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 68 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 69 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 70 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.