Generational Differences in the Workplace: Thinking Outside the Boxes Mark Beaven Eastern Kentucky University, James [email protected]

Generational Differences in the Workplace: Thinking Outside the Boxes Mark Beaven Eastern Kentucky University, James Beaven2@Mymail.Eku.Edu

Eastern Kentucky University Encompass

EKU Libraries Research Award for Undergraduates 2014

Generational Differences in the Workplace: Thinking Outside the Boxes Mark Beaven Eastern Kentucky University, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: http://encompass.eku.edu/ugra

Recommended Citation Beaven, Mark, "Generational Differences in the Workplace: Thinking Outside the Boxes" (2014). EKU Libraries Research Award for Undergraduates. 14. http://encompass.eku.edu/ugra/2014/2014/14

This Event is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at Encompass. It has been accepted for inclusion in EKU Libraries Research Award for Undergraduates by an authorized administrator of Encompass. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Beaven / CJAS 4(1), 68-80, (2014)

Contemporary Journal of Anthropology and Sociology

Generational Differences in the Workplace: Thinking Outside the Boxes

Mark Beaven1 Eastern Kentucky University

Abstract: Generational differences in contemporary work settings are popular topics that are lacking rigorous empirical research. Contemporary workplaces are complex, necessitating knowledge on the part of managers and human resource personnel of generational diversity. This article seeks to explore generational diversity variability by conducting several in-depth interviews with managers across multiple generations. Responses are assessed using Mannheim’s theory of generations. Findings indicate that technological changes spur differences in communication styles across generations; increased access to media lie at the root of these difference.

1 Please direct all correspondence to Mark Beaven, [email protected], 502-963-2367

Beaven / CJAS 4(1), 68-80, (2014)

INTRODUCTION year does not in itself create a similarity of Generational differences in the location (Mannheim, 1952). For example, workplace have been the topic of volumes of two individuals born in two distinctly books, countless articles, a number of different societies in the same time period academic research papers and are reflected would not find themselves ‘similarly in popular culture. Employers need located’. In order for one to be ‘similarly knowledge of differences in communication located’ within a generation, an individual style between generational cohorts. must participate similar social processes, Employers and entrepreneurs that want to experience similar historical events, and be regain or retain relevance seek to understand exposed to similar cultural information. their employees’ talents and how they Mannheim likened generation location to interact with others. A 1969 Gallup Survey class position. Like class position, a revealed that 74% of Americans believed generation is not a concrete group in which there was a “generation gap” (Pew, 2010). participants must be consciously aware of Pew Research Center (2010) (Pew) their belonging. “For any group of conducted a follow up survey in 2009 that individuals sharing the same class position, found this belief increased to 79% (Pew, society always appears under the same 2010). Research on management of aspect, familiarized by constantly repeated multigenerational workplaces indicates that experience” (Mannheim, 1952, p. 291). Just the basis of tension may stem from as class location can be explained in terms generational differences in work norms and of economic and social conditions, communication style. It is proposed that generational location can be explained by advanced communication technology usage patterns of experience and thought in the lie at the core of these differences. Data process of data transmission from one from two Pew studies regarding generational generation to the next (Mannheim, 1952). technology usage seem to support such This is a continuous process because people claims. To assist in the examination of the are constantly being born and are constantly connection between communication dying. Members of any single generation are technology usage and generational limited to a section of the process; differences in the workplace, I first turn to transmission of cultural knowledge from the Karl Mannheim’s generational theory. old to the young is endless (Mannheim, 1952). Generational Theory When we juxtapose this continuous In Mannheim’s (Mannheim, 1952, p. lifecycle process with typical generational 292) ‘The Problem of Generations,’ he models, we begin to see that there is as posits “the social phenomenon ‘generation’ much change within generations; rather than represents nothing more than a particular generational blocks, a gradient of change kind of identity of location, embracing ‘age emerges. Mannheim refers to this gradual groups’ embedded in a historical-social change as social rejuvenation. process.” For Mannheim, generation is not a concrete group, but a ‘similar location’ of The continuous emergence of new individuals in a social structure (Mannheim, human beings certainly results in some 1952, p. 292). In order to be similarly loss of accumulated cultural located individuals must historically possessions; but, on the other hand, it experience similar events and cultural alone makes a fresh selection possible when it becomes necessary; it facilitates knowledge. Merely being born in the same reevaluation of our inventory and

Beaven / CJAS 4(1), 68-80, (2014)

teaches us both to forget that which has While these changes may be subtle yet to be won…all psychic and cultural between pupil and teacher, greater data only really exist in so far as they distinctions appear in the data as time are produced and reproduced in the between groups becomes greater. This present: hence past experience is only process is rendered more seamless because it relevant when it exists concretely is continual; generations are in constant incorporated in the present (Mannheim, 1952, p. 294). contact with one another. Mannheim asserts that it is not the oldest that meet the Social and cultural accumulations of youngest at once, but that first contacts are knowledge are transmitted from the old to made by other intermediary generations less the young. Relevant information is accepted removed. Mannheim (1952) believes that and utilized by the younger group, while different interpretations of the world could outdated information fades away and be a point of tension between adjacent becomes replaced by newer information and cohorts, but this tension could be assuaged practices that are more relevant to their though reciprocal learning (Mannheim, lives. 1952). That is, the teacher teaches the pupil, Pew (2010) data reflects the gradient- and the pupil teaches the teacher something model in their findings. As shown in Table in return. Reith (2005) similarly argues 1, Pew ranked the top five open-ended “technology has introduced to Millennials responses of four generations regarding the reversal of the parent as teacher and what makes their generation unique. It child as student schema that has been the seems that as technology appears as a norm since the beginning of time” (Reith, conscious identifier of generational 2005, p. 323). While, for Mannheim, this is distinction, intrinsic value responses (honest, a relatively normal response to a changing work ethic, respectful) begin to fade away. society, Reith may be pointing to this Technology ranked number one for particular situation as the first time in Generation X yielding 12% of the responses, history that we have seen a role reversal of followed by work ethic at number two, and this magnitude, i.e., whereby highly respect at number five. Technology ranked technical devices are better understood by number one for Millennials also, but yields the child rather than the older more twice the response of Generation X. There experienced parent. were no intrinsic values in the top five for Mannheim posits that a generation takes Millennails, instead music/pop culture and shape on the individual level somewhere clothes shows up in their place (Pew, 2010). between the ages of seventeen and twenty- McMullin, Cameau and Jovic’s (2007) five, whereby “personal experimentation study of information technology (IT) with life begins” (Mannheim, 1952, p. 300). workers find that these respondents It is during these years that a distinctive prioritized generation over other bases of personal outlook on the world emerges, difference (gender, race, education etc.). It which he believes individuals use as the appears that support for a gradient-model is basis for comparison of all future events evident in their responses, as most of their (Schuman & Scott, 1989). Regardless of respondents vaguely refer to the whether affirming or negating their initial disadvantaged generation of IT workers as understanding formed during this time one that is slightly older than their self period, an individual will disproportionally (McMullin, Cameau & Jovic, 2007). refer back to these initial experiences as a

Beaven / CJAS 4(1), 68-80, (2014)

Table 1. What Makes Your Generation Unique? Millennial Gen X Boomer Silent 1. Technology use (24%) Technology use (12%) Work ethic (17%) WWII/Depression (14%)

2. Music/Pop culture (11%) Work Ethic (11%) Respectful (14%) Smarter (13%)

3. Liberal/tolerant (7%) Conservative/Trad’l (7%) Values/Morals (8%) Honest (12%)

4. Smarter (6%) Smarter (6%) “Baby Boomers” (6%) Work ethic (10%)

5. Clothes (5%) Respectful (5%) Smarter (5%) Values/Morals (10%)

Note: Based on respondents who said their generation was unique/distinct. Items represent individual, open- ended responses. Top five responses are shown for each age group. Sample sizes for sub-groups are as follows: Millennials, n=527; Gen X n=173; Boomers, n=283; Silent, n=205. Pew Research Center (February 24, 2010).

point of comparison in order to evaluate Here Mannheim acknowledges that drawing their most recent experiences. the line is a difficult process because the Schuman and Schott (1989) find support process is in fact continual. By the very for this idea in their study on generational nature of this system, there seems to be little memories. They conclude that different consensus as to the exact years in which a cohorts seem to recall events or changes that single generation ends and the next one largely occurred during late adolescence and begins. Therefore, the line drawn between early adulthood years. Sze Chong Lin these cohorts may vary several years in (2010) also finds support for this concept either direction. regarding technology usage, however, the Mannheim also acknowledges that formative years indicated for technology ‘generation’ can be interpreted both in seem to be a bit different. This study finds familial terms as well as in societal terms. that the ease or difficulty with which an As such, there certainly is merit to Spitzer individual engages a new technological and Pilcher’s concerns. The way in which device can largely be explained by what we define generational cohorts has type of devices they learned to operate implications for how we attribute meaning between the ages of ten and thirty. to them. However, Mannheim’s continual Pilcher (1994) emphasizes Spitzer’s process model reminds us that we simply concerns regarding the ambiguity of use ‘generation’ as a means of grouping drawing generational lines discussed in his cohorts based on similar patters of behavior 1973 critique of Mannheim’s work. While and thought. Thus, generation is merely a this is certainly an issue worthy of social construct and that generational discussion, Manheim acknowledges this distinctions may only become apparent in issue, stating: societies where social change occurs rather rapidly. In agrarian peasant societies, for Even more difficult is it to find the natural example, in which very little may change beginning of the generation series, over an individual’s lifespan, generational because birth and death in society as a distinctions would likely go undetected whole follow continuously one upon the (Schuman & Scott, 1989; Mannheim, 1952). other, and full intervals exist only in the Our understanding of generation is merely a individual family where there is a definite byproduct of social change, therefore chosen period before children attain marriageable age (Mannheim, 1952, p. 278). demarcations between cohorts is always subjective. 71

Beaven / CJAS 4(1), 68-80, (2014)

third of this cohort being non-white (Reith, GENERATION PROFILES 2005). Millennials are just as numerous as This study focuses on the three dominant the Baby Boom generation, and it is generations in the contemporary workplace: believed they will add a larger share of Baby Boomers, Generation X, and immigrants than the first generation to arrive Millennials. The Baby Boom generation has on American soil (Carlson, 2009). This generally been defined as having been born cohort experienced Columbine, 9/11, between 1946 and 1964 and is the largest celebrity scandals and a whole new wave of cohort of the twentieth century. This technologies (Gibson, Greenwood & generation grew up in a time of national Murphy, 2009). Millennials have been economic prosperity, witnessed the growth entangled with technology since birth, of the suburbs, and was raised among strong staying connected through email, instant nuclear families (Cekada, 2012; Carlson, messaging, and cell phones (Reith, 2005). 2009). Baby Boomers experienced the They are believed to be socially conscious, Vietnam War, advancement of women in but also highly cynical and narcissistic educational attainment career opportunities, (Constanza, Badger, Fraser, Severt & Gade, and lived by the mantra: “Sex, drugs, and 2012). rock and roll” (Shragay & Tziner, 2011; Carlson, 2009). It has also been asserted that LITERATURE REVIEW they are loyal competitive workaholics who Gibson, Greenwood, and Murphy (2009) have difficulties balancing their private and find these profiles accurate. In their study, work lives. 5,057 respondents from three generations Members of Generation X were born (Baby Boomer, Generation X and somewhere between 1965 and 1979. This Millennial) were asked to rank a list of cohort grew up amongst rising divorce rates values in order from most important to least and an increasing number of working moms. important. Although the article claims that Children of this generation were often this value ranking verifies generational referred to as ‘latchkey kids’ because they profiles, there does not seem to be strong typically came home to an empty house evidence for this claim. Value rankings only (Cekada, 2012). Generation X is famously display slight shifts between generations. It known to be cynical, presumably because may be that each cohort interpreted the they experienced corporate downsizing, the meanings of these values differently. AIDS epidemic, the War on Drugs, and a Twenge (2012) conducts a similar study turbulent economic climate. It has been said examining life goal differences between that they are viewed as slackers by Baby Millennials and Baby Boomers at the same Boomers because they are known to switch age comparing the Monitoring the Future jobs more than previous generations. They Survey (MTF) and the American Freshman were also the first generation to be Survey (AFS). It is believed Millennials are considered computer literate, delay marriage more civic minded and socially aware. and parenthood, and to have more women Compared to Baby Boomers at the same age graduate college than men (Carlson, 2009). in their careers, Millennials considered Millennials, sometimes referred to as extrinsic values (money, fame, image) more Generation Y, were born between 1980 and important than intrinsic values (self- 2000. This generation has been said to be acceptance, affiliation, community). This the most racially diverse generation in may be because early twenty-first century United States history, with more than one- American high schools require community

Beaven / CJAS 4(1), 68-80, (2014) service as a graduation requirement, which reveals that Generation X employees were explains why it would appear that this more committed to the job than Baby cohort were more prone to volunteerism. Boomers and displayed the strongest and Prior cohorts faced no such requirements. most positive effects on job involvement and Interest in social problems, political OCB. In short, their findings suggest that participation, trust in governments, and pro- job satisfaction does not depend on environment action declined dramatically generation or age. Shragay and Tziner between the Baby Boomer and the (2011) suggest there is no need to bridge the Millennial generation cohorts. generation gap, for it seems to have bridged Ferres (2003) measures level of trust, itself. commitment, and intention to turnover Sze Chong Lin (2010) explores the between Generation X and older employees. affects prior knowledge and usage of Based on the generational profiles, one information and communication technology would assume that Generation X would be (ICT) on adaptability to new ICT products. less loyal and more likely to leave the Both a case study of twelve participants and company than older workers. After polling a cross-sectional study of thirty-five 83 Generation X workers and 151 older volunteers are employed to determine how employees, the data revealed that there were past knowledge and experience with various no differences found between the groups for technologies affect the learning curve of levels of commitment to the company or various cohorts. This study grouped trust. Generation X did however display generational cohorts into three technological lower continuance commitment, which is eras: the mechanical era (before 1930), the thought to be due to perceived job ‘electro-mechanical’ era (c. 1930 to c. opportunities elsewhere. Costanza (2012) 1960), and the ‘digital software’ era (after c. finds similar results from a meta-analysis of 1960). Sze Chong Lin (2010) bases his study findings from twenty academic journals. A off a 1993 Weymann and Sackaman study cross-sectional design is employed to assess that asserts people who have used or the degree to which a relationship exists experienced certain technologies during between generation, organizational their formative years (ages ten to twenty- commitment, and intent to stay. Costanza’s five) might also exhibit similar usage findings indicate that substantive differences behavior in later years. Findings show that among generations probably do not exist. older adult participants find present day Shragay and Tziner (2011) examine the devices difficult to use because they belong effect of generation on job involvement, to a different technological generation. Sze work satisfaction, and organizational Chong Lin (2010) suggests that the citizenship behavior (OCB is the formative ages in which individuals acquire contribution of employees to the values, norms, attitudes, behaviors, and organization above and beyond the official skills should be between ten and thirty. demands of the job). A questionnaire was McMullin, Cameau and Jovic (2007) posted online for one month; 133 examine the concept of generation in participants responded. The expectation relation to innovations in computing based on previous literature is that technology and assess whether and how it is Generation X respondents would be less used to create cultures of difference in the committed and Baby Boomers would workplace. This study draws upon an display higher levels of OCB due to their international study of information workaholic nature. To the contrary, the data technology (IT) work, ‘Workforce Aging in

Beaven / CJAS 4(1), 68-80, (2014) the New Economy’. Open-ended interview Research also indicates Millennials are less data from 141 IT workers from small firms religious, less likely to have served in the (between 4 and 21 workers) across three military, and are on track to become the Canadian locales are extracted and most educated generation in American examined for this study. The study finds that history. Finally, more than half (54%) of ‘there was evident ‘generational connection’ Millennials have at least some college in their exposure to technology form their education, compared with Generation X growing years” (McMullin, Cameau & (49%) and Baby Boomers (36%). Jovic, 2007, p. 297). The interviews reveal Zickuhr and Smith (2012) examine who that nearly all respondents spoke of a is most likely to go online and own digital generational advantage of younger IT devices. Data from Pew Internet Project workers. Although there were significant tracking survey severs as the primary discrepancies about how ‘young’ this resource for this report. Landline and younger generation was, it was perceived as cellphone surveys collected 2,260 responses one just slightly younger than their self. from adult’s age 18 and older over the Members of all generations used course of one month in 2011. Findings generational discourse to frame discussions suggest both age and educational attainment of technology expertise and ability. represents one of the most pronounced gaps Pew Research Center (2010) (Pew) in Internet access. Under half (43%) of reports on the values, behaviors and adults who have not completed high school demographic characteristics of the use the Internet compared to almost three- Millennial generation. Findings in this study quarters (74%) of high school graduates, and are largely based on the results of 2,020 nearly all (94%) college graduates. Roughly telephone surveys conducted between half (48%) of non-internet users report not January 14 through 27, 2010, on landline going online because they feel it is not and cell phones in both English and Spanish. relevant to their lives. Data reveals 63% of Data for this study also draws on findings Millennials with less than a high school from two other Pew Research Center education own a smartphone, compared to surveys regarding changing attitudes on 70% of Millennials with at least some work and generational differences. Research college experience. The gap grows larger for shows three-quarters of Millennials report older generations. Smartphone ownership having a profile on a social networking site for Baby Boomers (22%) with less than a compared to 30% of Generation X and 6% high school education is exactly half of of Baby Boomers. Millennials (88%) use Baby Boomers (44%) with at least some their phones for texting significantly more college experience. Even though Internet than both Generation X (77%) and Baby users age sixty-five and older are still Boomers (51%). Behavior differences relatively small in number, data indicates within the Millennial generation also they represent one of the fastest growing emerge. Younger Millennials are more segments of new users to social-networking likely than older Millennials to use social sites. networking sites, and to send and receive more text messages per day. Nearly six-in- HYPOTHESIS ten respondents report work ethic as one of I hypothesize that technological change, the biggest differences between young and not differences in generational belief, affects old, three-fourths of respondents claim that communication variability across older people have a better work ethic. generational cohorts. As younger

Beaven / CJAS 4(1), 68-80, (2014) generations lead lives dominated by digital cohorts. It is expected that the greatest media and instant communication devices, it technological literacy will be found at the is likely that this has created a sort of digital younger end of the spectrum. divide between older and younger generations. Typically digital divide refers H2: Older generations will report that to those who have access to information members from a younger generation have technology and those who do not. In this instructed them how to operate newer case it has been modified to also refer to technologies. Younger generations will technological literacy. This study proposes also report the highest levels of technological literacy. that the generational differences that exist within the workplace can be largely Employing the gradient-model (Figure 1) of attributed to this divide. The issues we gradual separation of age cohorts once more, experience are essentially a form of anomie it is expected that individuals will report (rapid advancement results in tension based greater similarities of technological usage on literacy and use levels of various and communication preference based on age contemporary technologies) caused by proximity rather than which generational material social facts that are pushing society category they happen to belong to. forward (Communication technology and increased access to new forms of H3: Individuals closest in age will report information media). Based on Karl greater similarities in technological usage Mannheim’s perception that an individual’s and communication preference regardless frame of reference is based on experiences of which generational category they that largely occur between the ages of belong to. seventeen and twenty-five, it is believed that the communication media technologies H0: There is no relationship between prevalent during these years for each generational membership, technology individual interviewed will be reflected in usage and communication preference. their communication preferences. METHODS H1: Communication and media A qualitative exploratory study was technologies prevalent between the ages conducted in which seven managers from of seventeen and twenty-five will be three different generational cohorts (2 Baby reflected in the individual’s technological Boomer, 3 Gen X, 2 Gen Y) were behavior and communication preference. interviewed. Questions regarding working in a multigenerational workplace, and their Borrowing from Mannheim’s concept of individual experience and usage patterns of reciprocal learning, it is believed that older modern communication technology were generations who currently use new posed to each individual. All managers technologies for communication and media interviewed work for the same retail (e.g. smartphones, tablets, laptops etc.) were corporation representing four stores in the introduced and taught by younger same market. The concept of modern generations less removed. Based on the technology was purposefully left vague in continuous life process, explained by order to prompt respondents to express their Mannheim, which essentially creates a ideas as to what constitutes modern gradient-like separation between age groups, technology. Managerial experience of these it is likely that we will find a ‘trickle-up’ seven managers range from six months to effect of younger cohorts teaching older thirty years, ranging in age from twenty-four 75

Beaven / CJAS 4(1), 68-80, (2014)

to fifty-eight years; there is a thirty-four year youngest of the four, Generation X manager age difference between the youngest and 2 (X2), mentioned TV as the source of oldest manager. entertainment growing up, and the three Six out of seven managers reported oldest reports playing with neighborhood having an associates degree or greater. All friends as the dominant activity. managers interviewed reported owning a Managers across all cohorts report smartphone. The four youngest managers currently using both phone calls and text reported being a user of social media, while messaging when communicating with family the three oldest managers reported having and friends. Four out of seven managers never used social media. Each manager was reported text messaging as their primary asked the same twenty open-ended means of communication. The four youngest questions. Responses were recorded, managers all reported text messaging to be transcribed and analyzed for patterns. the dominant form of communication, while The purpose of this study was to support the oldest manager still prefers making or reject each of the hypotheses formulated phone calls. Both Baby Boom generation from the work of Karl Mannheim, in managers (BB1 & BB2) began using text addition to exploring the relationship messaging because others insisted on between technological literacy, usages sending text messages: patterns, and management-communication style across generations. Due to the low I get texts all the time ‘have a good sample size findings will only prompt day’ or ‘have a nice day’ but a telephone whether or not further exploration of this call would probably be better for me…I proposed relationship is warranted. call 90% of the time, they are texting me 75% of the time (BB1, age 58).

Findings I actually text now, which came H1: Support found. An interesting trend about in the last few years…mainly found among the four oldest managers were because my sister and niece are a great their observations of younger associates deal younger than me, and its their way of behavior regarding courtesy and communicating…so it was either I communication. All four managers grew up start doing it with them or I don’t get to with little or no access to modern talk to them. (BB2, age 54) communication technology. Only the

Beaven / CJAS 4(1), 68-80, (2014)

As seen in Table 2, both Baby Boom managers report phone calls and letter The younger generation does not seem to writing as their primary means of be as responsible as older generations. communication with family and friends They seem to be more apt to call during high school and college. Both in, more apt to use their cell phone on the floor, and more apt to talk back to Generation X managers reported face-to- authority (X2, age 37) face communication and phone calls, while all millennial managers reported using some No Millennial manager mentioned any form of instant messaging as their primary courtesy or communication issues when means of communication during high school referring to younger generation associates. and college. These differing perspectives may be due to Findings suggest that older cohorts the distance modern communication reliance on interpersonal interaction during technology has created between individuals. their adolescent and early adulthood years Individuals who grew up connecting to helped to shape their communication others via communication technology may preferences. Since letter writing and face-to have less of a need for verbal or written face interaction were the dominant means of courtesy cues since instant messaging (IM) communication for the oldest managers, and text-messaging tends to be terse, while written or verbally expressed courtesy may letter writing or face-to-face communication be viewed as an important part of is more intimate and thoughtful. Karl interpersonal communication. A pattern Mannheim’s concept of social rejuvenation emerges in the four oldest managers seems to shed light here. Verbal curtsey cues responses: may have begun to disappear due to modern communication technology being predicated …older generations are more customer on the speed rather than the quality of the service friendly…I find that I have to coach younger generation to say response. Thus curtsey cues may no longer “please,” “thank you” or “may I help be useful for those engaged in this sort of you”…. they don’t develop communication. However, curtsey cues do relationships. They use technology to say seem to appear in instant communication via what they want to say but its no emoticons. While older generations prefer to interaction between bodies (BB1, age 58). express themselves verbally, younger generations may display curtsey in a I always notice when we leave at different form (e.g. sarcasm and tonality of night the younger generation always have the voice may be playful and endearing to their phones out text messaging and younger generations while older generations checking their messages to see what they may perceive this as disrespectful or rude). missed out on…sometimes I don’t know how to communicate with them or what is It is possible that the social distance modern important to them or how to relate to communication technology creates them (BB2, age 54) decreases the intimacy of the interaction. In such a situation, emotion may be lost in the Older generations just want to do speed and pithiness of the conversation, thus their job and they want some praise and not showing up in their face-to-face they want to please you…younger kids interaction. Cohorts that grew up with this want instant gratification, want you to understanding of communication may not notice things right away… and they are not as respectful (X1, age 48)

Beaven / CJAS 4(1), 68-80, (2014)

Table 2. Primary Means of Communication in High School and College Generation Response BB1 Phone, Letter Writing BB2 Phone, In Person, Letter Writing X1 Phone, In Person X2 In Person M1 Cell Phone M2 Text, IM M3 Facebook, IM, Text Note: Mangers listed by birth order. BB= Baby Boomer manager; X=Generation X manager; M=Millennial manager. realize they are violating the communication from the inception of household computers, norms held by older cohorts. therefore this manager may have had less of H2: Some support found. Two of the a need to learn from younger individuals. three oldest managers (BB2, X1) reported This same manager added that their 84-year- learning how to use new technology from old mother currently uses Facebook and younger family members and coworkers. online banking/bill pay; she was taught how The oldest manager (BB1) reports that to use it by a younger relative. consulting a manual and learning through H3 Support found. As seen in Figure 1, trial and error as the primary means of the generational differences found in this learning new technology. This manager also study may better be explained using the reported a higher literacy rate than most gradient-model discussed above. X1 shared managers, rating their self as 75% efficient. similar preferences in communication style The next oldest two managers (BB2, X1) with Baby Boomer managers than with report much lower self-assessments of either of the Generation X managers. X2, technological literacy (BB2 claims to be the manager closest to the middle of the novice at home, but proficient at work, spectrum, share similarities with both older while X1 reports having low technological and younger cohorts, advising other literacy). The youngest four managers all managers to treat everyone the same. This report considerably higher literacy rates. advice may be due to their generational The oldest three managers report regular position—the relative middle—creating the use of modern technology as occurring impression that this person does not have to between their early twenties to the late act much differently in either direction. This thirties. The youngest four all began using manager was the oldest manager to report computers between elementary and junior being able to communicate with and high school years. There seems to be understand younger associates better than evidence of the digital divide suggested the older managers. Mannheim’s contention above. The oldest three managers were well that intermediate cohorts buffer tension into adulthood when they began using between generations seems to be valid in communication technology regularly, while this case. the youngest four managers grew up using these technologies. The oldest manager Seems like with the younger appears to have kept up with technology generation I can control them a little bit

Beaven / CJAS 4(1), 68-80, (2014)

better. I don’t know if it is because they problem. Data indicates education can relate to me as far as shared attainment may also play a significant role interests…even though we are not the in the digital divide, revealing that as same generation, I can still understand education increases so does technology parts of their generation. (X2, age 37) usage. This begs the question, is it technology or education that best explain LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE these changes? STUDIES Due to the nature of retail, it is important Limitations of this study include the to acknowledge that generational broadness of the topic in relation to the membership may be less of a factor than depth of the interview questions posed. As mere age itself. Younger employees have all managers worked for the same retail much less at stake than older cohorts, corporation in the same market, much typically having the safety net of their different results may be produced in parents to fall back on. Lack of maturity, different sectors and markets. Some lack of responsibility, and parental support managers were pre-exposed to generational may better explain the difficulty of training, which may have influenced their managing younger generation employees. responses. Finally, all interviews were One manager put it best: conducted under limited time constraints, which may have also influenced responses, A big challenge that we do have in this two of which were interrupted and had to retail environment is that people are not resume several minutes later. Though this career oriented here. They are working study did provide some more insight into here just to get a paycheck. It is very hard this subject, future studies should examine to try and motivate those people because the impact technology has made on they are just here…they are not invested perceived curtsey. Is this something that has in the company, and they are not invested been lost due to lack of usefulness, or has it in the success of the company. The changed form to fit with the new high-speed biggest challenge is trying to get people highly technical climate? invested in making this [company] successful (X1, age 48).

CONCLUSION Pilcher (1994) concludes that more Although the generational profiles seem sociological research must be done on to have some merit, most of them are generations, and that Mannheim provides a lacking empirical scientific support. It is stimulating point of departure. Mannheim’s important that companies recognize this as a argument that rapidly changing societies problem if they wish to invest resources into create generational distinctions provides a generational management training. Much of sound basis for generational research. It the literature on this topic focuses on becomes clear that our society is changing political events, as well as familial and rapidly when we examine the lives of economic climates as the catalyst for these elderly individuals. My grandmother, for differences despite providing little support example, lived an amazing ninety-seven for these assertions. It is believed that rapid years. Born in rural Kentucky in 1916, she technological advances in communication inherited a life where horse and carriage, oil and other daily technologies are the driving lamps, and outhouses were the norm. When force behind communication breakdowns she passed in 2013 the world was different between younger and older cohorts, than the world she knew as a child. In her assuming communication is the root of the

Beaven / CJAS 4(1), 68-80, (2014)

small community she witnessed an Mannheim, K. (1952). The Problem of agricultural dominated way of life shrivel up Generations. In Karl Mannehim, Essays on and factories take root. With them fast food, the Sociology of Knowledge. Routledge & Wal-Mart, and a litany of other service Kegan Paul. 276-322. Routledge. based jobs settled in the town. She watched McMullin, J. A., Comeau, T. D. & Jovic, E. her grandchildren play outside with sticks (2007). Generational affinities and and mud pies, and watched her great- discourses of difference: a case study of grandchildren sit inside playing with iPads. highly skilled information technology There is no doubt that the norms, values, and workers. The British Journal of Sociology. life expectations my grandmother acquired 58(2), 297-316. in her youth are different for her great- Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. grandchildren. If the world has changed this 2010). Millennials: Confident. Connected. much over the course of one individual’s Open to Change. lifetime, it is clear that a person’s behavior Pilcher, J (1994). Mannheim’s Sociology of can be, in part, explained according to when Generations: an undervalued legacy. The they came into the world and how they British Journal of Sociology, 45(3), 481- learned to communicate. 495. Reith, J. (2005). Understanding and REFERENCES Appreciating the Communication Styles of Carlson, E. (2009). 20th-CENTURY U.S. the Millennial Generation. American GENERATIONS. Population Bulletin, Counseling Association, (70). 64(1), 1-18. Rosen, L. D., Ph.D. (2004). Understanding the Cekada, T. L. (2012). Training a Technological Generation Gap. The Multigenerational Workforce. Professional National Psychologist. (March). Safety, 57(3), 40- 44. Schuman, H., & Scott, J. (1989). Generations Christopher Sze Chong, L. (2010). Designing and Collective Memories. American inclusive ICT products for older users: Sociological Review, 54, 359-381. taking into account the technology Shragay, D., & Tziner, A. (2011). The generation effect. Journal Of Engineering Generational Effect on the Relationship Design, 21(2/3), 189-206. between Job Involvement, Work Costanza, D., Badger, J., Fraser, R., Severt, J., Satisfaction, and Organizational Citizenship & Gade, P. (2012). Generational Differences Behavior. Revista De Psicologia Del in Work-Related Attitudes: A Meta- Trabajo Y De Las Organizaciones, 27(2), analysis. Journal Of Business & Psychology, 143-157. 27(4), 375-394. Twenge, J. M., Freeman, E. C., & Campbell, Ferres, N., Travaglione, A., & Firns, I. (2003). W. (2012). Generational Differences in Attitudinal Differences Between Young Adults' Life Goals, Concern for Generation-X And Older Employees. Others, and Civic Orientation, 1966-2009. International Journal of Organizational Journal Of Personality & Social Behavior, 6(3), 320-333 Psychology, 102(5),1045-1062. Gibson, J. W., Greenwood, R. A., & Murphy, Zickuhr, K. & Smith, A. (2012). Digital E. F., Jr. (2009). Generational Differences In differences. Pew Internet & American Life The Workplace: Personal Values, Behaviors, Project 1-41. And Popular Beliefs. Journal of Diversity Management, 4(3).