There are more generations in today's workforce than ever before, which has the possibility to create

challenges for Human Resource professionals. The purpose of this article is to interrogate existing
stereotypes and generalities about the characteristics of different generations with respect to the
workplace, and to offer suggestions for Human Resource professionals to help organizations
successfully negotiate a multi-generational workforce. A wide range of studies published in the last
seven years is reviewed, in order to develop a taxonomy of generational issues and their implications
for Human Resource Managers and Human Resource Developers. The article is framed by the
following taxonomic dimensions: organizational citizenship behaviors, work values, work attitudes,
motivation, psychological traits, and technology.

Keywords

Generational differences, challenges, human resource management, human resource

development

The presence of multi-generational employees within organizations has been established through
various articles and sources including management, organizational behavior, human resource
management and development research articles, texts and teaching supplements. According to the
Society for Human Resource Management (2007), explorations into the characteristics of different
generations in the workplace have led to stereotypes and generalizations that are unfounded. For
example, Generation X is typified as apathetic and Generation Y is typified as "overly demanding and
in need of constant praise" (p. 2). The purpose of this article is to systematically explore the literature
about generational differences in the workplace, in order to interrogate these sorts of stereotypes
and to examine what has been found to be true about the different generations, and what is untrue.
The co-authors are colleagues at the same institution, who represent two different generations. It
was through our mutual interest in exploring the literature on generational difference, inspired by
the workplace climate research being conducted at their institution, that we conceptualized this
article. Therefore, the article is informed by our workplace observations in our own multi-
generational institution, and also, through a comprehensive literature review of current scholarly
research on generational differences in the workplace. We will offer suggestions for Human Resource
Managers and Human Resource Developers related to successfully managing, leading, training and
developing a generationally diverse workforce. The significance of the paper is fundamentally
twofold. First, it identifies, organizes, and presents the array of studies from the last seven years that
yield results that range from somewhat similar, to mildly ambiguous, to clearly contradictory. Second,
it seeks to offer suggestions for Human Resource Management (HRM) and Human Resource
Development (HRD) scholars and practitioners, even in the face of the inconsistent findings of the
literature that we have reviewed.

Rather than ignore age differences, and passively hope to minimize (or deny) those differences
through homogenizing HRM and HRD policies and practices, we will offer the suggestion that HR
professionals acknowledge and leverage generational differences. Although stereotypes about
generational characteristics abound, there is little research that formally synthesizes across
thematics the array of studies that have been conducted in a way that can inform a comprehensive
set of considerations for policies, practices, and training and development, as well as debunk
unflattering myths and stereotypes. By examining recent literature on generations along five specific
dimensions, this article is intended to provide a deeper understanding about generational
characteristics and preferences with respect to the workplace.

Human Resource Management is comprised of activities related to the maintenance of the

organization. That is, HRM positions people in the organization, in order to achieve the "highest
possible performance in order to meet strategic goals" (Yorks, 2005, p. 9). Human Resource
Management practices include employee relations, compensation and benefits, recruitment and
selection, workplace safety and health, labor relations, and performance management. Human
Resource Development is comprised of activities that help employees learn and grow. HRD prepares
and continually develops people and learning systems to achieve high performance in order to meet
strategic goals (Yorks, 2005). HRD activities include skill-based training, career development
coaching, and mentoring.

The authors, who are both scholars and practitioners of Human Resource Management and
Development, are also both on the faculty of a large, public liberal arts and sciences institution that
is experiencing microcosmic tensions and challenges representative of what presents in organizations
in the United States (and beyond). The two authors of this article came together after recognizing
that they had an opportunity to not only explore a scholarly problem but also help understand their
own organization.
The increasing generational complexity in the workplace presents questions for management,
leadership and human resource scholars to examine.. We anticipate that differences in age present
differences in work preferences and priorities. This paper, therefore, is a literature review of
management and organizational scholarship in the last seven years, that the authors have conducted
in order to acquire a meta-perspective on generational work behaviors, preferences and priorities.
The ultimate aim of this paper is to examine the research on generational difference in order to
identify implications for Human Resource Managers and Human Resource Developers.

The Problem

What do Human Resource Management and Human Resource Development professionals need to
understand in order to help organizations successfully negotiate a multigenerational workforce?

Research Questions

Because there is a significant body of research, we chose to develop a taxonomy of generational

issues and their implications for Human Resource Managers and Human Resource Developers.
Taxonomies are useful when "large amounts of information can be collapsed into more convenient
categories that would then be easier to pro- cess" (Carper & Snizek, 1980, p. 73). Using a taxonomic
methodology consistent with that of Marks, Mathieu and Zaccaro (2001), we reviewed the literature
on generational diversity; we developed five questions framed around the themes that stemmed
from our literature review results; and we "integrated our applied experiences" (p. 362) with our own
workplace. Using our keyword combinations as a framework, we developed the following five
question taxonomy:

1. What are organizational citizenship behaviors, and how do they present themselves in differing
generations?

2. What are the similarities and differences across generations with respect to values, goals,
preferences, and behaviors?

3. What are the similarities and differences across generations with respect to work attitudes and
motivation?
4. How do Human Resource Management and Development professionals consider psychological
traits across the generations?

5. What are the implications of technological change, particularly for older workers?

Literature Review

The research methodology was framed around a search for scholarly explorations that compared
Baby Boomers, Gen Xs, and Gen Ys in the United States. We searched EBSCOHost and ProQuest in
order to access business, management and organizational literature. In order to identify and assess
literature that may fall outside of these two rather focused databases, we also included Google
Scholar in our search. There are perhaps several different entiy points into the business, management
and organizational literature with respect to generations and the workplace. In order to create a
study that is cohesive and manageable, we made decisions around the particular keyword
combinations. This process was quite intentional, as it was informed by the intra-organizational
conversations within our own institution around organizational loyalty, work values, and technology
across the generations. Therefore, the following sets of keywords were used: generational difference
and organizational citizenship behavior; generational differences and work values; generational
differences and work attitudes; generational differences and psychological traits; and generational
differences, technology age gap and technology divide. For generational difference and
organizational citizenship behavior, there were approximately 97 articles that included discussion on
organizational citizenship behavior, but few articles met our criteria of exploring both organizational
citizenship behavior and generational differences. For generational difference and work values, there
were approximately 690 articles that mentioned work values, but few articles met our criteria of
exploring both generational difference and work values. For generational differences and
psychological traits, there were approximately 275 articles that mentioned psychological traits, but
few met our criteria of exploring both generational differences and psychological traits. For
generational differences, technology age gap and the technology divide, there were approximately
6,690 articles that mentioned technology, ten that discussed technology age gap, seven that
discussed the technology divide, but none met our criteria. Both conceptual and empirical studies
were reviewed. Ultimately, the puipose of this paper is to take stock of current research in
management and related fields along five categories, so that we could tease out implications for HRM
and HRD practice and research.
Discussion

Taxonomy

Although there is a lack of consensus on the precise definition of the term "generation," we have
identified two definitions that we feel are useful. Mannheim (1953, as cited in Shragay & Tziner, 2011,
p. 143), offered that a generation is a "group of people who were born and raised in a similar social
and historical atmosphere." Cennamo and Gardner (2008) and Shragay and Tziner (2011) defined
"generation" as an identifiable group (cohorts) that shares birth years, age location, and significant
life events at critical developmental stages (times) divided by 16-20 years into a first wave (Baby
Boomers), a core group (Gen X), and a last wave (Gen Y).

While there is an array of research related to age and to work, there is proportionately little that
provides a comprehensive examination of the particulars of the relationship between generations,
and the actionable, explicit manifestations of generational difference upon which HRM and HRD
professionals can draw. We present, therefore, a taxonomy of the literature along the five
dimensions that we have identified through our own cross-generational professional observations.
Within each dimension of our taxonomy, we present the literature in the first table and then we
present the implications for HRM and HRD practice in subsequent tables. These five dimensions,
framed by our five research questions, are: organizational citizenship behaviors, generational
differences, and work values; organizational commitment and generational difference, work
attitudes and motivation; and psychological traits and generational differences; and technology and
generational differences.

Table 1 provides an overview of the studies that have been conducted on generational differences.
We have indicated in columnar fashion the studies, organized and presented along the five categories
of our taxonomy, that have found generational differences, and the studies that have found no
generational differences.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior; Generational Differences and Work Values

Organ (1988) identifies five dimensions of organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB): (1) Altruism -
helping another employee in carrying out tasks related to the organization; (2) Conscientiousness -
devotion, showing respect for the organization and observing its rules; (3) Sportsmanship - refraining
from making petty complaints; (4) Courtesy - consulting with work partners about actions that may
affect their work; and (5) Civic virtue behaviors - involvement in the organization's political life, such
as participation in meetings. These behaviors signal an employee's commitment to the organization,
because they demonstrate that the employee is willing to go beyond the bounds of the explicit or
contractual expectations of a job. When job satisfaction is high, OCB increases (Shragay & Tziner,
2011) and this tendency spans generations. However, when organizations do not address the
changing emphasis and the role of work in the lives of Gen X and Gen Y employees, they run the risk
of losing those employees. Gen X and Gen Y employees place a different emphasis on the role of
work in their lives, compartmentalizing work to a greater extent, and placing value on other pursuits
such as leisure than Baby Boomers (Cennamo & Gardner, 2008; Twenge, Campbell, Hoffman, &
Lance, 2010; Westerman & Yamamura, 2007). Gen X and Gen Y employees are less willing to do extra
work without pay (Busch, Venkitachalam, & Richards, 2008).

For the category of OCB, there are no significant differences across the generations (Shragay & Tziner,
2011). For the category of values, goals, preferences, expectations and behaviors, we identified a
total of 15 studies. Nine of those studies presented differences, and six found no differences. For the
category of organizational commitment, work attitudes and motivations, we identified a total of 18
studies. Ten of those studies found generational differences, and eight found no differences. For the
category of psychological traits, we identified one study, and it did not find generational differences.
For the category of technology, we identify one study and it did find generational differences. Two
of the five categories (values, goals, preferences, expectations and behaviors; and organizational
commitment, work attitudes, and motivation) of our five-part taxonomy have mixed results. Three
of the five categories (OCB; psychological traits; and technology) are under-studied dimensions of
generational difference.

Human Resource Management practices that are informed by the literature we present include
creating and communicating clear and consistent statements of organizational values, and creating
effective recruitment and assessment practices (Cennamo & Gardner, 2008). Human Resource
Development practices that are informed by the literature include incorporating different types of
training and development efforts that provide employees with skills that they can use in their current
job, but also, that they can use as they progress in their careers. In other words, we suggest that
training and development initiatives-particularly for Gen X and Gen Y employeesdemonstrate to
those employees that the organization is interested in helping employees perform in their current
role as well as future roles. Because Gen X and Gen Y employees are less inclined to provide additional
work without additional pay, both HRM and HRD efforts should demonstrate that the organization is
mindful that younger employees are committed to the organization, but are less willing to make
sacrifices for the organization at their own expense. Table 2 provides implications for HRM and HRD
practice with regard to organizational citizenship behavior and generational differences.

Organizational Commitment and Generational Diff erences: Work Attitudes and Motivation

The findings within this dimension of our taxonomy are consistent with the findings along our
dimension of OCB. That is, younger employees are less willing to sacrifice other aspects of their lives
for their jobs. Gen X employees have a higher need for authenticity and balance than Baby Boomers
(Cennamo & Gardner, 2008). However, there are variances within the literature across sub-topics
such as learning, commitment, and job satisfaction and these differences appear to vary according
to occupational context. However, it is beyond the scope of this paper to examine and offer themes
within occupations. The conclusion that we offer, resulting from the literature presented below in
Table 1, is that there are similarities and differences across generations with respect to organizational
commitment and generational difference, work attitudes and motivation and that no definitive
conclusions can be drawn. This category presents an important area for further research because of
these mixed results. It is important for HRM and HRD practitioners to resist the idea that it is helpful
to treat employees of differing generations differently along this category.

Because of the variation that we see in the literature regarding generational differences, the
implications are arguably context and organization specific. In our own organization, we see that
different generations have varying levels of attitudes and motivations depending upon their
particular location in the organization (the college is geographically dispersed across New York State)
and their particular responsibilities and workload. This presents, however speculative, a suggestion
that when managing a multi-generational workforce, HRM and HRD practitioners become
knowledgeable about the organization itself, and that they custom design policies and practices that
attend to regional differences and variations in type and quantity of work for which employees are
responsible. For example, when newer and younger employees are concerned with raising young
children, the organization can and should be sensitive to the competing demands of parents who are
negotiating family and careers. For employees who are entering the latter phases of career, the
organization has the opportunity to leverage the organizational knowledge and wisdom attained by
more experienced professionals by creating part-time opportunities where employees can phase out
of fulltime work yet continue to contribute to the organization. Table 3, below, presents some
suggested implications for HRM/HRD practice.

Psychological Traits

This is the dimension within our taxonomy that presents, perhaps, the most surprising findings. That
is, there are few if any categorical and systematic differences by age with respect to psychological
traits among Baby Boomers, Gen X, and Gen Y employees. Twenge and Campbell (2008), for example,
observed the importance of attending to differences, irrespective of generations. Given the "hype"
surrounding Gen Y, the fact that individual differences exist may be overlooked in favor of
stereotyping all Gen Ys with specific personality traits. This implication suggests, we argue, that it
might be unfairly and constrictively stereotypical to think of Gen Xers as having certain psychological
traits, versus Gen Yers or Baby Boomers. Because of the potential for value judgments (some are
"good," others are "bad") around psychological traits, we suggest that the fields of HRM and HRD
accept and tolerate the ambiguous findings that we present, along with the suggestion that HRM and
HRD practitioners in effect ignore generational differences when conducting performance appraisals
and when considering employees for promotional opportunities. There is simply not enough credible
evidence to suggest otherwise. Below, Table 4 presents the study that explores psychological traits,
along with notes about implications for HRM/HRD practice.

Technology and Generational Difference

Initially, we operated with the notion that older workers were slower to embrace new technologies,
more difficult to train, and in general, more resistant to technology. The results of the literature
review refute these ideas almost entirely. In a similar vein with psychological traits, we see no
consistent evidence that suggests that younger workers have different aptitudes or attitudes around
technology. The study conducted by Brody and Rubin (2011) is curious, because is teases out some
nuances around technology and the ways that generations perceive its value. On the one hand, for
older workers, technologies that provide greater convenience are a boon and associated with
increased loyalty. For younger workers using these technologies, whether at work or not, does not
affect their loyalty and, we assume, is simply taken for granted. On the other hand, e-mail messages
to which employees respond outside of normal working hours significantly decrease the loyalty of
the older generation, consistent with the notion that intrusive technologies are experienced by older
workers as a tether. In the absence of data that proves that younger workers are more tech savvy, or
more enthusiastic about technology, we offer a possible explanation about that absence. The
ubiquity of technology as a consumer good has likely ameliorated the technology divide across
generations. That is, computers, laptops, smart phones, digital cameras, and tablet computers have
become consumer devices, which means that they have become commonly used across generations.
Admittedly, this is speculative at this point, and we offer it as a suggestion for future research.

Based upon our own experiences, we find that technology should be implemented strategically and
intentionally in order to achieve its benefits and to create effective and productive organizations.
This suggestion cuts across all generations. As one example of technological change and strategic
implementation, we experienced a macro-level organizational resistance among the faculty at our
institution when it was suggested that we conduct an annual organizational meeting, heretofore face
to face, as a virtual meeting. Although much of the resistance stemmed from the fact that the By-
Laws of the college did not contain a provision for a virtual meeting to replace a face to face meeting,
much of the resistance also stemmed from the lack of confidence in the ability of our technology to
successfully facilitate such a meeting. This is but one example of the criticality of strategic
technological usage for Human Resource Management and Development efforts, regardless of
generations.

Generational Differences in Other Countries

Although the concept of generational differences is recognized universally, those generations are not
necessarily defined the same way from country to country. As a consequence, Human Resource
Managers and Human Resource Developers cannot assume that research findings in one country can
be transposed to another. If major social and historical events that define a group as generation vary
from country to country, then the definitions of generation should vary as well. For instance, while
the United States use 1945 as a defining year for Baby Boomers, researchers in China may focus
instead on the "Great Leap Forward" in 1960 and the Cultural Revolution that lasted until 1976.

Most of the research on generational differences has been conducted in the United States and few
other Western countries. Although the literature is replete with studies investigating cross-cultural
differences, few studies focused on cultural differences as they relate to the variables identified in
this study. In one such cross-cultural study of generational differences and similarities the United
States, United Kingdom, Iceland, Japan, Korea, the Philippines, and Columbia, Uy et al. (2008) found,
for instance, that the value of equality (being treated equally) was not as important for the Japanese,
Korean, and Philippine 18 to 29 years old as other groups. It should be noted, however, that the
authors offer no rationale for the age ranges they selected for all seven countries. Table 5 presents
selected studies that investigated generational differences outside the United States.

Conclusions and Implications for Human Resource Management and Development Research and
Practice

This article has proposed a taxonomy of research on the relationship between generational
difference along five categories in order to offer suggested HRM and HRD policies and practices.
Several researchers question the significance of generational differences in the workplace. Shragay
and Tziner (2011) determined that it may not be necessary to invest a great deal of effort in attempts
to bridge the generation gap in the workplace and they determined that generational gaps have
perhaps already been bridged. In view of our findings, it may be possible that within the five
dimensions of our taxonomy, gaps between generations might not be materially wide. For example,
with respect to technology, older workers (Baby Boomers) might be unfairly and inaccurately
stereotyped as re- sistant to learning and using technology in their jobs. It may be the case, then, that
training might be needed to address any perceptible hesitation on the part of a group of workers.
Training should also be provided during times of organizational change, regardless of generational
composition. Resistance to change, for example, has more to do with what an employee stands to
gain or lose from that change, rather than the employee's age (Society for Human Resource
Management, 2005). Sound Human Resource Management and Development practices should
include mechanisms that attract and select the right people for the right jobs, regardless of
generational category. Additionally, it would be wise for HRM and HRD professionals to consider
ways of customizing, to the extent possible, not only training and development opportunities for
employees (regardless of generational demographic), but also, with respect to compensation,
recognition and rewards programs. According to a Job Satisfaction Survey conducted by the Society
for Human Resource Management, employees of all ages value security and balance (p. 7). There
seems to be little evidence to unquestionably uphold the idea that workers within similar generations
have homogenous attitudes, values, motivations, and dispositions toward work, and that workers
across different generations have heterogenous attitudes, values, motivations, and dispositions
toward work. Younger and older generations "actually share many similar values" (Society for Human
Resource Management, 2005, p. 7). A study conducted by the Center for Creative Leadership of more
than 3,000 leaders, discovered that "employees of all ages want similar things from their work and
share similar values on what matters most-family, respect, trust" (Society for Human Resource
Management, p. 7).

We suggest that research be conducted on intersectionality related to age differences. In other

words, there is fertile research ground for examinations of age, race, gender, and sexual orientation
and different combinations thereof. For example, one of the authors of this article has conducted
longitudinal research on lesbians in corporate America, comprised of a study in 1999 along with
another study in 2010. The preliminary findings of the combination and comparison of those two
studies are that Gen X and Gen Y lesbians in corporate America are much less willing to hide their
lesbianism than Baby Boomers, who came up the coiporate ranks during a socio-political context that
was much less receptive to issues related to lesbianism. We suggest the need for research related to
generational differences among HRM and HRD practitioners and scholars themselves, because much
could be learned from such research about what interests each generation, how each generation
prioritizes their scholarship, and about how each generation approaches their practice. In conclusion,
we have offered a five-category taxonomy of research questions that have provided insights based
upon studies related to generational differences and the workplace. We have argued that
generational differences are nuanced and in some cases, irrelevant. We have offered suggestions for
HRM and HRD practice that are informed by what we currently understand about generational
differences, and we have offered suggestions for future research. Finally, we offer the suggestion
that HRM and HRD practitioners challenge and disrupt generational stereotypes because such
stereotypes have the potential to limit the opportunities for employees. We intend this article to be
helpful as well as instructive in disrupting such stereotypes. A workplace that is based merit is the
ideal, all employees-regardless of age-should be treated with respect, be shown that they are a
valued member of the organization, and should be offered opportunities to grow and develop.