Author
Abstract
Purpose - This study aims to address demographic variables believed likely to restrain or modify homogeneous attitudes and values purported as inherent in each generational cohort and associated with divergence of workplace preferences and expectations. Design/methodology/approach - Using a subsample of data collected from a larger study conducted as part of the General Social Survey and supported by the National Science Foundation, this study contributes to the emerging generational differences in literature by using Kruskal–Wallis tests in the analysis of five generational research questions. Findings - In one sense, the results of this study appear to reflect the mixed and confusing disarray of evidence regarding the influence of generational differences on job preferences and workplace behaviors. On only two of the five job characteristics in this study did generational cohort membership demonstrate beyond random chance divergence in generational preference. However, the analysis of the interaction of cohort membership and demographic covariates on these two job characteristics points toward merit in further examination of relationship of subgroup differences relative to overarching assumptions about generational attitudes and norms of behavior. Research limitations/implications - A number of limitations to the interpretation of this study merit reflection. First, given that the data for this study were cross-sectional in nature, the relationships in our study may be subject to temporal change. Second, the data were secured by self-report and is subject to all the limitations of self-reported data. Third, some of the demographic variables in this study were the result of aggregation in an attempt to secure adequate observations in each cell, and as such, important variance may have been concealed. Fourth, the study did not control for the confounding influence of age difference on cohort preferences. Practical implications - In a rush to adapt and develop different approaches to human resource management in hope of meeting the needs of successive generational cohorts, it behooves scholars and practitioners alike to acknowledge the confused state of research on generational cohorts and to question the assumed monolithic model of generational cohort job-related likes and dislikes. Social implications - This study would suggest that the assumed homogeneity of generational values and attitudes and their influence on the US workplace frequently fails to consider the heterogeneity evolving from the rural/urban characteristics where cohort members experienced adolescence. Originality/value - Scholars will appreciate the broad perspective presented in this study and the potential new avenues for research. For practitioners, the study provides valuable insights into the three dominant generational cohorts currently in the workplace, thus enabling practitioners to understand the underpinnings of performance and work climate with greater depth and breadth of perspective.
Suggested Citation
Ernie Stark & Paul Poppler, 2018.
"Considering heterogeneity within assumed homogenous generational cohorts,"
Management Research Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 41(1), pages 74-95, January.
Handle:
RePEc:eme:mrrpps:mrr-06-2017-0193
DOI: 10.1108/MRR-06-2017-0193
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Citations
Citations are extracted by the
CitEc Project, subscribe to its
RSS feed for this item.
Cited by:
- Ivan Paunovic & Cathleen Müller & Klaus Deimel, 2023.
"Citizen Participation for Sustainability and Resilience: A Generational Cohort Perspective on Community Brand Identity Perceptions and Development Priorities in a Rural Community,"
Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-18, April.
- Ahmet Alkan Çelik & Mert Kılıç & Erkut Altındağ & Volkan Öngel & Ayşe Günsel, 2021.
"Does the Reflection of Foci of Commitment in Job Performance Weaken as Generations Get Younger? A Comparison between Gen X and Gen Y Employees,"
Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-19, August.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:mrrpps:mrr-06-2017-0193. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.