Special issue article

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources

49(4) 476–493
! The Author(s) 2011
Generational cohorts’ Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
expectations in the workplace: DOI: 10.1177/1038411111423188
apj.sagepub.com
A study of New Zealanders

Kristin Murray
Massey University, New Zealand

Paul Toulson
Massey University, New Zealand

Stephen Legg
Massey University, New Zealand

Abstract
It has been suggested in the media and popular press that there are differences between the
generational cohorts (Veterans, Baby Boomers, Generation X and Generation Y) and that
organisations need to manage people from each cohort differently. However, the evidence is
largely anecdotal. This study investigates whether the popular characterisations of genera-
tional cohorts are valid, using qualitative and linear discriminant analysis. 164 participants
completed a 69-item questionnaire developed from an independent sample of 64 repertory-
grid interviews in which interviewees described their ideal job. More similarities than differ-
ences were found: only 8 of the 69 constructs provided a reasonable level of discrimination
between generational cohorts. Our results challenge the popular depictions of generational
cohorts.

Keywords
baby boomers, diversity management, generational cohorts, Gen X, Gen Y, veterans

Stereotypes regarding different generations (Veterans, Baby Boomers, Generation X

and Generation Y) in the workplace are commonplace today. Numerous articles in the
media and popular press fuel these generational-cohort stereotypes and accentuate the
differences between them. However, much of what is ‘known’ about generational
cohorts is based on their portrayal in the popular literature, rather than on empirical
studies published in the research literature (Macky, Gardner and Forsyth 2008).

Corresponding author:
Associate Professor Paul Toulson, School of Management, Level 1, Room 120, Business Studies West, Massey
University, Manawatu, New Zealand
Email: p.toulson@massey.ac.nz
Murray et al. 477

So why is there increasing interest in generational cohorts? Having a mix of genera-

tional cohorts in the workplace is nothing new and has been going on for generations!
However, with a shift to less hierarchical organisational structures, the different gen-
erations are now finding themselves working side by side (Zemke, Raines and Filipczak
2000). Organisations are now requiring greater social interaction between employees at
a time when workforce diversity is increasing (Douglas et al. 2003). With changing
employee attitudes, values, and behaviours due to environmental influences (Sayers
2006), organisations must learn how to effectively utilise an increasingly diverse work-
force in order to survive and prosper (Burns and McNaughton 2001; Newell 2002). This
requires appropriate HR practices and initiatives that consider the characteristics of
employee diversity in the workplace.
Managing diversity is becoming an organisational imperative. Organisations tend to
accept ethnicity, race, and gender as legitimate forms of diversity in the workplace, and
in New Zealand workplaces there are also legislative reasons to do so. Traditional
approaches to the study of diversity have tended to focus on these observable differ-
ences. However, in recent years there seems to be recognition that organisations are
becoming increasingly diverse along the less observable dimensions of beliefs, values,
attitudes and behaviours (Newell 2002). It is, therefore, reasonable to suggest that
generational cohort diversity is a valid form of diversity that should be investigated
(Marsden 1997). This diversity could be very important considering that at present up
to four generational cohorts may be represented in any given workplace. If diversity
exists within the workplace context as a result of the differing values that the different
generational cohorts bring (Parry and Urwin 2011), then this may be an indication that
HR policies and practices need to take cognisance of these generational differences.

Generational cohorts: popular and academic literature

It is generally postulated that generational cohorts are formed when individuals experi-
ence shared historical events and that they reflect the values emphasised during these
particular events or periods of time (Egri and Ralston 2004). These occur at both the
micro and macro levels. At the micro level, it is a result of modelling, reinforcement,
and other types of individual-level social interactions (Moschis and Moore 1979). At
the macro level, it is about shared history occurring globally during a person’s forma-
tive years, linking individuals to their cohort (Mannheim 1972; Meredith and Schewe
1994). Such linking results in unique values, attitudes, mind-sets, behaviours, and
preferences that create similarities among generational cohort members (Meredith
and Schewe 1994). Hence, individuals who come of age having experienced the same
historical events have similarities in their value systems, even after accounting for
socialisation at the micro level (e.g. socialisation in the family, in school, etc.) (Noble
and Schewe 2003). This cohesiveness in perspectives and attitudes is thought to endure
throughout a cohort’s lifetime (Meredith and Schewe 1994; Walker Smith and Clurman
1997).
As generational cohorts pass through the various stages in life, the way they respond
to these life stages is thought to be determined by their ‘generational personalities’
(Meredith and Schewe 1994; Walker Smith and Clurman 1997). Changing values
are, therefore, perceived to be related to generational cohort effects and the effects of
478 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 49(4)

historical periods rather than ageing or life-cycle effects (Rentz and Reynolds 1991;
Spitzer 1973). Salkowitz (2008) suggests it would be wrong to assert that today’s under-
30s behave in the same way as the under-30 cohort did in 1970. Thus, it is argued that
generational cohorts are different, not merely because of age differences or their stage in
the life cycle (Mackay 1997), but because they have experienced particular historical
events (Rogers 1982).
In the popular literature, it is generally argued that there are four generational
cohorts in the workplace today: Veterans, Baby Boomers, Generation X, and
Generation Y. Descriptions of these generational cohorts tend to be broad and sweep-
ing generalisations that are sometimes contradictory (Burke 1994). Using the most
often reported typology, the commonly reported characteristics of each of these cohorts
from the popular literature are listed in Table 1.
Veterans were born from 1925 to 1945 (Egri and Ralston 2004; Farag, Tullai-
McGuinness and Anthony 2009; Whitman 2010) and are the oldest generation in the
workplace today with the majority already having retired. Veterans grew up in between
the two world wars and during the Great Depression (Lancaster and Stillman 2002).
They are used to hierarchical organisation structures and respect authority (Erickson
2008). This generational cohort is described as believing in loyalty (Hatfield 2002), a job
for life (Kupperschmidt 2000), paying one’s dues to gain promotions (Hatfield 2002),
and conforming to the norm.
Baby Boomers were born from 1946 to 1964 (Egri and Ralston 2004; Whitman 2010)
and are the largest generational cohort in the workplace today. They grew up in a time
of prosperity and affluence following Word War II. This cohort has been characterised
as being competitive (Lancaster and Stillman 2002) and as being workaholics (Hall and
Richter 1990). They are loyal and believe in paying their dues and working their way to
the top in return for promotions and status symbols (Kupperschmidt 2000). They have
been described as good communicators and mentors (Kupperschmidt 2000). In addi-
tion, Baby Boomers are both results- and relationship-focused (Weston 2001).
The next generational cohort is Generation X (Gen X-ers) who were born from 1965
to 1981 (Santos and Cox 2000; Wong et al. 2008). This generation grew up as ‘latch-key
kids’ and entered the workplace at a time of corporate downsizing. The popular litera-
ture describes this generational cohort as independent (Gabriel 1999) and expecting
autonomy in their workplaces (Zemke 2001). Generation X are computer literate
(Kupperschmidt 2000), are described as seeking skill and career advancement (Orme
2004) and as providing ‘just-in-time’ loyalty (Tulgan 2000). In addition, they want to do
meaningful work and want to be trusted to get the job done (Tulgan 2000; Gross and
Scott 1990). They are also described as expecting fun in the workplace (Tulgan 2000),
and wanting to maintain work–life balance.
Generation Y (Gen Y-ers), also referred to as Millennials (Smola and Sutton 2002),
were born from 1982 to 1994 (Sayers 2006; Wong et al. 2008), and are the youngest
generation in the workplace. They grew up micro-managed by ‘helicopter’ parents. Gen
Y-ers also grew up with technology and social networking. This generational cohort is
both technologically savvy and highly educated (Hatfield 2002; Swift 2001; Wallace
1999). While comfortable with authority, Generation Y are described as believing that
respect has to be earned (Tulgan 2009). They want to know how their contribution fits
into the big picture (Orrick 2008) and expect frequent, honest feedback (Sujansky and
Table 1. Generational cohort characteristics as described in the popular literature
Veterans Boomers Gen X-ers Gen Y-ers

job for life/job security live to work (workaholics) entrepreneurial reward for effort rather than
hard work pays off competitive expect work–life balance performance
Murray et al.

loyal dues paying just-in-time loyalty multi-taskers

dues paying relationship & results orientated computer savvy seek learning & skill
respect authority good mentors comfortable with diversity advancement
top-down military style of strive for self-fulfilment seek fast feedback expect to know how their
management feedback – once a year expect skill and career contribution fits into
feedback – no news is good news expect managers to give them advancement the big picture
built work ethic on commitment, leadership want flexibility promotions based on merit
responsibility & conformity visibility is the key to success do not flourish in hierarchical rather than longevity
paternalistic employment success measured by status environments expect competent managers
relationship and pay seek ability to participate in thrive on change
structured career paths loyal decision making expect fairness
dedicated seek fun in workplace demand work–life balance
money seen as a measure of multi-taskers seek teamwork
advancement and independent techno-savvy
affirmation reward productivity rather seek continuous feedback
seek power and status than longevity embrace diversity
adapt to change seek meaningful work
cynical respect has to be earned
want autonomy confident
seek meaningful work expect to change jobs
frequently
questioning
seek socially responsible
organisations
like variety
seek flexitime
want opportunities for
career development/
479

advancement
480 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 49(4)

Ferri-Reed 2009). The popular literature also describes Generation Y as wanting flex-
ibility in how and when they work (Sujansky and Ferri-Reed 2009; Erickson 2008),
valuing teamwork (Orrick 2008), and demanding work–life balance (Boyett et al. 2001).
They are also portrayed as having high expectations of pay and conditions (Richardson
2010).
The preceding descriptions of each of the generational cohorts is based on the
characteristics described in the popular literature, and is not based on empirical studies.
There is disagreement between authors about the characteristics attributed to each of
the generational cohorts with little academic work either to confirm or refute the
popular stereotypes of the generational cohorts (Lyons, Duxbury and Higgins 2007).
Based on her research with more than 3000 leaders, Deal (2007) suggests that while
there are a few differences between the generations, they do not have fundamentally
different values. For example, while all employees may value a supportive manager, the
way this is manifested in their behaviours and expectations in the workplace may differ
between the generations.
Although the popular literature contains many thoughtful opinion pieces, surveys,
books, management reports, and observations, it lacks hard empirical evidence that
identifies generational cohorts’ values and expectations (Karp, Fuller and Sirias 2002;
Macky, Gardner and Forsyth 2008). While the depictions in the popular literature
should not be ignored, due to the fact that people may base their behaviours on
these stereotypes (Manolis and Levin 1997), it is important to investigate through
empirical analysis whether these depictions of generational cohorts are accurate. The
diversity of opinion about what defining ages constitute particular generational mem-
bership, characteristics and work-related values makes developing appropriate depic-
tions more difficult.
Our review of the academic literature uncovered several studies that did identify
differences between the different generational cohorts. Smola and Sutton (2002), for
example, investigated whether the work values of today’s workers are different from
those of 1979 and whether work values remain constant, or change, as workers grow
older. A total of 3053 respondents from an earlier study by Cherrington, Condie and
England (1979) were compared with responses from 335 respondents in their study.
Results showed that Generation X work values were significantly different from those
of Baby Boomers. Support was also found for the premise that values are influenced
more by life events and the socialisation of the times and less by age and maturity.
Similarly, in a study of 509 participants from a range of New Zealand organisations,
McGuigan (2010) explored the relationships between age, generational identity and
career state, and the impact that these factors had on perceptions of employability and
job insecurity. Findings supported the popular literature, indicating that each genera-
tional cohort is likely to approach work and their careers in a different way, although
the findings supported a dichotomy between Baby Boomers and Generations X and Y.
However, a number of academic studies have identified more similarities than dif-
ferences between generational cohorts. In a study of 278 public employees in the United
States, Jurkiewicz and Brown (1998) found little difference between the cohorts’ ratings
of work-related factors, suggesting more similarities than differences between the
cohorts. A further study of 241 public employees by Jurkiewicz (2000) identified a
lack of similarity between what participants reported wanting from their jobs and
Murray et al. 481

what the commonly-held assumptions in the literature suggested they wanted. In a

study of 234 Gen X-ers and older employees, Ferres, Travaglione and Firns (2003)
investigated differences in levels of trust, commitment, procedural justice and turnover
intention. No support was found for the hypothesis that prominent differences would
be found across cohorts. Rhule (2004) investigated differences between Gen X-ers and
Baby Boomers in a range of work attitudes, including job satisfaction, their working
relationship with their manager, their motivation to perform, and their intention to stay
with the organisation. The results indicated that Baby Boomers and Gen X-ers were
more alike than different.
McNeese-Smith and Crook (2003) surveyed 412 registered nurses in hospitals in Los
Angeles to determine the extent to which values are associated with the independent
variables of age group and job stage. Relationships among values and the demographic
variables of education, generation, ethnicity, gender and role were also investigated.
The only significant differences found related to ‘variety’ and ‘economic returns’; the
younger the generation the higher these values were. The authors suggest that the
differences that do exist may be more a result of age than generational cohort.
Sessa et al. (2007) investigated generational differences in 447 managers in the
United States in terms of attributes perceived to be most important for leaders.
Considerable similarities were found between the generational cohorts with all cohorts
valuing knowledge about the organisation’s core activities and honesty in their leaders.
In a study of 504 New Zealand employees, Cennamo and Gardner (2008) investigated
the differences between Baby Boomers, Gen X-ers, and Gen Y-ers in work values, job
satisfaction, affective organisational commitment, and intentions to leave. No genera-
tional differences were found in perceived organisational values. The study found that
where individual and organisational values showed poor fit, all three generations
showed reduced job satisfaction and organisational commitment and increased inten-
tions to leave.
Wong et al. (2008), in a study of 3829 managers and professionals, examined
whether personality and motivational-driver differences existed across three genera-
tional cohorts: Baby Boomers, Gen X-ers, and Gen Y-ers. Few meaningful differences
were found. The results indicated that the greatest difference between the generations
was between Baby Boomers and Gen Y-ers. No significant differences were found
between the generations on the traits ‘variety seeking’ and ‘independent minded’.
Generation X-ers and Y-ers were found to be more ambitious and career centred
and had a tendency to enjoy working with demanding roles and targets to a greater
degree than Baby Boomers. The differences that were found were moderate and the
authors believed they could be attributed to age rather than generational cohort.
Using an experimental design, Reiss (2010) examined the reactions of 385 Baby
Boomers, Gen X-ers and Y-ers after receiving negative feedback. Only tentative sup-
port for generational cohort theory was found. No difference was found in motiva-
tional levels and self-efficacy. The only differences identified were between Baby
Boomers and Gen Y-ers, where Baby Boomers rated their perceptions of negative
feedback more negatively than Gen Y-ers.
From our review of both the popular and empirical literature, we suggest that there
is no clear or consistent picture of the characteristics of each of the four generational
cohorts (Veterans, Baby Boomers, Gen X-ers and Gen Y-ers). There are relatively few
482 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 49(4)

studies that rigorously investigate all four generational cohorts in the workplace. In this
context, the purpose of this study was to identify what people representing each of the
four generational cohorts sought from their ideal job. We aimed to determine if there
are differences across the four cohorts, and to discuss our findings in relation to the
popular and academic literatures.

Method
In this study, we used the generational-cohort boundaries referred to above (Veterans,
1925–45; Baby Boomers, 1946–64; Generation X, 1965–81; Generation Y, 1982
onwards). To determine the characteristics of each generational cohort, the repertory
grid technique (Rippin 1996) was used to elicit a list of constructs from a sample of
cohort members to identify what each cohort valued in their ideal job. In the repertory
grid interviews, participants were given six cards labelled A to F. On cards A, B, and C,
they were asked to write the titles of three jobs they considered ideal, and on cards D, E,
and F to write the names of three jobs they considered to be okay, but less than ideal.
Predetermined combinations of three cards were presented to participants. Participants
were then asked to indicate which of the three jobs was more ideal than the other two
and to describe what made it so. This construct was then noted and participants were
then asked to rate all six jobs on this construct. Different combinations of three cards
were presented to participants until either they had completed all 21 combinations of
cards, or until they were unable to generate any more constructs. After completion of
construct generation, they were asked to rate each construct on a 7-point scale on how
important it was to them in a job. The key reason we used the repertory grid to generate
constructs was that they were generated by the cohort members themselves, without
having to rely on imposed constructs based on previous studies.
Using the methodology employed by Rippin (1996), the constructs generated in the
64 repertory grid interviews were incorporated into a 69-item questionnaire. Each item
contained a pair of statements with a 7-point semantic differential rating scale in
between them. Participants were asked to think about their ideal job and to then
make a rating for the statement they felt was the most important aspect of their ideal
job (for example: ‘Flexible hours of work / Rigid set hours of work; Guaranteed income
/ At-risk income’), using the ratings ‘extremely important’, ‘important’, ‘somewhat
important’ or the rating ‘no preference’, where there was no preference between
either statement. To determine what each cohort valued in a job, each response cate-
gory was allocated a number from 1 to 7. The average rating was then identified for
each question (construct). These data were treated as summative ratings. While there is
ambiguity in the literature about the legitimacy of treating such scales as equal interval
rather than ordinal (Clason and Dormody 1993; Friedman and Amoo 1999; Jamieson
2004; Shrigley and Koballa 1984), their use is widespread in both the management and
social sciences when measuring attitudinal values (Devellis 2003; Norman 2010;
Spector 1992).
To explore how well the repertory grid constructs discriminated between the four
generational groups, we then conducted a linear disciminant analysis. Such a technique
assumes that the summated rating scales are continuous (equal interval) rather than
discrete (ordinal). Such analyses with semantic differential scales are common in the
Murray et al. 483

Table 2. Participant make up

Male Female Unknown Total Percentage

Veterans 16 14 2 32 19.5%
Boomers 28 16 3 47 28.7%
Gen X-ers 35 16 5 56 34.1%
Gen Y-ers 10 13 6 29 17.7%
98 59 16 164

literature (e.g. Friborg, Martinussen and Rosenvinge 2006; Heise 1970; Parolini,
Patterson and Winston 2009).
A total of 164 participants from six industry groupings based predominantly in the
lower North Island of New Zealand returned the questionnaire. These data are sum-
marised in Table 2. In this sample there were proportionally fewer Veterans and Gen
Y-ers than Baby Boomers and Gen X-ers. Three-quarters of the sample identified
themselves as NZ European/Pakeha; the remainder were Maori, Pasifika or members
of other ethnic groups.

Findings
A summary of the top-rated constructs for each generational cohort is shown in
Table 3. We aimed to identify the five most highly rated constructs but ties in the
voting produced a longer list in the case of Baby Boomers and Generation Y.
The table shows that ‘job satisfaction’ was rated highly by all four generational
cohorts, and ‘job fulfilment’ was rated highly by three (Veterans, Baby Boomers, and
Gen X-ers). It should be noted here that the wording of the questionnaire items was
generated in the repertory grid participants’ own words. We cannot say precisely what
they meant when they identified that they are seeking satisfaction and/or fulfilment
from their job, but they all do.
The cohort stereotypes are generally challenged as we dig deeper. Four constructs are
rated highly by at least two generational cohorts: ‘good supportive manager’ (Veterans
and Gen X-ers); ‘enjoy the people I work with’ (Baby Boomers and Gen X-ers);
‘working in a caring environment’ (Veterans and Gen Y-ers); and ‘quality of life’
(Baby Boomers and Gen X-ers). That Baby Boomers rate highly having good rapport
with their colleagues is consistent with the literature in which they are depicted as
relationship focused (e.g. Hatfield 2002). However, the finding that Gen X-ers seek to
enjoy the people with whom they work is not consistent with their typical portrayal in
the popular literature, which often describes them as independent and autonomous (e.g.
Zemke, Raines and Filipezak 2000). While empirical studies do report that Gen X-ers
seek work–life balance (e.g. Gursoy, Maier, and Chi 2008; Kunreuther 2003; Mattis
et al. 2004; Young, Hernon and Powell 2006), the popular literature often portrays Baby
Boomers as workaholics. Our sample of Boomers calls this stereotype into question.
Further, our Veterans seek ‘good supportive managers’, whereas they are
typically cast as comfortable with a top-down hierarchical style of leadership

Table 3. The top rated constructs for each of the four generational cohorts
Veterans
1 Good supportive manager
2 Gives me job satisfaction
3 Good rapport with colleagues
4 Working in a caring environment
(care about colleagues)
5 Provides job fulfillment
Boomers
1 Gives me job satisfaction
2 Allows quality of life
3 Supportive team
4 Good rapport with
colleagues
5 Provides job fulfilment
6 Enjoy the people I work with
Gen X-ers
1 Gives me job satisfaction
2 Allows quality of life
3 Enjoy the people I work with
4 Good supportive
manager
5 Provides job fulfillment
484
Gen Y-ers
1 Opportunities to learn
2 Supportive team
3 Gives me job satisfaction
4 Opportunity to use
my skills
5 Guaranteed income
6 Opportunity for career progression
7 Working in caring environment
Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 49(4)
Murray et al. 485

(e.g. Erickson 2008). And contrary to the popular literature’s portrayal, they value
working in a caring environment. The finding that Veterans seek good rapport with
colleagues is also unexpected since there is no indication in the popular literature that
veterans seek that.
Similarly, our Gen Y-ers do not perform to stereotype: they do not rate ‘quality of
life’ highly, despite this description being part of their popular portrayal (e.g.
Kunreuther 2003). While their high rating of career progression is consistent with the
popular literature’s portrayal which sees them as wanting to move up the corporate
ladder quickly (Espinoza, Ukleja and Rusch 2010), it is unclear why they might rate
having a guaranteed income so highly. Overall, our Generation Y sample has a strong
emphasis on items that relate to learning and development but this description need not
be interpreted as a cohort difference. Gen Y-ers are the youngest group, who are
naturally seeking to establish themselves and grow in the workplace.
These observations are simply based on a qualitative ranking and we then performed
linear discriminant analysis to test whether cohort group membership could be deter-
mined from each participant’s responses to the questionnaire. Participants were allo-
cated to the group that was closest in terms of the Mahalanobis distance (i.e. the
distance between the multivariate populations) (Manly 2005). The percentage of cor-
rect allocations is an indication of how well groups can be separated using the available
variables (i.e. how well the generational cohorts can be separated given how they
answer the questionnaire).
The sample used contained 138 participants (28 Veterans, 37 Baby Boomers, 50 Gen
X-ers and 23 Gen Y-ers). A total of 26 participants’ results from the original sample of
164 were discarded from this analysis since they contained missing values. The initial
results showed that participants were allocated to the correct cohort grouping 88.4% of
the time. There was some variation in the predictive accuracy between the cohorts.
Generation X participants were correctly classified into the correct cohort group 84%
of the time, whereas the veteran participants were correctly classified as such 96.4% of
the time.
However, when the discriminant equations were formed (i.e. cross-validation was
undertaken), the accuracy of correctly allocating a participant to their cohort grouping
(after it had been removed from the data set) was reduced to 38.4%. This cross-valida-
tion process enabled us to determine the level of accuracy of assigning a participant to
the correct generational cohort group when it was not part of the original data set used
to form the discriminant equations. Veterans remained the group that was correctly
allocated to the right cohort with the greatest accuracy. Generation Y became the
group allocated to the right cohort with the least accuracy. Table 4 shows the results
of the discriminant analysis using cross-validation.
The squared distance between each of the four cohort groups was also obtained to
determine the separation between the cohort groups (i.e. the distinctiveness of each of
the cohort groups) (Table 5). The squared differences between the groups ranged
between 7.7 and 16.06. The results of this analysis show that the greatest difference
between two groups occurred between Veterans and Baby Boomers, suggesting that
they are the most dissimilar. The closest distance between two groups occurred between
Baby Boomers and Gen X-ers, suggesting that these two groups were the most alike.
There was a similar distance between Gen Y-ers and Baby Boomers and between Gen
486 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 49(4)

Table 4. Linear discriminant analysis summary of classification using cross-

validation
True group
Put into group Veteran Boomer Gen X Gen Y

Veteran 12 5 7 4
Boomer 2 14 12 7
Gen X 6 11 21 6
Gen Y 8 7 10 6
Total N 28 37 50 23
N correct 12 14 21 6
Proportion .429 .378 .420 .261
N ¼ 138. N correct ¼ 53. Proportion correct ¼ 384.

Table 5. Squared distance between groups from linear discriminant analysis using full data set
Veterans Boomers Gen X-ers Gen Y-ers

Veteran .0000 16.0598 13.1495 14.7516

Boomer 16.0598 .0000 7.7100 12.7470
Gen X 13.1495 7.7100 .0000 12.9845
Gen Y 14.7516 12.7470 12.9845 .0000

Y-ers and X-ers. Finally, the difference between Veterans and Gen X-ers and between
Veterans and Gen Y-ers was very similar.
The squared differences in Table 5 do not provide any absolute differences between
the groups. Therefore, we cannot say that the difference between Baby Boomers and
Veterans (16.06) is twice that of the difference between Baby Boomers and Gen X-ers
(7.71), or that there are significant differences between the groups. The calculations are
based on the variables from this study. Should the variables change, then the value of
the squared differences will also change. It is therefore the relative differences that are of
interest (i.e. which cohort groups are close together and which are further apart).
Only 8 of the 69 constructs were identified as giving reasonable discrimination
between the four cohort groups in the survey (Table 6). These included: ‘opportunity
for career progression’, ‘opportunity for management experience’, ‘face-to-face contact
with people’, ‘enjoying the people I work with’, ‘working in a caring environment’,
‘passionate about the job’, ‘gives me job satisfaction’, and ‘allows strategic planning’.
The fact that only 8 out of the 69 constructs provided a level of discrimination supports
the notion that there are more similarities between the generational cohorts than
differences.
Little consistency was found between the 8 constructs identified as providing the
most discrimination and those the cohorts rated as their most important constructs in
their ideal job. The constructs identified as providing the most discrimination which
Murray et al. 487

Table 6. Constructs that provided the most discrimination on responses

Cohort
Item
number Construct Veterans Boomers Gen X-ers Gen Y-ers Difference

26 Opportunity for career pro- 2.90 1.66 2.66 .60 3.5

gression vs No opportunity for
career progression
27 Provides opportunity for man- .78 3.07 2.7 2.19 3.85
agement experience vs Little
opportunity for management
experience
34 Face-to-face contact with .63 2.89 1.14 1.45 3.52
people vs Little face-to-face
contract with people
36 Enjoy the people I work with vs 1.40 2.87 1.09 2.6 4.27
Less social workplace
41 Working in a caring environ- 1.90 4.33 .59 6.51 5.92
ment (care about colleagues) vs
Not caring about colleagues
44 Passionate about the job vs It’s .74 2.84 1.38 2.53 3.58
just a job
62 Gives me job satisfaction vs 6.62 10.19 8.74 9.97 3.57
Gives me no job satisfaction
66 Allows strategic planning and 5.26 1.74 2.42 2.59 3.52
input vs Follow someone else’s
strategic plan

were also rated in the top five by at least one cohort were ‘opportunity for career
progression’, ‘enjoy the people I work with’, ‘working in a caring environment’ and
‘gives me job satisfaction’. Given that the findings showed more similarities between the
cohort groups than differences, little consistency between the most highly rated items
and the items providing the most discrimination was expected.

Discussion
This study provides a critical evaluation of popular perceptions about what employees
in different generational cohorts value in the workplace. Our review of both the popular
and academic literature left us with the conclusion that much of what has been written
about generational characteristics is at the best confused with other concepts such as
age, and reliant on cross-sectional studies using scales developed for other purposes. At
the worst, what has been written has been anecdotal and stereotypical, which if applied
blindly in a people management situation could become counterproductive and
dangerous.
We decided that by using the repertory grid, nominal members of each generational
cohort themselves would identify what they value in a job through the use of their own
mental constructs. These employee-generated constructs were then tested in a ques-
tionnaire using an independent sample of members of each cohort determined by their
488 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 49(4)

birth date. Thus, unlike most empirical research in this area of enquiry, our study did
not rely on the imposition of predetermined values supposedly linked to each
generation.
We found little support for the popular differences between the generational cohorts.
Although some differences were identified, we found that the four generational cohorts
had more similarities than differences. This finding supports the findings of Denecker,
Joshi and Martocchio (2008) and Giele and Elder (1998) who concluded that there is
more heterogeneity within generational cohorts than between them, and also the con-
clusion of Macky, Gardner and Forsyth (2008) that there is little support for cohort
differences in work values.
A major implication of our results is that managers should not think of the descrip-
tions of each of the generational cohorts portrayed in the popular literature as a matter
of fact. Instead, in contemporary multi-generational workplaces, the more we are
able to understand the common aspirations across generational cohorts in employ-
ment, the better we will be able to tap into those motivators and gain the best from
employees.
Our findings do not support the notion of cohesive generational cohorts with unique
values based on their experiences in macro-level events like the Great Depression and
Word War II. One might argue that the concept of generational cohorts may only fuel
stereotypes held about younger and older employees. Generational cohorts are stereo-
types of limited relevance when it comes to individual employee motivation and beha-
viour in the workplace. Certainly, in our view, no panacea for how to manage each
cohort can be suggested, and nor should it be. Our findings support the notion that
managers should focus on individual differences rather than relying on generational
stereotypes. We agree with Parry and Urwin (2011) that a convincing case for genera-
tional cohorts as an additional distinguishing factor for diversity management has yet
to be made. There can be no substitute for managers engaging with employees indivi-
dually to understand their values.
Our study’s strength is that it does not rely on preconceived ideas or characteristics
purporting to belong to each generation. Instead, the ‘generational members’ gener-
ated their own constructs of what was important to them in a job. It is not without its
limitations. The relatively small sample size and that most participants were from the
lower North Island means that generalisations to the New Zealand population are
limited. In addition, while the Australia and New Zealand Standard Industrial
Classification (New Zealand Version) was used as a basis for obtaining representative-
ness of the New Zealand workforce, several categories were excluded (‘Agriculture’,
‘Forestry & Fishing’, ‘Mining’, ‘Manufacturing’, ‘Electricity’, ‘Gas & Water supply’
and ‘Construction’) to maintain consistency with the categories used in the repertory-
grid study, which generated the constructs used to develop the questionnaire.
Therefore, participants were primarily white-collar workers. Indeed, it is not clear
whether particular industry clusters have similar or different work values.
Participants were not asked what constructs must be present before they would
undertake the job. They were only asked about their ideal job, and were not provided
with definitions of the constructs that were being measured, but were left to interpret
the definition of the construct themselves. As a result, participants’ interpretations of
the construct may have varied. We also accept that the linear discriminant analysis
Murray et al. 489

undertaken can only be exploratory, so this restricts the interpretation of its results. It
will require further research to undertake a confirmatory study.
Given these limitations, research is warranted to determine whether these results can
be replicated on a larger, more geographically dispersed sample, including all industry
clusters. Further research should also consider generational identity, the extent to
which an individual aligns themselves with perceived generational differences.
Finally, research could look at determining what effect other forms of diversity may
have on these findings. As identified by Parry and Urwin (2011), research is required to
disentangle the affects of age, career stage, cohort period and gender.

Conclusion
When discussing generational cohorts, it must be remembered that we are talking about
generalities. While there may be some value in trying to explain the attitudes of indi-
viduals and groups according to their generational cohort membership, it should be
recognised that individual differences exist within the cohort just as they do within any
psycho-socio-cultural grouping. The generalisations discussed here may be a starting
point for debate, but managers must remember to manage people from these genera-
tional cohorts as individuals.
Our findings challenge the portrayal of generational cohorts identified in the popular
literature. Using a technique whereby assigned cohort members generated their own
constructs of value in a job, we developed a survey which found more similarities than
differences between these cohorts. One of the challenges of management research and
theory development is to try to understand the realities of workplaces and the people
who make them up. These realities are both complex and ambiguous, particularly when
it comes to the management of people. The reality is that in HRM, simplistic notions
and solutions in the popular press (often based on stereotypes) are a crude map of what
is a very complex world. Such notions, we suggest, are basic stumbling blocks when it
comes to managing diversity. As human beings, we have to make certain generalisa-
tions in order to cope with our realities, and organisations do the same. However, in the
end, there can be no substitute for managers engaging with employees individually to
understand their particular values.

References
Boyett JH, JT Boyett, R Hensen and H Spirgi-Herbert. 2001. HR in the new economy:
Trends and leading practices in human resources management. People Soft Inc 28.
Burke RJ. 1994. Generation X: Measures, sex and age differences. Psychological Reports 74(2):
555–62.
Burns J and T McNaughton. 2001. New Zealand. In Managing diversity: An Asian and
Pacific focus, edited by M Patrickson and P O’Brien, 155–72. Brisbane: John Wiley and
Sons Australia Ltd.
Cennamo L and D Gardner. 2008. Generational differences in work values, outcomes
and person-organisation values fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology 23(8): 891–906.
Cherrington DJ, SJ Condie and JL England. 1979. Age and work values. Academy
of Management Journal 22(3): 617–23.
490 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 49(4)

Clason D and T Dormody. 1993. Analyzing data measured by individual Likert type items.
Journal of Agricultural Education 35(4): 31–5.
Deal J. 2007. Retiring the generation GAP: How employees young and old can find common ground.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Denecker J, A Joshi and J Martocchio. 2008. Towards a theoretical framework linking
generational memories to attitudes and behaviors. Human Resource Management Review
18: 180–7.
Devellis R. 2003. Scale development theory and application, 2nd edn. Applied Social Research
Methods Series, vol. 26. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Douglas C, G Ferris, M Buckley and M Gundlach. 2003. Organisational and social influences on
leader-member exchange processes: Implications for the management of diversity. In Dealing
with diversity, edited by G Graen, 59–90]. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Egri C and D Ralston. 2004. Generation cohorts and personal values: A comparison of China
and the United States. Organization Science 15(2): 210–20.
Erickson T. 2008. Plugged in: The generation Y guide to thriving at work. Boston: Harvard
Business Press.
Espinoza C, M Ukleja and C Rusch. 2010. Managing the millennials: Discover the core compe-
tencies for managing todays workforce. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Farag A, S Tullai-McGuinness and M Anthony. 2009. Nurses’ perception of their manager’s
leadership style and unit climate: Are there generational differences? Journal of Nursing
Management 17: 26–34.
Ferres N, A Travaglione and I Firns. 2003. Attitudinal differences between generation X and
older employees. International Journal of Organisational Behaviour 63(3): 320–33.
Friborg O, M Martinussen and J Rosenvinge. 2006. Likert-based vs. semantic differential-based
scorings of positive psychological constructs: A psychometric comparison of two versions of a
scale measuring resilience. Personality and Individual Differences 40(5): 873–84.
Friedman H and T Amoo. 1999. Rating the rating scales. Journal of Marketing Management 9(3):
114–23.
Gabriel A. 1999. Retaining gen Xers: Not such a mystery anymore. Commercial Law Bulletin
14(4): 32–3.
Giele J and G Elder. 1998. Methods of life course research: Qualitative and quantitative
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Gross D and S Scott. 1990. Proceeding with caution. Time 16 July: 56–62.
Gursoy D, T Maier and C Chi. 2008. Generational differences: An examination of work values
and generational gaps in the hospitality workforce. International Journal of Hospitality
Management 27: 448–58.
Hall D and J Richter. 1990. Career gridlock: Baby boomers hit the wall. Academy of Management
Executive 4(3): 7–21.
Hatfield S. 2002. Understanding the four generations to enhance workplace management. AFP
Exchange 22(4): 72–4.
Heise D. 1970. The semantic differential and attitude research. In Attitude measurement, edited
by G. Summers, 235–53. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Jamieson S. 2004. Likert scales: How to (ab)use them. Medical Education 38: 1212–18.
Jennings AT. 2000. Hiring Generation X. Journal of Accountancy 189(2): 55–9.
Jurkiewicz C. 2000. Generation X and the public employee. Public Personnel Management 29(1):
55–74.
Jurkiewicz C and R Brown. 1998. GenXers vs. boomers vs. matures: Generational comparisons
of public employee motivation. Review of Public Personnel Administration 18: 18–37.
Karp H, C Fuller and D Sirias. 2002. Bridging the boomer Xer gap: Creating authentic teams for
high performance at work. Palo Alton, CA: Davies-Black Publishing.
Murray et al. 491

Kunreuther F. 2003. The changing of the guard: What generational differences tell us about
social-change organisations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 32(3): 450–8.
Kupperschmidt BR. 2000. Multigeneration employees: Strategies for effective management. The
Health Care Manager 19(1): 65–76.
Lancaster C and D Stillman. 2002. When generations collide: Traditionalists, baby boomers,
generation Xers, millennials: Who they are, why they clash, how to solve the generational
puzzle at work. New York: Harper Collins.
Lyons S, L Duxbury and C Higgins. 2007. An empirical assessment of generational differences in
basic human values. Psychological Reports 101: 339–352.
Mackay H. 1997. Baby boomers, their parents and their children. Sydney: Pan Macmillan.
Macky K, D Gardner and S Forsyth. 2008. Generational differences at work: Introduction and
overview. Journal of Managerial Psychology 23(8): 857–61.
Manly B. 2005. Multivariate statistical methods: A primer, 3rd edn. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman
and Hall/CRC.
Mannheim K. 1972. Essays on the sociology of knowledge, 5th edn. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul Ltd.
Manolis C and A Levin. 1997. A generation X scale: Creation and validation. Educational and
Psychological Measurement 57(4): 666–85.
Marsden M. 1997. Class discipline: IR/HR and the normalisation of the workforce. In Managing
the organisational melting pot: Dilemmas of workplace diversity, edited by P Prasad, A Mills,
M Elmes and A Prasad, 107–28. London: Sage Publications.
Mattis M, P Gerkovich, R Gonzalez and N Johnsen. 2004. Work-related values and experiences
of generation X professionals and managers. In Leading in turbulent times: Managing in the
new world of work, edited by RJ Burke and C Cooper, 121–42 Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing.
McGuigan C. 2010. Generation and career concern: their impact on perceptions of employability
and job insecurity in a changing employment context. Master of Science in Applied
Psychology, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, NZ.
McNeese-Smith D and M Crook. 2003. Nursing values and a changing nursing workforce:
Values, age, and job stages. Journal of Nursing Administration 33(5): 260–70.
Meredith G and C Schewe. 1994. The power of cohorts. American Demographics 16(12): 22–8.
Moschis G and R Moore. 1979. Decision making among the young: A socialisation perspective.
Journal of Consumer Research 6: 101–12.
Newell S. 2002. Creating the healthy organization: Well-being, diversity, and ethics at work.
London: Thomson Learning.
Noble S and C Schewe. 2003. Cohort segmentation: An exploration of its validity. Journal of
Business Research 56(12): 979–87.
Norman G. 2010. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the ‘laws’ of statistics. Advances in
Health Sciences Education 15: 625–32.
Orme D. 2004. A corporate cultivator’s guide to growing leaders. New Zealand Management: The
Leaders’ Magazine Sept.: 41–3.
Orrick WD. 2008. Recruitment, retention and turnover of police personnel: Reliable, practical and
effective solutions. Springfield, Il: Charles C Thomas.
Parolini J, K Patterson and B Winston. 2009. Distinguishing between transformational and
servant leadership. Leadership and Organization Development Journal 30(3): 274–91.
Parry E and P Urwin. 2011. Generational differences in work values: A review of theory and
evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews 13(1): 79–96. First published online 26
May 2010, doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00285.x.
Reiss A. 2010. Generational differences in reaction to negative feedback. MA, Psychology
(Industrial/Organizational), Wayne State University, Detroit.
492 Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 49(4)

Rentz J and F Reynolds. 1991. Forecasting the effects of an aging population on product con-
sumption: An age-period-cohort framework. Journal of Marketing Research 28(August):
355–60.
Rhule K. 2004. The effects of the manager’s behavior on the retention of high potential
employees for different generations. PhD, Education, Duquesne University,
Pittsburgh, PA.
Richardson S. 2010. Understanding Generation Y’s attitudes towards a career in the industry. In
Tourism and Generation Y, edited by P Benckendorff, G Moscardo and D Pendergast, 131–42.
Wallingford: CAB International.
Rippin S. 1996. The competencies used to assess the effectiveness of New Zealand managers.
PhD, Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand.
Rogers D. 1982. The adult years: An introduction to aging, 2nd edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall Inc.
Salkowitz R. 2008. Generation blend: Managing across the technology age gap. Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Santos S and K Cox. 2000. Workplace adjustment and intergenerational differences between
matures, boomers and Xers. Nursing Economics 18(1): 7–13.
Sayers, R. 2006. Australia’s changing workplace: A generational perspective. PhD, School of
Economics, Finance and Marketing, RMIT University, Melbourne.
Sessa V, R Kabacoff, J Deal and H Brown. 2007. Generational differences in Leader values and
leadership behaviors. Psychologist-Manager Journal 10(1): 47–74.
Shrigley R and T Koballa. 1984. Attitude measurement: Judging the emotional
intensity of Likert-type science attitude statements. Journal of Research in Science Teaching
21(2): 111–18.
Smola K and D Sutton. 2002. Generational differences: Revisiting generational work values for
the new millennium. Journal of Organisational Behavior 23: 363–82.
Spector P. 1992. Summated rating scale construction: An introduction. Newbury Park, CA and
London: Sage Publications.
Spitzer A. 1973. The historical problem of generations. American Historical Review 78: 1353–85.
Sujansky J and J Ferri-Reed. 2009. Keeping the millennials: Why companies are losing billions in
turnover to this generation – and what to do about it. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Swift C. 2001. Reach out to gen Y and grow with it. National Underwriter 105(18): 25–6.
Tulgan B. 2000. Managing generation X: How to bring out the best in young talent. New York:
Norton.
Tulgan B. 2009. Not everyone gets a trophy: How to manage generation Y. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Walker Smith J and A Clurman. 1997. Rocking the ages: The Yankelovich report on generational
marketing. New York: Harper Collins.
Wallace P. 1999. Agequake: Riding the demographic rollercoaster shaking business, finance and our
world. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
Weston M. 2001. Coaching generations in the workplace. Nursing Administration Quarterly
25(2): 11–21.
Whitman K. 2010. Understanding generational differences with internet use: A theory for age
inclusive content design. Master of Liberal Studies, University of Minnesota, MN.
Wong M, E Gardiner, W Lang and L Coulon. 2008. Generational differences in personality and
motivation: Do they exist and what are the implications for the workplace? Journal of
Managerial Psychology 23(8): 878–90.
Young P, P Hernon and R Powell. 2006. Attributes of academic library leadership: An explora-
tory study of some gen-Xers. Journal of Academic Librarianship 32(5): 489–502.
Zemke R. 2001. Here come the millennials. Training July: 44–9.
Murray et al. 493

Zemke R, C Raines and B Filipczak. 2000. Generations at work: Managing the clash of veterans,
boomers, Xers and nexters in your workplace. New York: Amacom.

Kristin Murray (MA (Occ Psych), PG Dip (HRM), Massey) is a professional member
of the Human Resources Institute of New Zealand with over 12 years of HR experience
and is employed as the human resources director at Presbyterian Support Central based
in Wellington. She is currently finalising her PhD in HRM. Her area of research interest
is diversity management and generational cohorts.

Paul Toulson (PhD) is associate professor of human resources management in the

School of Management at Massey University. He has held both university and profes-
sional appointments, is a life fellow of the Human Resources Institute of New Zealand
and an associate fellow of the New Zealand Psychological Society.

Stephen Legg is professor of ergonomics and director of the Centre for Ergonomics,
Occupational Safety and Health at Massey University. He is a fellow of the UK
Institute for Ergonomics and Human Factors, and a certified New Zealand ergonomist.
He has 25 years experience in industrial and military human factors and environmental
physiology research, education and consultancy in the UK, USA and New Zealand,
including most recently sailing science, educational ergonomics, musculoskeletal dis-
comfort at work and health and safety in small businesses.