A Grounded Theory Study of Behavior Patterns Linda Carey Halverson University of St
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
University of St. Thomas, Minnesota UST Research Online Education Doctoral Dissertations in Organization School of Education Development 2011 Stereotype-Free Mixed Birth Generation Workplaces: A Grounded Theory Study of Behavior Patterns Linda Carey Halverson University of St. Thomas, Minnesota, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.stthomas.edu/caps_ed_orgdev_docdiss Part of the Education Commons Recommended Citation Halverson, Linda Carey, "Stereotype-Free Mixed Birth Generation Workplaces: A Grounded Theory Study of Behavior Patterns" (2011). Education Doctoral Dissertations in Organization Development. 7. https://ir.stthomas.edu/caps_ed_orgdev_docdiss/7 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Education at UST Research Online. It has been accepted for inclusion in Education Doctoral Dissertations in Organization Development by an authorized administrator of UST Research Online. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Stereotype-Free Mixed Birth Generation Workplaces: A Grounded Theory Study of Behavior Patterns A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS By Linda Carey Halverson IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION March 2011 UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS We certify that we have read this dissertation and approved it as adequate in scope and quality. We have found that it is complete and satisfactory in all respects, and that any and all revisions required by the final examining committee have been made. Dissertation Committee _____________________________________________________________________ John Conbere, EdD., Committee Chair ______________________________________________________________________ Alla Heorhiadi, PhD. EdD., Committee Member ______________________________________________________________________ Eleni Roulis, PhD., Committee Member _____________________ Date Copyright © March, 2011 Linda Carey Halverson ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 3 Abstract Limited job opportunities, later retirements and longer life spans had combined to create unique mixed-birth generation workplaces in America; three and sometimes four different generations of employees were working together toward the same organization goals and objectives. A popular management trend was to call attention to predicted conflict that might result and then recommend mixed-birth generation management strategies by stereotyping birth generation behaviors in the workplace and prescribing stereotyped approaches for each. In response to a concern with providing yet another opportunity to stereotype people in the workplace, the purpose of this study was to surface a theory that supported a new way of thinking about mixed-birth generation American workplaces through the discovery of stereotype-free workplace behavior patterns. In answer to the research question, “How do organizations create and sustain stereotype-free mixed-birth generation workplaces,” this research built theory grounded in the voices, actions and experiences of 18 people from different birth generations who worked with other generations of people in for-profit and non-profit organizations in the United States Midwest. Through Charmaz’ (2006) Constructivist Grounded Theory analysis of participant shared experiences, a theory emerged suggesting that a Fostering Work Climate regularly fed by contributing personal and organization culture factors would ultimately demonstrate the characteristics that both created and sustained a stereotype-free mixed-birth generation workplace. 4 Dedication This dissertation dream is dedicated to my mixed-birth generation family. To my most patient and generous bud, Randy Sauter, who gave me the time I required, the distance I needed, unconditional love during my most ugly melt-down moments and financed the construction of a room of my own to write my dissertation. To my daughter, Sara, who walked me through challenging research classes, always asked how my work was coming along and took her valuable time to read drafts, ask important questions and affirm my work. To my son, Mark, who built me a dissertation room that was exactly as I had envisioned it and, with my daughter-in-law, Carrie, always honored our First Sunday family commitments and their importance to me during this time. And, to my grandchildren, Zachary, Josephine, and Isabelle, who provided frequent and much-needed reminders of the truly blessed life I live. I am forever grateful for your love. 5 Acknowledgements A project of this magnitude requires hours of time with and away from forgiving and supportive family and friends, a job with a flexible and understanding boss and co- worker, an experienced and encouraging doctoral committee and willing participants. I am privileged to have had them all. My most beloved dissertation maturation group, Heather Zweifel and Melanie Sullivan, were a requirement for both sanity and success. Our dissertation get-aways were motivational and inspirational and our commitment to each other throughout this journey truly extraordinary. With their own doctoral work completed months before mine, their words “But, we’re not done until you’re done; we graduate together!” were uniquely encouraging. Cheryl Throgmorton, my grounded theory partner and friend, collaborated and struggled with me, side-by-side, email after email, text message after text message and phone call after phone call. That we shared both an academic goal and a chosen methodology at times became a true port in a storm for me. The WEBIPs (Women of Extraordinary Beauty, Intelligence and Power), Brenda Norman, Rachel Bangasser, Nancy Harrower, and Mel Sullivan, reconnected me to a loved learning experience and provided camaraderie and friendship. And, Rachel Wobschall, Jane Canney, Mary Ann Ryan, Liz Houle, Tori Svoboda, Karen Lange and Edna Comedy at the University of St. Thomas, the “Disser Sisters,” provided another blessing. As work colleagues, we shared a “doctorate or bust” attitude that moved and encouraged each of us along no matter where we were in our individual doctoral programs. 6 My boss, Mark Dienhart, and co-worker, Barb Dunker, at the same time forgave my absences and understood the need I had to create them. My solid and long-time friend and colleague, Marla Friederichs, remained my ultimate wake-up call and always brought me back to reality when I most needed to be reminded. Jerry Halverson, despite a heavy advising workload of his own, made himself and other resources available to me at a moment’s notice. My doctoral advisor, John Conbere, gave constant encouragement to trust the process, beware of scope creep, believed in me as a researcher and always asked an end- of-meeting question: “How else can I help?” My committee members, Alla Heorihadi and Eleni Roulis, gave always-constructive feedback, access to learning resources, timely responses to my many questions and, from Alla, the unique learning opportunity to broaden my personal horizons through Energetics. My participants took time away from their busy lives to help with this research, responded to a barrage of emails and follow-up calls and candidly shared their mixed- birth generation workplace experiences with me. And, my mom, dad and sisters, Renee, Karen & Karla, who continued to ask with encouragement, “When is graduation, anyway?” I appreciate all of you. 7 CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 13 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 13 Problem 15 Purpose and Research Question 16 Theoretical Framework 17 Significance 18 Definition of Common Terms 18 Assumption 18 Bias 18 Constructivist grounded theory 19 Coding 19 Initial Coding 19 Focused Coding 19 Axial Coding 20 Theoretical Coding 20 Gender 20 Generation descriptors 20 Baby Boomer generation 20 Generation X 20 Millennial generation 21 Silent generation 21 Member checking 21 Memo writing 21 Generalizing 21 Stereotyping 22 Symbolic interactionism 22 Theoretical sampling 22 Theoretical saturation 23 Theoretical sorting 23 Overview of Chapters 23 CHAPTER 2 24 LITERATURE REVIEW PART 1 24 Demographics and the Future 24 Stereotyping 25 Why Humans Stereotype 26 Gender Stereotyping 29 Ethnic Stereotyping 29 Cultural Stereotyping 31 Generational Stereotyping 33 Intergenerational Workplace Management 34 8 LITERATURE REVIEW PART 2 38 Stereotype Thinking and Individuality 38 Organization Development Values and Process Consulting 43 The Healthy Organization 45 CHAPTER 3 48 METHODOLOGY 48 Why Constructivist Grounded Theory 48 Methodology 50 Sampling and Data Collection 52 Analysis 53 Gerunds and initial coding 54 Focused coding 54 Axial coding 55 Theoretical coding 55 Memo writing 55 Researcher preconceptions 56 Coding cautions 56 Data storage and participant protection 57 Delimitations 57 Limitations 57 Assumptions 58 CHAPTER 4 59 FINDINGS 59 Model Development 59 Participant profile 60 Data collection 65 Data Analysis: Initial Coding 66 Data Analysis: Theme and Preliminary Model Development 68 Coding round one 68 Coding round two 74 Coding round three 75 Coding round four 75 Data Analysis: A Theory Emerges 77 Contributing Personal Development Factors 80 Self-awareness factor 80 Stereotyping factor 87 Personal Barrier Factors 93 Compromised self-awareness 93 Perpetuating stereotyping 100 Contributing Organization Culture Factors 107 Communication 108 Learning 109 Mentoring and coaching 112 Technology 115 9 Organization Culture Barrier Factors 118 Poor communication 119 Unwilling to learn 120 Unwilling to mentor and coach 121 Technology