Generational Diversity at Work: a Systematic Review of the Research

Working Paper Series 2015/48/OB

Generational Diversity at Work: A Systematic Review of the Research

Ian C. Woodward INSEAD, [email protected]

Pisitta Vongswasdi INSEAD, [email protected]

Elizabeth A. More Australian Institute of Management, [email protected]

July 2015 - Version 1.0 Note: This paper is part of an ongoing series of research projects in INSEAD’s Leadership and Communication Research Group.

For the first time in modern history, workplace demographics now span up to four distinct generations. Therefore, intergenerational diversity is a timely issue, gathering increasing interest amongst academics, organizations and business executives.

However, the evidence base in scholarly research on generational diversity at work is often contradictory and unclear. In this study we aim to identify and examine existing empirical research on generational differences in work-related characteristics to inform future focal areas for generational research related to leadership and management; as well as to synthesize the existing evidence of generational differences in a variety of work- related characteristics.

We conduct a systematic review of the literature to synthesize empirical research in a rigorous manner (following a disciplined screening process, a final sample of 50 studies is examined). In the analysis, six key themes emerge: communication and technology; work motivators or preferred job characteristics; work values; work attitudes; workplace/career behaviors; and leadership preferences or behaviors. Our systematic review also reveals that the majority of empirical studies provide results which fully or partially support the existence of generational diversity; highlighting the importance of future research to address the potential differing needs and characteristics of each generation as they interact and work within organizations.

Our study contributes to the development of generational theory, proposes specific areas for important future research priorities on the topic of generational diversity, and highlights some implications for organizational practice. Although the systematic review is not commonplace, our study does contribute to its application in the field of management.

Keywords: Generational Differences; Intergenerational; Communication; Work Values; Work Attitudes; Work Behaviors; Careers; Leadership; Systematic Review.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2630650

A Working Paper is the author’s intellectual property. It is intended as a means to promote research to interested readers. Its content should not be copied or hosted on any server without written permission from [email protected] Find more INSEAD papers at http://www.insead.edu/facultyresearch/research/search_papers.cfm

Generational Diversity at Work: A Systematic Review of the Research

“Each generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it.” George Orwell

“As is the generation of leaves, so is that of humanity. The wind scatters the leaves on the ground, but the live timber burgeons with leaves again in the season of spring returning. So one generation of people will grow while another dies.” Homer, in Iliad

Introduction

In recent decades, workplace demographics are changing significantly (Roberson, 2012). One particular trend is an unprecedented shift in the composition of workforce populations—with three or four generations coming to work side-by-side in many organizations (Lancaster & Stillman, 2002). The challenge for organizations is to retain valuable senior employees whilst recruiting bright young talents. This hinges upon understanding different rewards requirements, development and training needs, and the motivations of different generational cohorts (Beechler & Woodward, 2009).

Generational diversity might also hold important implications for interactions in the workplace that influence team and organizational operations and outcomes. On the one hand, interactions among generations with different experiences and perspectives can foster creativity and innovation (Meredith et al., 2002). On the other hand, generational differences can lead to negative organizational outcomes such as conflicts, misunderstanding, and miscommunication (Jurkiewicz, 2000; Smola & Sutton, 2002). As a result, organizations and practitioners are expressing interest in identifying ways to manage people from several different generations, and to better adapt the workplace to this multigenerational labor force (Parry & Urwin, 2011).

Despite William Strauss and Neil Howe theorizing on the concept of generational cohorts almost three decades ago (Strauss & Howe, 1991), it remains understudied in academia compared to the widespread attention it receives in the popular press.

The issue of generational diversity and its implications in the workplace is extensively discussed in books such as Sticking Points: How To Get 4 Generations Working Together in the 12 Places They Come Apart (Shaw, 2013); Harvard Business Review articles such as How Gen Y & Boomers Will Reshape Your Agenda (Hewlett, Sherbin, & Sumberg, 2009); and business consultant publications such as PricewaterhouseCoopers’s Engaging and Empowering Millennials (PWC, 2014). On the basis of such publications, the media often depicts a strong generational divide, as expressed in titles such as Business Insider’s Why Generational Conflict Is Coming to Your Office (Giang, 2012), Forbes’s Generation Gap: How Technology has Changed How We Talk About Work (Savitz, 2012), or The Economist’s Winning the Generation Game (Economist, 2013). These seem to indicate that the idea of generational differences has been consolidated and accepted as common wisdom (See stereotypical characteristics of generations in Appendix 1).

Notwithstanding significant interest and concern about generations in the practitioner realm, the empirical research evidence on how generations differ is unclear or contradictory. Some scholars suggest that the generational approach ‘may be more popular culture rather than social science’ (Giancola, 2006, p.33), as the accounts of generations inundating us via the popular press usually rely on personal observation, speculations, anecdotal evidence, or data not otherwise open to critical peer review.

Moreover, the limited empirical studies based on rigorous research methodology published in academia that do exist, offer findings that, taken together, are somewhat inconsistent and on occasion contrary to the generational stereotypes commonly accepted in popular literature (see Macky et al., 2008; Parry & Urwin, 2011). Although one stream of research finds support for stereotypes concerning generational differences, another stream of empirical studies fails to find substantial and meaningful generational differences (e.g. Hart, 2006; Jurkiewicz, 2000; Wong et al., 2008). The inconsistencies found in these studies raise questions as to the extent to which generational differences actually exist in the workplace, if at all.

The mixed support for generational differences mentioned above might seem to indicate that organizational efforts intended to promote effective management of workers from different generations may be unnecessary, or that continuing to examine generational differences may no longer be a fruitful expedition. However, we argue that it is too premature to arrive at such conclusions given the nascent state of the research and debate, and that there is still much value to be gained from studying intergenerational differences in the workplace.

Compared to the study of social diversity categories such as race and gender, the research on generational diversity is much less developed (Shore et al., 2009). Moreover, unlike other forms of diversity, belonging to a generation is an experience that most human beings will have, and this experience has a temporal element as humans move through various stages of their lifespan (Lyons & Kuron, 2014). Therefore, more and continuous generational research is needed to understand the nature, characteristics, and consequences of supposed generational differences (Costanza et al., 2012), thereby illuminating the implications of generations in organizational life.

Our paper begins by outlining the background to our systematic review on generational diversity research. Second, we describe the theoretical development and conceptual approaches that underlie the study of generational differences. Third, we review the literature on the relevance of generational differences in the workplace. Fourth, we offer a brief discussion of the challenges associated with the conduct of research in this arena.

Fifth, we describe the methods we employ for our systematic review of the empirical research in this field. Sixth, we present our findings, followed by a discussion of our systematic review on empirical studies exploring generational differences. We conclude by offering suggestions for future research; implications; and related recommendations for organizational leaders and practitioners based on the research to date.

1. Background to Our Systematic Review

The main purposes of this paper are to:

1) Identify and examine the empirical research previously undertaken, either quantitatively or qualitatively (or both), on generational differences, to inform discussion on future generational research and theory; 2) Synthesize the known evidence of generational differences (or similarities) into various work-related characteristics for the benefit of policy and practice in management and organizations; and, 3) Posit priorities for future research on generational diversity in the workplace.

As discussed in our introduction, generational diversity in the workplace is a very salient current topic of dialogue for leaders and managers. Therefore, the paper’s systematic review is intended to illuminate critical areas for future relevant research, by examining the existent research against these core questions:

a. What and how were ‘generations’ examined (i.e. the methodology)? b. In which contexts (culture, industry) were generational differences empirically investigated? c. What were the results of these investigations? i.e. Do generations differ in the work-related characteristics, and if so, how? d. What are the implications for the focus of future research in the area of generational diversity in relation to management and leadership?

Therefore, these four core question are examined as an aid in advancing the study of generations. Although scholars engage in a debate on the utility and significance of the concept of generational diversity in organizations, empirical studies examining patterns of similarity and difference between generations have gradually accumulated over the past decade. This surge of interest emerges from various fields of study—from sociology, psychology, and management.

Currently, there is no comprehensive systematic literature review of empirical generational evidence, particularly evidence on generational differences in work-related characteristics, which indicates a gap in the extant literature. The literature reviews that exist are mostly ‘narrative’ in nature. Traditional narrative reviews typically depend on implicit methods of data collection and interpretation by the researchers (Cook et al.,

1997). Therefore, it is sometimes uncertain whether some research selectively cites studies that reinforce preconceived ideas or promote specific views on the topic. The review process involved in a systematic review, on the other hand, tends to be transparent because it applies explicit methods, allowing readers to gauge for themselves the quality of the review process and the potential for bias (Mulrow, 1994).

In addition, systematic review is well positioned to make sense of the mass of often- contradictory evidence (Transfield et al., 2003) characterizing existing generational literature. In our research, we seek to identify those empirical studies that investigate generational differences in order to assess and synthesize research findings.

Our systematic review approach contributes to the literature in several ways. First, we focus strictly on studies based on empirical data, and exclude literature reviews or solely theoretical pieces. We review empirical studies that explicitly focus on ‘generation’ (not ‘age’ or ‘cohort’ unless the purpose of the paper is to shed light on generational issues in organizations). To our knowledge, previous reviews on generational differences focus on personality (Twenge & Campbell, 2008), work values (Parry & Urwin, 2011), and general findings and trends (Lyons & Kuron, 2014). Although these reviews are comprehensive and provide valuable insights, the ability to “stress-test” the issues using a defined approach like the systematic review, allows for a wider lens in comparison.

Secondly, we believe this systematic review is the first review of its kind to follow a comprehensive methodology using rigorous guidelines to synthesize diverse forms of high-quality research evidence in the field of generational diversity. In doing so, this paper attempts to ascertain the current state of the field of generational research and synthesize divergent, often contradictory studies, but also advances one form of rigorous methodology for conducting systematic review in management research as well.

It is also worthwhile to note that, although we attempt to thoroughly and systematically compare and contrast studies, we do not conduct a meta-analysis. Meta-analysis would require a substantial number of similar studies examining the same types of outcome, which is more appropriate for specific issues investigation; whereas the systematic review approach can include a wider range of issues and outcomes of potential generational differences (for example, see Costanza, Badger, & Fraser, 2012 for a meta-

5 analysis of generational differences in work-related attitudes). Finally, this systematic review also draws on qualitative studies in addition to quantitative ones, in order to provide complementary insights in response to a call from many scholars for more qualitative understanding of generational phenomena (Joshi et al., 2011; Lyons & Kuron, 2014). For the balance of the rest of our paper, we will use the term ‘review’ and ‘systematic review’ interchangeably.

Before proceeding, an important caveat regarding our paper needs to be addressed. Similar to other types of demographic diversity (e.g. gender, culture), generational characteristics are meant to convey tendencies, not necessities. Despite the generational cohort concept being a meaningful and useful social categorization, one must be careful not to paint all of the members of a generational group with the “same brush”(Ng et al., 2010). There are substantial individual variations. In other words, just because Generation Y, on average, values leisure more than Baby Boomers does not mean that every individual Baby Boomer will be less likely to desire more vacation time than every individual youngster. Therefore, any findings regarding intergenerational similarities or differences discussed in this study should be tempered in light of the fact that they are based on averages.

2. What are ‘Generations’?

“All of the people born and living at about the same time, regarded collectively.” Oxford Dictionary

One challenge in synthesizing the intergenerational literature is to determine the appropriate definition of the construct of generations. Indeed, the scarcity of research in academic management journals on the subject of generations is largely due to disagreement about the relative merits of various factors determining a generation (Dencker et al., 2008).

This section reviews key conceptualizations of generations from various fields of literature. In doing so, we derive our definition of ‘generations’, which is then used as the basis of our systematic investigation of generational research relevant to business management; and the discussion of empirical evidence reviewed in this paper.

2.1 Collective Consciousness

Though references to generation can be traced back to ancient Egyptian or Greek text (Joshi et al., 2011), the contemporary perspective of generation is largely influenced by the work of the German sociologist Karl Mannheim. In his seminal paper on the ‘problem of generation’, Mannheim (1952) defines a generation as a group that shares both a particular span of birth years, and a set of worldviews grounded in historical events or social phenomena that have occurred during their formative years. Of significant note here, is that this definition of generation contains two important and related elements: first, a common location in historical time (generational location); and, secondly, a distinct consciousness formed by the experiences of that time (generational style) (Parry & Urwin, 2011).

Other academics support Mannheim’s conceptualization and reinforce the importance of the collective experience element as defining a generation (Dencker et al., 2008; Edmunds & Turner, 2005; Schuman & Scott, 1989). For example, Schuman & Scott (1989) argue that members of the same generation participate in profound and common experiences that help them form ‘collective memory’. This shared memory of an event in turn affects a generation’s future values, attitudes, and characteristics. It is the qualitative notion of ‘common experience’ encountered during young adulthood rather than mere biology (as manifested in age), that creates a bond between members of their generation and distinguishes one generation unit from another (Kelan, 2014).

2.2 Age-Cohort

The sociological understanding of generations can be contrasted with a more prevalent approach to studying generations in modern management literature. The common practice in these scholarly works is to define generations based on standardized age- based groupings (Joshi et al., 2011)—first, defining cut-off points of birth dates, and then testing whether each group exhibits difference in outcome (values, attitudes, behaviors). Whilst Mannheim’s theory intends to illuminate the dynamic interaction of generation as a ‘mechanism for social change’, the age based perspective is more concerned with the impacts of generation on individual attitudes and behavior (Lyons & Kuron, 2014).

The implicit assumption in the latter approach appears to be that an individual’s chronological proximity to events has an impact on their values and attitudes, and that these attitudes are similar among all those born at the same time (Parry & Urwin, 2011). The problem with this approach then is that it obscures age effects with period and cohort effects. Each of these effects are conceptually different (Reither et al. , 2009): age effects are variation results from the biological process and social process of becoming older; period effects are external variations across historical time; and cohort effects are a function of being born at a certain time period.

Despite age not being central for a sociological understanding of generation and being problematic on several fronts, it fulfills the purpose of marking specific generational groups (Kelan, 2014). The prototypical characteristics of generations based on age are made popular by Strauss & Howe (1991) who define generation as “a cohort-group whose length approximates the span of a phase of life and whose boundaries are fixed by peer personality” (Strauss & Howe, 1991, p.60). According to Strauss & Howe (1991), generational units each have a span of 20 years, and are segregated by birth years.

Drawing on this largely American definition of generation, the conventional approach widely utilized in modern management literature has been to assume that there are currently four generations: Traditionalists, Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y (Kelan, 2014). Traditionalists are also referred to as the Silent Generation, Matures, and Veterans, whilst Generation Y are also known as Millennials, Net Gen, Nexter, GenerationMe, and Digital Natives. Although these labels may be generally agreed upon, substantial variation exists when it comes to defining the start and end dates for each generation (Smola & Sutton, 2002).

2.3 Other conceptualizations of generations

In response to the assertion that generations are more complex and multi-dimensional than a biological age-based definition would suggest (Gilleard & Higgs, 2005), recent organizational scholars expand upon the age-based categorization of generation. For example, Joshi et al. (2010) introduce the concept of generation in organizations as a cohort of individuals who experience a specific event within the same time interval (for example, organizational entry). They contend that although generations may be shaped by external factors such as formative and life course experience, generations may also

8 be influenced by organizational factors such as their successive entry to organizations. In this view, a generation, for example, would be a group of individuals who enter an organization, and undergo orientation and training at the same time.

Another conceptualization of generation is based on genealogy. This kinship-based view of generation, developed in family sociology and social anthropology literature, focuses on the genealogy linkages and transmission of values and resources across generations in family units (Joshi et al., 2011). This genealogical definition of generations has particular utility in explaining organizational phenomena, such as the movement of individuals or groups between and across specific positions or roles (Wade-Benzoni, 2002). For instance, consider the turnover of a particular position in a traditionally structured, large corporation. There would be organizational processes that would involve the transfer of values and resources such as knowledge between the incumbent and the successor, which Joshi et al. (2011) suggested, may have critical implications for generational interactions in the workplace.

From the above review, it is apparent that several conceptualizations of generations exist. Although we acknowledge the variety of ways in which researchers use the term, we are primarily interested in the study of generations as broader social groupings rooted in the sociological, social science, and management literature. Although we recognize the limitations of age-based conceptualizations of generations, we note that the practice of categorizing birth cohorts is useful to researchers for the purpose of constructing boundaries in their work (Grenier, 2007). Based on our review of contemporary scholarly works on the topic, we suggest a definition of generation as follows:

Generations are cohorts of individuals who have grown up in the same historical and social context, whose shared formative experiences instill in them beliefs, values, and general dispositions that differ from those of others born and raised in different contexts and time periods.

Indeed, what is consistent across most of the empirical research on generations is this conceptualization of generations as cohorts of individuals created by shared experiences (Costanza et al., 2012). However, note that identification of a common definition does not imply a similar taxonomy (i.e. classification and titles) of generations. For the purpose of this paper, we will adopt the widely recognized conceptualization (Howe & Strauss, 2009; Lyons, 2003; Yu & Miller, 2005) of the following generational cohort-

9 groups and titles (see Table 1) (also see Appendix 2 for the current statistics on generations in the workforce):

Table 1: Four Generational Cohort Groups and Their Birth Years Generations Born Between

Traditionalists 1925 - 1944 Baby Boomers 1945- 1964 Generation X 1965 -1979 Generation Y 1980 - 2000

This generational classification is only intended as a tool to facilitate our review and discussion of empirical evidence of generational effects as a basis for the subsequent parts of this paper. Generations emerge with distinct characteristics as a by-product of historical context, experienced over the course of their life cycle, and affected by periodic events. We support Ng et al. ’s (2012) suggestion that the start and end dates of each generation should be viewed as ‘guideposts in the on-going flow of social change, rather than as definitive boundaries’ (p.xvii).

Another important matter in this segmentation of generational cohorts based on a broad range of birth years is that it does not account for the Cusper effect. The term ‘cuspers’, or sometimes ‘tweeners’, refers to individuals who are born on the outskirts of generational demarcations (Lancaster & Stillman, 2002). An example is a person born in 1963, which is the period that marked the ending of the Baby Boomers generation and the start of Generation X1.

According to Schewe & Noble (2000), when asked to cite the most memorable events in their lives, these cuspers are likely to name events from both the Baby Boomers and Gen X timeframe. Therefore, these individuals possess traits associated with their cohort complemented with traits of other generations.

As such, Lancaster & Stillman (2002) suggest that they may have a particular advantage in the context of intergenerational conflict, due to their capabilities to relate to both

1 For the rest of the article, we will refer to the two generations in its abbreviated form—Generation X as Gen X; and, Generation Y as Gen Y.

10 generations and thus serve as mediators bridging the generation gap. However, given the lack of empirical research to confirm such supposition, this paper’s systematic review focuses primarily on the four ‘core’ generational groups identified above.

3. The Importance of ‘Generations’ in the Workplace

As noted, individuals in each generational cohort, influenced by a particular historical and social moment, develop unique values, belief systems, and personal characteristics. These cohort-shared characteristics allow us to make predictions about tendencies of prototypical individuals (Lamm & Meeks, 2009), establishing intergenerational differences as an important social categorization variable (Cogin, 2012).

The concept of potential generational differences is widely adopted for a range of purposes. For example, it is frequently used in marketing as a consumer segmentation tool (Bradford, 1993; Noble & Schewe, 2003). In the realm of political science, generational variation is examined in relation to voter turnout, party identification, political values and opinions (Putnam, 2000). Religious organizations have also observed generational differences and attempted to avert the decline in religious affiliation and church participation (Crockett & Voas, 2006).

Much attention has also been paid to generational diversity in the workplace. Employees from different generation groups brought up in different time periods are said to have different work ethics; expectations and values about organizations; and goals and aspirations for their work life (Meredith et al., 2002; Smola & Sutton, 2002; Zemke et al., 2000).

Understanding these similarities and differences across generational groups, and adopting appropriate management practices for each member of today’s multigenerational workforce is of strategic importance (Benson & Brown, 2011; Cogin, 2012; Gursoy et al. , 2013). For example, if Gen X values autonomy, work may need to be redesigned to increase freedom and independence on the job; or if Gen Y is committed to socially responsible causes, organizations may need to pay more attention to their corporate social responsibility mission and activities. Leveraging on generational strengths can yield tremendous benefits to organizations through increasing morale; controlling costs; reducing turnover; and improving sales and profits (Lancaster & Stillman, 2002).

4. Challenges in Generational Research

As discussed in earlier sections, not only is there lack of consensus on which birth year ranges define generational cohorts, but there is also little agreement on what significant shared experiences shape differences between generational cohorts. Additionally, there is very limited empirical research on what actual differences may exist, leaving many of the “popular” generalizations about these differences largely unsubstantiated. Moreover, there is considerable debate about the best research methods to test for generational differences.

First, regarding the conceptual and definitional issues, some scholars question whether individuals at the same stage of development will be similarly affected by cultural and historical events (e.g. Giancola, 2006). In terms of the definition of generations, modern- day studies of generational differences in work-related variables almost exclusively adopt the age-cohort perspective championed by Strauss & Howe (1991), but as noted previously, there are substantial variations in the start and end dates for each generation. With respect to specific generational differences, researchers are increasingly focusing empirical efforts on pinpointing unique characteristics, but once again, these empirical studies are restricted in numbers and seem to show some conflicting results when the conjectured differences are empirically examined.

Another challenge in the intergenerational studies literature is the prevailing tendency to overlook the impact of national culture. Generations may differ across locations based on the social, economic, and historical events experienced (Mannheim, 1964). However, previous research seems to rely on the Western (mostly American) definition of generations without taking into account the cultural and historical condition that is specific to each country (Lyons & Kuron, 2014). Moreover, the majority of empirical studies are conducted almost exclusively in Western contexts (Parry & Urwin, 2011). Although some scholars suggest that generational differences vary across societies (Murphy et al., 2004; Ralston et al., 1999), little research examines the extent to which culture impacts and shapes life experiences and differences of generational cohorts. On the other hand, Edmunds & Turner (2005) argue against national differences in generations and suggest the development of “global generations”. This is based on the notion that as technology, communication, and globalization continue to increase,

12 nations should be affected by major global events in similar fashion. Therefore, one of the future research implications of our work is that more extensive cross-cultural study of generational issues is needed to examine these different propositions.

The most significant challenge surrounding the generational research, however, seems to be methodically untangling the three possible sources of observed differences: generational cohort; age-related; or time period-related (Joshi et al., 2010; Macky et al., 2008; Parry & Urwin, 2011). The research methodology employed in most empirical research is still predominantly cross-sectional, where findings can be subjected to generational and age effects, because they include information elicited from members of different generational cohorts at different ages. For example, a cross-sectional study conducted by Cennamo & Gardner (2008) found that Gen Y is more likely to report thoughts about leaving their organizations than Baby Boomers. It is difficult to draw definitive conclusions from this finding because it could be that the younger cohorts have just entered the workforce, and are still in that exploratory phase of determining the right career.

On the other hand, older cohorts may already have long tenure at an organization, and may be at the stage in life where it is too risky to start over at a new place. However, due to the challenging nature of the data collection for longitudinal studies, we would expect continuing research on generations in the workplace to rely on cross-sectional data. Notwithstanding its shortcomings, cross-sectional design remains useful and indispensable. It provides a current snapshot of potential generational differences/similarities--which is valuable to researchers and practitioners for insights into generational issues.

Given these challenges, there is a need for better understanding about potential areas of generational differences. Our comprehensive search of the literature in the databases did not yield any systematic review in this arena. In this regard, we believe that providing a systematic review can make an important contribution to the literature, as it generates a synthesis of research themes and findings, based upon empirical evidence in published peer-reviewed journals, of high-quality studies investigating generational differences in work-related characteristics.

In particular, the results of such a review can contribute in two ways: first, to summarize and integrate the existing and somewhat contradictory body of research; second, to identify research gaps that need to be addressed by future endeavors. With these rationales in mind, the main goal of our research is to determine the extent to which empirical research has found generational differences and, if so, their potential implications for leadership and management in the 21st century.

5. Methodology

A “Systematic Review” is defined as syntheses of primary research studies that use specific, explicit, and therefore reproducible methodologies to identify, assemble, critically appraise, and synthesize all relevant issues on a specific topic (Carney & Geddes, 2002). By adopting a replicable, scientific, and transparent process, systematic review is considered a robust and rigorous method of data collection and analysis (Denyer & Neely, 2004; Transfield et al., 2003), complementing traditional reviews to provide a more comprehensive understanding of a particular phenomenon or problem (Mulrow, 1987).

Systematic review originated in the medical, healthcare, and policy fields, where it is used to efficiently integrate existing information and provide data for decision-making (Mulrow, 1994). Although less frequently utilized, likewise, systematic reviews in mainstream business and management can be used to provide transparency, clarity, focus, and impartiality in coverage of a particular area (Thorpe & Holt, 2005), thereby enhancing legitimacy and authority of the resultant evidence (Transfield et al., 2003). Well-done systematic reviews present the state of the field, contribute to theory development, serve as a guide for future research, and can have direct applicability to practice.

Our systematic review specifically examined empirical studies investigating generational differences. This involved comprehensive searches of databases to identify an exhaustive list of literature on generational differences, with a focus on literature of paramount relevance to the research questions (i.e., empirical studies that have examined generational differences in the work context).

There were 6 steps to the systematic review process used in this study: (1) Keyword and Term Identification; (2) Article Selection; (3) Quality Assessment; (4) Preliminary Analysis; (5) Data Extraction; and (6) Data Analysis and Synthesis.

5.1 Keyword and Term Identification

We located studies through searches of the following electronic databases: Ebscohost , ScienceDirect, Social Science Research Network (SSRN), PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES with the addition of the search engines Google and GoogleScholar. The searches employed the following key words: intergenerational (generational) differences, intergenerational (generational) gap, intergenerational (generational) diversity, generations in workplace (organization). Every keyword was entered on its own, and in combinations to broaden the literature base relevant to the topic.

5.2 Article Selection

For our systematic review, we created a defined set of criteria for selecting studies. Studies had to meet the following criteria to be included in our systematic review.

The studies had to: (a) be in English language; (b) be published in a peer-reviewed journal (our systematic review does not contain book chapters, working papers, theses or dissertations); (c) be an empirical study that generates quantitative or qualitative data (our systematic review does not include literature reviews, theoretical development pieces, special issue introductory pieces, book reviews, commentaries, anecdotal reports, practitioner accounts, or journalistic articles); (d) discuss generational differences as the main topical theme with more than one generation under investigation (i.e. articles with a focus on inter-generational differences, not intra- generational differences).

Given the limited empirical research on generational differences to date, we placed no constraints on when the study was published with the first empirical study on generational differences being published in 1998 (Jurkiewicz & Brown, 1998). In addition, we placed no restrictions on the type of study methodology. Therefore quantitative and qualitative, and mixed methods studies were included.

5.3 Quality Assessment

Once all possible studies were identified according to our initial set of criteria, we conducted another screening to assess the quality of the studies, which constitutes an additional set of selection criteria identified in step two. This step reduced the size of the sample to include only peer-reviewed articles of sufficiently high quality. Quality is a subjective measure, so for this study we use journal metrics as a proxy measure of the quality. Journal metrics are widely used by academics as a surrogate measure of the quality of the article (Royle, Kandala, Barnard, & Waugh, 2013).

Our systematic review includes only studies published in peer-reviewed journals acknowledged by the following journal metrics: (a) International Guide to Academic Journal Quality2 (2010); (b) Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) Journal Quality List (2013)3; or (c) SJR SCImago Journal Rank4 (2013). Studies published in journals that cannot be identified within any of these metrics, were excluded from our review5.

Although the first two metrics rest upon general review by a panel of editors and subject experts, the third metric is informed by citation database. The variation in methodologies, data sources, and perspectives of the three journal metrics used is expected to facilitate cross-verification of alternative quality indicators for journals, thereby increasing the comprehensiveness and robustness of our evaluation of studies to be included in our systematic review.

2 The International Guide to Academic Journal Quality, formerly known as the Association of Business Schools (ABS) Academic Journal Quality Guide, is based on peer review, citation statistics and editorial judgments. It is intended primarily to serve the needs of the UK business and management academic community. From 2010 onwards, the rankings have been reviewed biennially. 3ABDC Journal Quality list is published by Australian Business Deans Council. An independent chair, discipline-specific panel chairs and panel members oversee an extensive review of the journal rankings. This review is supported by public submissions, qualitative and quantitative data assessment, public exposure feedback and international expert consultation. 4 SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) is a prestige metric based on the idea that 'all citations are not created equal'. With SJR, the subject field, quality and reputation of the journal have a direct effect on the value of a citation. It is a measure of scientific influence of scholarly journals that accounts for both the number of citations received by a journal and the importance or prestige of where such citations come from. SCImago uses citation data from Elsevier’s Scopus database. 5 As part of our research due diligence, we also compared the list of journals included in our systematic review against the 45 Journals used by the Financial Times (FT) Research rank. This did not change the number of articles for our systematic review, and we did not include the FT ranking as part of our journal metrics.

5.4 Further Screening and Preliminary Analysis

In step four, we retrieved the full-text articles for studies meeting the eligibility criteria. As mentioned earlier, a major research theme that emerges from the literature concerns generational differences in personality. However, this seems to be one of the most comprehensively covered area which has already been the focus of other previous reviews (e.g. Twenge & Campbell, 2008).

In addition, while acknowledging the importance of personal values, we limited the scope of our systematic review to work-related characteristics of generations. Therefore, we excluded from our review studies examining generational differences in personality traits, or personal values. Nevertheless, we touch on the possible association between these deep-level traits (personality and personal value) and certain work-related characteristics where it is warranted. We also note that although certain studies were excluded from our systematic review, they have contributed to our overall literature review.

We then conducted preliminary analyses of focus areas of the various studies to examine whether or not an overarching set of key research themes can be determined using open coding (i.e. themes are not predetermined, but rather emerge from data through examination and comparison).

This is achieved by first identifying the outcome measure included in the empirical investigation in each study. In most cases, this is clearly indicated in the title of the article in a straightforward manner (for example, Becton, Walker, & Jones-Farmer ( 2014)’s study which investigates generational differences in workplace behaviors is titled: Generational differences in workplace behavior).

In other cases, the outcome measure of the studies can be identified in the keywords of the articles. It should be noted that sometimes a study may have more than one outcome measure. These outcome measures across studies were further collapsed into key research themes.

The following six key research themes emerged: (1) communication and technology; (2) work motivators or preferred job characteristics; (3) work values; (4) work attitudes; (5) workplace/career behaviors; (6) leadership preferences or behaviors. These constitute

17 the six categories of work-related constructs we examined as the focus areas in our systematic review for more granular analysis.

5.5 Data Extraction

In the final stage, we combined the results in spreadsheets. This step involved a standardized data extraction process to reduce author subjectivity (Tranfield et al., 2003). At this stage, we used a data-extraction form for the spreadsheets. This form included the name of the author(s), year published, database, journal, methodology used, focus areas, sample, and country (available in Appendix 3).

The second reviewer conducted a repeated screening of the list to examine the potentially relevant papers for final inclusion or exclusion in the systematic review. After this search process was conducted, we obtained a final sample of 50 studies to include in this systematic review. Table 2 on the following page depicts the distribution of these articles across the journals.

5.6 Data Analysis and Synthesis

For our systematic review, we extracted the following information from each article: (a) What and how were ‘generations’ examined (i.e. the methodology)? (b) In which contexts (culture, industry) were generational differences empirically investigated? (c) What were the results of the investigation? i.e. Do generations differ in the work-related characteristics, and if so, how? With these three questions in mind, we synthesized and analyzed the data. In the last question, we juxtaposed results from quantitative and qualitative studies within each research theme and outlined them in a descriptive summary.

A flow chart summarizing our overall systematic review processes is presented in Appendix 4.

Table 2: Database and Journals included in Systematic Review

Database Journal Count GoogleScholar Asia Pacific Business Review 1 EbscoHost Career Development International 3 ScienceDirect Computers in Human Behavior 1 EbscoHost Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 2 EbscoHost Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal 1 EbscoHost Employee Relations 1 EbscoHost Forest Products Journal 1 EbscoHost Industrial Relations 1 EbscoHost International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 2 GoogleScholar International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 1 Sciencedirect International Journal of Hospitality Management 3 EbscoHost International Journal of Human Resource Management 3 ScienceDirect International Journal of Nursing Studies 1 GoogleScholar Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship 1 EbscoHost Journal of Applied Psychology 1 EbscoHost Journal of Business and Psychology 3 GoogleScholar Journal of Career Assessment 1 EbscoHost Journal of Computer Information Systems 1 EbscoHost Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies 2 EbscoHost Journal of Management 1 EbscoHost Journal of Managerial Psychology 6 EbscoHost Journal of Organizational Behavior 1 EbscoHost Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management 1 GoogleScholar Journal of Youth Studies 1 EbscoHost Knowledge and Process Management 1 GoogleScholar Leadership and Organization Development Journal 2 EbscoHost Marketing Management Journal 1 ScienceDirect Nursing Outlook 1 EbscoHost Review of Public Personnel Administration 1 EbscoHost Team Performance Management 1 GoogleScholar Technological Forecasting and Social Change 1 GoogleScholar The Psychologist-Manager Journal 1 EbscoHost Thunderbird International Business Review 1

6. Findings

This section presents the findings of our systematic review, consisting of analyses and a synthesis of results from all 50 empirical studies. Overall, this review highlights that generational differences are being researched and tested across a variety of contexts, cultures, and research foci. Our sample included 46 quantitative studies, 2 qualitative studies, and 2 mixed method studies, all empirically assessing generational differences. Therefore, this review illustrates that generational differences are being explored both quantitatively and qualitatively, and that the topic has a global interest, with studies conducted in 14 countries6.

6.1 Nature of the empirical study in the systematic review

6.1.1 What and how were ‘generations’ examined (i.e. the methodology)?

Eight studies examined four generations (Traditionalists, Baby Boomers, Gen X, and Gen Y). Of the studies that looked across three generations, three studies involved data from Traditionalists, Baby Boomers, Gen X; and twenty-four studies involved data from Baby Boomers, Gen X, and Gen Y. Of the studies comparing two generations, ten studies involved data from Baby Boomers, Gen X; and three studies involved data from Gen X and Gen Y. Only one study had data spanning five generations (GIs7, Traditionalists, Baby Boomers, Gen X, and Gen Y). One study used ‘age-group’ (older/younger group) as a proxy for generational label. The different ways in which the various studies categorized generational cohorts are summarized in Appendix 5.

A small number of studies used samples drawn from existing national surveys (N = 6, 12%), with the rest of the studies employing convenience sampling procedures either involving university students (N = 4, 8%); employees in organizations or professionals

6 One study did not identify specific nationality of the sample, thus was not included in the countries count. 7 The term ‘G.I.’ stands for ‘General Issue’, and commonly used as an adjective for anything related to the Army. The G.I. Generation (or ‘The Greatest Generation’) has been used to describe the generation that grew up in the US during the deprivation of the Great Depression, then went on to fight in World War II.

(N = 27, 54%); or snowball samples8 (N = 13, 26%). Employees/professional samples come from a whole range of industries including education, government, IT, accounting, and hospitality.

The majority of studies used quantitative methods (N = 46, 92%), although only two studies (N = 2, 4%) used qualitative methods, and two studies (N = 2, 4%) employed mixed methods (utilizing interviews, focus groups, and surveys, or some combination of these). Most quantitative studies (N = 43) used cross-sectional data, although only one study used repeated cross-sectional data, and two other studies applied a time-lag design.

6.1.2 In which contexts were generational differences empirically investigated?

Our review found that generational differences were being studied across cultures, contexts, and a range of other areas of research focus. Generational topics also seem to have a global appeal, with studies being conducted in 14 countries (with one study using samples of European origin without identifying country names). This includes three cross-cultural studies. However, the findings demonstrate that the majority of studies were undertaken in Western countries—predominantly the US (N = 32), followed by Australia (N = 5), Canada (N = 4), New Zealand (N = 1), and European countries (N = 4), with only 7 studies involved countries from the Asian region (China, Singapore, India, UAE, Taiwan, Japan, and Thailand).

The synthesis revealed six areas of focus that were developed from the extracted data, with some studies containing more than one area of focus. An overall count and description of each theme is as follows: (1) Communication and technology (N = 7)—the use of technology and communication preferences; (2) Work motivators or preferred job characteristics (N = 29)—what generations desire or appreciate in terms of characteristics of their work context; (3) Work values (N = 14)—generally conceptualized as work centrality, intrinsic, extrinsic, altruistic, and social values; (4) Work attitudes (N = 7)— disposition towards various aspects of work including job/career satisfaction, organizational commitment, employee engagement, and turnover intention; (5) Workplace/career behaviors (N = 4)—generally including job/career mobility, willingness

8 A snowball sample is a non-probability sampling technique that is appropriate to use in research when the members of a population are difficult to locate. Snowball sampling is achieved by asking a participant to suggest someone else who might be willing or appropriate for the study.

21 to work overtime, compliance with work rules; (6) Leadership preferences, behaviors, and development (N = 4)—characteristics looked for in leaders, or individuals’ own leadership skills or behaviors.

6.1.3 What were the results of the investigation?

This section addresses one research question of this paper: Does the existing empirical research indicate that generations actually differ in the work-related characteristics, and if so, how? (Table 3 shows an overview of the results of the studies analyzed in our systematic review.)

We classified the study results into three categories. The first category contains studies that find significant generational differences or generational effects with regard to the outcomes examined. The second category consists of studies that yielded mixed data. In these studies, the authors reported some results indicating generation differences but they also reported results showing generations were similar in other outcomes. The third category was for studies that yielded results that fully challenge the generational diversity argument. These studies did not find any significant differences across generations.

Of the 50 studies included in our review, 17 studies (34%) found clear generational differences; 31 studies (62%) studies found mixed results indicating both generational differences as well as similarities; and only 2 studies (4%) did not find any evidence of generational differences.

Table 3: Overview of Results of Studies Analyzed

Result Type Number of Studies Clear Generational Differences 17 Mixed Data showing differences and similarities 31 Minimal or No Generational Differences 2 Total 50

6.2 Generational Differences and Similarities

In the following section, we reported evidence of generational differences and similarities for six broad thematic categories (see Table 4). These categories are research areas/foci created by collapsing various outcome measures from all studies. Whilst these categories are conceptually distinct in their own right, the research areas help to identify broad patterns in the data.

Table 4: Studies Included in Each Research Areas

Research area N Communication and technology 7 Work motivators or preferred job characteristics 29 Work values 14 Work attitudes 7 Workplace/career behaviors 4 Leadership preferences, behaviors, and 4 development

The findings from all these studies for each of research thematic areas discussed in the subsequent sub-sections, are summarized in Table 5 – found at the end of section 6. In addition, we have summarized some of the key findings from the research that give rise to practical implications for contemporary leadership and management based on the research reviewed – this is found in Appendix 6.

6.2.1 Communication and technology

From the review, one of the most salient ways in which generations differ appears to be their relationships and aptitudes and approaches to communication and technology. A study by Reisenwitz & Iyer (2009) provides empirical evidence supporting the popular notion that young people are “digital natives” who are comfortable with Internet, and consider themselves more experienced and effective users than older generations. Likewise, qualitative research by Gursoy et al. (2008) found younger generations (Gen X and Gen Y) are technologically-savvy and see the best work environment as one that provides the latest technology. Older cohorts, on the other hand, are found to fit the “digital immigrants” stereotype of being less adept and comfortable with technology compared to younger generations (Gursoy et al., 2013).

In terms of media consumption and behaviors, Gen Y were found to be exposed to more media and technology during the day, and utilize more and newer types of media and technology to complete their work than their older counterparts (Bott, 2011). Another technology-related behavior that shows generational differences is multitasking. Carrier et al. (2009) found recent generations multi-task more frequently; with higher numbers of task combinations; and that they also find it easier to multi-task than older generations. Despite a fundamental difference across generations with respect to the level of proficiency with and usage of technology, Lester et al. (2012) found no significant difference in the extent to which Boomer, Gen X, and Gen Y value the use of technology in the workplace. This finding might invalidate the common misconception that older generations are resistant to technology.

There was some disagreement among generations relating to technology, nonetheless, in the realm of communication. Boomers and Gen X valued technology-driven modes of communication less than Gen Y. Whilst the youngest generation was found to value email communication and social media more than their older counterparts, they were as likely as the older generations to value traditional face-to-face communication as an effective means of exchanging information with other generations (Lester et al., 2012). Nevertheless, all three cohorts (Boomer, Gen X, and Gen Y) agree on the overall diminished need for physical face-to-face interaction (Haeger & Lingham, 2014).

In exploring how technology affects work-life management of workers, Haeger & Lingham (2014) also found some generational differences. The younger generations (Gen X and Y) considered the ability to concurrently manage work and life issues via technological tools significant, where this is the not the case for Baby Boomers, potentially due to the older generation having a predisposition to manage work-life separately. These findings indicate a clear trend toward the conflation of work and life domains, leading to an integrated “work-life fusion” as a cohort becomes younger.

6.2.2 Work motivators or preferred job characteristics

Among various motivational factors of work characteristics, three factors consistently show similarities among generations: ‘competitive compensation’, ‘job security’, and ‘stimulating job’. All studies indicated that ‘good pay’ (or ‘competitive rewards’/‘salary’) is an important motivator for all employees, regardless of generations (Jurkiewicz & Brown, 1998; Leschinsky & Michael, 2004; Lub et al., 2012;

Roongrerngsuke & Liefooghe, 2013; Takase et al., 2009). Likewise, the need for job security or secured employment is rated highly for all generations (Leschinsky & Michael, 2004; Takase et al., 2009; Wong et al., 2008), whilst one study found Gen X to value job security slightly more than Gen Y (Lub et al., 2012). More nuanced findings on job security (Hansen & Leuty, 2011) suggest that although generations may value security similarly, Baby Boomers & Generation X value security in their professions/industry rather than having security in their current job, unlike individuals of the older generation (Traditionalists), who appear to closely link job security to tenure in the company for which they work (Hansen & Leuty, 2011).

With respect to the nature of the job, one study found younger generations have a significantly higher desire for authenticity (i.e. obtaining a job that they enjoy and allows them to express their personal values) than older generations, although no differences were found regarding the desire for challenge (Sullivan et al., 2009). This is supported by other studies which found that individuals viewed challenging work (Bristow et al., 2011), and making a difference to a company (Leschinsky & Michael, 2004) as important, regardless of their generation.

Although generations may share some common preferences when it comes to motivation at work, there are many areas where they may differ. Lester et al. (2012) found that older generations value professionalism more than the younger generations. This is in line with Wils et al.'s (2011) study, which found that Baby Boomers attached more importance to respecting rules and codes of conduct, and less importance to fun and stimulation at work than younger generations. Gen Y, in particular, seems to value workplace fun more than previous generations (Lester et al., 2012), showing stronger positive association between fun and job satisfaction and task performance (Lamm & Meeks, 2009). Gen Y was also found to be more likely to exhibit ‘outside-of-the-box’ type behavior, and challenge conventional norms and superiors compared to older generations (Gursoy et al., 2013).

In terms of ‘formal authority’, however, one study (Lester et al., 2012) did not find generations to display any actual differences. Another study, which included a recent phenomenon of diversity as a motivational factor in the investigation of generational differences, found that Gen Y places a higher importance on a diverse climate in the workplace than previous generations, and is less likely to hold outdated prejudice (Mencl & Lester, 2014).

Somewhat less conclusive findings emerge within studies related to power, status, recognition, and autonomy at work. One study identified Boomers and Gen X to be more likely to be motivated by power and ability to influence others than Gen Y (Wong et al., 2008), although another study finds Gen X to be more likely than the other two generations to strive for power (Gursoy et al., 2013). However, a study of Taiwanese workers did not find any significant differences—with generations seeing power and prestige as a less important issue (Yu & Miller, 2003). Whilst some previous research found no generational differences on the value attributed to recognition (Yu & Miller, 2003; Lester et al., 2012), other research found recognition—particularly immediate feedback and recognition - is most valued by Gen Y (Gursoy et al., 2013; Mencl & Lester, 2014). This mentality of the younger generation, which values receiving recognition, also extends to giving out recognition.

In a qualitative study by Busch et al. (2008), younger generations saw informal recognition of colleagues’ achievement as a good idea, whereas Baby Boomers tended to be more reticent about handing out praise. However, the need for recognition was realized differently for younger generations in another area. They believed that applying their ideas to their work routine was important, and that their ideas about workplace improvement were valid, whereas the Baby Boomers were less interested in these areas.

Yu & Miller (2003) found no generational differences in value placed on autonomy at work. On the other hand, some studies did find significant generational differences, with Gen X appearing to place more importance on autonomy (which includes more responsibilities and freedom in the conduct of their work) than other generations (Lub et al., 2012; Takase et al., 2009). In the study of motivational factors among public employees by Jurkiewicz & Brown (1998), Baby Boomers rank ‘freedom from supervision’ higher than Gen X.

Although one study found generations to express similarly high needs for good working conditions (Takase et al., 2009), another study by (Westerman & Yamamura, 2007), looking at work environment at a more granular level, revealed deeper insights. Their findings indicated the importance of goal orientation (e.g. participation in decision-making, task orientation, expectation for success and accomplishment), and system environment (e.g. orderly and organized work setting, clear expectation, control) for younger generations. If these preferences are not realized, it may result in

26 higher levels of dissatisfaction and turnover. Surprisingly, these were not a significant predictor of outcomes for Baby Boomers; rather, the driver of Baby Boomers’ job satisfaction is primarily concerned with ‘relationship fit’ (such as social interaction and cohesion among workers, and the friendship and support provided by co-workers and management). In contrast, other studies found generation Y to be more affiliative or social at work than older cohorts (Real et al., 2010; Wong et al., 2008).

Another pervasive theme under the study of interpersonal relations at work is generational preference for teamwork. Studies in these areas provided contradictory evidence. Some research demonstrated no generational differences in the importance of teamwork or team relationships among generations (Cogin, 2012; Jurkiewicz & Brown, 1998; Lub et al., 2012). However, one study revealed that Gen X had a greater preference to work alone than Baby Boomers, and that Baby Boomers value teamwork more than Gen X (Yrle et al., 2005).

With the addition of the youngest generation, however, a qualitative study by Gursoy et al. (2008), found that young workers are accustomed to, and prefer to work, in team environments where their work is performed in a collaborative fashion. In terms of supervisor-supervisee relationships, generations similarly see a strong relationship as important because it contributes to well-being, satisfaction with training and development, as well as affective commitment on the job (Brunetto et al., 2012). However, one study found Gen Y seems to rely more on this relationship for guidance and directions than older generations (Gursoy et al., 2013).

Generally, generations exhibit some differences with respect to growth and development within organizations. Younger generations reported a stronger desire to be promoted more quickly than older generations (Leschinsky & Michael, 2004; Smola & Sutton, 2002). This is supported by more recent studies which consistently found that Gen Y in particular were more attracted to jobs which provide career progression and advancement opportunities than other generation cohorts (Wong et al., 2008). In line with this, Cennamo & Gardner (2008) found younger generations placed more importance on status than the older group—possibly because status provides visibility that aids progression and marketability within an organization. Other consistent findings also emerged in relation to generational differences in ‘learning’—with younger generations placing higher importance on learning opportunities than older

27 generations (D’Amato & Herzfeldt, 2008; Jurkiewicz & Brown, 1998; Lester et al., 2012; Roongrerngsuke & Liefooghe, 2013).

A number of studies, however, indicated it is Gen X who value greater flexibility and express a higher desire for balance than any other generation (Beutell, 2013; Lub et al., 2012; Sullivan et al., 2009). The fact that Gen X experienced more work-life conflict and expected employers to accommodate their work-family issues might be due to their family stage, given they are moving to the peak family years (Beutell & Wittig-Berman, 2008). On the other hand, a recent study also shows a sign that the need to maintain work-life balance may start to converge among generations. Brown (2012) found that work intensification (or sustained long hours) leads to lower levels of job satisfaction for all generations. We note that this study draws information across a national survey which sample workers across occupations, rather than explicit occupational groups such as doctors, nurses, teachers or lawyers.

6.2.3 Work Values

Generally, work values are conceptualized as work centrality, leisure, intrinsic, extrinsic, altruistic, and social value (Twenge, 2010). In our review, fourteen studies explored generational differences in work values. For generational differences in work centrality, although one study found that Gen X manifests a slightly lower level of work ethic than Gen Y (Meriac et al., 2010), most studies found that the value placed on working hard shows a clear pattern of decline with each successive generation (Cogin, 2012; Gursoy et al., 2013; Gursoy et al., 2008). As the central importance of work declines from the older to younger generations, the desire for more leisure time increases with each generation (Cogin, 2012; Takase et al., 2009; Twenge et al., 2010). This might also reflect a developing notion of “working smarter” versus “working smarter” over time.

In general, these studies seem to substantiate the pioneering study of generational differences by (Smola & Sutton, 2002) which found younger generations have become less convinced that work should be one of the most important parts of one’s life—by being more likely: to agree that “I would quit my job if I inherited a lot of money”; and to disagree that “rich people should feel an obligation to work even if they do not need to.” However, in a study of skilled construction workers in the U.S., Gen Y displayed a higher work ethic than both Gen X and Baby Boomers, although the differences were

28 small (Real et al., 2010). On the other hand, a study using a UAE sample showed no generational differences in work ethics, suggesting a strong social pressure to conform to a cultural norm in Arab societies (Whiteoak et al., 2006).

A less clear-cut picture emerged for extrinsic values (such as salary, material possessions, prestige) and intrinsic values. Although Cennamo & Gardner (2008) found no generational differences in extrinsic values, two other studies did find significant generational differences. Evidence from Twenge et al. (2010) shows Gen Y being significantly more interested in extrinsic rewards than Baby Boomers, but still less than Gen X. This is in line with the findings (Krahn & Galambos, 2013) in a longitudinal study indicating a more linear trend, with younger cohorts placing increasing value on extrinsic work rewards. Likewise, two studies found that generational cohorts did not differ in intrinsic values (Cennamo & Gardner, 2008; Krahn & Galambos, 2013), though one study found the importance of intrinsic values declines slightly over the generations (Twenge et al., 2010). However, a recent study by Deal et al. (2013) found no generational differences in intrinsic motivation and identified motivation (conceptually similar to intrinsic values), but did find generational differences in external and introjected work motivation (conceptually similar to extrinsic values).

Most studies on work values failed to find significant differences in regard to altruistic- related values (volunteering/helping others) (Cennamo & Gardner, 2008; Hansen & Leuty, 2011; Twenge et al., 2010), with the exception of Chen & Choi (2008) who found Baby Boomers to value altruistic work higher than younger generational members. With respect to social values, Cennamo & Gardner (2008) found no generational difference. However, the time lag evidence by Twenge et al. (2010) suggested that Gen Y places less emphasis on social interaction than Gen X and Boomers, although other research supported the notion that younger generations (both Gen X and Gen Y) place more importance on social connections at work (Hansen & Leuty, 2011).

6.2.4 Work attitudes

Work attitudes reflect employees’ relatively stable evaluative (cognitive) or emotional (affective) disposition towards various aspects of work (Hulin & Judge, 2003). Multiple work attitudes constructs exist, but among the most investigated in the studies included in our review are: job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and employee engagement. Empirical research seems to provide some support that work attitudes vary by generations.

All studies found significant generational differences in job satisfaction; however, the direction of these differences is not as clear. Two cross-sectional studies reported a declining pattern of job satisfaction in successive generations (Benson & Brown, 2011; Beutell & Wittig-Berman, 2008). Conversely, using a stronger data analysis technique which controls for age and time-period effect, Kowske et al. (2010) found a decrease in job satisfaction from Traditionalist to Baby Boomers, then slightly increased satisfaction in younger generations, with Gen Y’s overall satisfaction higher than average.

The studies’ results suggest a downward trend of overall organizational commitment (D’Amato & Herzfeldt, 2008; Lub et al., 2012). However, Davis et al. (2006) found the younger generations display greater commitment to their organization than their Boomer colleagues. On the other hand, Baby Boomers were found to show higher commitment to their ‘profession’, but this result could relate to the career-stage effect where the cost of transferring to another career path may be higher for older generations (Davis et al., 2006). Another study (Benson & Brown, 2011) found only a weak relationship between generations and organizational commitment.

Younger generations were generally found to have a higher turnover intention than previous generations (Benson & Brown, 2011; Lub et al., 2012). A few studies show that this can be modulated or exacerbated by specific factors. For example, D’Amato & Herzfeldt ’s (2008) study of learning orientation of 1,600 managers across Europe suggests that the provision of adequate learning opportunities can help retain managerial talent in younger generations. On the other hand, younger generations are significantly more likely to leave their organization if they experience a lack of work engagement (Park & Gursoy, 2012). This is particularly critical as younger generations were also found to exhibit a lower level of work engagement than older generations (Park & Gursoy, 2012).

6.2.5 Workplace/Career behaviors

Although a majority of studies of generational difference focus on work motivators and attitudes, there are only a handful of studies that examine the effect of generation on important workplace behaviors including job mobility, disciplinary action, and willingness to work overtime. Consistent with previous studies noting Gen X’s tendency to place highest importance on work-life balance, one study found Gen X is less likely to work overtime compared to Baby Boomers and Gen Y (Becton et al., 2014).

However, more nuanced findings from a qualitative study (Busch et al., 2008) reveal that younger generations (Gen Y in particular) were enthusiastic and passionate about working (unpaid) overtime if the tasks involved work that ‘went beyond what was originally called for’ (p.54), whilst Baby Boomers were less inclined to consider doing this extra voluntary work. In terms of disciplinary actions, Baby Boomers showed greater compliance with work rules (attendance and appearance), and fewer terminations (i.e. number of times an applicant had been fired in the past) than their younger peers (Becton et al., 2014). Increased career mobility in successive generations was also observed in two studies (Becton et al., 2014; Dries, 2008). Due to the cross- sectional nature of the data, these generational differences may be partially attributed to age or life stage effects.

To overcome such limitations, Lyons et al. (2012) employed a qualitative approach using retrospective accounts to compare career patterns of four generational cohorts in Canada. They found younger generations were willing to change jobs at a greater rate than previous generations and were more willing to accept non-upward career moves.

Another quantitative study by Lyons et al. (2015), which examines intergenerational shifts in career patterns, found evidence of increased job and organizational mobility across four generations. The magnitude of the differences was large—Gen Y had almost twice as many job and organizational moves per year than Gen X; almost three times as many as Baby Boomers; and 4.5 times as many as the Traditionalists. For career mobility patterns, they found only upward moves, rather than multi-directional career moves to be the norm in careers, contrary to their initial hypothesis of a shift toward a greater diversity of career moves (such as greater lateral, or downward movements).

6.2.6 Leadership preferences or behaviors

Generational differences in values and attitudes are believed to influence each generation’s preferences for different types of leaders and their leadership behaviors (Zemke et al., 2000). In a study of Taiwanese employees, (Yu & Miller, 2005) found significant generational differences in leadership style preferences between Baby Boomers and Gen X employees in the manufacturing industry. Although Baby Boomers were more comfortable with receiving direction from supervisors and preferred to accept a ‘chain of command’ leadership style, Gen X employees preferred their employer to treat

31 them more as partners than workers, and thus preferred relationship-oriented leadership styles.

Three other studies from the U.S. explored leadership preferences and which certain qualities the generations desired or admired in their leaders. This was achieved by providing participants with a list of leadership attributes, and having them choose and rank the attributes according to what they perceive as most important for leaders. One of the first studies to look at these generational differences in leadership preferences (Arsenault, 2004), indicates 8 of 10 leadership characteristics as being significant. Whilst honesty was the number one ranked characteristic for all generational groups, caring was found to be less important to successive generations. On the other hand, ambition, imagination and determination were more important to younger generations, whereas Baby Boomers and Gen X rated competence higher than Traditionalists and Gen Y.

The study by Sessa et al. (2007) found 6 out of 12 characteristics to be significantly different between generations. Traditionalists valued a publicly impressive and dedicated leader with experience and a big-picture orientation (global view, farsighted). Baby Boomers valued a politically astute leader (persuasive and diplomatic). Gen X valued attributes that suggest an optimistic and persuasive leader with experience. Gen Y wanted a dedicated and creative leader who cares about them personally (encouraging, listens well, supportive). Again, honesty was found to be important to all groups.

A further study by Gentry & Griggs (2011) found significant differences in 10 of 16 traits, for example: leading employees, participative management’ self-awareness, and differences matter. A particular finding to note is that Gen X and Gen Y endorse ‘being a quick study’ as being more important than managers in older generations, consistent with the stereotype of unreasonable urgency and lack of deep thinking among younger generations (Gentry & Griggs, 2011).

With respect to leadership behaviors, a large cross-sectional study of U.S. and Canadian workers by Sessa et al. (2007) showed that younger leaders were more likely to use a more individual leadership style with a focus on attaining short-term results, whereas the more consensual leadership styles leveraging skills and abilities of others were favored by previous generations of leaders.

This finding somewhat contradicts a previous study of leadership style preference by Yu & Miller (2005), and the conventional view that younger generations value

32 democratic culture and participatory leadership. This disparity in findings could possibly be explained by the different sample used in the two studies. (Yu & Miller, 2005)’s data comes from Taiwanese participants, who are more likely to have a collectivist (rather than individualist) cultural mindset. Alternatively, it may suggest actual generational differences in leadership behaviors—reflecting a gap between what each generation values or prefers in leadership attributes, and the behaviors that they would be likely to exhibit themselves.

Closely related is Gentry & Griggs’s (2011) study which evaluates the gap among generations’ perception of the importance placed on leadership practices and the actual skill level rated by their superiors, but no significant generational differences were found. In terms of perception and practice, results show that each of the three generations has similar areas of development, which include the following: leading employees, change management, and building & mending relationships.

Table 5 — Evidence of generational differences in work-related characteristics

Research Themes Sub-themes Evidence Findings References Communication and technology Technology Literacy, Generational Differences Younger generations are more comfortable and proficient with the use Reisenwitz & Iyer (2009); Gursoy et al. (2008); Competency, and of new technology. They also utilize more types of media and Gursoy et al. (2013); Bott (2011); Carrier et al. Behaviors technology to complete their work than older generations. They also (2009) tend to multitask more than previous generations. Attitudes toward No Differences All generations see the value of technology in the workplace. Lester et al. (2012) technology in the workplace

Communication Generational Differences Younger generations tend to communicate with others through leaner Lester et al. (2012); Haeger & Lingham (2014) Preferences communication media (email, social media) more than previous generations. All generations still see the value in traditional face-to- face interactions but younger generations indicate less need for it.

Attitudes toward Generational Differences There is a shift to an integrated approach to work and life Haeger & Lingham (2014) technology for work-life management in younger cohorts (especially Gen Y) through increasing management use of technologies at work.

Work motivators or preferred job characteristics Good Pay No differences Every generation regards competitive salary as important for their Jurkiewicz & Brown (1998); Leschinsky & jobs. Michael (2004); Lub et al. (2012); Roongrerngsuke & Liefooghe (2013); Takase et al. (2009)

Job security No differences Every generation regards job security as important for their job. Leschinsky & Michael (2004); Takase et al. (2009); Wong et al. (2008); Lub et al. (2012); Hansen & Leuty (2011)

The Job itself No differences For both Gen X and Gen Y, the most important factor seems to be 'the Sullivan et al. (2009); Bristow et al. (2011); job itself' (having a job that is interesting, challenging, and providing a Leschinsky & Michael (2004) variety and stimulation, opportunity to make contribution).

Professionalism Generational Differences Baby Boomers appear to value professionalism more than their Lester et al. (2012); Wils et al. (2011) younger counterparts.

Workplace Fun Generational Differences Gen Y value fun at work more than previous generation. Lester et al. (2012); Lamm & Meeks (2009)

Research Themes Sub-themes Evidence Findings References Respect for No differences Generations did not display any actual difference in the degree to Gursoy et al. (2013); Lester et al. (2012) Authority/Hierarchy which they value “formal authority” at work.

Diversity Climate Generational Differences Gen Y value diversity in organizations more than previous Mencl & Lester (2014) generations, and are less likely to hold outdated prejudices.

Power Inconclusive Evidence Although some studies found older generations strive more for power Wong et al. (2008); Gursoy et al. (2013); Yu & in organizations, one study found no generational difference. Miller (2003)

Need for recognition Inconclusive Evidence Although some studies found no differences, one study found Yu & Miller (2003); Lester et al. (2012); Gursoy Generation Y valued recognition more than any other generation, et al. (2013); Mencl & Lester (2014); Busch et al. particularly immediate recognition and feedback. (2008)

Autonomy Inconclusive Evidence Although some studies found no differences, other studies found Yu & Miller (2003); Lub et al. (2012); Takase et older generations value autonomy at work than younger generations. al. (2009); Jurkiewicz & Brown (1998)

Supportive Work Inconclusive Evidence Although some studies found working conditions (social Takase et al. (2009); Westerman & Yamamura Atmosphere environment) was more important to younger generations, one study (2007); Real et al. (2010); Wong et al. (2008) found it is most valued by Baby Boomers.

Teamwork Orientation Inconclusive Evidence One study found Baby Boomers are more comfortable working with Cogin (2012); Jurkiewicz & Brown (1998); Lub others and favored teamwork more than Gen X does. Other studies et al. (2012); Yrle et al. (2005); Gursoy et al. suggested the importance of work team and social activities among (2008) younger generations.

Supervisory Relationship No differences All generations place importance on strong supervisory relationships. Brunetto et al. (2012) Need for guidance and Generational Differences Younger generations express higher needs for guidance and direction Gursoy et al. (2013) direction from their leaders/mentors at work.

Advancement Generational Differences Younger generations place higher importance of career advancement Leschinsky & Michael (2004); Smola & Sutton Opportunities opportunities and want to be promoted more quickly than previous (2002); Wong et al. (2008) generations.

Status within Generational Differences Younger generations place more important on 'status' than older Cennamo & Gardner (2008) organization generations.

Learning, Growth, and Generational Differences Younger generations place higher emphasis on lifelong learning, and D’Amato & Herzfeldt (2008); Jurkiewicz & Development personal development at work than Baby Boomers. Brown (1998); Lester et al., (2012); Roongrerngsuke & Liefooghe (2013)

Work Hours/Work Inconclusive Evidence Although some studies found younger generations to value work-life Beutell (2013); Lub et al., (2012); Sullivan et al. Flexibility/Work-Life balance more than previous generations, some studies found the need (2009); Beutell & Wittig-Berman (2008); Brown Balance for balance have converged and is now the same for all generations. (2012)

Research Themes Sub-themes Evidence Findings References

Work Values Work-Ethics/Work Generational Differences Decline in work centrality and work ethics over the generations. Meriac et al. (2010); Cogin (2012); Gursoy et al. Centrality (2008); Gursoy et al. (2013); Takase et al. (2009); Smola & Sutton (2002); Real et al. (2010); Whiteoak et al. (2006)

Leisure Values Generational Differences Desire for more leisure increases over the generations. Cogin (2012); Takase et al. (2009); Twenge et al. (2010)

Extrinsic Values (Money, Inconclusive Evidence Although one study found no differences, other studies find younger Cennamo & Gardner (2008); Twenge et al. Status) generations place more importance on extrinsic values. (2010); Krahn & Galambos (2013) ; Deal et al. (2013)

Intrinsic Values Inconclusive Evidence Although some studies found no differences, other studies found Cennamo & Gardner (2008); Twenge et al. (Meaning, talent) younger generations place less importance on intrinsic values. (2010); Krahn & Galambos (2013) ; Deal et al. (2013)

Altruistic Values Inconclusive Evidence Whilst most studies found no generational differences in altruistic Cennamo & Gardner (2008); Twenge et al. (volunteering, helping values (such as helping others and being worthwhile to society), one (2010); Hansen & Leuty (2011); Chen & Choi others) study found this to decline among younger generations. (2008)

Social Values (Affiliation Inconclusive Evidence Although some studies found Gen Y to value social interaction less Cennamo & Gardner (2008); Twenge et al. at work) than previous generations, others say that younger generations highly (2010); Hansen & Leuty (2011) value social connection at work.

Work Attitudes Job Satisfaction Generational Differences Job satisfaction to decrease with successive generations. Benson & Brown (2011); Beutell & Wittig- Berman (2008); Kowske, Rasch, & Wiley (2010)

Organizational Generational Differences Younger generations are less committed to organizations. D’Amato & Herzfeldt (2008); Lub et al. (2012); Commitments/Loyalty Davis et al. (2006); Benson & Brown (2011)

Turnover Intentions Generational Differences Younger generation more likely to express an intention to leave D’Amato & Herzfeldt (2008); Park & Gursoy organization. (2012) Workplace/career Behaviors Willingness to work Generational Differences Gen X is less likely to work overtime in comparison with Baby Becton et al. (2014) overtime Boomers and Gen Y. But younger generations are more willing to do voluntary work.

Compliance with work Generational Differences Baby Boomers are more disciplined than younger generations toward Becton et al. (2014) rules attendance and appearance, and show fewer terminations.

Research Themes Sub-themes Evidence Findings References Job Mobility/Career Generational Differences Younger generations change jobs at a greater rate than previous Dries (2008); Becton et al. (2014); Lyons et al. Behavior generations and are more willing to accept non-upward career. (2012); Lyons et al. (2015)

Leadership Preferences and Behaviors Leadership Generational Differences Generations differ in how they prefer to be led. However, honesty is Yu & Miller (2005); Arsenault (2004); Sessa et al. Preferences/Attributes an imperative leadership quality for every generation. (2007); Gentry & Griggs (2011) value in Leader

Leadership Generational Differences Younger leaders were more likely to use a more individual leadership Sessa et al. (2007) Behaviors/Practice style, whereas Baby Boomers is more likely to adopt consensual leadership styles.

Leadership Development No differences Generations similarly need to work on three areas: leading employees, Gentry & Griggs (2011) Gap change management, and building & mending relationships.

7. Strengths and Limitations

There have been few literature reviews on the topic of generational differences. We believe this is the first in systematic review format. For scholars, systematic review can enhance methodological rigor as well as highlighting opportunities for further research. For practitioners, systematic review can help address managerial problems by producing a reliable knowledge base through accumulating findings from a range of studies (Briner & Denyer, 2012). Indeed, our study confirms the value of providing the empirical evidence to inform the development of generational theory and practice in respect to managing generations in the workplace. Nevertheless, although this systematic review was conducted in an explicit, disciplined manner, some potential limitations should be acknowledged.

First, the present stage of development of the field, and the heterogeneous studies (in terms of samples, research design, and measures of outcomes) limit the extent to which clear conclusions can be drawn regarding generational effects. One systematic review and in-depth synthesis cannot in itself overcome these complexities, but it can provide some clarity about the empirical research evidence and its implications for further research and practice.

Secondly, the search process was limited to journals available through the authors’ institution library system that were peer-reviewed published articles written in English language and listed on any of the three journal metrics nominated. Therefore, this systematic review did not include non-indexed journals, dissertations, or books, because they are not peer-reviewed. Given the increasing universal interest in generational differences as identified in our systematic review, there may be more empirical studies being published in languages other than English that might contradict or complement some of the conclusions being drawn here.

Thirdly, the methodology utilized, together with the findings of the studies included in the systematic review, were assessed by independent reviewers, aided by the use of journal metrics in order to improve the credibility and accuracy of findings. However, our attempt to synthesize quantitative (either cross-sectional or longitudinal) and qualitative data may have hindered the ability to sufficiently explore all methodological considerations when combining the findings of these different types of empirical studies into an integrated and coherent text within each emerging research theme.

Given the origin of systematic review in the medical and healthcare field, which conducts controlled trial studies, there are few critical appraisal tools developed here that are applicable to systematic review research methods used in other academic disciplines (see University of York. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, & Akers, 2009). In order to assist future research, additional work is needed on how to best assess the quality of quantitative and qualitative elements of business and management studies, if a “systematic research” methodology is the adopted approach for the investigation.

8. Discussion, Implications, and Future Research

The first question of this review sought to discover what and how ‘generations’ are being examined. The multiple birthdates used by studies to demarcate generational cohorts point to the fact that there is currently not an agreed-upon measurement of each generation. Most research on generational differences that use sampling methodology utilized employees from various industries as samples, whereas there is only a small number of studies using a student sample, refuting previous contentions that empirical evidence of Gen Y characteristics relied mainly on student data (Kowske et al., 2010).

However, this systematic review identified only 16 empirical studies that include Gen Y as a generation of interest, supporting previous comments that, despite the widespread conversations regarding Gen Y in the popular press, there is relatively sparse empirical research published on this youngest cohort (Deal et al., 2010; Dulin, 2008). As more Gen Y step into the world of work, it will be essential to examine whether Gen Y holds unique workplace needs and demands in comparison to previous generations through more detailed research studies. Additionally, generational sampling in professional groups (such as lawyers, accountants and the like), as noted earlier may increase the usefulness of research findings for specific organizations or functions.

Moreover, our review reveals that a substantial portion of empirical studies have not collected data on all generations in the workplace. With the exception of Kowske et al. (2010) which compares five generations, most previous work is limited to a comparison of two or three generations, typically Traditionalists, Baby boomers, and Gen X; or Baby Boomers, and Gen X. In the era of accelerating change, reflected in rapid economic, social, political, cultural, and technological development, we would expect the

39 differences identified to date between generations to become potentially more prominent with each successive generation. These assumptions are unquestionably subject to testing. Nevertheless, by looking at a complete range of generational cohorts, including particularly Gen Y, continuing cross-generational investigation should more accurately capture the reality of generational multiplicity in organizations.

In terms of ‘how’ generations are being examined, there is an over-representation of quantitative empirical studies and a rarity of studies using a qualitative approach, supporting a call for more qualitative efforts in generational research (Lyons & Kuron, 2014).

The second question of this review explored the contexts in which generational differences are being empirically investigated. Our review indicates there is a diversity of cultures and research areas in which generational similarities and differences are being explored. However published evidence in examining generational differences seems to be predominantly in the United States and western countries; nevertheless, there are a small number of studies from other parts of the world, supporting previous reviews (Parry & Urwin, 2011). Although beyond the scope of our systematic review, there has also been little, if any, interest in the differences within generational cohorts. This includes differences in individual factors such as gender, ethnicity, nationality, socio-economic status (class), educational level, occupational groups (white collar, blue collar, and service workers), or other orientation. Therefore, future research considering these elements would make a contribution to the overall generational research.

The third question sought to understand those areas of generational difference identified by rigorous research. The systematic review also shows that research on generational differences is still an emerging area of research with limited research focus. Through our analyses and syntheses of the findings of the empirical studies in our review, six key categories of possible generational differences emerged. The review reveals that some research areas have been studied more than others (e.g. work values and work motivators), whilst less explored areas are: work attitudes, work behaviors, leadership preferences and behaviors, and technology and communication. Consequently, this review helps identify areas which are underexplored and therefore ripe for further investigation.

For the last question of our systematic review, we sought to answer whether the existing empirical research indicates that generations actually differ in their work- related characteristics. Taken collectively, the findings 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.

Our results are generally consistent with previous (traditional narrative) reviews of generational differences (Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Twenge & Campbell, 2008). However, we included additional studies that were not incorporated in these previous reviews (e.g. Becton et al., 2014; Haeger & Lingham, 2014; Mencl & Lester, 2014; Roongrerngsuke & Liefooghe, 2013; Takase et al., 2009). The inclusion of these studies allows us to evaluate broader characteristics of generations and their respective implications in the workplace not previously covered (particularly, those that relate to communication and technology). The studies systematically reviewed in this paper are peer-reviewed and published in high-quality journals, which are generally accepted as part of methodological rigor. Therefore, we believe that the evidence based on solid research cited here further strengthens the conclusion that generational diversity does exist and is not entirely an unfounded stereotype as may have been suggested by some previous scholars (Giancola, 2006; Parry & Urwin, 2011).

As noted in our findings, the following six key research thematic areas demonstrated specific intergenerational differences: (1) communication and technology; (2) work motivators or preferred job characteristics; (3) work values; (4) work attitudes; (5) workplace/career behaviors; (6) leadership preferences or behaviors. These are of critical importance for today’s organizational reality and contemporary leadership and management.

Nevertheless, we believe that further investigation related to the six themes is warranted.

All generations acknowledge the value of technology to increase efficiency, effectiveness, and productivity at work. Differences in technology-related behaviors are more the result of comfort level and proficiency than a dismissal of or resistance to

41 technology. With a dearth of research on intergenerational communication based on our review, further research could also conduct a more comprehensive study of communication in the workplace. Given information and communication technology (ICT), and newer types of communication media and tools are becoming more prevalent in modern communication in organizations, one specific recommendation we have for future research in this area is to investigate contemporary communication practices of leaders and managers in global business organizations, and to explore how communication practices (communication channels used) may vary for different generational groupings. Future research can then examine if and how these differences affect intergenerational interactions, and possibly, team or organizational outcomes.

For example, as younger generations are much more comfortable with a wider range of technology than were previous cohorts, will they become reliant on certain technologies as modes of communication as they get older or work in particular ways. Empirical research could also examine whether virtual organization and teleworking is a more attractive longer term working mode for younger cohorts. Another relevant area would be to focus on the overall impact and implication of rapidly changing communication technologies and their adoption and use in older generational cohorts. In this sense, research studies could examine whether there is an optimized collection of communication formats and modes that are most beneficial for effective interaction – including the role of face-to-face communication in such a mix.

Empirical support for generational differences in work values is reasonably limited. However, the pattern of emergent research results suggests that younger generations place more importance on extrinsic values, and less on intrinsic values than their predecessors do. There is still disagreement about whether generations differ in their altruistic and social values at work, possibly due to how generations view the concept of sociality at work differently. Future research could examine these issues more closely.

With regard to preferred characteristics or motivational factors at work, all studies found that generational cohorts similarly see having high compensation, job security, and a stimulating job as important. Contrary to the stereotypical view that younger generations tend to challenge authority, generations do not appear to differ in their respect for authority or hierarchy in organizations. This gap between empirical evidence and the popular view could be due to generations’ varying conceptualization

42 of authority. Individuals may appreciate the need for some degree of formal authority, but the implausibility that each generation equates leadership with authority, might produce differences in other ways (Lester et al., 2012). Having a strong supervisor- supervisory relationship at work is important to the job satisfaction and well-being of all individuals, regardless of generations.

Nonetheless, generational members differ in their preferences for other work characteristics. Baby Boomers place more importance on professionalism, although younger generations prefer workplace fun, value workplace diversity, and are more concerned with advancement opportunities, status, and learning opportunities within organizations. This could be related to a career-stage effect where younger generations are newcomers to the workplace and thus still striving to move up the organizational ladder, whereas older generations have achieved their respective status. Longitudinal studies would enhance the understanding of these matters.

With regard to work attitudes, younger generations seem less satisfied with their jobs; less committed to their organizations; and more likely to leave the organization than older generations. Whilst there is some evidence to suggest that attitudes toward work remain stable across career stages (Hewlett et al., 2009), a frequent critique of generational research is the need to systematically disentangle differences in generational effects and career or life-stages effects (Deal, 2007; Jurkiewicz, 2000). For example, our review has identified potential generational difference in attitudes toward work-life balance; but this could be attributed to the stage individuals are at in their lives (e.g. building a family). Ensuring that future research takes into account both life or career stage and generational influence would provide a positive step in this direction.

Based on our review, although abundant literature has focused on examining generational differences in personality traits, values, and attitudes; a relatively less explored area of research is generational differences in the domain of leadership approaches. With younger generations rapidly moving into management roles (Ernst & Young, 2013), as well as the emerging trend of multigenerational top leadership teams in organizational settings (Goldsmith et al., 2003), it is imperative to understand how members of different generational cohorts view leadership.

Our review of empirical studies suggests that although there may be some similarities in leadership preferences that are shared across generations, there are also leadership needs unique to the younger generations. Unlike past generations, they place higher importance on participative decision-making and prefer to be managed under a relationship-oriented leadership style. The traditional command-and-control model of leadership accepted by the previous generations is increasingly frowned upon by younger generations. A preference for work independence may partly explain why younger generations also exhibit more self-focused leadership as a way to assert their capabilities and power to get the job done. However, more research in this area is needed to determine whether these findings are simply reflective of life-stage, and younger generations will adjust their leadership behaviors after they gain more leadership experience and/or power in organizations.

Knowledge transfer and development is another important future area in generational research in the workplace. As many of the Traditionalists and Boomers are reaching retirement age, the issue of transfer of skills, knowledge, experiences, and resources across generations in the workplace has become critical. It is necessary to pass on the intellectual, social, leadership capital of older workers to the next generations of employees. Multi-level analysis is required to sufficiently address this challenge. Starting at the individual level, this research needs to look at the learning style preference of individuals of different generations.

Although some empirical work has shown that younger generations showed higher learning orientation than older ones (D’Amato & Herzfeldt, 2008), there is very limited research that systematically analyzes different learning styles preferences of different cohorts. Moreover, learning and knowledge transfer can occur via information-sharing between employees. This calls for a study of the dynamic of interpersonal interaction between members of generational cohorts (Joshi et al., 2010). Specific future research questions could include:

 What are the principles that govern and cultivate successful mentoring relationships between individuals of different generations?  At the organizational level, what would be the managerial interventions, mechanisms, or structures that support effective learning, while promoting interaction, and optimizing the flow of knowledge across multiple generations within an organization?

 What should be the approach to ensure executive development, training and learning activities and programs maximize intergenerational knowledge sharing? Especially, where younger generations may have higher tertiary education backgrounds; and older generations may hold more “on the job” experience?

In considering practical implications, the findings of the systematic review and synthesis suggest that leaders and organizations do need to take into account the reality of generational cohorts (see also Appendix 6). The current emphasis on diversity in the workplace usually focuses on gender, race, or ethnicity but generational difference highlights another important aspect of diversity management. Human resources strategies aimed to attract, motivate, and manage workers of different generations would be well-advised to tailor their offerings and work conditions to specific characteristics of various generational cohorts—for in some aspects of work, at least, a one-size fits all approach may not be appropriate given this diversity. However, much more empirical evidence is needed so that research-based recommendations can be offered to managers and organizational leaders.

Whilst understanding that diversity within the workforce will increasingly be important in a global competitive environment (Glass, 2007), a productive goal in generational research may be to focus on whether and how the attitudinal and motivational proclivities of members of each generational cohort are manifested in important outcomes relevant for organizations. In other words, we contend that future research should move from looking at individual generations as separate units of analysis to identifying the nature of dyadic or group-level interactions between different generations in organizational settings, and the outcomes of such interactions (such as conflict, innovation, performance). To date, the lack of such research is especially noteworthy (McCann & Giles, 2006). For example, how will Gen Y’s predispositions and behaviors—including their communication orientation and skills— affect other generational cohort members (Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010). Several critical organizational outcomes can be better understood and addressed by recognizing these underlying generational dynamics, relationships, and interactions (Joshi et al., 2011), and provide and enhanced framework for how for managers/leaders to work across multiple generations simultaneously.

Lastly, there is an on-going need to develop critical appraisal processes for empirical research specific to the field of business and management in the conduct of the systematic review methodology. Perhaps our use of journal metrics as a tool for assessing quality, as well as the integration of quantitative and qualitative findings, could serve as a template for assessing the supporting evidence for thematic conclusions drawn from combining the results of multiple empirical studies.

Based on our review, the empirical evidence suggests some significant intergenerational differences presently at work in modern organizations. Thus, this systematic review validates the generational construct as a viable and valuable source of diversity. This holds important implications for how today’s generations in the workforce are uniquely experiencing and shaping their work and career. In turn, it may inform managers and leaders interested in leveraging this source of diversity how to maximize the benefits of this multigenerational workplace. In addition, our systematic review provides a comprehensive list of empirical studies on generational differences systematically and in an organized manner, which will allow future researchers to be able to position their contribution appropriately and succinctly.

References

Allen, P. (2004). Welcoming Y. Benefits Canada, 28, 51–53.

Arsenault, P. M. (2004). Validating generational differences: A legitimate diversity and leadership issue. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(2), 124–141.

Becton, J. B., Walker, H. J., & Jones-Farmer, A. (2014). Generational differences in workplace behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44(3), 175-189.

Beechler, S., & Woodward, I. C. (2009). The global “war for talent.” Journal of International Management, 15(3), 273–285.

Benson, J., & Brown, M. (2011). Generations at work: are there differences and do they matter? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(9), 1843–1865.

Beutell, N. J. (2013). Generational differences in work-family conflict and synergy. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10(6), 2544–59.

Beutell, N. J., & Wittig-Berman, U. (2008). Work-family conflict and work-family synergy for generation X, baby boomers, and matures: Generational differences, predictors, and satisfaction outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(5), 507– 523.

Bott, J. (2011). An Examination of Generational Differences and Media Exposure, 16(4), 78–91.

Bradford, F. (1993). Understanding Generation X. Marketing Research, 5, 54–55.

Briner, R. B., & Denyer, D. (2012). Systematic Review and Evidence Synthesis as a Practice and Scholarship Tool. In D. M. Rousseau (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Evidence-Based Management, 112–129.

Bristow, D., Amyx, D., Castleberry, S. B., & Cochran, J. J. (2011). A Cross-Generational Comparison of Motivational Factors in a Sales Career Among Gen-X and Gen-Y College Students. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 31(1), 77–86.

Brown, M. (2012). Responses to work intensification: does generation matter? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(17), 3578–3595.

Brunetto, Y., Farr-Wharton, R., & Shacklock, K. (2012). Communication, training, well- being, and commitment across nurse generations. Nursing Outlook, 60(1), 7–15.

Busch, P., Venkitachalam, K., & Richards, D. (2008). Generational differences in soft knowledge situations: status, need for recognition, workplace commitment and idealism. Knowledge and Process Management, 15(1), 45–58.

Carney S.M. & Geddes J.R. (2002). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Evidence in mental health. Brunner Routledge: Hove.

Carrier, L. M., Cheever, N. a., Rosen, L. D., Benitez, S., & Chang, J. (2009). Multitasking across generations: Multitasking choices and difficulty ratings in three generations of Americans. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 483–489.

Cennamo, L., & Gardner, D. (2008). Generational differences in work values, outcomes and person-organisation values fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 891–906.

Chaudhuri, S., & Ghosh, R. (2012). Reverse mentoring a social exchange tool for keeping the boomers engaged and millennials committed. Human resource development review, 11(1), 55-76.

Chen, P., & Choi, Y. (2008). Generational differences in work values: a study of hospitality management. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20(6), 595–615.

Cogin, J. (2012). Are generational differences in work values fact or fiction? Multi- country evidence and implications. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23(11), 2268–2294.

Cook, D., Mulrow, C., & Haynes, R. (1997). Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine, 126(5), 376-380

Costanza, D., Badger, J., & Fraser, R. (2012). Generational differences in work-related attitudes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(4), 375-394.

Crockett, A., & Voas, D. (2006). Generations of decline: Religious change in 20th‐century britain. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 45(4), 567-584.

Crumpacker, M., & Crumpacker, J. (2007). Succession planning and generational stereotypes: should HR consider age-based values and attitudes a relevant factor or a passing fad? Public Personnel Management, 36(4), 349-369.

D’Amato, A., & Herzfeldt, R. (2008). Learning orientation, organizational commitment and talent retention across generations: A study of European managers. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 929–953.

Davis, J., Pawlowski, S., & Houston, A. (2006). Work commitments of baby boomers and gen-xers in the IT profession: generational differences or myth? Journal of Computer Information Systems, (40), 43–50.

Deal, J. J. (2007). Retiring the generation gap: How employees young and old can find common ground (Vol. 35). John Wiley & Sons.

Deal, J. J., Altman, D. G., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2010). Millennials at Work: What We Know and What We Need to Do (If Anything). Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 191–199.

Deal, J. J., Stawiski, S., Graves, L., Gentry, W. a., Weber, T. J., & Ruderman, M. (2013). Motivation at work: Which matters more, generation or managerial level? Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 65(1), 1–16.

Dencker, J. C., Joshi, A., & Martocchio, J. J. (2008). Towards a theoretical framework linking generational memories to workplace attitudes and behaviors. Human Resource Management Review, 18(3), 180–187.

Denyer, D., & Neely, A. (2004). Introduction to special issue: innovation and productivity performance in the UK. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5(3‐4), 131-135.

Dries, N., Pepermans, R., & De Kerpel, E. (2008). Exploring four generations' beliefs about career: Is “satisfied” the new “successful”?. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 907-928.

Dulin, L. (2008). Leadership preferences of a generation Y cohort: A mixed‐methods investigation. Journal of Leadership Studies, 2(1), 43-59.

Economist (2013). Generations in the workplace: Winning the generation game. The Economist. Retrieved February 25, 2015, from http://www.economist.com/news/business/21586831-businesses-are-worrying- about-how-manage-different-age-groups-widely-different

Edmunds, J., & Turner, B. S. (2005). Global generations: social change in the twentieth century. The British Journal of Sociology, 56(4), 559–77.

Eisner. (2005). Managing generation Y. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 70(4), 4-15.

Ernst & Young. (2013). Quantifying the generational management shift and the rising perceptions of Gen X. Retrieved from http://www.ey.com/US/en/Issues/Talent- management/Talent-Survey-The-generational-management-shift

Fogg, P. (2009). When Generations Collide. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 74(6), 25-30.

Gentry, W., & Griggs, T. (2011). A comparison of generational differences in endorsement of leadership practices with actual leadership skill level. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 63(1), 39.

Giancola, F. (2006). The generation gap: More myth than reality? Human Resource Planning, 29, 32–37.

Giang, V. (2015). Why Generational Conflict Is Coming To Your Office. Business Insider. Retrieved February 25, 2015, from http://www.businessinsider.com/3-reasons-why- generational-conflict-is-coming-to-your-office-2012-2?IR=T&

Gilleard, C., & Higgs, P. (2005). Contexts of ageing: Class, cohort and community. Polity.

Glass, A. (2007). Understanding generational differences for competitive success. Industrial and Commercial Training, 39(2), 98–103.

Golden, L. (2012). The Effects of Working Time on Productivity and Firm Performance, Research Synthesis Paper. International Labor Organization (ILO) Conditions of Work and Employment Series, (33).

Goldsmith, M., Greenberg, C., Robertson, A., & Hu-Chan, M. (2003). Global leadership: The next generation. Ft Press.

Grenier, A. M. (2007). Crossing age and generational boundaries: Exploring intergenerational research encounters. Journal of Social Issues, 63(4), 713-727.

Gursoy, D., Chi, C. G.-Q., & Karadag, E. (2013). Generational differences in work values and attitudes among frontline and service contact employees. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32, 40–48.

Gursoy, D., Maier, T. a., & Chi, C. G. (2008). Generational differences: An examination of work values and generational gaps in the hospitality workforce. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(3), 448–458.

Haeger, D. L., & Lingham, T. (2014). A trend toward Work–Life Fusion: A multigenerational shift in technology use at work. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 89, 316–325.

Hansen, J.-I. C., & Leuty, M. E. (2011). Work Values Across Generations. Journal of Career Assessment, 20(1), 34–52.

Hart, K. (2006). Generations in the workplace: finding common ground. Medical Laboratory, Observer 38(10), 26–27.

Hays, S. (1999). Gen X and the art of the reward. Workforce, 78, 44–47.

Hershatter, A., & Epstein, M. (2010). Millennials and the World of Work: An Organization and Management Perspective. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 211–223.

Hewlett, S. A., Sherbin, L., & Sumberg, K. (2009). How Gen Y and Boomers will reshape your agenda. Harvard Business Review, 87(7-8), 71–6, 153.

Hicks, R., & Hicks, K. (n.d.). Boomers, Xers, and other strangers: Understanding the generational difference that divide us. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House.

Hill, R. (2002). Managing Across Generations in the 21st Century: Important Lessons from the Ivory Trenches. Journal of Management Enquiry, 11(1), 60–72.

Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2009). Millennials rising: The next great generation. Vintage.

Hulin, C. L., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Job attitudes: A theoretical and empirical review. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.) (Ed.), Handbook of psychology, Vol. 12, 255-276. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Joshi, A., Dencker, J. C., & Franz, G. (2011). Generations in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31, 177–205.

Joshi, A., Dencker, J. C., Franz, G., & Martocchio, J. J. (2010). Unpacking Generational Identities in Organizations. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 392–414.

Jurkiewicz, C. L., & Brown, R. G. (1998). Generational comparisons of public employee motivation. Review of public personnel administration, 18(4), 18-37.

Jurkiewicz, C. (2000). Generation X and the public employee. Public Personnel Management, 29(1), 55-74.

Kelan, E. K. (2014). Organising Generations - What Can Sociology Offer to the Understanding of Generations at Work? Sociology Compass, 8(1), 20–30.

Kowske, B. J., Rasch, R., & Wiley, J. (2010). Millennials’ (lack of) attitude problem: An empirical examination of generation effects on work attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 265–279.

Krahn, H. J., & Galambos, N. L. (2013). Work values and beliefs of “Generation X” and “Generation Y.” Journal of Youth Studies, 17(1), 92–112.

Kupperschmidt, B. R. (2000). Multigeneration employees: strategies for effective management. The health care manager, 19(1), 65.

Lamm, E., & Meeks, M. D. (2009). Workplace fun: the moderating effects of generational differences. Employee Relations, 31(6), 613–631.

Lancaster, L., & Stillman, D. (2002). When Generations Collide. Who they Are. Why They Clash. How to Solve the Generational Puzzle at Work.(New York, 2002). HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.

Leschinsky, R. M., & Michael, J. H. (2004). Motivators and desired company values of wood products industry employees: Investigating generational differences. Forest products journal, 54(1), 34-39.

Lester, S. W., Standifer, R. L., Schultz, N. J., & Windsor, J. M. (2012). Actual Versus Perceived Generational Differences at Work: An Empirical Examination. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19(3), 341–354.

Lub, X., Bijvank, M. N., Bal, P. M., Blomme, R., & Schalk, R. (2012). Different or alike?: Exploring the psychological contract and commitment of different generations of hospitality workers. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 24(4), 553–573.

Lyons, S., & Kuron, L. (2014). Generational differences in the workplace: A review of the evidence and directions for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(S1), S139-S157.

Lyons, S. (2003). An Exploration of Generational Values in Life and at Work Summary of Findings. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.

Lyons, S. T., Schweitzer, L., & Ng, E. S. (2015). How have careers changed? An investigation of changing career patterns across four generations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(1).

Lyons, S. T., Schweitzer, L., Ng, E. S. W., & Kuron, L. K. J. (2012). Comparing apples to apples: A qualitative investigation of career mobility patterns across four generations. Career Development International, 17(4), 333–357.

Macky, K., Gardner, D., & Forsyth, S. (2008). Generational differences at work: introduction and overview. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 857–861.

Mannheim , K. (1952). The Sociological Problem of Generations. Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge, London: RKP.

Martin, C. and Tulgan, B. (2001). Managing Generation Y. HRD Press, New Haven, CT.

McCann, R. M., & Giles, H. (2006). Communication With People of Different Ages in the Workplace: Thai and American Data. Human Communication Research, 32(1), 74–108.

Mencl, J., & Lester, S. W. (2014). More Alike Than Different: What Generations Value and How the Values Affect Employee Workplace Perceptions. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21(3), 257–272.

Meredith, G. E., Schewe, C. D., Hiam, A., & Karlovich, J. (2002). Managing by Deﬁning Moments, Hungry Minds. Wiley.

Meriac, J. P., Woehr, D. J., & Banister, C. (2010). Generational Differences in Work Ethic: An Examination of Measurement Equivalence Across Three Cohorts. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 315–324.

Mitchell, S. (1998). American generations: Who they are, how they live, what they think. . Ithaca, N.Y: New Strategist Publications.

Morison, R., Erickson, T., & Dychtwald, K. (2006). Managing middlescence. Harvard Business Review , 84(3), 78.

Mulrow, C. D. (1987). The medical review article: state of the science. Annals of Internal Medicine, 106(3), 485-488.

Mulrow, C. D. (1994). Systematic reviews: rationale for systematic reviews. Bmj (formerly the British Medical Journal), 309(6954), 597-599.

Murphy, E.F., Gordon, J.D. and Anderson, T. L. (2004). Cross-cultural, cross-cultural age and cross-cultural generational differences in values between the United States and Japan. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 9, 211–47.

Myers, K. K., & Sadaghiani, K. (2010). Millennials in the Workplace: A Communication Perspective on Millennials’ Organizational Relationships and Performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 225–238.

Ng, E., Lyons, S. T., & Schweitzer, L. (Eds.). (2012). Managing the new workforce: International perspectives on the millennial generation. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Ng, E. S. W., Schweitzer, L., & Lyons, S. T. (2010). New Generation, Great Expectations: A Field Study of the Millennial Generation. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 281–292.

Noble, S. M., & Schewe, C. D. (2003). Cohort segmentation: An exploration of its validity. Journal of Business Research, 56(12), 979-987.

O'Bannon, G. (2001). Managing our future: The generation X factor. Public Personnel Management, 30(1), 95-110.

Park, J., & Gursoy, D. (2012). Generation effects on work engagement among US hotel employees. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(4), 1195-1202.

Parry, E., & Urwin, P. (2011). Generational Differences in Work Values: A Review of Theory and Evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(1), 79–96.

Patterson, C. (2005). Generational diversity: Implications for consultation and teamwork. In meeting of the Council of Directors of School Psychology Programs on Generational Differences. Deerfield Beach (FL).

Piktialis, D. S., & Greenes, K. A. (2008). Bridging the Gaps: How to transfer knowledge in today's multigenerational workplace. Conference Board.

PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2014). Engaging and Empowering Millennials. Retrieved February 25, 2015, from http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/hr-management- services/publications/assets/pwc-engaging-and-empowering-millennials.pdf

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon and Schuster.

Raines, C. (2003). Connecting Generations: The Sourcebook for a New Workplace. Menlo Park, CA: Crisp Publications.

Ralston, D. A., Egri, C. P., Stewart, S., Terpstra, R. H., & Kaicheng, Y. (1999). Doing business in the 21st century with the new generation of Chinese managers: A study of generational shifts in work values in China. Journal of international business studies, 415-427.

Real, K., Mitnick, A. D., & Maloney, W. F. (2010). More Similar than Different: Millennials in the U. S. Building Trades. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 303–313.

Reisenwitz, T. H., & Iyer, R. (2009). Differences in generation X and generation Y: Implications for the organization and marketers. The Marketing Management Journal, 19(2), 91-103.

Reither, E. N., Hauser, R. M., & Yang, Y. (2009). Do birth cohorts matter? Age-period- cohort analyses of the obesity epidemic in the United States. Social science & medicine, 69(10), 1439-1448.

Roberson, Q. (2012). The Oxford handbook of diversity and work. Oxford University Press, USA, 504.

Roongrerngsuke, S., & Liefooghe, A. (2013). Attracting gold-collar workers: comparing organizational attractiveness and work-related values across generations in China, India and Thailand. Asia Pacific Business Review, 19(3), 337–355.

Royle, P., Kandala, N. B., Barnard, K., & Waugh, N. (2013). Bibliometrics of systematic reviews: analysis of citation rates and journal impact factors. Syst Rev, 2(1), 74.

Savitz, E. (2015). Generation Gap: How Technology Has Changed How We Talk About Work. Forbes. Retrieved February 25, 2015, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/huawei/2015/02/24/the-network-behind-huaweis- 150000-strong-workforce/

Schewe, C. D., & Noble, S. M. (2000). Market segmentation by cohorts: the value and validity of cohorts in America and abroad. Journal of Marketing Management, 16(1-3), 129-142.

Schuman, H., & Scott, J. (1989). Generations and collective memories.American sociological review, 359-381.

Sessa, V. I., Kabacoff, R. I., Deal, J., & Brown, H. (2007). Generational Differences in Leader Values and Leadership Behaviors, 10(1), 47–74.

Shaw, H. (2013). Sticking Points: How To Get 4 Generations Working Together in the 12 Places They Come Apart. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.

Shore, L. M., Chung-Herrera, B. G., Dean, M. a., Ehrhart, K. H., Jung, D. I., Randel, A. E., & Singh, G. (2009). Diversity in organizations: Where are we now and where are we going? Human Resource Management Review, 19(2), 117–133.

Smola, K., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences: revisiting generational work values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(4), 363–382.

Smith, J. W., Clurman, A., & Yankelovich Partners (1997). Rocking the ages: The Yankelovich report on generational marketing. HarperBusiness.

Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (1991). Generations: The history of America's future, 1584 to 2069 (pp. 279-316). New York, NY: Morrow.

Sullivan, S. E., Forret, M. L., Carraher, S. M., & Mainiero, L. a. (2009). Using the kaleidoscope career model to examine generational differences in work attitudes. Career Development International, 14(3), 284–302.

Takase, M., Oba, K., & Yamashita, N. (2009). Generational differences in factors influencing job turnover among Japanese nurses: an exploratory comparative design. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46(7), 957–67.

Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital (Vol. 361). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Thorpe, R., Holt, R., Macpherson, A., & Pittaway, L. (2005). Using knowledge within small and medium‐sized firms: a systematic review of the evidence.International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(4), 257-281.

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222.

Tulgan, B. (2000). Managing Generation X: How to bring out the best in young talent. WW Norton & Company.

Twenge, J. M. (2010). A review of the empirical evidence on generational differences in work attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 201-210.

Twenge, J. M., & 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., Campbell, S. M., Hoffman, B. J., & Lance, C. E. (2010). Generational Differences in Work Values: Leisure and Extrinsic Values Increasing, Social and Intrinsic Values Decreasing. Journal of Management, 36(5), 1117–1142.

University of York, Centre for reviews, & dissemination (CRD). (2009). Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination.

Wade-Benzoni, K. A. (2002). A golden rule over time: Reciprocity in intergenerational allocation decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1011-1028.

Westerman, J. W., & Yamamura, J. H. (2007). Generational preferences for work environment fit: effects on employee outcomes. Career Development International, 12(2), 150–161.

Whiteoak, J. W., Crawford, N. G., & Mapstone, R. H. (2006). Impact of Gender and Generational Differences in Work Values and Attitudes in an Arab Culture, 48(February), 77–91.

Wils, T., Saba, T., Waxin, M.-F., & Labelle, C. (2011). Intergenerational and Intercultural Differences in Work Values in Quebec and the United Arab Emirates. Relations Industrielles, 66(3), 445.

Wong, M., Gardiner, E., Lang, W., & Coulon, L. (2008). Generational differences in personality and motivation: Do they exist and what are the implications for the workplace? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 878–890.

Yrle, A. C., Hartman, S. J., & Payne, D. M. (2005). Generation X: acceptance of others and teamwork implications. Team Performance Management, 11(5/6), 188–199.

Yu, H.C., & Miller, P. (2003). The generation gap and cultural influence-a Taiwan empirical investigation. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 10(3), 23-41.

Yu, H.-C., & Miller, P. (2005). Leadership style: The X Generation and Baby Boomers compared in different cultural contexts. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(1), 35–50.

Zemke, R., Raines, C., & Filipczak, B. (2000). Generations at work: Managing the clash of Veterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in your workplace (p. 280). New York, NY: Amacom.

Appendix 1 — Stereotypical Characteristics of Generations

In this appendix, we highlight distinctive generational characteristics commonly associated with Traditionalists, Baby-Boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y. The following descriptions are drawn primarily from commonly accepted depictions of generations found in articles and books in the popular press.

Traditionalists Influenced by the formative events of the Great Depression and World War II, members of Traditionalist generation have been described as being conservative and disciplined, having a sense of obligation, as well as valuing the inherent goodness of moderation (Smith et al., 1997). They are said to prefer formality, and a top-down chain of command, with unyielding respect for authority, patriotic loyalty, and sacrifice to all institutions and organizations (Eisner, 2005). They see work as an inevitable obligation, and accomplish goals through hard work (Smith et al., 1997). Members of this generation have also been characterized as being risk-averse, although strongly committed to team work and collaboration (Lancaster & Stillman, 2002). When communicating with others, Traditionalists may prefer a traditional approach such as story-telling, or face-to-face interaction (Piktialis & Greenes, 2008). On the other hand, they may be disoriented by ambiguity and change, uncomfortable with conflict, and tend not to voice their disagreement (Zemke et al., 2000).

Baby Boomers This generation grew up during a time of dramatic social change, marked by the Vietnam War, the civil rights movement, and the sexual revolution (Bradford, 1993). As a result of post-war economic prosperity and the industrial devolution and limited global resources (Strauss & Howe, 1991), they had to compete for everything from a place in the sandbox to college admission (Zemke et al., 2000). Baby Boomers are described as achievement oriented (O’Bannon, 2001), independent (Mitchell, 1998), and expecting the best from life (Kupperschmidt, 2000). They are typified as idealistic, optimistic and resourceful (Hicks & Hicks, 1999). Baby Boomers are also often viewed as respectful of authority (Allen, 2004), but also wish to be viewed as equal (Eisner, 2005). They are often described as materialistic workaholics who approach work with a “do whatever it takes” mentality, and place workplace priorities over family life (Crumpacker & Crumpacker, 2007). In organizations, they are also seen as placing emphasis on consensus building and are excellent mentors (Hart, 2006).

Generation X Gen X grew up in the decade of economic uncertainty, recession, high unemployment, and high divorce rates among parents (Kupperschmidt, 2000). This led them to be fairly cynical, skeptical, and cautious (Lancaster & Stillman, 2002). Growing up in an era where organizational commitment was not rewarded with job security, members of this generation are believed to distrust corporations, challenge authority, and lack loyalty (Eisner, 2005; Hays, 1999). However, they are said to be financially independent, and entrepreneurial risk-takers (Tulgan, 2000). In the workplace, they are seen as avoiding unnecessary face-to-face interaction, whilst adopting communication that they consider more efficient (Crumpacker & Crumpacker, 2007; Smith et al., 1997). Gen X are perceived to be motivated by workplace authority and flexibility, focusing on balancing their work and personal lives (Lancaster & Stillman, 2002).

Generation Y Growing up in a digital age, Gen Y is typically cast as the first high-tech generation—showing greater familiarity and competence with communication media, and technology than previous generations (Tapscott, 2009). The globalization of society is said to have had a significant impact on Gen Y’s values (Howe & Strauss, 2009), causing them to value diversity and change (Patterson, 2005). Like the Boomers, Gen Y are thought to feel a strong desire to accomplish great things and make a difference in the world (Martin and Tulgan, 2001). Although their attentive parenting imbued Gen Y with a conventional and civic-minded value system, the constant praise and positive reinforcement also resulted in them being overconfident with a narcissistic outlook (Lancaster & Stillman, 2002; Strauss & Howe, 1991). At work, Gen Y are described as preferring teamwork, flexibility, and workplace fun (Hill, 2002; Strauss & Howe, 1991). They abhor cynicism, sarcasm, boredom and unfairness (Raines, 2003); and rules and bureaucracy (Morison, Erickson, & Dychtwald, 2006). On the other hand, they value recognition and constant feedback from leaders (Crumpacker & Crumpacker, 2007; Fogg, 2009).

Appendix 2: Generations in the Current Workforce

Size of the U.S. Labor Force (in millions) by age, for the year 2015*

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Note*: The US Labor Department does not break down the data on generational lines. Therefore, the authors use their numbers to estimate generational population in different buckets.

Percent Distribution of Generational Clusters in the Workforce in 2015

Generations Share in the Workforce Traditionalists 2.3% Baby Boomers 30.6% Generation X 31.5% Generation Y 35.6%

Source: Authors’ calculations

Appendix 3 — All included studies in systematic review (N = 50)

Reference Research Design Database Journal Year Research Themes Generations Sample Country

1 Arsenault (2004) Quantitative- GoogleScholar Leadership and Organization 2004 Leadership T, B, X, Y Snowballing US Cross-sectional Development Journal Preferences/Behaviors 2 Becton et al. (2014) Quantitative- EbscoHost Journal of Applied Psychology 2014 Workplace/career behaviors B,X, Y Job Applicants US Cross-sectional (Hospitals) 3 Benson & Brown Quantitative- EbscoHost International Journal of Human 2011 Work Attitudes B, X Employee Australia (2011) Cross-sectional Resource Management (Government Workers) 4 Beutell & Wittig- Quantitative- EbscoHost Journal of Managerial Psychology 2008 (Multiple) Work motivators T, B, X National US Berman (2008) Cross-sectional or preferred job Survey characteristics; Work Attitudes 5 Beutell (2013) Quantitative- GoogleScholar International Journal of 2013 Work motivators or T, B, X, Y National US Cross-sectional Environmental Research and Public preferred job characteristics Survey Health 6 Bott et al. (2011) Quantitative- GoogleScholar Journal of Applied Management and 2011 Communication and B, X, Y Media US Cross-sectional Entrepreneurship technology Consumer 7 Bristow et al. (2011) Quantitative- EbscoHost Journal of Personal Selling and Sales 2011 Work motivators or X, Y Students US Cross-sectional Management preferred job characteristics 8 Brown (2012) Quantitative- EbscoHost International Journal of Human 2012 Work motivators or B, X National Australia Cross-sectional Resource Management preferred job characteristics Survey 9 Brunetto et al. (2012) Quantitative- ScienceDirect Nursing Outlook 2012 Work motivators or B, X, Y Employye- US Cross-sectional preferred job characteristics Nurse 10 Busch et al. (2008) Qualitative- EbscoHost Knowledge and Process Management 2008 Work motivators or B, X, Y Employee (IT) Australia Interview & Open- preferred job characteristics ended questionaires 11 Carrier et al. (2009) Quantitative- ScienceDirect Computers in Human Behavior 2009 Communication and B,X, Y Snowballing US Cross-sectional technology 12 Cennamo & Garder Quantitative- EbscoHost Journal of Managerial Psychology 2008 (Multiple) Work Values; B, X, Y Employee- NZ (2008) Cross-sectional Work motivators or multi-industry preferred job characteristics 13 Chen & Choi (2008) Quantitative- EbscoHost International Journal of 2008 Work Values B, X, Y Employee- US Cross-sectional Contemporary Hospitality hospitality Management 14 Cogin (2012) Quantitative- EbscoHost International Journal of Human 2012 (Multiple) Work Values; T, B, X, Y Employees- US, Cross-sectional Resource Management Work motivators or NA Australia, preferred job characteristics China, Singapore, Germany

Reference Research Design Database Journal Year Research Themes Generations Sample Country

15 D'Amato & Quantitative- EbscoHost Journal of Managerial Psychology 2008 (Multiple) Work motivators B,X Employee Europe Herzfeldt (2008) Cross-sectional or preferred job (Manager) characteristics; Work Attitudes 16 Davis et al. (2006) Quantitative- EbscoHost Journal of Computer Information 2006 Work Attitudes B, X Employee (IT) US Cross-sectional Systems 17 Deal et al. (2013) Quantitative- EbscoHost Consulting Psychology Journal: 2013 Work Values B, X Employee- US Cross-sectional Practice and Research multi-industry 18 Dries et al (2008) Quantitative- EbscoHost Journal of Managerial Psychology 2008 Workplace/Career T, B, X, Y Snowballing Belgium Cross-sectional Behaviors 19 Gentry et al. (2011) Quantitative- EbscoHost Consulting Psychology Journal: 2011 Leadership B,X, Y Employee US Cross-sectional Practice and Research Preferences/Behaviors (Manager) 20 Gursoy et al. (2008) Qualitative- Focus Sciencedirect International Journal of Hospitality 2008 (Multiple) Work Values; B,X, Y Employees - US group Management Work motivators or Hospitality preferred job characteristics; Leadership Preferences/Behaviors 21 Gursoy et al. (2013) Quantitative- ScienceDirect International Journal of Hospitality 2013 (Multiple) Work motivators B, X, Y Employee US Cross-sectional Management or preferred job (Hospitality) characteristics; Communication and technology 22 Haegar & Lingham Quantitative- GoogleScholar Technological Forecasting and Social 2014 Communication and B, X, Y Snowballing US (2014) Cross-sectional Change technology 23 Hansen & Leuty Quantitative- GoogleScholar Journal of Career Assessment 2012 (Multiple) Work Values; T, B, X Snowballing US (2012) Cross-sectional Work motivators or preferred job characteristics 24 Jurkiewicz & Brown Quantitative- EbscoHost Review of Public Personnel 1998 Work motivators or T, B, X Employee US (1998) Cross-sectional Administration preferred job characteristics (public) 25 Krahn & Galambos Quantitative- GoogleScholar Journal of Youth Studies 2013 Work Values X, Y Students Canada (2013) Time-lag 26 Kwoske et al. (2010) Quantitative- EbscoHost Journal of Business and Psychology 2010 Work Attitudes 5 Gen National US Repeated Cross- Survey sectional 27 Lamm & Meeks Quantitative- EbscoHost Employee Relations 2009 Work motivators or B,X, Y Snowballing US (2009) Cross-sectional preferred job characteristics 28 Leschinsky et al. Quantitative- EbscoHost Forest Products Journal 2004 Work motivators or B, X Employee US (2004) Cross-sectional preferred job characteristics (Wood Industry) 29 Lester et al. (2012) Quantitative- EbscoHost Journal of Leadership and 2012 (Multiple) Work motivators B, X, Y Employee-NA US Cross-sectional Organizational Studies or preferred job characteristics; Communication and

Reference Research Design Database Journal Year Research Themes Generations Sample Country

technology 30 Lub et al. (2012) Quantitative- EbscoHost International Journal of 2012 (Multiple) Work motivators B, X, Y Employee- Netherlands Cross-sectional Contemporary Hospitality or preferred job Hotels Management characteristics; Work Attitudes 31 Lyons et al. (2012) Mixed-Methods EbscoHost Career Development International 2012 Workplace/career behaviors T, B, X, Y Snowballing Canada 32 Lyons & Seiweitzer Quantitative- EbscoHost Journal of Managerial Psychology 2015 Workplace/career behaviors T, B, X, Y Snowballing Canada (2015) Cross-sectional 33 Mencl and Lester Quantitative- EbscoHost Journal of Leadership and 2014 Work motivators or B, X, Y Employee- US (2014) Cross-sectional Organizational Studies preferred job characteristics multi-industry 34 Meriac et al. (2010) Quantitative- GoogleScholar Journal of Business and Psychology 2010 Work Values B, X, Y Students US Cross-sectional 35 Park & Gursoy Quantitative- ScienceDirect International Journal of Hospitality 2012 Work Attitudes B, X, Y Employee US (2012) Cross-sectional Management (Hospitality) 36 Real et al. (2010) Mixed Methods EbscoHost Journal of Business and Psychology 2010 (Multiple) Work Values; B, X, Y Employee US Work motivators or (skilled trade preferred job characteristics workers) 37 Reisenwitz & Iyer Quantitative- EbscoHost Marketing Management Journal 2009 Communication and X, Y Snowballing US (2009) Cross-sectional technology 38 Roongrerngsuke & Quantitative- GoogleScholar Asia Pacific Business Review 2013 Work motivators or B, X, Y Employee China, Liefooghe (2013) Cross-sectional preferred job characteristics (knowledge India, workers) Thailand 39 Sessa et al. (2007) Quantitative- GoogleScholar The Psychologist-Manager Journal 2007 Leadership T, B, X, Y Employee US Cross-sectional Preferences/Behaviors (Manager) 40 Smola & Sutton Quantitative- EbscoHost Journal of Organizational Behavior 2002 (Multiple) Work Values; T, B, X, Y National US (2002) Cross-sectional Work motivators or Survey preferred job characteristics 41 Sullivan et al. (2009) Quantitative- EbscoHost Career Development International 2009 Work motivators or B, X Professional US Cross-sectional preferred job characteristics 42 Takase et al. (2009) Quantitative- ScienceDirect International Journal of Nursing 2009 (Multiple) Work Values; B, X, Y Employee- Japan Cross-sectional Studies Work motivators or Nurse preferred job characteristics 43 Twenge et al. (2010) Quantitative-Time- EbscoHost Journal of Management 2010 Work Values B, X, Y Students US lag 44 Westerman & Quantitative- EbscoHost Career Development International 2007 Work motivators or B,X, Y Employee US Yamamura (2007) Cross-sectional preferred job characteristics (accountant) 45 Whiteoak et al. Quantitative- EbscoHost Thunderbird International Business 2005 Work Values Age groups Snowballing UAE (2005) Cross-sectional Review (older- younger) 46 Wils et al. (2011) Quantitative- EbscoHost Industrial Relations 2011 Work motivators or B, X, Y Snowballing Canada, Cross-sectional preferred job characteristics UAE

Reference Research Design Database Journal Year Research Themes Generations Sample Country

47 Wong et al. (2008) Quantitative- EbscoHost Journal of Managerial Psychology 2008 Work motivators or B, X, Y National Australia Cross-sectional preferred job characteristics Survey 48 Yrle et al. (2005) Quantitative- EbscoHost Team Performance Management 2005 Work motivators or B, X Snowballing US Cross-sectional preferred job characteristics 49 Yu & Miller (2003) Quantitative- EbscoHost Cross Cultural 2003 Work motivators or B, X Employee- Taiwan Cross-sectional Management: An International preferred job characteristics Education, Journal Manufacturing 50 Yu & Miller (2005) Quantitative- GoogleScholar Leadership and Organization 2005 Leadership B, X Employee- Taiwan Cross-sectional Development Journal Preferences/Behaviors Education, Manufacturing

Appendix 4 —Flow Chart Summarizing the Systematic Review Process

Appendix 5— Birth Years used to Define Generations

in Empirical Studies9

GI Traditionalists Boomer Gen X Gen Y Ref Start year End year Start year End year Start year End year Start year End year Start year End year Arsenault (2004) 1922 1943 1944 1960 1961 1980 1981 2000 Benson & Brown (2011) 1946 1964 1965 1976 Bott et al. (2011) 1946 1964 1965 1976 1977 1990 Bristow et al. (2011) 1965 1980 1981 2000 Brown (2012) 1946 1964 1965 1976 Brunetto et al. (2012) 1946 1965 1966 1980 1980 2000 Busch et al. (2008) 1945 1964 1965 1979 1980 onward Carrier et al. (2009) 1946 1964 1965 1978 1979 onward Cennamo & Garder (2008) 1962 1979 Chen & Choi (2008) 1946 1964 1965 1977 1978 onward Cogin (2012) 1926 1944 1947 1963 1966 1976 1979 1994 D'Amato & Herzfeldt (2008) 1946 1959 1960 1980 Davis et al. (2006) 1946 1962 1963 1981 Deal et al. (2013) 1946 1963 1964 1980 Gentry et al. (2011) 1946 1963 1964 1976 1977 onward Gursoy et al. (2008) 1943 1960 1961 1980 1981 2000 Gursoy et al. (2013) 1946 1964 1965 1980 1981 2000 Haegar & Lingham (2014) 1946 1964 1965 1979 1980 1996 Hansen & Leuty (2012) 1925 1945 1946 1964 1965 1980 Jurkiewicz & Brown (1998) 1925 1942 1943 1960 1961 1981 Kwoske et al. (2010) 1901 1924 1925 1942 1943 1960 1961 1981 1982 2003 Lamm & Meeks (2009) 1941 1960 1961 1980 1981 2000 Lester et al. (2012) Prior 1945 1946 1964 1965 1981 1982 onward Lub et al. (2012) 1945 1964 1965 1980 1981 onward Lyons et al. (2012a) Prior 1945 1945 1964 1965 1979 1980 onward Lyons & Schweitzer (2015) Prior 1945 1945 1964 1965 1979 1980 onward Mencl and Lester (2014) 1946 1964 1965 1978 1979 1994 Meriac et al. (2010) 1946 1964 1965 1980 1981 1999 Park & Gursoy (2012) 1946 1964 1965 1980 1981 1999 Penney (2011) 1965 1979 1980 2000 Real et al. (2010) 1946 1964 1965 1979 1980 2000 Reisenwitz & Iyer (2009) 1946 1964 1965 1976 1977 1988 Roongrerngsuke & Liefooghe (2013) 1946 1964 1965 1979 1980 1999 Sessa et al. (2007) 1925 1945 1946 1963 1964 1982 1982 onward Smola & Sutton (2002) 1946 1964 1965 1977 Sullivan et al. (2009) 1946 1964 1965 1983 Takase et al. (2009) 1946 1959 1960 1974 1975 onward Wils et al. (2011) 1946 1961 1962 1979 1979 2004 Wong et al. (2008) 1945 1964 1965 1981 1982 2000 Yu & Miller (2003) 1945 1964 1965 1980

9 Note: Studies that did not specify birthdates of generations are omitted from this table.

Appendix 6 — Generational Diversity in the Workplace: Practical Implications Built on the Research

Our study suggests that organizations need to take account of generational cohorts in many areas of workplace activity. However, these considerations should not be built on stereotypes but rather on objective evidence from the research. We present below a range of commonly held stereotypes regarding generational differences and the corresponding empirical findings selected from our systematic review that either support or refute these. Given these findings, we also highlight some potential actions organizational leaders and managers could consider to optimize the potential and performance of a multigenerational workforce.

Selected Generational Stereotypes and Research Realities

Popular Stereotypes Empirical Research Validations

While the younger generations (Gen X and Gen Y) place Boomers value work over life, Gen Centrality of greater emphasis on leisure time, and less on work X value life over work, and Gen Y Work centrality than their older cohort, all generations only value life outside work. express needs for improved work-life balance. Although Gen Y values email, text and social media

communication more than older generations, Gen Y is Younger generations are more Communication equally as likely as Boomers to value the traditional likely to use technology as a Preference face-to-face communication where the subject is medium of communication. personal development or feedback.

Younger generations are more comfortable and Gen X, and Gen Y are “digital proficient with the use of technology. Nevertheless, Technology natives”, while the older older generations do not discount the value of Skills generations are “digital technology in increasing organizational efficiency, and immigrants”. strive to master it. Previous generations are more Careers have become less stable and linear, more mobile loyal to their organization. Organizational and more multi-directional (i.e., downward, lateral and Younger generations are less Commitment changes of occupation) for successively younger committed to their organization, generations. and change jobs at a greater rate.

Younger generations, particularly Gen Y is “needy” in so far as they express desires for Need for Gen Y, are emotionally “needy regular feedback, and place high importance on Attention and high maintenance”. recognition of their work outcomes. Although Gen Y prefer their leaders to be caring and Younger generations prefer inclusive, they are more likely to use a more Leadership empowering leaders, and they will individualistic leadership style than previous Style also adopt this consensual style of generations of leaders. Nevertheless, all generations leadership themselves. perceive ‘honesty’ as an imperative leadership quality.

Potential Intergenerational Leadership and Management Approaches based on the Research

1. Work-Life Balance and Job Design Policies

Younger generations appear to value work centrality less than the Boomers or the Traditionalists before them (Cogin, 2012; Gursoy et al., 2013; Gursoy et al., 2008). The finding that younger generations are more focused on leisure time suggests that they prefer a job that will allow them to spend time on other things besides work in their lives. Therefore, organizations could develop more flexible work policies and practices to attract and retain talented young employees. Work arrangements such as flexible hours or telecommuting/virtual working should be encouraged. Offering flexi-time does not necessarily come at the cost of lower productivity as many fear. [In fact, studies have dispelled the myth that working longer hours at the office translates to higher productivity, while flexible work practices are shown to operate as a tool for increasing output over the long term (Golden, 2012).] Given this, perhaps work-life support programs and flexible options should be provided for all generations of employees, although they might be perceived differently by these groups (Brown, 2012)—with older generations seeing such programs as desirable while the younger generations may view them as indispensable and also want to engage in the design of these programs.

2. Learning, Growth, and Development at Work

There is very strong evidence that younger generations highly value immediate, and timely feedback of their work performance to help their learning and growth (Wong et al., 2008). A typical annual review of employee performance may not be sufficient, nor satisfy the younger employee’s need for regular and meaningful communication around their career development and ongoing progress. Organizations should encourage and create opportunities for cross-hierarchy interactions, such as establishing mentor-mentee relationships, for example between Baby-Boomers and Gen Y. The older generation can provide feedback on an on-going basis, train junior employees in critical job skills and enhance their understanding of business, while the young protégés can embark on reverse mentoring by providing their senior organizational members with the know how to quickly acquire new technology and computer skills, learn about current trends, gain a cross-cultural perspective, and simply understand more about the younger generations (Chaudhuri & Ghosh, 2012). Such a mechanism is a useful

69 leadership development tool that enhances both mentors’ and protégés’ networks, and builds intergenerational bridges across organizations.

3. Empowering and Honest Leadership

While some similarities in leadership preferences may be shared across generations, our findings confirm that there are also leadership needs unique to the younger generations (Arsenault, 2004). Unlike past generations, they place higher importance on participative decision-making and prefer to be managed under a relationship-oriented leadership style (Sessa et al., 2007). The traditional or command-and-control model of leadership, accepted by many people in previous generations, is increasingly becoming irrelevant to members of the younger generations. By recognizing that this generation prefers to be judged by contribution rather than position, leaders are better served in an organization by showing trust and providing sufficient autonomy (control and supportive delegation) in how the work gets done for younger team members. This preference for work independence may partly explain why Gen Y also exhibits more self-focused (individualistic) leadership as a way to assert their capabilities and power to get the job done. Notwithstanding these generational differences in leadership styles and preferences, one key generationally universal similarity is the leadership quality of ‘honesty’, which all generations perceive as being important (Arsenault, 2004). Therefore, leaders are well-advised to be open about their values and ethics; remain authentic; and be effective role models across situations with all generations in the workplace.

4. Communication and Technology Use

While some expected Gen Y, as a result of being technologically-oriented, to resist face- to-face communication and prefer to utilize digital communication almost exclusively, evidence suggests that they are as likely as any other generations to place high importance on traditional forms of communication (face-to-face) (Lester et al., 2012). Although young employees do want high tech and sophisticated communication, they also want personal, face-to-face contact with their managers, particularly in relation to feedback, growth, and development (Mencl & Lester, 2014). Nevertheless, Gen Y’s comfort and proficiency with technology does have other implications for organizations. For example, organizations that offer the most up-to-date technology and the appropriate organizational systems to make use of it, are more likely to appeal to this generation (Ng, Schweitzer, & Lyons, 2010). Moreover, organizations can leverage

Gen Y technology-related expertise to build competitive advantage for their organizations. For example, there are many organizations already using Gen Y’s proclivities for creating online content for co-developing their product (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010), while some have tapped into their extensive social networks to promote their company brand for potential clients as well as to recruit future employees. As a result of their technology literacy, Gen Y can also become resident experts or “lead users” concerning communication technology, and drive the diffusion and implementation of technology in organizations, thereby making a significant contribution to improving intra-organizational communication, as well as building competitive advantage of their organizations (Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010).

5. Career Mobility

In light of the findings that the younger generations change jobs and employers at a faster rate than previous generations (Lyons et al., 2012), and that they are more willing to accept non-upward career transition, Lyons & Schweitzer (2015), we suggest that organizations will need to reevaluate their recruitment and retention practices to cope with higher levels of transitional employment. Rather than assuming the traditional model predicated on individuals remaining with one organization for most of their career, employers need to embrace a new reality. Human resource professionals should consider programs that recognize the distinctive mobility of the younger generation of workers such as: increasing opportunities for job rotation or exchange or job sharing; frequently providing new and more interesting job duties; and organizing inter- company employee exchange programs. Moreover, instead of trying to ‘lock down’ young talent, another approach is to be explicit with new hires about the expectations of what can be achieved during their potentially shorter tenure, then encourage them to put their best efforts into their activities whilst they remain with the organization. Organizations can also establish a corporate alumni network where young workers can help recruit new employees, and become lifelong ambassadors for the company even when they leave.