J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:281–292
DOI 10.1007/s10869-010-9159-4
New Generation, Great Expectations: A Field Study
of the Millennial Generation
Eddy S. W. Ng • Linda Schweitzer •
Sean T. Lyons
Published online: 16 February 2010
! Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
Abstract
Purpose This study investigated the career expectations
and priorities of members of the ‘‘millennial’’ generation
(born in or after 1980) and explored differences among this
cohort related to demographic factors (i.e., gender, race,
and year of study) and academic performance.
Design/Methodology/Approach Data were obtained from
a national survey of millennial undergraduate university
students from across Canada (N = 23,413). Data were
analyzed using various multivariate techniques to assess
the impacts of demographic variables and academic
achievement on career expectations and priorities.
Findings Millennials placed the greatest importance on
individualistic aspects of a job. They had realistic expec-
tations of their first job and salary but were seeking rapid
advancement and the development of new skills, while also
ensuring a meaningful and satisfying life outside of work.
Our results suggest that Millennials’ expectations and
values vary by gender, visible minority status, GPA, and
year of study, but these variables explain only a small
proportion of variance.
E. S. W. Ng
College of Business Administration, California State Polytechnic
University, 3801 West Temple Ave, Pomona, CA 91768, USA
e-mail: esng@csupomona.edu
L. Schweitzer
Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, 710 Dunton
Tower, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6, Canada
e-mail: lschweit@sprott.carleton.ca
S. T. Lyons (&)
University of Guelph, 50 Stone Rd. E, 213 J.D. McLachlan
Bldg, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
e-mail: slyons01@uoguelph.ca
Implications Changing North American demographics
have created a crisis in organizations as they strive to
recruit and retain the millennial generation, who purport-
edly hold values, attitudes, and expectations that are sig-
nificantly different from those of the generations of
workers that preceded them. A better understanding of the
Millennials’ career expectations and priorities helps
employers to create job offerings and work environments
that are more likely to engage and retain millennial
workers.
Originality/Value This is a large-sample study that pro-
vides benchmark results for the millennial generation,
which can be compared to results from other generational
cohorts, and to millennial cohorts in the future as they
progress through their life-cycle. This is one of the few
studies that examines demographic heterogeneity within
the millennial cohort.
Keywords Canada ! Career expectations !
Millennial generation ! University students
Introduction
The impending retirement of a large cohort of North
American employees (Baby Boomers) has created a crisis
in organizations as they strive to recruit and retain the
younger generations, who purportedly hold significantly
different values, attitudes, and expectations from the gen-
erations of workers who preceded them (Economist 2009).
David Foot first used the term ‘‘Baby Boom Echo’’ to
describe the generation born between 1980 and 1995.
These are the children of the Boomers and there are 76
million of them in the United States (Trunk 2007) and 6.9
million of them in Canada (Foot and Stoffman 1998).
123
282
Given their characteristics and the events that define their
lives (e.g., globalization, rapid technological advancement,
increasing demographic diversity), various authors have
labeled them as Generation Y, Millennials, Nexters, and
the Nexus Generation (Barnard et al. 1998; Burke and Ng
2006; Zemke et al. 2000). For the purpose of this study, we
will use the term ‘‘Millennials’’ to keep up with the popular
literature.
A review of the popular literature suggests that the
Millennials ‘‘want it all’’ and ‘‘want it now,’’ in terms of
good pay and benefits, rapid advancement, work/life bal-
ance, interesting and challenging work, and making a
contribution to society. In this article, we build on existing
literature on the stereotypes that persist regarding Millen-
nials, and use a large survey sample to document their
career-related goals, expectations, and the priorities that
they bring to bear on their career choices. Rather than
contrasting the Millennials to other generations, as much of
the literature has done (e.g., Dries et al. 2008; Lancaster
and Stillman 2002; Lyons 2003), our objective is to con-
tribute to the understanding of the career expectations of
the Millennials, and how these expectations are manifested
in their work-related choices and career decision making.
In light of the projected shortage of workers over the
next 25 years (Statistics Canada 2007), the Millennials will
have a high degree of choice in selecting the organizations
for which they want to work, based on the kind of working
conditions, opportunities, and flexibility employers can
offer. Already, hiring managers have been reported as
saying ‘‘we’re not interviewing [Millennials], they’re
interviewing us’’ (Kyle 2009). As employers strive to
attract and hire high-value young employees, it is more
important than ever for employers to understand the
expectations that young people bring to the labor market.
The Millennials’ Career-Related Expectations
It has been suggested that many of the career goals and
expectations among Millennials are ‘‘supersized,’’ unreal-
istic, and disconnected between reward and performance.
Although recent studies have reported on the work and
career expectations of young workers in the U.K. (Terjesen
et al. 2007), Belgium (Dries et al. 2008), and New Zealand
(Cennamo and Gardner 2008), there has been relatively
little empirical research documenting the specific expec-
tations of North American Millennials with respect to their
jobs, organizations, and work environments. On the basis
of the extant literature on the millennial generation, we
have identified five predominant themes: work/life balance,
good pay and benefits, opportunities for advancement,
meaningful work experiences, and a nurturing work envi-
ronment. Each of these themes is discussed briefly below.
123
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:281–292
Emphasis on Work/Life Balance
Millennials have reportedly seen their boomer parents
work long hours, only to fall victim to corporate down-
sizing, frequent layoffs, and high divorce rates (Loughlin
and Barling 2001). As a result, they have become wary of
being put in the same position, and choose ‘‘making a life’’
over ‘‘making a living’’ (Zhang et al. 2007). Events such as
the September 11th terrorist attacks have also caused
Millennials to re-evaluate their life priorities and choose
work that allows them to make their personal lives a pri-
ority (Corporate Leadership Council 2005). Given their
higher levels of education, Millennials are more likely to
negotiate the terms under which they work, and demand
work/life balance at every stage of their careers (Corporate
Leadership Council 2005; McDonald and Hite 2008).
Good Pay and Benefits
In a recent study, pay was found to be the single most
important motivational factor for the Millennials (Corpo-
rate Leadership Council 2004). The emphasis on financial
reward may reflect, in part, the Millennials’ need for
feedback. McClelland (1965, p. 7) noted that ‘‘the person
with a high need [for achievement] is interested in money
rewards or profits primarily because of the feedback they
give him as to how well he is doing… the money reward is
not the incentive to effort.’’ Alternatively, the expectation
of good pay and benefits may also reflect the sense of
entitlement that persists among Millennials. Hill (2002)
used the term ‘‘ability-performance nexus’’ to describe the
disconnect between what Millennials expect to achieve and
what they are capable of achieving. In a similar vein, a
recent study of university students, (Greenberger et al.
2008) found that Millennials demonstrated a sense of
entitlement to good grades which was not related to their
actual academic abilities.
Prospect of Rapid Advancement
Millennials also appear to have high expectations when it
comes to promotions and pay raises. They have been
reported to wonder why they were not getting pay raises
and promotions after six months on the job (Erickson
2009). For example, a recent university graduate working
at an investment bank in downtown Toronto reported that
he will learn as much as he can and then move on for
something bigger and better, because he couldn’t wait two
years to get promoted (Pooley 2005, 2006). This ‘‘impa-
tient to succeed’’ attitude has resulted in an expectation for
instant rewards rather than ‘‘paying dues,’’ which the Gen
Xers have had to endure. When they do not see the quick
rewards at one firm, Millennials will move to an employer
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:281–292
that provides greater opportunities. It is interesting to note
that, while promotions are very important to Millennials,
they want them with minimal effort, perhaps reflecting the
sense of entitlement that is the product of a pampered
up-bringing (Corporate Leadership Council 2005; Twenge
2006).
Meaningful Work Experiences
Millennials are seeking much more in return for their hard
work than a paycheck. They are also looking for work that
is meaningful and fulfilling (Lancaster and Stillman 2002;
Yang and Guy 2006). Millennials are increasingly looking
at a company’s values and mission and want to work for
those firms that go beyond simply making money. For
example, during the interview process, many Millennials
have been asking what the firm can do to help them to
lead more purposeful and meaningful lives (Corporate
Leadership Council 2005). A recent study conducted by
PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2008) found that corporate
responsibility is critical to Millennials, and the great
majority (88%) indicated that they will seek an employer
whose related values match their own. Indeed, previous
studies have found a firm’s corporate social responsibility
reputation to be related to its ability to attract younger job
applicants (Greening and Turban 2000; Turban and
Greening 1996). While Millennials are concerned with
making a contribution, they also place a high value on
professional growth that enables them to take on high-
impact assignments. They have low tolerance for less-than-
challenging work, and often perform poorly in high-vol-
ume and non-stimulating work (Corporate Leadership
Council 2005). In addition, Millennials appear to be
seeking the opportunity to broaden their horizons through
job mobility and international assignments (PriceWater-
houseCoopers 2008).
Nurturing Work Environment
Millennials have gone to school in an era in which they are
frequently assigned to group projects and presentations
(Lowe et al. 2008). As a result, they emphasize the social
aspect of work (e.g., friendly coworkers, fun environment)
(Lyons 2003). Millennials also like collaborating closely
with, and learning from, colleagues and managers they
respect, and hope to form friendships with their coworkers
(Corporate Leadership Council 2005). Perhaps not sur-
prisingly, ‘‘manager quality’’ was rated as a top motiva-
tional factor (after pay) for Millennials, since they want an
atmosphere where supervisors and managers are constantly
available for feedback (Corporate Leadership Council
283
2004). The human aspect of work may also help make the
job more engaging for Millennials.
To summarize, we have good reason to believe that the
new generation does have great expectations. Specifically,
we anticipate they would be impatient to succeed and have
high expectations for pay and advancement with little link
to performance, given their relative narcissism and sense of
entitlement (Twenge 2006). At the same time, we also
expect that they would emphasize the social aspect of the
workplace and want good coworkers and supervisors.
Additionally, Millennials are said to have a desire to ‘‘save
the world,’’ and are likely to have high expectations for
social responsibility and ethical behavior on the part of
their employers. We expect that few would want to spend
their whole career with the same employer, and many
would ‘‘jump ship’’ several times over the course of their
careers in search of meaningful work, prioritizing lifestyle
choices, and choosing employers with values more con-
gruent to their own.
This study makes a contribution to existing literature in
four ways: (1) We document the career-related goals,
expectations, and the priorities that the Millennials bring to
bear on their career choices; (2) We provide empirical
evidence to support or disavow the popular stereotypes of
this new generation of workers; (3) We examine potential
sources of heterogeneity among Millennials’ expectations
and priorities, including gender, visible minority status, and
academic achievement; and (4) We provide employers with
some direction on how to manage the next generation of
workers.
Method
Data for this study were collected by three strategic con-
sulting firms, commissioned by a consortium of large
Canadian employers interested in better understanding the
views of the Millennials on jobs, organizations, careers and
their perceptions of their organizations. The original data
set included 27,592 postsecondary students from across
Canada. From this sample, we focused only on millennial
respondents who are studying for an undergraduate college
or university degree (graduate students and respondents
born before 1980 were excluded). This population segment
is important to organizations as they represent a major
source of hiring for skilled jobs such as managers, pro-
fessionals, and technical workers, for both the government
and private sector. The final sample size included 23,413
respondents, representing 85% of the original data set. The
median age of the respondents was 22 years (ranging from
18 to the millennial cutoff of 27). Table 1 presents the
demographic profile of the respondents.
123
284 J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:281–292

Table 1 Sample profile (N = 23,413) to the salary that they expected to earn 5 years following
Demographic N Percentage (%)
graduation.
Desired work attributes Respondents were asked to rate
Gender the importance of 16 items pertaining to a variety of work-
Female 14,237 60.9 related attributes that they consider to be important when
Male 9,147 39.1 making job choice decisions, on a 5-point scale (1 = not at
Minorities all important; 5 = essential). Sample items included,
Aboriginal 267 1.2 ‘‘good people to work with,’’ ‘‘good people to report to,’’
Persons with disabilities 311 1.4 ‘‘organization is a leader in its field,’’ ‘‘commitment to
Visible minorities 4,627 20.3 social responsibility,’’ ‘‘good initial salary level,’’ ‘‘job
Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender 640 2.8 security,’’ and ‘‘challenging work.’’ The full list of items
Year of Study can be found in Table 4. These items were similar to those
First (Freshman) 4,331 18.5 used by Boswell et al. (2003) in their analysis of individual
Second (Sophomore) 4,990 21.3 job choice decisions.
Third (Junior) 5,851 25.0
Fourth (Senior) 6,200 26.5 Analytic Procedure
Fifth or more 2,007 8.6
Work experience Although the analyses in this study are largely descriptive,
Co-op/Internship 7,166 33.5 it is important to examine potential sources of heteroge-
Neither 14,255 66.5 neity among Millennials related to other pertinent demo-
GPA graphic factors. We therefore conducted a number of
3.70–4.00 (A; 80–100%) 6,453 27.6 analyses to determine whether the dependent variables in
2.99–3.69 (B; 70–79%) 13,592 58.2 the study were affected by gender, belonging to a visible
1.80–2.79 (C; 60–69%) 3,105 13.3
minority2 group, work experience, and students’ year of
1.10–1.79 (D; 50–59%) 178 .8
study in their university program.
\1.10 (F; \50%) 17 .1
For categorical dependent variables (i.e., likelihood of
accepting a less-than-ideal job; seeking an employer where
one could spend one’s whole career), logistic regression
Measures analyses were performed with gender, visible minority
status, grade point average (GPA), and year of study as
Given the breadth of the original survey, we only selected independent variables. For continuous dependent variables
items that pertain to the career goals and expectations of (i.e., promotion expectations; salary expectations), ordinary
the Millennials. These included expectations about careers, least squares multiple regression analyses were performed
pay and advancement, and work attributes which they with gender, visible minority status, GPA, and year of
consider important when making their job choice decisions. study as independent variables. For the set of 16 work
Career expectations were measured by two questions. attributes, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)
First, respondents were asked whether they would be was conducted with the set of work attributes as the
willing to accept a job that is ‘‘not ideal, but is a good dependent variables, gender, visible minority status, and
starting point for your career.’’ A second question asked work experience as independent variables, and GPA and
whether respondents would like to find an organization year of study as covariates.
where they could spend their whole career. Our large sample size increased the likelihood of sta-
Advancement expectations were assessed using a single tistical significance in the multivariate analysis, even with
question. Respondents were asked to indicate how soon very small effect sizes. Therefore, we assessed the pro-
they would expect to be promoted after they have found portion of variance explained by the various independent
employment following graduation. variables, and used a conservative significance cutoff of
Pay expectations were assessed by two separate ques- p \ .01.
tions. The first asked respondents to enter the dollar
amount1 corresponding to the salary that they expect to
earn immediately following their graduation from univer-
sity. The second asked for the dollar amount corresponding
2
Visible minority refers a person who is identified, according
Statistics Canada, as someone who is non-Caucasian in race or
1
All figures reported are in Canadian dollars. nonwhite in color.

123
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:281–292 285

Results 9% less likely than men to seek an employer for whom they
could work their whole career (odds ratio = .91, p \ .01).
Career Expectations Students with work experience were 9% less likely to seek
a career-long employer than those with no work experience
Seventy-one percent of the respondents indicated that they (odds ratio = .91, p \ .01). People who were members of
would accept a less-than-ideal job as a career starter. The a visible minority group were 10% more likely than non-
logistic regression results (Table 2) indicated that the minorities to seek an employer for whom they could work
model fit the data adequately (Hosmer–Lemeshow v2 their whole career (odds ratio = 1.10, p \ .01). Further-
(8, N = 20,831) = 3.81, p = .87). However, the model more, the likelihood of seeking an employer where one
explained a very small proportion of the variance (Nage- could spend their entire career decreased by 5% with each
lkerke R2 = .007). The results indicate that women were successive year of study (odds ratio = .95, p \ .01).
17% more likely than men to accept a less-than-ideal job Finally, the likelihood decreased by 14% with each addi-
(odds ratio = 1.17, p \ .01). Students with work experi- tional grade point (odds ratio = .86, p \ .01).
ence were 15% less likely to accept a less-than-ideal job
than those with no work experience (odds ratio = .85, Pay and Advancement Expectations
p \ .01). Furthermore, the likelihood of accepting a job
that is less-than-ideal increased by 9% with each succes- More than two-thirds (68.5%) of respondents expect to be
sive year of study (odds ratio = 1.09, p \ .01). The like- promoted within the first 18 months in their first job. The
lihood of accepting a less-than-ideal job decreased by 8.5% average expectation for promotion was 15.1 months
with each additional grade point (odds ratio = .92, (SD = 7.22). The multiple regression model with promo-
p \ .01). There were no significant differences between tion expectations as the dependent variable and gender,
visible minorities and nonminorities. visible minority status, year of study, work experience, and
Half of the respondents (50%) indicated that they would GPA as independent variables (shown in Table 3) showed
like to spend their whole career with a single organization, an adequate fit to the data F(5, 19,761) = 63.59, p \ .01,
while the other half did not know or would not want to but explained \2% of the variance in promotion expecta-
spend their careers with a single organization. The logistic tions (adjusted R2 = .016). Two of the independent
regression results (Table 2) indicated that the model fit the variables were significantly associated with promotion
data adequately, but marginally (Hosmer–Lemeshow v2 (8, expectations. Specifically, men expected more rapid
N = 20,794) = 13.5, p = .10). However, again the model
explained a very small proportion of the variance (Nage-
Table 3 Regression Analyses
lkerke R2 = .007). The results indicate that women were
Variables Unstandardized Standard Standardized
coefficients B error SE(B) coefficients b
Table 2 Logistic regression analyses (N = 20,882) Promotion expectations (N = 19,761)
Variable Unstandardized Standard Odds Gender 1.73** .11 .12
coefficients error SE(B) ratio eB Visible minority -.24 .13 -.01
B
Year of study .24** .04 .04
Willing to accept a nonideal job Work experience .05 .11 .00
Gender .16** .03 1.17 Grade point average .10 .08 .01
Visible minority -.06 .04 .94 Initial salary expectations (N = 19,790)
Year of study .09** .01 1.09 Gender -6079.69** 214.60 -.20
Work experience -.17** .03 .85 Visible minority 1117.06** 260.21 .03
Grade point average -.09** .02 .92 Year of study -864.42** 87.98 -.07
Seeking one employer for whole career Work experience 3263.65** 227.39 .10
Gender -.09** .03 .91 Grade point average 1396.92** 161.90 .06
Visible minority .09** .04 1.10 Salary expectations 5 years later (N = 19,567)
Year of study -.05** .01 .95 Gender -13344.44** 485.70 -.19
Work experience -.09** .03 .91 Visible minority 4735.67** 590.18 .06
Grade point average -.16 .02 .86 Year of study -2379.12** 199.33 -.09
Work experience 3168.63** 514.58 .04
Note: Reference categories: Gender Male, Visible minority Not a
member of a minority group, Work experience No work experience Grade point average 2518.96** 367.20 .05
**p \ .01 **p \ .01

123
286 J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:281–292

promotions than did women (b = .12, p \ .01). Also, the Table 4 Work-related attributes (N = 11,398, When considering
expected time to first promotion increased significantly employment immediately following graduation, how important are
the following to your decision making?)
with each additional year of study (b = .04, p \ .01).
The average initial starting salary expectation for a first Attribute M SD
job was $42,964 (SD = 15,093.54) and this expectation
Opportunities for advancement in position 4.49 .69
quickly rose to $69,663 (SD = 34,073.10) within five years
Good people to work with 4.46 .68
after graduation (an increase of 63%). The regression model
Good people to report to 4.43 .68
with expected starting salary as the dependent variable and
Good training opportunities/developing new skills 4.41 .69
gender, visible minority status, year of study, work experi-
Work-Life balance 4.33 .80
ence, and GPA as independent variables showed an adequate
Good health and benefits plan 4.32 .77
fit to the data F(5, 19,790) = 251.08, p \ .01, but these
Good variety of work 4.23 .76
variables explained only 6% of the variance in initial salary
Job security 4.18 .81
expectations (adjusted R2 = .06). All of the independent
Good initial salary level 4.17 .71
variables were significantly related to starting salary
expectations. Specifically, women expected significantly Challenging work 4.07 .82
lower starting salaries than men (b = -.20, p \ .01). Opportunities to have a personal impact 3.98 .89
Members of visible minorities expected higher initial sala- Commitment to social responsibility 3.84 .94
ries than nonminorities (b = .03, p \ .01). Initial salary Opportunities to have a social impact 3.82 .99
expectations decreased significantly with each successive Organization is a leader in its field 3.65 .90
year of study (b = -.07, p \ .01) and increased with each Strong commitment to employee diversity 3.58 1.10
additional GPA point (b = .06, p \ .01). Finally, initial Opportunity to travel 3.46 1.08
salary expectations were higher for those with work expe-
rience (b = .10, p \ .01) than without work experience.
The regression model with expected salary after five pay, benefits and security such as good health and benefits
years as the dependent variable and gender, visible plan (M = 4.32), job security (M = 4.18) and good initial
minority status, year of study, work experience and GPA as salary (M = 4.17) ranked in the middle, behind career
independent variables showed an adequate fit to the data advancement and a collegial environment (i.e., good peo-
F(5, 19,567) = 213.39, p \ .01, but these variables ple to work with). It is particularly noteworthy that com-
explained only 5% of the variance (adjusted R2 = .05). All mitment to social responsibility (M = 3.84), opportunities
of the independent variables were significantly related to to have a social impact (M = 3.82), and strong commit-
salary expectations. Again, women expected significantly ment to employee diversity (M = 3.58) ranked at the
lower salaries after 5 years than did men (b = -.19, bottom of the list (all means \4.00, see Table 4).
p \ .01). Members of visible minorities expected higher MANOVA results indicated that gender, visible minor-
5-year salaries than nonminorities (b = .06, p \ .01). ity status, work experience, GPA, and year of study were
Expectations for salaries after 5 years of employment all significantly related to the set of 16 work attributes.
decreased significantly with each successive year of study Furthermore, a significant interaction effect was observed
(b = .09, p \ .01) and increased with each additional GPA between gender and visible minority. The results of pro-
point (b = .05, p \ .01). Finally, 5-year salary expecta- tected ANOVA F-tests revealed that this interaction effect
tions were higher for those with work experience (b = .04, was significant for only two of the work attributes:
p \ .01) than without work experience. opportunities for advancement and variety in one’s work. A
closer examination of mean scores revealed that among
Desired Work Attributes people in a visible minority group, minority women placed
more importance on opportunities for advancement than
The Millennials rated opportunities for advancement did minority men. However, for nonminorities, the oppo-
(M = 4.49) as the most desirable work-related attribute, site was true, with men placing more importance on this
confirming the stereotype that they are impatient to succeed work attribute than women. Although male minority group
(see Table 4). They also rated good people to work with members placed less importance on good variety of work
(M = 4.46) and good people to report to (M = 4.43) than men who were nonminorities, the opposite was true
among the leading attributes when making career deci- for women, as minority women placed more importance on
sions. Good training and developing new skills (M = 4.41) this work attribute than did nonminority women.
were next, indicating a strong desire for professional Table 5 displays the mean (importance) ratings for the
growth to take on high impact positions. Items related to various work attributes for both visible minorities and

123
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:281–292 287

Table 5 Differences in ratings of work-related attributes between visible minorities and nonminorities (N = 9,998)
Attribute Non-minorities Visible minorities
a
M SE Ma SE

Good people to work with** 4.43 .008 4.50 .015

Good people to report to** 4.40 .008 4.50 .015
Good training opportunities/developing new skills** 4.37 .008 4.49 .016
Work-Life balance 4.30 .010 4.30 .018
Good health and benefits plan 4.27 .009 4.26 .018
Job security** 4.10 .010 4.23 .018
Good initial salary level* 4.16 .009 4.21 .016
Challenging work** 4.10 .010 4.01 .019
Opportunities to have a personal impact** 3.89 .011 4.02 .020
Commitment to social responsibility 3.77 .011 3.82 .022
Opportunities to have a social impact** 3.72 .012 3.86 .022
Organization is a leader in its field** 3.62 .011 3.76 .021
Strong commitment to employee diversity** 3.40 .013 3.90 .024
Opportunity to travel* 3.42 .013 3.51 .025
Note: ‘‘Opportunities for advancement’’ and ‘‘Good variety in work’’ are excluded, as there was a significant gender X visible minority
interaction for these variables
*p \ .01 **p \ .001
a
Estimated marginal means at year of study = 2.81 and GPA = 3.13

nonminorities. Significant differences between these two Table 6 Gender differences in ratings of work-related attributes
groups were observed in the importance ratings of 10 of the (N = 9,998)
work attributes (excluding those for which a significant Attribute Men Women
gender-by-visible minority interaction was observed).
Ma SE Ma SE
Specifically, members of visible minority groups placed
more importance than did nonminorities on good people Good people to work with 4.41 .013 4.55 .012
with whom to work, good people to report to, training and Good people to report to 4.37 .013 4.52 .012
development opportunities, job security, salary, opportu- Good training opportunities/developing 4.35 .013 4.51 .012
nities to have a social impact, opportunities to have a new skills
personal impact, organization is a leader in its field, Work-Life balance 4.17 .016 4.43 .014
employer commitment to diversity, and opportunities for Good health and benefits plan 4.12 .015 4.42 .013
travel. Nonminorities rated challenging work more highly Job security 4.04 .015 4.30 .014
than did visible minorities. Good initial salary level 4.15 .014 4.22 .013
Table 6 displays the mean importance ratings for men Challenging work 4.00 .016 4.11 .014
and women on the various work attributes. Women rated Opportunities to have a personal impact 3.81 .017 4.10 .015
every one of the work attributes higher in terms of their Commitment to social responsibility 3.63 .018 3.96 .016
importance than did men. Opportunities to have a social impact 3.59 .019 4.10 .015
As shown in Table 7, there were also significant dif- Organization is a leader in its field 3.64 .017 3.74 .016
ferences between people with and without work experience Strong commitment to employee diversity 3.41 .020 3.90 .019
on the importance of 11 of the 16 work attributes. Com- Opportunity to travel 3.38 .021 3.56 .019
pared to people with work experience, those without placed
Note: ‘‘Opportunities for advancement’’ and ‘‘Good variety in work’’
greater importance on health and benefit plans, job secu- are excluded, as there was a significant gender X visible minority
rity, commitment to social responsibility, commitment to interaction for these variables
employee diversity, opportunities to make a personal All differences were significant (p \ .001)
impact, and opportunities to have a social impact. Those a
Estimated marginal means at year of study = 2.81 and GPA = 3.13
with work experience, on the other hand, placed greater
importance on opportunities for advancement, variety of The MANOVA results indicate that ratings of work
work, challenging work, good people to work with, and attributes were also significantly associated with the
good people to report to. covariates GPA (F (16, 9867) = 16.07 p \ .001) and year

123
288 J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:281–292

Table 7 Differences in ratings of work-related attributes between people with and without work experience (N = 9,998)
Attribute No work experience Work experience
a
M SE Ma SE

Good people to work with* 4.45 .011 4.50 .014

Opportunities for advancement in position 4.52 .011 4.57 .014
Good variety of work 4.21 .012 4.29 .015
Good people to report to* 4.50 .014 4.47 .014
Good training opportunities/developing new skills 4.43 .011 4.43 .014
Work-Life balance 4.31 .013 4.29 .016
Good health and benefits plan** 4.31 .012 4.22 .016
Job security** 4.22 .013 4.11 .016
Good initial salary level 4.16 .012 4.21 .015
Challenging work** 3.99 .013 4.11 .017
Opportunities to have a personal impact** 4.03 .014 3.88 .018
Commitment to social responsibility** 3.86 .015 3.73 .019
Opportunities to have a social impact** 3.86 .016 3.72 .020
Organization is a leader in its field 3.67 .015 3.71 .019
Strong commitment to employee diversity** 3.71 .017 3.60 .022
Opportunity to travel 3.48 .018 3.46 .022
*p \ .01 **p \ .001
a
Estimated marginal means at year of study = 2.81 and GPA = 3.13

of study (F (16, 9867) = 14.53 p \ .001). Specifically, the
higher one’s GPA, the higher one’s importance rating of
good variety of work (B = .05, p \ .001) and challenging
work (B = .13, p \ .001) and the lower one’s rating of
good health and benefits (B = -.04, p \ .001), job secu-
rity (B = -.07, p \ .001), and strong commitment to
employee diversity (B = -.11, p \ .001). The further
along one is in one’s studies, the higher one’s ratings of the
importance of challenging work (B = .02, p \ .01) and the
lower one’s ratings of the importance of initial salary level
(B = -.02, p \ .01), opportunities for advancement
(B = -.02, p \ .01), the organization being a leader in its
field (B = -.05, p \ .001), job security (B = -.06,
p \ .001), opportunity to travel (B = -.04, p \ .001),
strong commitment to employee diversity (B = -.06,
p \ .001), opportunities to have a social impact (B =
-.04, p \ .001), and opportunities to have a personal
impact (B = -.02, p \ .01).
Discussions
Are the Millennials living up to all of the ‘‘hype’’ and
stereotypes that they project, with respect to their career
goals, expectations, and priorities? The results of this large-
scale survey appear to indicate so. As expected, the Mill-
ennials have great expectations for their careers through
their job choice decisions. Perhaps more surprisingly, a
majority of Millennials do seem to have some realistic
expectations when it comes to their initial pay and first job
after graduation. The reasons for this realism may be
twofold. First, because many of our respondents are near-
ing graduation and beginning their career search, they are
likely to have accessed statistical information online, as
well as received anecdotal salary information from their
peers. Our findings confirm that students closer to gradu-
ation tend to have lower salary expectations than those who
are in the earlier years of their educational programs.
Second, recent economic realities may have caused Mill-
ennials to adjust their short-term expectations downward.
Most Millennials appear to understand that their first job
may not fulfill all of their wants and needs. Perhaps, given
the current economic climate, there may be an implicit
understanding that accepting a less-than-ideal position may
be necessary in the short term for longer-term career
attainment. From an employer’s perspective, these are
positive findings, since met expectations have been linked
to higher job satisfaction, greater organizational commit-
ment, and overall improved individual performance (Earl
and Bright 2007). However, monitoring these expectations
over time will be important for employer recruitment
efforts.
The Millennials identified opportunity for advancement
as a top priority, which confirmed their ambitious and
impatient nature, and also had elevated expectations for
rapid promotions and pay increases (as our results have
indicated). The fact that there was no relationship between
performance (GPA) and expectations for promotion

123
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:281–292
corroborates the stereotype of Millennials feeling entitled.
Furthermore, half of the respondents surveyed did not
want, or were not sure if they wanted, to find an organi-
zation in which they could stay long term. This represents a
significant shift away from the career norms of the past, in
which long-term employment in a single organization was
the goal or expectation (Moses 1997). Employers should
recognize that Millennials have a lot of potential, which
they have not fully developed yet. As a result, they should
spend time to groom the younger generation, and provide
them with plenty of opportunities for work variety, chal-
lenge, and personal development (all M’s C4.00, based on
findings from this study). This may include helping the
Millennials find and achieve their career paths (cf. Myers
2007). Given their need for frequent praise and recognition,
one way to keep them satisfied is to pay them a one percent
increase three times a year, rather than giving them a 3.5%
raise at the end of the year (Corporate Leadership Council
2005). These suggestions will go a long way in motivating
the Millennials, and help them recalibrate their expecta-
tions as they transition from school to work life. Employers
should also note that the lack of loyalty may simply reflect
a shift from long-term employment to a new employment
norm of ‘‘contractor of skills’’ (Crumpacker and Crum-
packer 2007).
The Millennials also considered people and work-rela-
ted attributes to be important in their job choice. The
emphasis on people supports the contention that Millen-
nials are interested in more than just the job, and empha-
sizing the social aspect of work. This may also suggest that
Millennials may be more loyal to their colleagues and
supervisors than to their organizations (Lancaster and
Stillman 2002). For example, a manager may leave a firm
and very shortly after, others may join the manager,
because they [Millennials] will say, ‘‘It’s my team that I am
working with’’ (cf. Pooley 2006). Myers (2007) suggested
that the secret to successfully managing the Millennials
may lie in using the same strategies their parents used to
raise them. This may mean providing them with lots of
support, coddling, and giving them a sense of belonging,
but without turning the workplace into a ‘‘daycare.’’
Another suggestion is to give the Millennials responsibil-
ities fairly quickly, allowing them the flexibility to do the
job their own way, but to expect results and show them
how their contributions fit into the firm’s goals and
objectives (cf. Myers 2007).
The need for work-life balance also remains an impor-
tant factor in their job choice decisions, despite an expec-
tation for rapid advancement and pay increases. This does
not mean that the Millennials are desperate to ‘‘punch-out’’
at 5:00 O’clock, but rather, that they seek employers who
can provide them with fluidity between work and play.
Employers should note that the Millennials are currently in
289
their 20s, and often are free from family or care-taking
commitments at this stage of their life cycle (McMahon
2008). Instead, employers can take a page from Google’s
playbook (see Fortune 2007, Best Company to Work For),
which offers free meals, swimming, spa, and on-site doc-
tors to keep them happy. While employers should not rush
to turn their boardrooms into games rooms, they could
introduce simpler policies such as ‘‘MSN messenger
breaks’’ (cf. Pooley 2006) to allow younger workers to
alternate some play with work without compromising their
work responsibilities.
While Millennials had not considered making a social
impact, social responsibility, and commitment to diversity
to be the most important factors (M B4.00) in this study,
employers should take care not to neglect their corporate
social responsibilities. This is the generation that is willing
to pay more for a product if they know the investment is
going to a good cause (Gaudelli 2009). In fact, in a recent
survey of 400 Millennials, 69% of the respondents
expressed a genuine interest in the environment, but also
admitted to a lack of personal involvement in green-related
activities. According to Gaudelli (2009), the Millennials
understand the ‘‘why,’’ but are unsure of the ‘‘how’’ with
respect to sustainability issues. Translated into the work-
place, an employer’s corporate social reputation can make
a difference in attracting higher quality job applicants when
other things are equal (Greening and Turban 2000).
Demographic Differences
Our results provide moderate evidence of heterogeneity
within the cohort. Although demographic differences
impacted expectations and priorities, the predictive power
of these variables was generally quite weak, as evidenced
by the small proportion of variance in the dependent
variables that they explained. Specifically, women were
more likely than men to accept a less-than-ideal job and
have lower salary expectations, perhaps reflecting the
reality that women continue to be undervalued in the labor
market in terms of wages and the positions they occupy
(Fortin and Huberman 2002; Leck 2002). Women were
also less likely to consider staying with the same employer,
which could be due in part to childbirth and a desire for
less demanding careers to raise a family (Anderson 2002;
Johnes 2009; Whitmarsh et al. 2007). Visible minorities,
on the other hand, were more likely to seek an employer to
spend their entire career, and at the same time have higher
salary expectations. This could be a reflection of a culture
of loyalty and obedience, especially among East Asians
(Lee and Jablin 1992), and also strong motivation for
upward socioeconomic mobility, given that many visible
minorities are first-generation immigrants (Ng and Sears,
forthcoming; Somerville and Walsworth 2009). It is
123
290
notable that minority women placed a greater emphasis on
opportunities for advancement, perhaps recognizing the
fact that they face ‘‘double jeopardy’’ in the workplace on
account of gender and racial discrimination (Beal 2008;
also see Berdahl and Moore 2006 for a review on double
jeopardy).
Great Career Expectations
Students with work experience and high achievers (in
terms of achievement motivation as measured by their
grade point average; see Spence et al. 1989) also appear to
have greater expectations for their careers compared to
those lacking experience and those having poorer academic
performance. Specifically, higher achievers and those with
experience expected higher salaries and were less inclined
to accept a less-than-ideal position. Research has shown
that higher grades and achievement motivation are indeed
related to graduation salaries (Bartol and Martin 1987) and
higher job performance (Roth 1996; Vinchur et al. 1998).
Additionally, students with experience and higher achiev-
ers also placed greater emphasis on opportunities for
advancement, variety of work, and challenging work, fur-
ther signaling their higher achievement motivation. Those
nearing graduation were more likely to accept a less ideal
position, accept lower starting salaries, and have less
demand for employer attributes, perhaps reflecting the
sense of desperation in light of the current economic cli-
mate. Despite the tight labor market, and an abundance of
highly skilled and motivated young workers, employers
would be well advised that they must continue to offer
competitive salaries, interesting and challenging work, and
opportunities for advancement, if they are to attract the best
and brightest of talents.
Conclusions and Directions for Future Research
The primary objective of this study was to investigate
whether the millennial generation conforms to the popular
stereotypes with respect to their career goals, expectations,
and priorities. Rather than making comparisons between
the Millennials and the generations that precede them, we
focused on describing the expectations and priorities of the
newest generation as they are about to embark into the
workplace. Overall, our findings support our predictions
that Millennials do have great expectations when it comes
to their careers.
First and foremost, they want career advancement, and
while they harbor the prospects for rapid promotions and
large pay increases, they also have realistic expectations
when it comes to their first jobs after graduation. They also
want to have good people to work with and a nurturing
123
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:281–292
work environment, likely a result of how they have been
raised at home and from working in teams at school. Work/
life balance may reflect a desire for work and play, more
than a need to accommodate juggling family and work/life.
And while social responsibility is not a major factor in job
choice, it is not because Millennials do not care, but rather
they do not know how to help. This allows employers who
can leverage their social responsibility reputation to attract
Millennials, and engage them in meaningful and chal-
lenging work.
Thus far, we have suggested that future research monitor
the career expectations of the millennial generation over
time, and how they may adjust their expectations based
upon economic conditions and the labor market. As the
Millennials begin to enter the workforce in large numbers,
a future avenue of research is to investigate the type leader
and leadership styles to which Millennials best respond.
Furthermore, as the workforce becomes increasingly
diverse in terms of gender and race, an important question
is whether workplace diversity at the top is important in
their job choice decisions, given the need for role models,
and also to shatter images of the glass ceiling.
A secondary goal of this study was to examine whether
there are significant differences in expectations and work
priorities among the Millennials that are attributable to
other demographic factors. Our findings suggest that some
differences do exist in the expectations and priorities
within the millennial generation, based on traditional
demographic groups such as gender and visible minority
status as well as work experience and academic achieve-
ment. These findings remind us that, although generational
cohort is a meaningful and useful social categorization, one
must be careful not to paint the entire generation with the
‘‘same brush.’’ Researchers must help employers become
aware of and respond to the nature and benefits of diversity
in its various forms, which is increasingly salient in the
current workforce.
Another potential avenue of research is to investigate the
types of compensation and benefit packages that Millen-
nials find appealing. For example, Millennials may prefer
more base pay than performance pay given the weak
achievement-reward link that they exhibit and their sense
of entitlement. Likewise, Millennials may also have a
preference for tuition reimbursement and flexible spending
accounts over family-friendly benefits and pension plans.
These suggestions for future work are important in helping
employers attract and manage a new generation of workers.
A few limitations should be noted to put the findings
into context. First, the data were self-reported, which may
give rise to social desirability and response-set biases.
However, there was good variance and normal distribution
in the responses (e.g., self-reported grades), giving us no
obvious indication of biases. Second, only a third of the
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:281–292
students had some school-related work experience through
co-op education and internships. Therefore, they may have
unrealistic expectations of the workplace, their employers,
and of themselves. The findings nonetheless represent the
views of the Millennials, which they will bring to bear as
they make career choices and arrive in the workplace.
Third, we have investigated the heterogeneity within the
millennial generation with respect to gender, visible
minority, year of study, and achievement and although
significant differences were found between the groups,
very little variance was explained. This suggests that fur-
ther research is needed to identify which other factors
impact the expectations and priorities of Millennials.
Fourth, the sample was collected from Canadians, and care
must be taken when generalizing the results to other
countries. Finally, this study investigates the Millennials as
they are about to embark on their careers. As we do not
have data on previous generations at this particular stage in
their life cycle, we make no comparisons across
generations.
Acknowledgements Preparation of this manuscript is supported in
part by a SSHRC grant to the research team. The authors would like
to thank Brainstorm, DECODE, and Universum for making the data
available to us. We also wish to thank Lisa Kuron for her invaluable
contributions to the preparation and revision of this article.
References
Anderson, D. J., Binder, M., & Krause, K. (2002). The motherhood
wage penalty: Which mothers pay it and why? American
Economic Review, 92, 354–358.
Barnard, R., Cosgrove, D., & Welsh, J. (1998). Chips & pop:
Decoding the nexus generation. Toronto: Malcolm Lester Books.
Bartol, K. M., & Martin, D. C. (1987). Managerial motivation among
MBA students: A longitudinal assessment. Journal of Occupa-
tional Psychology, 60, 1–12.
Beal, F. M. (2008). Double Jeopardy: To be black and female.
Meridiens, 8, 166–176.
Berdahl, J., & Moore, C. (2006). Workplace harassment: Double
jeopardy for minority women. Journal of Applied Psychology,
91, 426–436.
Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., LePine, M. A., & Moynihan, L. S.
(2003). Individual job-choice decisions and the impact of job
attributes and recruitment practices: A longitudinal field study.
Human Resource Management, 42, 23–37.
Burke, R. J., & Ng, E. (2006). The changing nature of work and
organizations: Implications for human resource management.
Human Resource Management Review, 16, 86–94.
Cennamo, L., & Gardner, D. (2008). Generational differences in work
values, outcomes and person-organisation fit. Journal of Man-
agerial Psychology, 23, 891–906.
Corporate Leadership Council. (2004). Generation X and Y employ-
ees. Washington, DC: Corporate Executive Board.
Corporate Leadership Council. (2005). HR considerations for engag-
ing Generation Y employees. Washington, DC: Corporate
Executive Board.
Crumpacker, M., & Crumpacker, J. M. (2007). Succession planning
and generational stereotypes: Should HR consider age-values
291
based values and attitudes a relevant factor or a passing fad?
Public Personnel Management, 36, 349–369.
Dries, N., Peperman, E., & De Kerpel, E. (2008). Exploring four
generations’ beliefs about careers: Is ‘‘satisfied’’ the new
‘‘successful’’. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 907–928.
Earl, J. K., & Bright, J. E. H. (2007). The relationship between career
decision status and important work outcomes. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 71, 233–246.
Economist. (2009). Public-service careers: A tough search for talent.
Retrieved November 6, 2009 from http://www.economist.com/
world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14753826.
Erickson, T. J. (2009). Gen Y in the workforce: How I learned to love
Millennials and stop worrying about what they are doing with
their iPhones. Harvard Business Review, February 2009.
Foot, D. K., & Stoffman, D. (1998). Boom Bust & Echo 2000:
Profiting from the Demographic shift in the new millennium.
Toronto: MW&R.
Fortin, N. M., & Huberman, M. (2002). Occupational gender
segregation and women’s wages in Canada: An historical
perspective. Canadian Public Policy, 28, 11–39.
Gaudelli, J. (2009). The greenest generation: The truth behind
millennials and the green movement. Advertising Age. Retrieved
November 6, 2009 from http://adage.com/goodworks/post?article_
id=136331.
Greenberger, E., Lessard, J., Chen, C., & Farruggia, S. P. (2008).
Self-entitled college students: contributions of personality,
parenting, and motivational factors. Journal of Youth and
Adoloescence, 37, 1193–1204.
Greening, D. W., & Turban, D. W. (2000). Corporate social
performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality
workforce. Business and Society, 39, 254–280.
Hill, R. P. (2002). Managing across generations in the 21st century:
Important lessons from the ivory trenches. Journal of Manage-
ment Inquiry, 11, 60–66.
Johnes, G. (2009). Occupation and the labour market participation of
women: why do some people trade down jobs when careers are
interrupted? Applied Economic Letters, 16, 1093–1096.
Kyle, C. (2009). Millenials know what they want. Saskatoon Star
Phoenix. Retrieved May 9, 2009 from http://www.canada.com/
Business/Millennials?know?what?they?want/1494997/story.
html.
Lancaster, L. C., & Stillman, D. (2002). When generations collide:
Who they are. Why they clash. How to solve the generational
puzzle at work. New York: Harper Collins.
Leck, J. D. (2002). Making employment equity programs work for
women. Canadian Public Policy, 28, 85–100.
Lee, J., & Jablin, F. M. (1992). A cross-cultural investigation of exit,
voice, loyalty and neglect as responses to dissatisfying job
conditions. Journal of Business Communication, 29, 203–228.
Loughlin, C., & Barling, J. (2001). Young workers’ work values,
attitudes, and behaviors. Journal of Occupational and Organi-
zational Psychology, 74, 543–558.
Lowe, D., Levitt, K. J., & Wilson, T. (2008). Solutions for retaining
Generation Y employees in the workplace. Business Renaissance
Quarterly, 3, 43–57.
Lyons, S. (2003). An exploration of generational values in life and at
work. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carleton University,
Ottawa, ON, Canada.
McClelland, D. C. (1965). Achievement motivation can be developed.
Harvard Business Review, 43, 6–178.
McDonald, K. S., & Hite, L. M. (2008). The next generation of career
success: Implications for HRD. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 10, 86–103.
McMahon, R. (2008). Millennials in the workplace. Retrieved
November 6, 2009 from http://www.straight.com/article-130265/
millennials-in-the-workplace.
123
292
Moses, B. (1997). Career intelligence: Mastering the new work and
personal realities. Toronto: Stoddard.
Myers, J. (2007). The how and Y. Profit, October 2007.
Ng, E.S.W., & Sears, G.J. What women and ethnic minorities want:
Work values and labour market confidence. A self-determination
perspective. International Journal of Human Resource Manage-
ment (forthcoming).
Pooley, E. (2005). Generation Y: How twenty somethings are
changing the workplace. Canadian Business, June 6.
Pooley, E. (2006). Hire Education. Canadian Business, September 11.
PriceWaterhouseCoopers. (2008). Millennials at work: Perspectives
from a new generation. Retrieved July 17, 2009 from http://
www.pwc.com/gx/en/forms/gxengallsmillennialsatworkperspec
tivesfromanewgeneration.jhtml.
Roth, P. L., BeVier, C. A., Switzer, F. S., I. I. I., & Schippmann, J. S.
(1996). Meta-analyzing the relationship between grades and job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 548–556.
Somerville, K., & Walsworth, S. (2009). Vulnerabilities of highly
skilled immigrants in Canada and the United States. American
Review of Canadian Studies, 39, 147–161.
Spence, J. T., Pred, R. S., & Helmreich, R. L. (1989). Achievement
strivings, scholastic aptitude, and academic performance: a
follow-up to ‘‘impatience versus achievement strivings in the
Type A pattern’’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 176–178.
Statistics Canada. (2007). Labour force projections for Canada, 2006–
2031. Canadian Economic Observer, June 2007.
Terjesen, S., Vinnicombe, S., & Freeman, C. (2007). Attracting
Generation Y graduates: organisational attributes, likelihood to
123
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:281–292
apply, and sex differences. Career Development International,
12, 504–522.
Trunk, P. (2007). What Gen Y really wants. Time. Retrieved Jan-
uary 15, 2010 from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/
0,9171,1640395,00.html.
Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1996). Corporate social
performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective
employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 658–672.
Twenge, J. M. (2006). Generation me: Why today’s young Americans
are more confident, assertive, entitled and more miserable than
ever before. New York: Free Press.
Vinchur, A. J., Schippmann, J. S., Switzer, F. S., I. I. I., & Roth, P. L.
(1998). A meta-analytic review of predictors of job performance
for salespeople. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 586–597.
Whitmarsh, L., Brown, D., Cooper, J., Hawkins-Rodgers, Y., &
Keyser Wentworth, D. (2007). Choices and challenges: A
qualitative exploration of professional women’s career patterns.
Career Development Quarterly, 55, 225–236.
Yang, S., & Guy, M. E. (2006). GenXers versus boomers: Work
motivators and management implications. Public Performance
and Management Review, 29, 267–284.
Zemke, R., Raines, C., & Filipczak, B. (2000). Generations at work:
Managing the clash of veterans, boomers, Xers and Nexters in
your workplace. NY: American Management Association.
Zhang, Y., Straub, C., & Kusyk, S. (2007). Making a life or making a
living? Cross-cultural comparisons of business students’ work
and life values in Canada and France. Cross Cultural Manage-
ment: An International Journal, 14, 174–195.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.