the slump in job satisfaction among west German workers. Labour 17(4), 489–518. Kalleberg, A. L. and Marsden, P.V. (2019). Work values in the United States: Age, period, and generational differences. Annals of the American Academy 682(1), 43–59. Koning, P. and Raterink, M. (2013). Re-employment rates of older unemployed workers: Decomposing the effect of birth cohorts and policy changes. Economist (Netherlands) 161(3), 331–348. Kowske, B., Rasch, R., and Wiley, J. (2010). Millennials’ (lack of) attitude problem: An empirical examination of generational effects on work attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology 25, 265–279. [Data from employees in the United States.] Cross-Temporal Meta-Analyses Cross-temporal meta-analyses entail extracting descriptive statistics (often measures of central tendency, such as sample means) from studies conducted at different points in time. These descriptive statistics are combined using meta-analytic techniques and usually weighted for precision by the number of observations available for each time point. The objective is to test whether aggregated estimates vary because of when the data were collected. Campbell, S. M., Twenge, J. M., and Campbell, W. K. (2017). Fuzzy but useful constructs: Making sense of the differences between generations. Work, Aging and Retirement 3(2), 130–139. Twenge, J. M. and Campbell, W. K. (2001). Age and birth cohort differences in self-esteem: A cross-temporal meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review 5, 321–344. A ‐ 17   

Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs   Twenge, J. M. and Campbell, S. M. (2008). Generational differences in psychological traits and their impact on the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology 23(8), 862–877. Twenge, J. M., Freeman, E. C., and Campbell W. K. (2012). Generational differences in young adults’ life goals, concern for others, and civic orientation, 1966–2009. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 102(5), 1045–1062. Other Studies Comparing Samples over Time1 Hansen, J. I. C. and Leuty, M. E. (2012). Work values across generations. Journal of Career Assessment 20(1), 34–52. Krahn, H. J. and Galambos, N. L. (2014). Work values and beliefs of “Generation X” and “Generation Y.” Journal of Youth Studies 17(1), 92–112. Leuty, M. E. and Hansen, J. I. C. (2014). Teasing apart the relations between age, birth cohort, and vocational interests. Journal of Counseling Psychology 61(2), 289–298. Lippmann, S. (2008). Rethinking risk in the new economy: Age and cohort effects on unemployment and reemployment. Human Relations 61, 1259–1292. Smola, K. W. and Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting generational work values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior 23(SPEC. ISS.), 363–382. Teclaw, R., Osatuke, K., Fishman, J., Moore S. C., Dyrenforth, S. (2014). Employee age and tenure within organizations: Relationship to workplace satisfaction and workplace climate perceptions. Health Care Manager 33(1), 4–19. Trzesniewski, K. H. and Donnellan, M. B. (2010). Rethinking “generation me”: A study of cohort effects from 1976–2006. Perspectives on Psychological Science 5(1), 58–75. 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 36(5), 1117–1142. Cross-Sectional Designs Cross-sectional research designs compare groups of people of different ages using an instrument (e.g., a survey) administered to a single sample at a single point in time. The following list includes 46 of the more than 300 cross-sectional studies the committee identified—those cited in the main text of this report, notably the studies for particular types of jobs. Nursing Andrews, D. R. (2013). Expectations of millennial nurse graduates transitioning into practice. Nursing Administration Quarterly 37(2), 152–159. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/NAQ.0b013e3182869d9f.                                                              1 These studies vary in their approach to measuring variance in work values in groups of people over time. One is longitudinal in that the authors collected data from the same people at different points in time. Others analyze data from different groups of similar participants (usually by age) collected at different points in time on the same constructs. Three of these use data from nationally representative surveys (Current Population Survey, General Social Survey, and Monitoring the Future); others use survey data from smaller samples. A ‐ 18   

Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs   Anthony, M. K., Tullai-McGuinness, S., Capone, L., and Farag, A. (2008). Decision making, autonomy, and control over practice: Are there variations across generational cohorts? Journal of Nursing Administration 38(5), 211. Carver, L., and Candela, L. (2008). Attaining organizational commitment across different generations of nurses. Journal of Nursing Management 16(8), 984–991. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2008.00911.x. Chung, S. M., and Fitzsimons, V. (2013). Knowing generation Y: A new generation of nurses in practice. British Journal of Nursing 22(20), 1173–1179. Clendon, J., and Walker, L. (2012). “Being young”: A qualitative study of younger nurses’ experiences in the workplace. International Nursing Review 59(4), 555–561. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-7657.2012.01005.x. Crowther, A., and Kemp, M. (2009). Generational attitudes of rural mental health nurses. Australian Journal of Rural Health 17(2), 97–101. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440- 1584.2009.01044.x. Farag, A. A., Tullai-Mcguinness, S., and Anthony, M. K. (2009). Nurses’ perception of their manager’s leadership style and unit climate: Are there generational differences? Journal of Nursing Management 17(1), 26–34. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- 2834.2008.00964.x. Hamlin, L., and Gillespie, B. M. (2011). Beam me up, scotty, but not just yet: Understanding generational diversity in the perioperative milieu. Journal of Perioperative Nursing 24(4), 36–43. Hendricks, J. M., and Cope, V. C. (2013). Generational diversity: What nurse managers need to know. Journal of Advanced Nursing 69(3), 717–725. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- 2648.2012.06079.x. Hu, J., Herrick, C., and Hodgin, K. A. (2004). Managing the multigenerational nursing team. Health Care Manager 23(4), 334–340. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/00126450- 200410000-00008. Keepnews, D. M., Brewer, C. S., Kovner, C. T., and Shin, J. H. (2010). Generational differences among newly licensed registered nurses. Nursing Outlook 58(3), 155–163. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2009.11.001. Lavoie-Tremblay, M., Trépanier, S. G., Fernet, C., and Bonneville-Roussy, A. (2014). Testing and extending the triple match principle in the nursing profession: A generational perspective on job demands, job resources and strain at work. Journal of Advanced Nursing 70(2), 310–322. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12188. Leiter, M. P., Jackson, N. J., and Shaughnessy, K. (2009). Contrasting burnout, turnover intention, control, value congruence and knowledge sharing between baby boomers and generation X. Journal of Nursing Management 17(1), 100–109. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2008.00884.x. Leiter, M. P., Price, S. L., and Spence Laschinger, H. K. (2010). Generational differences in distress, attitudes and incivility among nurses. Journal of Nursing Management 18(8), 970–980. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01168.x. LeVasseur, S. A., Wang, C. Y., Mathews, B., and Boland, M. (2009). Generational differences in registered nurse turnover. Policy, Politics, and Nursing Practice 10(3), 212–223. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1527154409356477. A ‐ 19   

Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs   Nelson, S. A. (2012). Affective commitment of generational cohorts of Brazilian nurses. International Journal of Manpower 33(7), 804–821. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/01437721211268339. Santos, S. R., and Cox, K. (2000). Workplace adjustment and intergenerational differences between matures, boomers, and xers. Nursing Economic$ 18(1), 7–13. Shacklock, K., and Brunetto, Y. (2012). The intention to continue nursing: Work variables affecting three nurse generations in Australia. Journal of Advanced Nursing 68(1), 36–46. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05709.x. Sparks, A. M. (2012). Psychological empowerment and job satisfaction between baby boomer and generation X nurses. Journal of Nursing Management 20(4), 451–460. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2011.01282.x. Takase, M., Oba, K., and Yamashita, N. (2009). Generational differences in factors influencing job turnover among Japanese nurses: An exploratory comparative design. International Journal of Nursing Studies 46(7), 957–967. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2007.10.013. Thompson, J. A. (2007). Why work in perioperative nursing? Baby boomers and generation Xers tell all. AORN Journal:The Official Voice of Perioperative Nursing 86(4), 564–587. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aorn.2007.03.010. Tourangeau, A. E., Thomson, H., Cummings, G., and Cranley, L. A. (2013). Generation-specific incentives and disincentives for nurses to remain employed in acute care hospitals. Journal of Nursing Management 21(3), 473–482. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- 2834.2012.01424.x. Tourangeau, A. E., Wong, M., Saari, M., and Patterson, E. (2015). Generation-specific incentives and disincentives for nurse faculty to remain employed. Journal of Advanced Nursing 71(5), 1019–1031. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jan.12582. Wakim, N. (2014). Occupational stressors, stress perception levels, and coping styles of medical surgical RNs: A generational perspective. Journal of Nursing Administration 44(12), 632–639. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/NNA.0000000000000140. Warshawski, S., Barnoy, S., and Kagan, I. (2017). Professional, generational, and gender differences in perception of organisational values among Israeli physicians and nurses: Implications for retention. Journal of Interprofessional Care 31(6), 696–704. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2017.1355780. Wilson, B., Squires, M., Widger, K., Cranley, L., and Tourangeau, A. (2008). Job satisfaction among a multigenerational nursing workforce. Journal of Nursing Management 16(6), 716–723. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2008.00874.x. Hospitality Arendt, S. W., Roberts, K. R., Strohbehn, C., Arroyo, P. P., Ellis, J., and Meyer, J. (2014). Motivating foodservice employees to follow safe food handling practices: Perspectives from a multigenerational workforce. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism 13(4), 323–349. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/15332845.2014.888505. Barron, P., Leask, A., and Fyall, A. (2014). Engaging the multi-generational workforce in tourism and hospitality. Tourism Review 69(4), 245–263. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/TR- 04-2014-0017. A ‐ 20   

Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs   Bednarska, M. A. (2016). Complementary person-environment fit as a predictor of job pursuit intentions in the service industry. Contemporary Economics 10(1), 27–38. doi: https://doi.org/10.5709/ce.1897-9254.196. Chen, P. J., and Choi, Y. (2008). Generational differences in work values: A study of hospitality management. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 20(6), 595–615. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/09596110810892182. Choi, Y. G., Kwon, J., and Kim, W. (2013). Effects of attitudes vs experience of workplace fun on employee behaviors: Focused on Generation Y in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 25(3), 410–427. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/09596111311311044. Goh, E., and Lee, C. (2018). A workforce to be reckoned with: The emerging pivotal generation Z hospitality workforce. International Journal of Hospitality Management 73, 20–28. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.01.016. Gursoy, D., Chi, C. G. Q., and Karadag, E. (2013). Generational differences in work values and attitudes among frontline and service contact employees. International Journal of Hospitality Management 32(1), 40–48. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.04.002. Kim, M., Knutson, B. J., and Choi, L. (2016). The effects of employee voice and delight on job satisfaction and behaviors: Comparison between employee generations. Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management 25(5), 563–588. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2015.1067665. King, C., Murillo, E., and Lee, H. (2017). The effects of generational work values on employee brand attitude and behavior: A multi-group analysis. International Journal of Hospitality Management 66, 92–105. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.07.006. Kong, H., Sun, N., and Yan, Q. (2016). New generation, psychological empowerment: Can empowerment lead to career competencies and career satisfaction? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 28(11), 2553–2569. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-05-2014-0222. Kong, H., Wang, S., and Fu, X. (2015). Meeting career expectation: Can it enhance job satisfaction of generation Y? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 27(1), 147–168. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-08-2013-0353. Lu, A. C. C., and Gursoy, D. (2016). Impact of job burnout on satisfaction and turnover intention: Do generational differences matter? Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 40(2), 210–235. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348013495696. Lub, X. D., Blomme, R. J., and Matthijs Bal, P. (2011) Psychological contract and organizational citizenship behavior: A new deal for new generations? Advances in Hospitality and Leisure 7, 109–130. Lub, X., Bijvank, M. N., Bal, P. M., Blomme, R., and Schalk, R. (2012). Different or alike?: Exploring the psychological contract and commitment of different generations of hospitality workers. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 24(4), 553–573. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/09596111211226824. Lub, X., Bal, P. M., Blomme, R. J., and Schalk, R. (2016). One job, one deal…or not: Do generations respond differently to psychological contract fulfillment? The International Journal of Human Resource Management 27(6), 653–680. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1035304. A ‐ 21   

Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs   Maier, T. A. (2011). Hospitality leadership implications: Multigenerational perceptions of dissatisfaction and intent to leave. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism 10(4), 354–371. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/15332845.2011.588503. Park, J., and Gursoy, D. (2012). Generation effects on work engagement among U.S. hotel employees. International Journal of Hospitality Management 31(4), 1195–1202. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.02.007. Supanti, D., and Butcher, K. (2019). Is corporate social responsibility (CSR) participation the pathway to foster meaningful work and helping behavior for millennials? International Journal of Hospitality Management 77, 8–18. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.06.001. Tsaur, S. H., and Yen, C. H. (2018). Work–leisure conflict and its consequences: Do generational differences matter? Tourism Management 69, 121–131. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.05.011. Zopiatis, A., Krambia-Kapardis, M., and Varnavas, A. (2012). Y-ers, X-ers and boomers: Investigating the multigenerational (mis)perceptions in the hospitality workplace. Tourism and Hospitality Research 12(2), 101–121. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1467358412466668. Qualitative Studies The 13 articles marked with an asterisk are focused more on understanding one generation and do not compare generations. Abdul Malek, M. M., and A. R. Jaguli (2018). Generational differences in workplace communication: Perspectives of female leaders and their direct reports in Malaysia. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 28(1), 129–150. Andrews, D. R. (2013). Expectations of millennial nurse graduates transitioning into practice. Nursing Administration Quarterly 37(2), 152–159.* Baker Rosa, N. M. and S. O. Hastings (2018). Managing millennials: Looking beyond generational stereotypes. Journal of Organizational Change Management 31(4), 920– 930.* Bone, Z. and K. Tilbrook (2015). Women as bosses: A snapshot from a generational perspective. International Journal of Organizational Diversity 15(3), 13–24. Boyd, D. (2010). Ethical determinants for generations X and Y. Journal of Business Ethics 93(3), 465–469. Brown, E., Thomas N., and Bosselman, R. (2015). Are they leaving or staying: A qualitative analysis of turnover issues for Generation Y hospitality employees with a hospitality education. International Journal of Hospitality Management 46, 130–137.* Chillakuri, B. and Mogili, R. (2018). Managing millennials in the digital era: Building a sustainable culture. Human Resource Management International Digest 26(3), 7–10.* Clarke, M. (2015). Dual careers: The new norm for Gen Y professionals? Career Development International 20(6), 562–582.* Clendon, J. and L. Walker (2012). Being young: A qualitative study of younger nurses’ experiences in the workplace. International Nursing Review 59(4), 555–561.* A ‐ 22   

Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs   Feyerherm, A. and Vick, Y. H. (2005). Generation X women in high technology: Overcoming gender and generational challenges to succeed in the corporate environment. The Career Development International 10(3): 216–227.* Foster, K. (2013). Generation and discourse in working life stories. British Journal of Sociology 64(2), 195–215. Gale, D. (2013). Career resumption for educated baby boomer mothers: An exploratory study. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships 11(3), 304–319.* Goh, E., and Lee, C. (2018). A workforce to be reckoned with: The emerging pivotal generation Z hospitality workforce. International Journal of Hospitality Management 73, 20–28.* Gursoy, D., Maier, T., and Chi, C. (2008). Generational differences: An examination of work values and generational gaps in the hospitality workforce. International Journal of Hospitality Management 27(3), 448–458. Haapala, I., Tervo, L., and Biggs, S. (2015). Using generational intelligence to examine community care work between younger and older adults. Journal of Social Work Practice 29(4), 457–473. James, L. (2009). Generational differences in women’s attitudes towards paid employment in a British city: The role of habitus. Gender, Place and Culture 16(3), 313–328. Kultalahti, S. and Viitala, R. (2015). Generation Y—Challenging clients for HRM? Journal of Managerial Psychology 30(1), 101–114.* Lee, S. (2014). Korean mature women students’ various subjectivities in relation to their motivation for higher education: Generational differences amongst women. International Journal of Lifelong Education 33(6), 791–810. Lyons, S. T. and Schweitzer, L. (2017). A qualitative exploration of generational identity: Making sense of young and old in the context of today’s workplace. Work, Aging and Retirement 3(2), 209–224. Matthews, M., Seguin, M., Chowdhury, N., and Card, R. (2012). Generational differences in factors influencing physicians to choose a work location. Rural and Remote Health 12(1). Patel, J., Tinker, A., and Corna, L. (2018). Younger workers’ attitudes and perceptions towards older colleagues. Working with Older People 22(3), 129–138. Price, S., McGillis Hall, L., Murphy, G., and Pierce, B. (2018). Evolving career choice narratives of new graduate nurses. Nurse Education in Practice 28, 86–91.* Pritchard, K. and Whiting, R. (2014). Baby boomers and the lost generation: On the discursive construction of generations at work. Organization Studies 35(11), 1605–1626. Sanders, M. J. and McCready, J. (2009). A qualitative study of two older workers’ adaptation to physically demanding work. Work 32(2), 111–122.* Singh, V. (2013). Exploring the concept of work across generations. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships 11(3), 272–285. Stone-Johnson, C. (2014). Not cut out to be an administrator: Generations, change, and the career transition from teacher to principal. Education and Urban Society 46(5), 606– 625.* Urick, M. J., Hollensbe, E. C., Masterson, S. S., and Lyons, S. T., (2017). Understanding and managing intergenerational conflict: An examination of influences and strategies. Work, Aging and Retirement 3(2), 166–185. Whitmer, M., Hurst, S., and Prins, M. (2009). Intergenerational views of hardiness in critical care nurses. Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing 28(5), 214–220. A ‐ 23   

Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs   Williams, G. (in press). Management Millennialism: Designing the New Generation of Employee. Work, Employment and Society. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017019836891. Mixed Methods Gardiner, S., Grace, D., and King, C. (2013). Challenging the use of generational segmentation through understanding self-identity. Marketing Intelligence and Planning 31(6), 639– 653. Gordon, P. A. (2017). Exploring generational cohort work satisfaction in hospital nurses. Leadership in Health Services 30(3), 233–248. Kwiek, M. (2017). A generational divide in the academic profession: A mixed quantitative and qualitative approach to the Polish case. European Educational Research Journal 16(5), 645–669. Van Rossem, A.H.D. (2019). Generations as social categories: An exploratory cognitive study of generational identity and generational stereotypes in a multigenerational workforce. Journal of Organizational Behavior 40(4), 434–455. Weeks, K. P., and Schaffert, C. (2019). Generational differences in definitions of meaningful work: A mixed methods study. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(4), 1045–1061. Zimmerer, T. E. (2013). Generational Perceptions of Servant Leadership: A Mixed Methods Study. (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University). A ‐ 24   

Next: Appendix B: Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and Staff »
Are Generational Categories Meaningful Distinctions for Workforce Management? Get This Book
×
Buy Prepub | $64.00 Buy Paperback | $55.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Headlines frequently appear that purport to highlight the differences among workers of different generations and explain how employers can manage the wants and needs of each generation. But is each new generation really that different from previous ones? Are there fundamental differences among generations that impact how they act and interact in the workplace? Or are the perceived differences among generations simply an indicator of age-related differences between older and younger workers or a reflection of all people adapting to a changing workplace?

Are Generational Categories Meaningful Distinctions for Workforce Management? reviews the state and rigor of the empirical work related to generations and assesses whether generational categories are meaningful in tackling workforce management problems. This report makes recommendations for directions for future research and improvements to employment practices.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!