See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281783636

Millennials' work values: differences across the school to work transition

Article  in  Personnel Review · September 2015

DOI: 10.1108/PR-01-2014-0024

CITATIONS READS

82 7,814

4 authors:

Lisa Kuron Sean Lyons

Wilfrid Laurier University University of Guelph
9 PUBLICATIONS   621 CITATIONS    36 PUBLICATIONS   2,567 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Linda Schweitzer Eddy S.W. Ng

Carleton University Bucknell University
28 PUBLICATIONS   1,498 CITATIONS    113 PUBLICATIONS   3,261 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

CFP: Moral Perspectives of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion View project

Care and Care Work – A Question of Economy, Justice and Democracy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Eddy S.W. Ng on 15 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm

Millennials’ work values: Millennials’

work values
differences across the school
to work transition
Lisa K.J. Kuron 991
School of Business and Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University, Received 24 January 2014
Waterloo, Canada Revised 20 August 2014
28 September 2014
Sean T. Lyons 29 October 2014
College of Management and Economics, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada Accepted 17 November 2014

Linda Schweitzer
Downloaded by Professor Eddy Ng At 10:22 15 September 2015 (PT)

Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada, and

Eddy S.W. Ng
Rowe School of Business, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether work values vary across different life
and career stages in a sample of Millennials.
Design/methodology/approach – The sample for this study was comprised of 906 Canadian
Millennials (born between 1980 and 1994).
Findings – Pre-career and working Millennials varied in terms of the importance they placed on five
work values – interesting work, achievement, good co-workers, doing work that helped people and
salary – although these differences were small in magnitude. This suggests that Millennials’ work
values are relatively stable as they grow older and gain work experience.
Research limitations/implications – A large body of research citing generational differences relies
upon cross-sectional studies which compares different generations of individuals at different life
stages, thus making it impossible to disentangle whether the differences are a result of generational or
life-cycle effects. The findings that the importance of work values shift over the life course suggest that
maturation effects may explain only a small portion of these differences in the emerging adulthood
phase. This finding is particularly important for researchers who rely on samples of post-secondary
students as this is a period of change from both an individual and career developmental perspective.
Practical implications – This research suggests that pre-career Millennials may be attracted to
organizations which emphasize a collegial work environment and socially responsible culture. Once they
are in the workforce, Millennials can be attracted and retained through attractive working conditions and
remuneration. All Millennials are most likely to be attracted to workplaces that provide interesting work,
work-life balance, job security and the information workers need to do their jobs effectively.
Originality/value – Developmental psychology and career development literature suggest that
transitioning from school-to-work is a major life event. Past research has shown that the importance of
work values change across this transition and that this change differs among social generations
(i.e. Baby Boomers and Generation Xers), but research to date has not examined this transition in the
current, millennial generation (born after 1980). We answer the call for researchers to understand
Millennials as they progress in their careers, demonstrate that the shift in work values is different for
Millennials, and provide actionable recommendations for managers.
Keywords Quantitative, Work values, Millennials, Career stage, Generations, Life stage
Paper type Research paper
Personnel Review
Over the past two decades, popular press and academic literature have asserted that Vol. 44 No. 6, 2015
pp. 991-1009
generational differences abound in the workplace. Of particular interest is the current © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0048-3486
generation of workers, referred to variously as the “Millennials” (Strauss and Howe, 2000), DOI 10.1108/PR-01-2014-0024
 PR “Generation Y” ( Johnson and Johnson, 2010), “Nexters” (Zemke et al., 2000) and
44,6 “Generation Me” (Twenge, 2006). This generation, born between 1980 and 1994
(Foot, 1998; Lancaster and Stillman, 2002; Zemke et al., 2000), is thought to be
significantly different in terms of outlooks and preferences when compared to previous
generations (Lyons et al., 2012). Relative to preceding generations of workers, such as
“Baby Boomers” (born between 1945 and 1964) and “Generation Xers” (born between
992 1965 and 1979), Millennials have been shown to hold different work values (e.g. Lyons
et al., 2007), personalities (Twenge and Campbell, 2008), and have different expectations
related to work preferences (Ng et al., 2010; Twenge et al., 2010). This research evidence
might convince employers to revamp their human resource systems in order to
effectively attract, engage and retain the next generation of workers (Crumpacker and
Crumpacker, 2007).
Much of the research on Millennials has focussed on their work values, which play a
pivotal role in shaping individuals’ decisions and subsequent behavior (Dawis, 1991)
Downloaded by Professor Eddy Ng At 10:22 15 September 2015 (PT)

including career choice (e.g. Judge and Bretz, 1992; Super, 1970). Many of these studies
were conducted with respondents who were in their late-teens and early 20s, often
students in post-secondary education (PSE) who had not yet gained full-time,
meaningful employment (e.g. Broadbridge et al., 2007; Lyons et al., 2005, 2007; Ng et al.,
2010; Terjesen et al., 2007; Twenge et al., 2010). Although work values are typically seen
as a stable individual difference (Schwartz, 1992), new evidence suggests they can and
do change over time such that the relative stability of work values is lowest during
one’s PSE (e.g. emerging adulthood) and becomes more stable as one enters the
workforce (e.g. post-PSE – young adulthood) ( Jin and Rounds, 2012; Krahn and
Galambos, 2014). PSE in particular allows individuals to explore and refine their
identities, often resulting in a number of intra-individual changes as students develop
themselves and their careers (Ng and Burke, 2006; Perry, 1970/1999). Indeed, some
researchers have suggested that generational differences can be attributed to age and
developmental experiences (Arnett, 2010; Giancola, 2006; Marshall and Wells, 2013;
Trzesniewski and Donnellan, 2010). If, indeed, Millennials’ work values change
following their developmental experiences, previous research advocating for revamped
human resource policies and practices to match early Millennials’ preferences
(e.g. Twenge et al., 2010) may be limited in terms of its practical implications.
Accordingly, our study is valuable in guiding human resource scholars and
practitioners in crafting the appropriate human resource policies to both attract and
retain Millennial workers across all ages.
The present makes three contributions to the literature. First, this study compares
the work values of pre-career and working Millennials. Knowing whether there are
significant differences between these two groups helps contextualize the body of
previous research using PSE Millennials. Existing research has documented that the
work values of previous generations shifted to some degree in early adulthood ( Jin and
Rounds, 2012; Krahn and Galambos, 2014) and that the nature of these shifts differed
among generations ( Jin and Rounds, 2012). However, these focussed on subjects born
prior to 1980 (i.e. Baby Boomers and Generation X) and compared respondents based
on age rather than work experience. By comparison, the present study compares
Millennials on the basis of varying degrees of work experience. In doing so, we extend
previous research on the shifting nature work values as individuals transition from
college to work ( Jin and Rounds, 2012; Krahn and Galambos, 2014) by investigating the
nature of the shift within the Millennial generation. Second, we incorporate all four of
the work value types that have been commonly identified in the work values literature
 (i.e. extrinsic, intrinsic, social/altrustic, prestige) ( Jin and Rounds, 2012; Lyons et al., Millennials’
2010; Ros et al., 1999) and individual work aspects, rather than relying on idiosyncratic work values
sets of work value items or factors as is the case in previous studies of Millennials’
work values (e.g. Bristow et al., 2011; Chen and Choi, 2008; Lub et al., 2012; Twenge
et al., 2010). This will provide benchmark findings on Millennials’ full range of work
values that add to the “fossil record” of generational differences research (Lyons and
Kuron, 2014). Third, by comparing Millennials with varying degrees of work 993
experience, our research has implications in terms of how past studies on Millennials’
work values should be interpreted. Specifically, our findings will be helpful in
determining whether past research on Millennials’ work values, the majority of which
was cross-sectional and conducted when Millennials were in PSE, remain generalizable
as Millennials advance in their careers, or if updated research in this area will be
required. Our study thus provides employers with more accurate insights on how to
attract, retain and engage Millennials at various stages of their career, while at the
Downloaded by Professor Eddy Ng At 10:22 15 September 2015 (PT)

same time contributing to the discourse on whether cross-sectional research is

generalizable for future research on Millennials and other generations.

Conceptual background and theory

Transitioning from college to career
Graduating from PSE is a common phenomenon, and one that is often met with
the realization that the workplace is much different than school (Wendlandt and
Rochlen, 2008). For example, prior to attending PSE, individuals experience fairly
universal normative events such as attending secondary school, living with parents/
guardians and experiencing puberty (Larson and Wilson, 2004). However, as
individuals enter PSE, the experiences that follow can vary considerably. Arnett (2000)
termed this period, with an approximate range of 18-25, “emerging adulthood” and
characterized it as a period of great variability among individuals in terms of their
educational, marital and residential status, among other demographic variables. Such
diversity is a product of the exploratory and transitional nature of emerging adulthood
as individuals seek out various educational and personal pursuits (Super, 1970).
Given the sociological, cultural and structural differences between colleges or
universities and the workplace, the transition from school-to-work can be a challenging
transition for new graduates. In addition to being under-informed about the
realities of work life (Perrone and Vickers, 2003; Saks and Ashforth, 1997;
Wendlandt and Rochlen, 2008), new graduates often form unrealistically high
expectations of the workplace (Gardner and Lambert, 1993; Ng et al., 2010; Perrone
and Vickers, 2003), which may lead to future job dissatisfaction if unadjusted
(Lyons et al., 2012).
Theoretical contributions from the school-to-work transition (STWT) literature and
career development theory support the notion that moving from the educational to
work domains has important implications for career-related beliefs and actions.
Specifically, Wendlandt and Rochlen (2008) argue that the STWT period can be
successfully navigated by moving through three distinct phases: anticipation, which is
characterized by information collection and evaluation, ultimately leading to the
formation of employment expectations; adjustment, in which individuals enter the
organization and become more knowledgeable about their new environment; and
achievement, in which individuals recognize their position within the organization
and decide whether or not they would like to remain within the organization. If they
 PR chose to remain, it is likely that the individual will need to adapt to the organization,
44,6 insofar as they may need to adjust their values, self-image and behaviors in order to fit
with the organization (Wanous et al., 1992).
The adaptive nature of STWT is consistent with Super’s (1970, 1990) career
development, social cognitive career theory (SCCT) (Lent et al., 1994), and career
construction theory (Savickas, 2002). Super (1970) argued that careers progress
994 through a number of stages. In the first stage, exploration, individuals make tentative
choices for their career, in a trial-and-error fashion; if individuals are not satisfied with
their choices, further exploration and adjustments can be made. Once satisfied,
individuals begin to stabilize and the efforts previously devoted to self-exploration are
now devoted to self-development in one’s chosen field. This marks the beginning of the
next stage of career development, establishment. Similarly, SCCT (Lent et al., 1994)
posits that individuals engage in an iterative process of developing and refining career
interests, goals and choices, which are influenced by self-efficacy beliefs and outcome
Downloaded by Professor Eddy Ng At 10:22 15 September 2015 (PT)

expectations that evolve as performance feedback becomes available. Thus, as one

moves from a school environment to the work environment, the nature of
feedback changes from academic performance to actual job performance, which may
impact one’s self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations, including work values
(Lent et al., 1999). Furthermore, career construction theory (2002) argues that
individuals progress through a series of predictable stages of career development,
including the transition from the career exploration stage to the career establishment
stage as they transition from school-to-work (Savickas, 2002; Super, 1990). Savickas
(2002) argued that a key developmental task of the late-exploration stage is actualizing
career choices by finding and working in early career jobs, as a form of trial and error
feedback. This is an important step in the development of one’s career self-concept,
which includes needs, values and interests (Savickas, 2002; Super, 1990).
Thus, STWT and career development theories suggest that we should observe two
distinct groups of Millennials: pre-career and working. These two groups of Millennials
can be differentiated on the basis of their relative progression through their careers.
Specifically, pre-career Millennials, who are currently enrolled in PSE, are likely to be in
the exploration stage of their career. This group has begun to explore their career
options, having already made educational choices which narrow the career-field.
In contrast, upon making the necessary career decisions to find employment and
receiving feedback from their external environments, working Millennials may have
already moved on to the establishment phase of career development. It is our
contention that differences in career maturity between pre-career and working
Millennials will be manifested in differing work values among the two groups
(cf. Jin and Rounds, 2012).

Work values
Although there are numerous psychological phenomena that might serve as a basis for
our examination of developmental and generational differences pertaining to the
Millennials, we focus our investigation on work values, which a central construct in
career decision making (Rounds and Jin, 2005). Work values can be defined as
generalized beliefs about the relative desirability of various aspects of work (e.g. pay,
autonomy, working conditions), and work-related outcomes (e.g. accomplishment,
fulfillment, prestige) (Lyons et al., 2010). Work values can also be thought of as
intrinsic expressions of the various needs or goals that people seek to satisfy through
their work, including financial, social, intellectual, status, esteem and self-actualization
 needs (Locke, 1976; Ros et al., 1999; Super and Sverko, 1995). In simple terms, work Millennials’
values indicate what is important or desirable to individuals in their working lives. work values
Although there are many different typologies of work values, four categories have
been consistently identified in past research: first, intrinsic work values, which pertain
to the inherent psychological satisfactions of working, such as interesting work,
challenge, variety and intellectual stimulation (Elizur, 1984; Jin and Rounds, 2012;
Lyons et al., 2010; Ros et al., 1999); second, extrinsic work values, which relate to 995
material aspects of work, such as pay, benefits and job security (Elizur, 1984; Jin and
Rounds, 2012; Lyons et al., 2010; Ros et al., 1999; Schwartz, 1999); third, social or
altruistic work relationship work values, which pertain to relations with co-workers,
supervisors and other people and the desire to help others and make a contribution to
society (Dawis and Lofquist, 1984; Finegan, 2000; Jin and Rounds, 2012; Leuty and
Hansen, 2011; Lyons et al., 2010; Pryor, 1987); and fourth, prestige or status values,
which relate to status, influence and power (Dawis and Lofquist, 1984; Jin and
Downloaded by Professor Eddy Ng At 10:22 15 September 2015 (PT)

Rounds, 2012; Leuty and Hansen, 2011; Lyons et al., 2010; Pryor, 1979; Ros et al., 1999;
Schwartz, 1999).
The critical transition period from school-to-work life is rife with adjustments as
individuals must consider the realities of the economy and available employment
opportunities ( Jokisaari and Nurmi, 2005), often leading to more emphasis on
“realistic” rather than “idealistic” work values (Gribbons and Lohnes, 1965). Research
evidence suggests that work values do show some shifts during the early career stages.
Krahn and Galambos (2014) analyzed change in work values (i.e. intrinsic and extrinsic)
using data from a sequential longitudinal study of two waves of high school graduates
(from 1985 and 1996)[1]. This sampling method allowed them to track two cohorts of
individuals at two different time points (i.e. at age 18 and 25), which made it possible to
assess differences in work value changes across the STWT. Importantly, Krahn and
Galambos (2014) found that both cohorts experienced an increase in the importance of
intrinsic work values over time, with the increase being slightly greater for the younger
cohort. This younger cohort experienced an increase in the importance of extrinsic
work values across the STWT, but the older cohort showed a slight decrease,
demonstrating a significant age-by-cohort interaction.
The notion that work values shift over time is further supported by a recent meta-
analysis of longitudinal work value studies ( Jin and Rounds, 2012). This meta-analysis
found that work values tend to be fairly stable across the life-span, except during
the transition from school-to-work (i.e. between ages 18 and 22). Specifically, for
the overall population, intrinsic work values were found to increase throughout the
pre-career phase (i.e. 18-22) and decrease slightly thereafter, remaining relatively stable
throughout the life-span. Extrinsic work values showed the opposite pattern,
decreasing throughout the pre-career stage and increasing during workforce entry,
remaining somewhat stable throughout the life-span. Both social and prestige work
values were found to decrease slightly but steadily across the life-span, with the most
dramatic decreases occurring in high school (ages 12-17) and PSE (ages 18-22). Taken
together, the results of these two studies suggest that work values are dynamic across
the STWT ( Jin and Rounds, 2012; Krahn and Galambos, 2014).
Furthermore, Jin and Rounds (2012) analyzed their data from a generational
perspective. Specifically, the shift in work values for Baby Boomers and Generation X
were analyzed separately and compared. The results revealed that the stability of work
values interacted with generation, such that Baby Boomers had more stable work
values across their life-span than did Generation Xers. This finding is also supported
 PR by the age-by-cohort interaction that Krahn and Galambos (2014) found. Together,
44,6 these results are critical in supporting generational research in two significant ways.
First, these results suggest that the work values of both Generation X and Baby
Boomers shifted as they transitioned in to the workplace. This helps to affirm that
variation within generations exists (Mannheim, 1952; Twenge, 2010). Second, and
perhaps more critically, these findings demonstrate that the shift in work values was
996 different for Generation Xers and Baby Boomers. This finding is consistent with
generational theory which posits that although people of every generation are affected
by human developmental processes as they age, each generation experiences a unique
historical context that shapes the unfolding of that development (Howe and Strauss,
1992). Thus, the very process of “growing up” is dynamic and evolving over time.
In this way, while we may expect that the work values of each generation will change
as they transition from school-to-work, the nature of these differences may be different
for each generation.
Downloaded by Professor Eddy Ng At 10:22 15 September 2015 (PT)

To this end, it becomes increasingly important to understand Millennials’ work

values as they enter the workforce and develop their careers. Together, the literature on
generational formation, career development and STWTs suggest that Millennials’
work values should change as they move from school-to-work, yet the direction in
which they change is unclear as this shift is a product of the unique formative
experiences that have served to enable or constrain Millennials’ career behaviors and
decisions (Mannheim, 1952; Shanahan and Elder, 2001). To date, research has largely
ignored the possibility that pre-career and working Millennials are different from
one another.

Differences in work values in the modern context

Transitioning from school-to-work has been a recurring theme for North Americans for
several decades, though recent evidence suggests that traditional developmental cycles
are changing. Specifically, a new life stage which we alluded to earlier, called “emerging
adulthood,” has been borne out of changing societal and cultural experiences in
developed countries (Arnett, 2000; Rindfuss, 1991) such as increased access to PSE
and delayed marriage and parenthood (Mortimer et al., 2002). Evidence for this
stage, thought to occur between adolescence (approximate ages ten to 17) and young
adulthood (approximate ages 26-30) is offered by Arnett (2001) who demonstrated that
individuals did not consider themselves adults until their late 20s to early 30s wherein
they experienced a marked increase in individualism, responsibility for one’s self and
independence in decision making (Arnett, 1997; Greene et al., 1992).
A key feature of emerging adulthood is self-exploration; individuals are free to
explore and experiment (Erikson, 1950, 1968; Keniston, 1971; Levinson, 1978) with their
worldviews, relationships and work (Perry, 1970/1999). Such self-exploration with
respect to work is consistent with career development theory (Super, 1970, 1990), SCCT
(Lent et al., 1994) and career construction theory (Savickas, 2002), each of which argue
that it is a vital process in career development. The emergence of this new life stage
offers further support that the sociological and historical context that Millennials
occupy is likely to lead to generational differences, including how work values shift
over time. This is particularly true given that emerging adulthood occurs at such a
pivotal time of self-exploration and identity development which has lasting impacts on
individuals’ careers.
Although we draw on Super’s (1970, 1990) theory of career development, it is
important to note that careers have most certainly evolved over time (for more
 extensive reviews, see Baruch and Bozionoelos, 2011; Sullivan, 1999; Sullivan and Millennials’
Baruch, 2009). Evidence suggests that modern careers are more boundaryless, work values
values- and self-directed than traditional careers. Unfortunately, much of the research
on these modern careers focusses on individuals’ orientations toward their career,
rather than how such careers unfold over time (Gubler et al., 2014) though it has been
noted that learning cycles at various stages (e.g. early, mid and late) of one’s career are
likely still appropriate (Hall, 2002). 997
Accordingly, we compare the work values of pre-career and working Millennials.
Based on career development theory (Lent et al., 1994; Savickas, 2002; Super, 1970,
1990), STWTs (Wendlandt and Rochlen, 2008), and emerging adulthood (e.g.
Arnett, 2000) and past research that suggests that work values may shift over time
( Jin and Rounds, 2012; Krahn and Galambos, 2014), we posit that differences should
exist between these two groups of Millennials. Moreover, past on generational
theory (Mannheim, 1952), we anticipate that this shift in work values may be
Downloaded by Professor Eddy Ng At 10:22 15 September 2015 (PT)

different than that which was found for preceding generations ( Jin and Rounds,
2012; Krahn and Galambos, 2014).

Method
Participants
The participants were 906 Millennials (born between 1980 and 1994) who were
recruited online and offered entry in prize draws as an inducement. The survey was
part of a broader study on career dynamics in Canada. Since the participants were
anonymous respondents to an open recruitment call, it is impossible to determine
accurate response rates, and the sample should be viewed as a convenience sample.
Sample characteristics are given in Table I.
Respondents were asked to indicate whether they had begun working in their
first “real career job,” however they defined it. A total of 567 (62.6 percent) of
respondents indicated that they had already begun working in their careers.
Of this working subsample, 113 respondents (20 percent) were still full-time
students, having not yet completed their studies or having returned to education.
Preliminary analysis indicated that this group of employed students differed
significantly from both pre-career students and working non-students on
some of the dependent variables. Therefore, in order to avoid confounding the
subsamples, working students were dropped from the analyses, leaving a final of
sample 445 working Millennials and 339 pre-career (non-working) student
Millennials. The average age of respondents was 24.7 years, with the pre-career
subsample having an average age of 21.9 and the working subsample having an
average age of 26.8.

Measures
Work values were measured using 25 items from the Lyons Work Values Survey
(LWVS; Lyons, 2003). Although a number of work value measures have been
used in previous research, such as the Minnesota Importance Questionnaire (Rounds
et al., 1981), Super’s Work Values Inventory Revised, (Zytowski, 2004) and Manhardt’s
(1972) Work Values Inventory, research suggests that none of these measures fully
captures the full domain of the construct (Leuty and Hansen, 2011). The LWVS items
were developed by compiling and categorizing the items from the 13 most commonly
used work value measures and adding new items to represent modern aspects of work
 PR Pre-career Working Total
44,6 n % n % n %

Gender
Male 159 46.9 194 42.7 353 44.5
Female 180 53.1 260 57.3 440 55.5
998 Birth year
1980-1984 40 11.8 322 70.9 362 45.6
1985-1989 174 51.3 120 26.4 294 37.1
1990-1992 125 36.9 12 2.6 137 17.3
Time in career
Not yet employed 339 100.0 0 0.0 339 42.7
o 1 year 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
1-5 years 0 0.0 296 65.2 296 37.3
Downloaded by Professor Eddy Ng At 10:22 15 September 2015 (PT)

6-10 years 0 0.0 123 27.1 123 15.5

W 10 years 0 0.0 35 7.7 35 4.4
Highest
High school 222 65.5 140 30.8 362 45.6
Education
College 26 7.7 118 26.0 144 18.2
Completed
Bachelor 60 17.7 126 27.8 186 23.5
Some post-graduate 9 2.7 28 6.2 37 4.7
Masters 13 3.8 26 5.7 39 4.9
Doctorate 0 0.0 3 0.7 3 0.4
Other 9 2.7 13 2.9 22 2.8
Cultural origin
British 99 29.2 153 33.7 252 31.8
French 28 8.3 60 13.2 88 11.1
Other European 157 46.3 189 41.6 346 43.6
Aboriginal 7 2.1 18 4.0 25 3.2
N. American 48 14.2 71 15.6 119 15.0
Caribbean 6 1.8 9 2.0 15 1.9
Latin, Central and South American 4 1.2 8 1.8 12 1.5
African 7 2.1 7 1.5 14 1.8
Arab 5 1.5 6 1.3 11 1.4
Table I. Asian 88 26.0 73 16.1 161 20.3
Sample Oceania 0 0.0 3 0.7 3 0.4
characteristics Other 25 7.4 25 5.5 50 6.3

not incorporated in existing measures (Lyons, 2003). The LWVS used in the present
study because it has been shown to measure all four types of theorized work values
(i.e. intrinsic, extrinsic, social and prestige values) (Lyons et al., 2010). Respondents
were asked to indicate how important each work value is on a scale of 1 ¼ not at all
important to 5 ¼ absolutely essential. Sample items include “Doing work that is
interesting, exciting and engaging” and “Doing work that allows me to help people.”
According to the results of Lyons et al. (2010), using smallest space analysis, the 25
items used in the present study are grouped for the purpose of presentation into four
broader work value factors: extrinsic (nine items, α ¼ 0.83), intrinsic (eight items,
 α ¼ 0.86), social/altruistic (four items, α ¼ 0.74) and prestige (four items, α ¼ 0.79). Millennials’
Aggregate scores on each of these four factors were calculated by averaging the scores work values
on all of their respective items.

Results
We tested for differences in work values using one-way multivariate analyses of
variance (MANOVA) with career stage (i.e. pre-career or working) as the independent 999
variable and two sets of dependent variables: the four aggregate work value factors;
and the 25 (unaggregated) work values items. Post hoc t-tests (adjusted to p o 0.05 with
Bonferroni correction for multiple tests) were performed on individual variables. Mean
work value scores and t-test results are presented in Table II, along with Cohen’s d,
which indicates the effect size of mean differences.
The omnibus F-test for the MANOVA with the four work value factors as dependent
variables was significant (F(4, 788) ¼ 2.605 for Wilks’ λ, p o 0.05). However, post hoc
Downloaded by Professor Eddy Ng At 10:22 15 September 2015 (PT)

ANOVAs revealed no significant differences ( p o 0.05) between pre-career and

working Millennials on any of the four work value factors (the factors are shown in
bold in Table I). The omnibus F-test for the MANOVA with the 25 work value items as
dependent variables was also significant (F(25, 737) ¼ 3.294 for Wilks’ λ, p o 0.001).
Significant differences between the pre-career and working Millennials were observed
on only five of the 25 work value items. Specifically, as shown in Table II, pre-career
Millennials placed more importance than working Millennials on interesting work
(F ¼ 6.25, p o 0.05), achievement (F ¼ 6.15, p o 0.05), good co-workers (F ¼ 11.44,
p o 0.01), and doing work that helped people (F ¼ 3.95, p o 0.05), while working
Millennials placed greater importance on salary (F ¼ 4.00, p o 0.05) relative to pre-
career Millennials. Estimates of effect size (Cohen’s d ) show that mean differences were
small (i.e. less than 0.20) for all variables, indicating that the observed differences are of
questionable practical importance.
As a follow-up analysis, we wanted to determine whether one’s amount of work
experience is associated with the strength of one’s various work values. Therefore, for the
working sub-sample, we calculated Pearson correlation coefficients (r) between one’s
number of years of employment and each of the work value factors and work value items.
Two of the four work value factors were positively but weakly correlated with work
experience: extrinsic work values (r ¼ 0.169, po0.01) and intrinsic work values (r ¼ 0.135,
po0.01). In total, 12 of the 25 work value items were positively but weakly correlated with
work experience: the extrinsic work value items hours of work (r ¼ 0.110, po0.05),
job security (r ¼ 0.156, po0.01), balance (r ¼ 0.142, po0.01), supportive supervision
(r ¼ 0.131, po0.01), salary (r ¼ 0.175, po0.01) and having the information to do one’s job
(r ¼ 0.143, po0.01); and the intrinsic work value items continuous learning (r ¼ 0.126,
po0.01), interesting work (r ¼ 0.113, po0.05), advancement (r ¼ 0.111, po0.05), using
your abilities (r ¼ 0.125, po0.01) and achievement (r ¼ 0.099, po0.05); and the social
work value item fun workplace (r ¼ 0.129, po0.01).

Discussion
Over the past decade, academic and practitioner-focussed publications have urged HR
managers to better understand and adapt to the values of millennial workers
(e.g. Alsop, 2008; Gorman et al., 2004; Hershatter and Epstein, 2010). Failure to do so,
it is argued, will result in ineffective recruitment, reduced employee engagement and
increased turnover among this generation (Hurst and Good, 2009; Ng et al., 2010).
Yet practitioners seeking to understand and respond to Millennials’ work values are
 Downloaded by Professor Eddy Ng At 10:22 15 September 2015 (PT)

PR
44,6

1000

Table II.

Millennials
and working
Mean work value
scores for pre-career
Pre-career Working
Mean SD n Mean SD n t F d

Extrinsic work values 3.81 0.60 339 3.84 0.69 454 0.619 0.383 0.04
Balance 4.06 0.88 338 4.07 0.95 452 0.142 0.034 0.01
Benefits 3.90 0.99 338 3.93 0.98 452 0.347 0.192 0.02
Feedback 3.42 0.92 339 3.44 0.96 454 0.354 0.153 0.03
Hours of work 3.80 0.89 338 3.89 0.94 454 1.265 1.963 0.09
Information 4.05 0.83 339 3.96 0.89 452 −1.449 1.697 −0.10
Job security 3.94 0.94 338 3.97 0.94 452 0.462 0.341 0.03
Recognition 3.53 0.99 339 3.57 1.00 454 0.634 0.756 0.05
Salary 3.88 0.92 339 4.00 0.93 454 1.779 3.995* 0.13
Supervisor supportive 3.76 0.92 339 3.79 0.92 454 0.415 0.161 0.03
Intrinsic work values 3.73 0.64 339 3.72 0.69 454 −0.184 0.034 −0.01
Achievement 3.89 0.92 338 3.74 0.88 454 −2.363 6.146* −0.17
Advancement 3.78 0.95 338 3.79 1.00 453 0.100 0.006 0.01
Challenge 3.42 0.99 336 3.55 0.97 452 1.850 3.212 0.13
Continuously learn 3.71 0.99 339 3.71 0.97 454 0.123 0.056 0.01
Freedom 3.58 0.93 339 3.65 0.96 453 1.085 1.055 0.08
Interesting 4.13 0.90 339 3.97 0.95 454 −2.390 6.245* −0.17
Use abilities 3.75 0.93 338 3.67 0.93 454 −1.205 1.027 −0.09
Variety 3.39 0.96 337 3.46 0.97 453 0.926 0.755 0.07
Social/altruistic work values 3.56 0.69 339 3.47 0.75 454 −1.721 2.961 −0.12
Co-workers 3.84 0.92 337 3.62 0.96 454 −3.218 11.444** −0.23
Fun 3.62 0.97 338 3.53 1.06 450 −1.176 0.952 −0.08
Help people 3.49 1.15 338 3.32 1.07 453 −2.110 3.946* −0.15
Social interaction 3.05 1.13 338 2.99 1.09 454 −0.734 0.395 −0.05
Prestige work values 3.05 0.83 339 3.03 0.85 454 −0.302 0.091 −0.02
Authority 2.76 1.09 339 2.83 1.16 452 0.756 0.409 0.05
Influence 3.15 1.03 338 3.06 1.03 454 −1.270 1.686 −0.09
Prestigious 2.99 1.10 339 2.88 1.13 454 −1.361 1.34 −0.10
Significant impact 3.30 1.01 338 3.37 0.95 453 1.002 0.935 0.07
Note: *, **Significant at p o 0.05 and p o0.01, respectively
 faced with the challenge of interpreting and adapting research conducted largely on Millennials’
student populations (e.g. Broadbridge et al., 2007; Lyons et al., 2005, 2007; Ng et al., work values
2010; Terjesen et al., 2007; Twenge et al., 2010). Some researchers have argued that
Millennials will come to resemble previous generations as they mature through
their life cycle (Trzesniewski and Donnellan, 2010). What are HR practitioners to
believe? Are the work value differences that have been observed between Millennials
and preceding generations mere artifacts of Millennials’ developmental immaturity or 1001
will these values “stick” as Millennials “grow-up” and move on?
Our results provide important evidence to suggest that Millennials’ work values do
not differ greatly across the STWT. Despite small differences in individual value items,
at the factor level, we found no significant differences between pre-career and
working Millennials. Millennials placed the greatest importance on extrinsic work
values, followed by intrinsic, social/altruistic and prestige work values, regardless of
whether they were students or had started their careers. These findings are contrary to
Downloaded by Professor Eddy Ng At 10:22 15 September 2015 (PT)

those of Jin and Rounds (2012) and Krahn and Galambos (2014), who found that the
work values of Generation Xers and Baby Boomers shifted as they transitioned into
their working lives. Our results suggest that Millennials are different than previous
generations, maintaining relative stability in their work values as they move from
school-to-work. The few significant differences that we did find suggest that the
importance of salary increases when Millennials enter the workforce, while the
importance they place on immaterial aspects of the job (such as interesting work,
achievement, co-workers, helping others) decreases. Our follow-up analyses suggest
that the importance of practical aspects of the job, such as salary, supervision,
job security and hours of work tend to become more important with greater work
experience, as do some of the intrinsic aspects of work, such as continuous learning,
advancement and using one’s abilities.
Our findings do support the notion that the STWT has some impact on one’s career
concept, as suggested by research related to the STWT, emerging adulthood, and
career development. In terms of magnitude, our observations for Millennials are largely
consistent with extant findings for Baby Boomers and Generation Xers ( Jin and
Rounds, 2012; Krahn and Galambos, 2014), in that changes are neither widespread nor
large in scale. At the same time, it should be noted that in terms of directionality, the
importance of extrinsic work values increased and intrinsic work values decreased
for Baby Boomers ( Jin and Rounds, 2012), the opposite pattern was found for
Generation Xers (Krahn and Galambos, 2014), and no apparent shift was found for
Millennials in this study. Thus, the Millennials seem to be experiencing the STWT in a
way that is novel relative to previous generations, but the impact of that transition on
work values remains minor, as has been the case in preceding generations.

Implications for research and practice

Our findings have implications for both research and practice. Previous research
concerning the work values of Millennials has relied on student samples, begging the
question of the generalizability of results to working Millennials. Our results suggest
that such studies are largely generalizable. Student samples should not be viewed as
problematic in work values studies. Although results from Millennial student samples
may be a reasonable proxy for working Millennials, we caution that the results should
be interpreted with care, particularly when generalizations are made with respect to the
salary, achievement orientation, interesting work, co-workers and helping behaviors.
 PR We also note that as new cadres of workers begin entering the workforce
44,6 (i.e. “Generation Z”) (Kingston, 2014), researchers must be cognizant that the work
values of this generation are likely to be differentially affected by the STWT relative to
Millennials, Generation Xers, and Baby Boomers.
Work values have long been acknowledged as a robust construct, with a
demonstrable influence on job satisfaction (Locke, 1976), organizational commitment
1002 (Meyer et al., 1998), job choice ( Judge and Bretz, 1992) and organizational citizenship
behaviors (Feather and Rauter, 2004) among other important attitudes and behaviors.
Our focus on work values is especially relevant in the modern career context wherein
individuals are said to follow their own values rather than those of their employing
organization when making career decisions (Gubler et al., 2014; Sullivan, 1999).
In such a climate it is essential to recruit, engage and retain the “right” employees who
hold work values that are aligned with strategic human resource priorities,
as suggested by Schneider’s (1987) Attraction-Selection-Attrition framework. It is
Downloaded by Professor Eddy Ng At 10:22 15 September 2015 (PT)

therefore critical to understand what values applicants and employees hold and
whether or not these values are likely to change over time. The results of our study
offer a number of practical implications to that end.
From an HRM perspective, employers seeking guidance on how to attract and
recruit Millennials might legitimately ask whether pre-career Millennials will “grow up
and settle down” as they move into their working lives. If this were true, employers
would need to address emphasize different elements of the job and workplace in their
recruitment strategies than in their engagement and retention strategies. Cable and
Turban’s (2001) employer knowledge framework suggests that employers benefit from
understanding and influencing what applicants know about the job, work environment
and employer. Our findings suggest that pre-career Millennials place more importance
on interesting work, achievement, good co-workers and doing work that helps people.
Therefore, in order to attract Millennials who are just beginning their careers,
employers should tailor their recruitment approach to emphasize job characteristics
such as interesting, meaningful work, a collegial work environment and a socially
responsible culture. However, recruiting Millennials who are more experienced in
their careers will require emphasis of working conditions and remuneration. It seems,
though, that most work values will not change significantly as Millennials transition
into full-time work.
Previous research has documented increased rates of job mobility among
Millennials (Lyons et al., 2012), suggesting that they are particularly susceptible to
turnover relative to previous generations. Our results suggest that employee
engagement and retention strategies aimed at working Millennials should focus on
compensation, which is more important to Millennials with work experience. It has
been noted elsewhere that providing constant feedback, development to remain
competitive and periodic rewards (see Ng et al., 2010) can help to retain Millennials.
Our results also suggest that a great deal of what Millennials value does not change
from the time when they are being recruited as students to the time when they are
established employees. Indeed, in examining the mean ratings for each of subsample
of Millennials, we note that of the “top ten” work values for pre-career Millennials, nine
were shared with the “top ten” work values for working Millennials. This is important
as it is well-established and accepted that values are hierarchically ordered in terms
of their importance, and individuals are able to prioritize between them (cf. Lyons
et al., 2010). Thus, these aspects of work may well represent the current expectations
from a generation of workers that are considered to be important and necessary for
 both the attraction and retention of the Millennial generation. More specifically, each of Millennials’
the shared “top nine” work values reflect extrinsic or intrinsic work values. Thus, may work values
employers reap the most benefit by satisfying both Millennials’ extrinsic (e.g. work-life
balance, salary, job security, information to do one’s job, benefits and hours of work)
and intrinsic work values (e.g. interesting work, advancement, achievement).
Two aspects of work that are particularly important to Millennials in general, based
on their value ratings, are interesting work and work-life balance. Both pre-career and 1003
working Millennials indicate that having interesting work is a top priority for them.
Employers should take note of Millennials’ need for interesting work, as failure to
accommodate this need may increase the likelihood of employee boredom, which may
lead to employee withdrawal behaviors (Skowronski, 2012). Employers can help to
ensure that interest needs are met at both the recruitment and post-hiring stages.
Recruitment efforts might include realistic job-previews (Breaugh, 1983), which allow
applicants to assess for themselves the type of work that will be conducted. This will
Downloaded by Professor Eddy Ng At 10:22 15 September 2015 (PT)

help increase the availability of job information which is important in developing

an organization’s image (Cable and Turban, 2001). Once Millennials are hired, further
avenues for offering interesting work can be fostered by encouraging job crafting,
in which employees actively seek to expand the task and relationship boundaries of
their jobs (Wrzesniewski et al., 2013).
Incorporating work-life balance in the job offering is a challenge for employers
because the concept includes a range of options that help people to find balance in
their individual lives. Research indicates that work-life balance benefits such as
flextime, childcare benefits, telecommuting and eldercare benefits enhance employers’
recruitment effectiveness (Thompson and Aspinwall, 2009). However, for Millennials,
who are still in their mid-30s and younger and who are delaying marriage and
child-bearing (Taylor, 2014), benefits related to family responsibilities are unlikely to be
high priorities. Smith (2010) found that Millennials’ top work-life balance priorities
include special summer or holiday hours, flextime and telecommuting, suggesting that
they are looking for flexibility in their work schedule and vacation time. Because
Millennials’ work-life balance priorities are currently high, but are likely to shift as they
age and take on new family roles, employers should consider offering flexible work-life
benefits that are customizable to employees’ evolving needs.
In terms of retention, we call attention to the fact that among the five work values
that were significantly different between PSE and working Millennials, salary was the
only one that increased in importance. This may be due, in part, to the extremely high
expectations for salary that Millennials have been documented to have as compared
to national averages (Ng et al., 2010). If this is the case, it may be necessary for
employers to spend time explaining Millennials current salary relative to average
salaries in similar industries and positions, as well as detailing how their salary may
grow overtime. This emphasis on salary and other extrinsic factors represent key job
information that is critical in recruitment efforts (Cable and Turban, 2001) as well as
retention efforts given its high-level of importance for working Millennials.

Conclusion and limitations

It has been previously documented that the millennial generation has excessive
expectations for their careers (Ng et al., 2010) and different values than older
generations (Twenge et al., 2010). A common criticism of them is that they should
“grow up and settle down” in their careers. Some commentators have argued that
generational differences are mere fad and that the Millennials will demonstrate the
 PR same type of values as older generations as they mature and take on different life and
44,6 career roles (e.g. Giancola, 2006). This research answers calls to study how pre-career
and working Millennials may differ (Smola and Sutton, 2002). Our results suggest that
the work values of Millennials do appear to change as they enter their working lives,
but only incrementally and in a small range of work attributes. For the most part, the
work values of Millennials are fairly stable, regardless of whether they have started
1004 working or not. Our results suggest that although career stage and work experience do
tend to affect a number of work values, the effect is much smaller than one might
expect given the importance of the STWT. As such, an important contribution of our
study is the finding that Millenials in PSE are quite similar to their working
counterparts. From a research perspective, this suggests that cross-sectional studies of
pre-career Millennials likely do provide a general insight into this generation and how
they will be approaching their careers. This is in keeping with Lyons and Kuron’s
(2014) assertion that, despite its limitations, cross-sectional research is important in
Downloaded by Professor Eddy Ng At 10:22 15 September 2015 (PT)

advancing our knowledge of generations and how they effect and are affected by
the workplace. In this specific case, our findings indicate that it seems unwise for
employers to hope that Millennials will settle down and outgrow their values as they
get older. Future research should also consider how other key constructs of interest
(e.g. expectations) may have shifted across the STWT.
In closing, we acknowledge several limitations in our study. First, while we
demonstrated that the two groups of Millennials rated the importance of certain work
values differently, we are unable to demonstrate in a cross-sectional study that the
values within an individual shift over time. Previous studies ( Jin and Rounds, 2012;
Krahn and Galambos, 2014) have documented longitudinal change in the work values
of Baby Boomers and Generation Xers across their life-cycle stages. Our findings offer
cross-sectional evidence of a similar phenomenon among Millennials, but only
longitudinal studies can document this shift definitively. Unfortunately, since a large
percentage of Millennials are already beyond the emerging adulthood life stage, only
archival and retrospective data can be used to draw longitudinal conclusions about
them in that stage of life. Such studies can also further address the criticisms of the age,
period and cohort confound. Furthermore, all of the data were collected using
self-report questionnaires, raising the possibility of response set biases. Replication of
this study using different methods may help to shed additional light onto this topic. In
particular, qualitative methods such as face-to-face interviews would help to ameliorate
this potential limitation in future studies.

Note
1. Although Krahn and Galambos (2014) identified the 1996 high school senior cohort as
“Generation Y,” they were 18 years of age at the time, putting them within the commonly
cited birth year range of Generation X (cf. Twenge et al., 2010).

References
Alsop, R. (2008), The Trophy Kids Grow Up: How the Millennial Generation is Shaking Up the
Workplace, John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco, CA.
Arnett, J.J. (1997), “Young people’s conceptions of the transition to adulthood”, Youth and Society,
Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 1-23.
Arnett, J.J. (2000), “Emerging adulthood: a theory of development from the late teens through the
twenties”, American Psychologist, Vol. 55 No. 5, pp. 469-480.
 Arnett, J.J. (2001), “Conceptions of the transition to adulthood: perspectives from adolescence to Millennials’
midlife”, Journal of Adult Development, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 133-143.
work values
Arnett, J.J. (2010), “Emerging adulthood”, in Arnett, L.J. (Ed.), Bridging Cultural and Developmental
Approaches to Psychology: New Syntheses in Theory, Research, and Policy, Oxford University
Press, New York, NY, pp. 255-275.
Baruch, Y. and Bozionelos, N. (2011), “Career issues”, in Zedeck, S. (Ed.), APA Handbook of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Selecting and Developing Members for the 1005
Organization. APA Handbooks in Psychology, Vol. 2, American Psychological Association,
Washington, DC, pp. 67-113.
Breaugh, J.A. (1983), “Realistic job previews: a critical appraisal and future research directions”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 612-619.
Bristow, D., Amyx, D., Castleberry, S.B. and Cochran, J.J. (2011), “A cross-generational comparison of
motivational factors in a sales career among Gen-X and Gen-Y college students”, Journal of
Downloaded by Professor Eddy Ng At 10:22 15 September 2015 (PT)

Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 77-85.

Broadbridge, A., Maxwell, G. and Ogden, S. (2007), “Experiences, perceptions and expectations
of retail employment for Generation Y”, Career Development International, Vol. 12 No. 6,
pp. 523-544.
Cable, D.M. and Turban, D.B. (2001), “Establishing the dimensions, sources and value of job
seekers’ employer knowledge during recruitment”, Research in Personnel and Human
Resources Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 115-163.
Chen, P. and Choi, Y. (2008), “Generational differences in work values: a study of hospital
management”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 20
No. 6, pp. 595-615.
Crumpacker, M. and Crumpacker, J.M. (2007), “Succession planning and generational stereotypes:
should HR consider age-based values and attitudes a relevant factor or passing fad?”,
Public Personnel Management, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 349-369.
Dawis, R.V. (1991), “Vocational interests, values and preferences”, in Dunnette, M.D. and Hough, L.M.
(Eds), Handbook of Industrial & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 2, Consulting
Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 833-872.
Dawis, R.V. and Lofquist, L.H. (1984), A Psychological Theory of Work Adjustment, University of
Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.
Elizur, D. (1984), “Facets of work values: a structural analysis of work outcomes”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 379-389.
Erikson, E.H. (1950), Childhood and Society, Norton, New York, NY.
Erikson, E.H. (1968), Identity: Youth and Crisis, Norton, New York, NY.
Feather, N.T. and Rauter, K.A. (2004), “Organizational citizenship behaviours in relation to job
status, job insecurity, organizational commitment and identifications, job satisfaction
and work values”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 1,
pp. 81-94.
Finegan, J.E. (2000), “The impact of person and organizational values on organizational commitment”,
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 149-169.
Foot, D.K. (1998), Boom, Bust, & Echo 2000, MW&R, Toronto.
Gardner, P.D. and Lambert, S.E. (1993), “It’s a hard, hard, hard, hard, hard, hard world”, Journal
of Career Planning and Employment, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 40-49.
Giancola, F. (2006), “The generation gap: more myth than reality”, Human Resource Planning,
Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 32-37.
 PR Gorman, P., Nelson, T. and Glassman, A. (2004), “The millennial generation: a strategic opportunity”,
Organizational Analysis, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 255-270.
44,6
Greene, A.L., Wheatley, S.M. and Aldava, J.F. (1992), “Stages on life’s way: adolescents’ implicit
theories of the life course”, Journal of Adolescent Research, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 364-381.
Gribbons, W.D. and Lohnes, P.R. (1965), “Shifts in adolescents’ vocational values”, The Personnel
and Guidance Journal, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 248-252.
1006 Gubler, M., Arnold, J. and Coombs, C. (2014), “Reassessing the protean career concept: empirical
findings, conceptual components, and measurement”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 35 No. S1, pp. S23-S40.
Hall, D.T. (2002), Careers In and Out of Organizations, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hershatter, A. and Epstein, M. (2010), “Millennials and the world of work: an organization and
management perspective”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 211-223.
Howe, N. and Strauss, W. (1992), Generations: The History of America’s Future, 1584 to 2069,
Downloaded by Professor Eddy Ng At 10:22 15 September 2015 (PT)

Harper Collins, New York, NY.

Hurst, J.L. and Good, L.K. (2009), “Generation Y and career choice: the impact of retail career
perceptions, expectations and entitlement perceptions”, Career Development International,
Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 570-593.
Jin, J. and Rounds, J. (2012), “Stability and change in work values: a meta-analysis of longitudinal
studies”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 326-339.
Johnson, M. and Johnson, L. (2010), Generations, Inc, AMACOM, New York, NY.
Jokisaari, M. and Nurmi, J.E. (2005), “Company matters: goal-related social capital in the
transition to working life”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 67 No. 3, pp. 413-428.
Judge, T.A. and Bretz, R.D. (1992), “Effects of work values on job choice decisions”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 3, pp. 261-271.
Keniston, K. (1971), Youth and Dissent: The Rise of a New Opposition, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,
New York, NY.
Kingston, A. (2014), “Get ready for Generation Z”, available at: www.macleans.ca/society/life/get-
ready-for-generation-z/ (accessed August 3, 2014).
Krahn, H.J. and Galambos, N.L. (2014), “Work values and beliefs of ‘Generation X’ and
‘Generation Y’”, Journal of Youth Studies, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 92-112.
Lancaster, L.C. and Stillman, D. (2002), When Generations Collide: Who they are. Why they clash.
How to Solve the Generational Puzzle at Work, Harper Collins, New York, NY.
Larson, R. and Wilson, S. (2004), “Adolescence across place and time: globalization and the
changing pathways to adulthood”, in Lerner, R. and Steinberg, L. (Eds), Handbook of
Adolescent Psychology, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 299-330.
Lent, R.W., Brown, S.D. and Hackett, G. (1994), “Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of
career and academic interest, choice, and performance”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 79-122.
Lent, R.W., Hackett, G. and Brown, S.D. (1999), “A social cognitive view of school-to-work
transition”, The Career Development Quarterly, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 297-311.
Leuty, M.E. and Hansen, J.C. (2011), “Evidence of construct validity for work values”, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 79 No. 2, pp. 379-390.
Levinson, D.J. (1978), The Seasons of a Man’s Life, Ballantine, New York, NY.
Locke, E.A. (1976), “The nature and cause of job satisfaction”, in Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.),
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL,
pp. 1297-1394.
 Lub, X., Bijvank, M.N., Bal, P.M., Blomme, R. and Schalk, R. (2012), “Different or alike?: exploring Millennials’
the psychological contract and commitment of different generations of hospitality
workers”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 24 No. 4,
work values
pp. 553-573.
Lyons, S. (2003), “An exploration of generational values in life and at work”, unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Carleton University, Ottawa.
Lyons, S. and Kuron, L.K.J. (2014), “Generational differences in the workplace: a review of the 1007
evidence and directions for future research”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 35
No. S1, pp. S139-S157.
Lyons, S., Duxbury, L. and Higgins, C. (2005), “An empirical assessment of generational
differences in work-related values”, Proceedings of the Administrative Sciences Association
of Canada, Toronto, May 28-31.
Lyons, S., Duxbury, L. and Higgins, C. (2007), “An empirical assessment of generational
Downloaded by Professor Eddy Ng At 10:22 15 September 2015 (PT)

differences in basic human values”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 101 No. 2, pp. 339-352.
Lyons, S., Higgins, C. and Duxbury, L. (2010), “Work values: development of a new 3-dimensional
structure based on confirmatory smallest space analysis”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 969-1002.
Lyons, S.T., Ng, E.S. and Schweitzer, L. (2012), “Generational career shift: millennials and the
changing nature of careers in Canada”, in Lyons, S.T. and Schweitzer, L. (Eds), Managing
the New Workforce: International Perspectives in the Millennial Generation, Edward Elgar,
Northampton, MA, pp. 64-85.
Manhardt, P.J. (1972), “Job orientation of male and female college graduates in business”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 361-368.
Mannheim, K. (1952), Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge, Routeledge & Kegan Paul, London.
Marshall, V.W. and Wells, A.L. (2013), “Generational relations and the workplace: a critique of the
concept”, in Taylor, P. (Ed), Older Workers in an Ageing Society: Critical Topics in Research
and Policy, Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA, pp. 179-201.
Meyer, J.P., Irving, P.G. and Allen, N.J. (1998), “Examination of the combined effects of work
values and early work experiences on organizational commitment”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 29-52.
Mortimer, J.T., Zimmer-Gembeck, M.J., Holmes, M. and Shanahan, M.J. (2002), “The process of
occupational decision making: patterns during the transition to adulthood”, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 439-465.
Ng, E.S. and Burke, R.J. (2006), “The next generation at work-business students’ views,
values and job search strategy: implications for universities and employers”,
Education + Training, Vol. 48 No. 7, pp. 478-492.
Ng, E.S.W., Schweitzer, L. and Lyons, S.T. (2010), “New generation, great expectations: a field
study of the millennial generation”, Journal of Business Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 281-292.
Perrone, L. and Vickers, M.H. (2003), “Life after graduation as a ‘very uncomfortable world’:
an Australian case study”, Education + Training, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 69-78.
Perry, W.G. (1970/1999), Forms of Ethical and Intellectual Development in the College Years:
A Scheme, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Pryor, R.G. (1987), “Differences among differences: in search of general work preference
dimensions”, Journal of applied Psychology, Vol. 72 No. 3, pp. 426-433.
Pryor, R.G.L. (1979), “In search of a concept: work values”, The Vocational Guidance Quarterly,
Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 250-258.
 PR Rindfuss, R.R. (1991), “The young adult years: diversity, structural change, and fertility”,
Demography, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 493-512.
44,6
Ros, M., Schwartz, S.H. and Surkiss, S. (1999), “Basic individual values, work values, and the
meaning of work”, Applied Psychology – An International Review, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 49-71.
Rounds, J.B. and Jin, J. (2005), “Nature, importance and assessment of needs and values”,
in Brown, S.D. and Lent, R.W. (Eds), Career Development and Counseling: Putting Theory
1008 and Research to Work, 2nd ed., Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, pp. 417-448.
Rounds, J.B., Henly, G.A., Dawis, R.V., Lofquist, L.H. and Weiss, D.J. (1981), Manual for the
Minnesota Importance Questionnaire, Vocational Psychology Research Center, University
of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Saks, A.M. and Ashforth, B.E. (1997), “Organizational socialization: making sense of the past
and present as a prologue for the future”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 51 No. 2,
pp. 234-279.
Savickas, M.L. (2002), “Career construction”, in Brown, D. (Ed.), Career Choice and Development,
Downloaded by Professor Eddy Ng At 10:22 15 September 2015 (PT)

Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 149-205.

Schneider, B. (1987), “The people make the place”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 437-453.
Schwartz, S.H. (1992), “Universals in the content and structure of values: theory and empirical
tests in 20 countries”, in Zanna, M. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 1-65.
Schwartz, S.H. (1999), “A theory of cultural values and some implications for work”, Applied
Psychology – An International Review, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 23-47.
Shanahan, M.J. and Elder, G.H. Jr (2001), “History, agency, and the life course”, in Crockett, L.
(Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Life Course Perspectives on Motivation,
University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, pp. 145-186.
Skowronski, M. (2012), “When the bored behave badly (or exceptionally)”, Personnel Review,
Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 143-159.
Smith, K.T. (2010), “Work-life balance perspectives of marketing professionals in Generation Y”,
Services Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 434-447.
Smola, K. and Sutton, D. (2002), “Generational differences: revisiting generational work values for
the new millennium”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 363-382.
Strauss, W. and Howe, N. (2000), Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation, Vintage,
New York, NY.
Sullivan, S.E. (1999), “The changing nature of careers: a review and research agenda”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 457-484.
Sullivan, S.E. and Baruch, Y. (2009), “Advances in career theory and research: a critical
review and agenda for future exploration”, Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 6,
pp. 1542-1571.
Super, D.E. (1970), Work Values Inventory, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Super, D.E. (1990), “A life-span, life-space approach to career development”, in Brown, D. and
Brooks, L. (Eds), Career Choice and Development: Applying Contemporary Theories to
Practice, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 197-261.
Super, D.E. and Sverko, B. (1995), Life Roles, Values, and Careers, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Taylor, P. (2014), The Next America Boomers, Millennials, and the Looming Generational
Showdown, Pew Research Center, New York, NY.
Terjesen, S., Vinnicombe, S. and Freeman, C. (2007), “Attracting Generation Y graduates:
organisational attributes, likelihood to apply and sex differences”, Career Development
International, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 504-522.
 Thompson, L.F. and Aspinwall, K.R. (2009), “The recruitment value of work/life benefits”, Millennials’
Personnel Review, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 195-210.
work values
Trzesniewski, K.H. and Donnellan, M.B. (2010), “Rethinking ‘Generation me’ a study of cohort
effects from 1976-2006”, Perspectives on Psychological Science, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 58-75.
Twenge, J.M. (2006). Generation Me: Why Today’s Young Americans are More Confident,
Assertive, Entitled – and More Miserable than Ever Before, Free Press, New York, NY.
Twenge, J.M. (2010), “A review of the empirical evidence on generational differences in work 1009
attitudes”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 201-210.
Twenge, J.M. and Campbell, S.M. (2008), “Generational differences in psychological traits
and their impact on the workplace”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 8,
pp. 862-877.
Twenge, J.M., Campbell, S.M., Hoffman, B.R. and Lance, C.E. (2010), “Generational differences in
work values: leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values
Downloaded by Professor Eddy Ng At 10:22 15 September 2015 (PT)

decreasing”, Journal of Management, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 1117-1142.

Wanous, J.P., Poland, T.D., Premack, S.L. and Davis, K.S. (1992), “The effects of met expectations
on newcomer attitudes and behaviors: a review and meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 3, pp. 288-297.
Wendlandt, N.M. and Rochlen, A.B. (2008), “Addressing the college-to-work transition:
implications for university career counselors”, Journal of Career Development, Vol. 35 No. 2,
pp. 151-165.
Wrzesniewski, A., LoBuglio, N., Dutton, J.E. and Berg, J.M. (2013), “Job crafting and cultivating
positive meaning and identity in work”, Advances in Positive Organizational Psychology,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 281-302.
Zemke, R., Raines, C. and Filipczak, B. (2000), Generations at Work: Managing the Clash of
Veterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in your Workplace, Amacom, Toronto.
Zytowski, D.G. (2004), “Work role, values”, in Spielberger, C. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 3, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 715-717.

About the authors

Lisa K.J. Kuron is a PhD (Management) Candidate at the Wilfrid Laurier University. Her research
focusses on understanding generational differences and the relationship individuals seek to have
with their work, particularly at the outset of their careers. Lisa K.J. Kuron is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: kuronlisa@gmail.com
Dr Sean T. Lyons is an Associate Professor of Leadership and Management at the University
of Guelph (Canada). His main area of research concerns inter-generational differences and their
impacts on workplace dynamics and managing people.
Dr Linda Schweitzer is an Associate Professor and Associate Dean (Research and External) at
the Carleton University. Linda has published in the areas of alternate work arrangements
(telework and virtual teams), strategic human resources management, organizational behavior,
women in business and society as well as generations in the workplace.
Dr Eddy S.W. Ng is an Associate Professor at the Dalhousie University. Ed’s research
focusses on diversity and inclusion, including public policy on equal treatment (e.g. employment
equity and affirmative action), managing diversity for organizational competitiveness, changing
work values, and career issues for women, minorities, older workers and the millennial
generation.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

View publication stats