Journal of Asia Business Studies

Jo
u
Leveraging Generational Diversity in Work values: An
Empirical Study in Indian Coal Industry
rn
al
Journal: Journal of Asia Business Studies

Manuscript ID Draft
of
Manuscript Type: Research Paper

Generational Diversity, Work Values, Indian Coal Industry, Baby Boomers,

Keywords:
As
Generation X, Generation Y
ia
Bu
sin
es
sS
tu
die
s
Page 1 of 19 Journal of Asia Business Studies

1
2
3 Leveraging Generational Diversity in Work values: An Empirical Study in
4 Indian Coal Industry
5
6
7
8
9 Abstract
Jo
10
11 Purpose: The present study aims to explore and examine generational differences across the
12 three generational cohorts on the dimensions of work values in the Indian Coal Sector, using
u
13 the Lyons Work Value Scale.
14 Design/methodology/approach: The data was collected from Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, a
rn
15 subsidiary company of Coal India Limited. Exploratory Factor Analysis and Confirmatory
16 Factor Analysis were performed to explore factors and check the goodness of fit respectively.
17
al
Further ANOVA and MANOVA was performed to check group differences.
18
Findings: The results are supportive and indicate that there are differences among the three
19
generations with respect to Intrinsic, Extrinsic, Prestige and Social dimensions of Work
of
20
21 Values.
22 Research limitations/implications: The research will go a long way in building a strong
23 theoretical base of an area in which much empirical work has not been carried out and
As

24 conclusive evidence are few and far between when it comes to evaluating generational
25 values.
26 Practical implications: The knowledge about the differences and similarities will help the
ia

27 management to make important decision about HRM policies and practices. The findings of
28 the study will also help the organisation to create a culture where intergenerational difference
29
Bu

and the inherent conflicts are harnessed to the organisational advantage; Generational
30 Diversity at workplace is a reality and cannot be wished away. The study will suggest how to
31
make best use of that.
32
Originality/value: There are many studies in the western context that emphasize on the
sin

33
34 existence and significance of generational diversity in the workplace. However there is
35 limited research is conducted in the Asia, especially in Indian context. This is the first study
36 to explore and examine generational differences in work values in a Public Sector
es

37 Undertaking (PSU), the Coal India Limited.

38 Keywords: Generational Diversity, Work Values, Indian Coal Industry, Baby Boomers,
39 Generation X, Generation Y,
sS

40 Paper type: Research paper

41
42
tu

43
44
Introduction
45
die

46
47 Diversity management includes respect and acceptance. Diversity is all about understanding
48 that each individual is different, recognizing those differences and moving further to embrace
49 the different dimensions of diversity within individuals. It involves how people perceive
s

50 themselves and also how they perceive others. Workplace diversity refers to the variety of
51 differences between the employees in the organisation. These can be along dimensions of
52 race, ethnicity, gender socioeconomic status, religious and political beliefs and more.
53 Workplace Diversity has added depth, breadth and scope to organisations in today’s
54 globalised environment. Initially most of studies related to diversity management revolved
55 around culture and gender. However in past few decades a new genre of diversity-
56 Generational Diversity has occupied a centre stage with the older workers gradually retiring
57
58
59
60
 Journal of Asia Business Studies Page 2 of 19

1
2
3 and the younger ones entering the work force. This has created an increased interest in
4 researchers and practitioners to know how to lead a multigenerational workforce in a highly
5 competitive scenario effectively (Deloitte, 2006). Age is considered to be an important
6 demographic factor that contributes to differences in the employees’ work values, learning
7 styles and expectations. Therefore it becomes important for organisations to understand what
8 employees of different generations need and strive for so that strategies for dealing with the
9 multigenerational workforce can be developed. Presently the three distinct generations that
Jo
10
exist in the workforce are the Baby Boomers, Generation X and Generation Y (popularly
11
12
known as the Millennials). Having serving employees of different generations has created
u
13 both challenges as well as opportunities for organisations given the fact each generation has
14 its unique set of values, belief characteristics and skills (Gursoy et al 2008). Work values are
rn
15 considered to be the most significant source of generational differences and also contribute to
16 misunderstanding and conflict in the workplace (SHRM, 2004). However these differences
17
al
can also be source of opportunities and strength if managers attempt to understand the
18 underlying value structure and the existing differences among the generations (Lancaster and
19 Stillman, 2002). For example people of different generations are competing for leadership
of
20 positions, merit is surpassing longevity for promotions. In many cases employees from all
21 three generation are competing for the same job (Raines 2003) and the probability that the
22 younger one gets it is higher (Gursoy et al 2008). Tulgan (2004) discovered through his
23
As

interviews (which he conducted over a span of ten years) that due to generational differences
24
25
the workplace demographics are changing and so also the work values. He found that the
26 younger employees prefer short term rewards over long-term rewards. They desire immediate
ia

27 pay increases and incentives to keep them motivated and remain in the organisation. He also
28 found that the desire for long term employment is not a priority in their case. The older
29 employees tend on the other hand to prefer a career path over a life time, want nine to five
Bu

30 working hours and were more loyal to organisation. In contrast the younger generation prefer
31 a variable working hour which is suitable to their needs and commitments and demonstrate
32 loyalty to career growth rather than the organisation (Dwyer 2008). Self-development is
sin

33 valued more than organisational development. Development of effective workplace strategies

34 and practices requires thorough understanding of the mind-set, needs and wants of diverse
35 workforce (Zemke et al 2000). Thus without understanding these differences in work values,
36
es

management strategies cannot be effectively formulated to motivate employees in order to

37
support organisational objectives. It is the management that can bridge the gaps between
38
39 various work cohorts and improve organizational effectiveness by creating an environment of
sS

40 divergent employees to create a win-win situation for both employees and organisations.
41 Studies on generation have been mostly based on observation rather on empirical finding. Not
42 much research has been done on work values of generation and its implications on workplace
tu

43 in the Indian context. This research gap needs to be addressed for different reasons. Firstly,
44 scholars and academicians have given much of their attention to cultural and gender diversity
45 and there is scant evidence on the impact of age or generational diversity on the
die

46 organisations. HRM professionals report clashes and conflict among different generations in
47 perception towards work, work ethics, communication and technology issues, work life
48 balance and several other attributes. Secondly understanding differences in these work related
49
s

values will help organisations to develop more generation-oriented practices and policies
50
which will be essential for giving competitive edge to organisations that are finding it
51
52
difficult to attract and retain talented employees.
53
54 Background of the study
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 3 of 19 Journal of Asia Business Studies

1
2
3 Coal India Limited (CIL) is one of the leading coal producers in the world accounting for
4 over 80% of India’s coal production. India being the third largest coal producer after China
5 and United Sates of America (PwC 2016). For the finanacial year (FY) 2016 the total coal
6 produced in India was around 626 million tonnes (PwC 2016). 90% of stake in CIL, is held
7 by Government of India while 10% is controlled by Indian and overseas financial institutions
8 and other investors (PwC 2012). Coal mining is a major economic activity and contributes
9 significantly to the Indian economy and its share varies from 10% to 11%. Total Coal
Jo
10
reserves accounts for 86 billion tonnes, and the demand for coal is very high. The main
11
12
reasons or this are the continuous rising demand of power and rise in other infrastructure
u
13 industries The Indian coal sector is set to witness a boost in the coming future. As a
14 prospering economy India faces energy security as a growing challenge and CIL plans to
rn
15 achieve one billion coal production and above by the year 2019-2020. To achieve this the
16 company is planning to initiate major changes in its HR policy with respect to its managerial
17
al
cadres. It requires rebooting and resetting of its people, practices and processes. It is
18 inevitable to lead the changes by strategizing and aligning people, processes and practices for
19 developing the critical capabilities among its employees. An important factor that triggers
of
20 this transformation is the changing demographics profile of the management cadre
21 employees. The average age of CIL’s executive cadre is about 47 year old and about 750
22 executives from the middle and the senior management are retiring annually causing serious
23
As

erosion of tacit knowledge base and core people capabilities of the organisation which have
24
25
been developed over years. To fill this gap, the public sector undertaking (PSU) has begun to
26 infuse the new blood by recruiting from premier institutes like Indian Institute of Technology
ia

27 (IITs), National Institute of Technology (NITs) and similar ones. There is an intake of about
28 1000 young and talented executives per year. This new breed of next generation employees
29 comes with a different mind-set, new capabilities and varying career aspirations. The
Bu

30 challenge now is to retain and nurture the young talent by enabling them to take new
31 leadership roles (CIL HR Vision 2020, 2015) Due to the entry of another generation of
32 workers into the changing world of work, managers are forced to deal with the generational
sin

33 differences that appear to exist among employees. To most effectively attract and manage this
34 new cohort of employees, organizations need a clear understanding of the work values of the
35 new generation and how they may differ from the values of previous generations. There is
36
es

large scope for improvement in the area of generational diversity management in the
37
organisation. A motivating and supportive management style is required to create
38
39 generational cohesiveness among the employees.
sS

40
41 Conceptualisation of Generations
42
tu

43 A generation may be described as a group of individuals who are born within same historical
44 and social time frame (Mannhein (1952) exposed to same social and historical events during
45 the transition from childhood to adulthood (Schuman & Scott, 1989). Researches and
die

46 scholars studying effects of population on society refer to term generation as something that
47 describe individuals born and raised in same time period (Kupperschmidt 2000). Their
48 perspectives, attitude and values are influenced by the social and historical events they have
49
s

faced, experienced and shared during their critical development stages (Smola &Sutton
50
2002). The theory is based on the premise that people born within an approximately 20 year
51
52 time period share common set of characteristics shaped by the historical experiences,
53 economic and social conditions, technological advances and other societal changes they have
54 in common. Generations thus become predisposed to specific modes of thought and action
55 which affects their values and attitudes to work and remain relatively stable through the life
56 course. They also tend to influence work values and expectations from employees (Chen &
57
58
59
60
 Journal of Asia Business Studies Page 4 of 19

1
2
3 Choi, 2008). The literature suggests that the present workplace comprises of three generation
4 namely: The Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964), Generation X (born 1965-1980) and
5 Generation Y (1981-2000) . For the purpose of our study we have taken the classification of
6 generations given by Glass (2007).
7
8
9 Baby Boomers
Jo
10 Baby Boomers were brought up in turbulent economic conditions and had limited
11 opportunities. In addition to socio-economic condition caste, creed and religion highly
12 affected the life and career choices of the individuals. Important events during their critical
u
13
stages of development were - the Sino- Indian War (1962), the India-Pakistan War 1965, the
14
rn
India Pakistan war 1971. However they also witnessed progress in terms of nationalisation of
15
16 industries, green revolution and investment in education. They are often described as
17 workaholics, team players and quality mined (Egde 2014). They prioritise work and self-
al
18 fulfilment above family, at times (Gentry et al 2011).
19
of
20 Generation X
21 Generation X grew up in a slightly better time as compared to the Baby Boomers. They
22 witnessed the growth of the telecommunications, software, IT industries and aerospace. The
23
As
period was marked by the assassinations of Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi. Although caste
24 and religion still had been influential in the people’s lives, education was made available to
25 the best and brightest. Success was linked with moving out of India, and around 75 per cent
26
ia

of graduates from the elite Indian Institutes emigrated to foreign countries. They are
27
considered to be independent, committed to professional and personal development and
28
29
social networking (Berl 2006). At the workplace they prefer freedom and flexibility and resist
Bu

30 to formal hierarchy. Unlike Generation X, they prioritise work life balance (Zemke et al
31 2000)
32
sin

33 Generation Y
34 Generation Y grew up as the country became more prosperous through Liberalisation,
35 Privatisation, Globalisation (LPG) and reform policies. India emerged as an IT hub, and by
36 the year 2008, 34 Indian companies were listed in the Forbes Global 2000 ranking(Rani, &
es

37 Samuel 2016). The members of this generation thus have significant economic opportunities,
38 are technologically capable and have strong entrepreneurial skills. They are well-suited for
39
sS

global interaction (Erickson, 2009). The ubiquitous presence of internet access,

40
technologically upgrade gadgets like mobile phones, tablets, PCs ,laptops and social
41
networking sites have made the extremely techno-literate.
42
tu

43
44
Generations and Work Values
45
die

46 Values are what people cherish to uphold, the cause close to their heart. Work values, thus
47
can be defined as the attitude about what one can expect from the workplace and how to go
48
about reaching those expectations (George & Jones 1999). Values are determinants of
49
s

50 individual’s actions and decisions (Rokeach,1973). They are fairly resistant to change and
51 enduring (Twenge et al 2010). According to Dose (1997) work values are those standards
52 concerned with work or work environment on the basis of which employees evaluate what is
53 right or wrong, and assess the importance of preferences. They are considered to be important
54 in the organisation as they predict choices and actions (Rokeach 1973) Work values
55 influences employees perception regarding their work and work place, exert a direct
56 influence on their preferences, attitudes, decision making, freedom from supervision, flexible
57
58
59
60
Page 5 of 19 Journal of Asia Business Studies

1
2
3 timing, and problem solving skills, interpersonal relationships at work and other behavioural
4 aspects at work. Generational cohorts do hold similar values and differ from other cohorts.
5 Work values are one of the significant factors as it helps in understanding the employees
6 behaviour in the workplace, hence is also an important topic of research among the scholars.(
7 Kim et al 2007; White et al 2006). It is important to understand employees value as the
8 degree to which employee value their job influences their attitude towards their work and
9 organisation (Chu 2007) According to White (2006) values have three dimensions cognitive,
Jo
10
affective and behavioural which are closely linked to employees motivation and satisfaction
11
12
as they affect employees choices attitudes and goals ( Roe & Ester, 1999).Several researchers
u
13 have validated the notion that work values vary across generations. According to Rhodes
14 (1983) work values, attitude and satisfaction change as workers pass through career stages.
rn
15 Cherrington (1980) examined the attitude of three age groups on work value measures. In his
16 study he found that when compared to the older groups, the younger workers felt ‘pride in
17
al
craftsmanship’’ was less important, believed it was more acceptable to do a poor job, and
18 were less desirous of their work be at benefit of others. Smola and Sutton (2002) examined
19 whether generation or age contributed more to differences in work Values by comparing their
of
20 data obtained in year 1999 to the data obtained in the year 1974 by different authors. They
21 found that work values are influenced more by generation in comparison to age. However the
22 data had many limitations. Significant instrumental and terminal values differences were
23
As

found across generational groups by Murphy et al (2004). He emphasised on the importance

24
25
of adopting appropriate management practices. According to Hauw and Vos (2010) the effect
26 of generational influence on work values was more than the impact of recession
ia

27
Generational differences are getting hazy due to changes taking place because of ageing,
28
29
experience, life and career stages (Dwyer & Azevedo 2016) . Even so, changes to work and
Bu

30 the fact that each generation was introduced to work at differing points in time suggest that
31 work value differences may exist between generations. For the present study we have adopted
32 the Lyons Work Values Scale as classified by Lyons and Kurons (2013). They have classified
sin

33 work values into four dimension namely: Intrinsic, Extrinsic, Prestige and Social Work
34 Values. Intrinsic work values is associated with finding meaning and interest in one’s work,
35 (e.g. intellectual simulation, challenge). Extrinsic work values refer to materialistic attributes
36 people tend to achieve from their jobs (e.g. job security, salary, hours of work, freedom).
es

37 Prestige work values are characterized by status in the job, influence, variety and
38 achievement. The social work values are interpersonal and relate to the need of
39
sS

belongingness. Examples of social work values include social interaction, workplace fun and
40
helping others. On the basis of the above discussion the following hypothesis are drawn:
41
42 H01: There will be no significant differences in intrinsic work values among the
tu

43
three generations.
44
45 HA1: There will be significant differences in intrinsic work values among the
die

46 three generations.
47
48 H02: There will be no significant differences in extrinsic work values among the
49 three generations.
s

50
51 HA2: There will be significant differences in extrinsic work values among the
52 three generations.
53
54 H03: There will be no significant differences in prestige work values among the
55 three generations.
56
57
58
59
60
 Journal of Asia Business Studies Page 6 of 19

1
2
3 HA3: There will be significant differences in prestige work values among the
4 three generations.
5
6 H04: There will be no significant differences in social work values among the
7 three generations.
8
9 HA4: There will be significant differences in social work values among the three
Jo
10 generations.
11
12
u
13
14
rn
15 Methodology
16
17
Data Collection
al
18
The Data was collected from 350 employees of Bharat Coking Coal, a subsidiary of Coal
19
India Limited, India. After deleting the incomplete data sheets, 323 responses were
of
20
21 considered for final analysis. Simple random sampling technique was used to collect the data.
22 The sample comprised of 87 Baby Boomers, 131 Generation X, and 105 Generation Y,
23 employees. Work values among the employees were measured using Lyons’ (2003) Work
As

24 Values Survey (LWVS). The survey instrument comprised of 25 items on a five-point Likert
25 scale. This particular survey instrument was chosen as it has been validated previously in
26 Canadian sample and also because it accounts for recent developments in the field of work
ia

27 values.
28
29
Bu

Analysis
30
31 To ensure the validity of the LWVS in the Indian context, a structure analysis was carried out
32
where Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor analysis (CFA) were
sin

33
34
performed. Principal component analysis using Promax rotation was done in order to explore
35 the underlying dimensions of the 14 work values. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measuring of
36 sample adequacy (0.827) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (sig. 0.000) supported the use of
es

37 factor analysis. The factor analysis resulted in a four-dimension solution with 74.544 per cent
38 of variance explained by the components. On the basis of commonalities within-item
39 groupings, the four dimensions were labelled: Intrinsic, Extrinsic, Prestige and Social. The
sS

40 four dimensions reported Cronbach’s scores 0.803 (Nunnally, 1978). Table 1 shows the
41 derived structure matrix from Exploratory Factor Analysis
42 Insert Table 1here
tu

43
44 Later, CFA was performed to determine the goodness of fit of the four-factor structure
45
die

derived from the EFA. CFA results indicated that the 14- item, four-factor model fit the data
46
adequately (CMIN/df_1.672; root mean square error of approximation _0.046; CFI _ 0.979)
47
48 with all items loading above 0.7 on their work values, thus confirming the content validity of
49 the four-factor solution. Figure 1 shows the result of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Model
s

50 Insert Figure 1 here

51 Further ANOVA and MANOVA were conducted to investigate differences across the three
52 generations for the Lyons Work Values Scale. The results of the analyses provide support for
53 the existence of generational differences in work values in an Indian organisational
54 occupational setting. Further Pearson correlations was performed among all of the dependent
55 variables in order to test the MANOVA assumption that is the dependent variables should
56 be correlated with each other in higher range ( Meyers, Gampst, & Guarino, 2006). As
57
58
59
60
Page 7 of 19 Journal of Asia Business Studies

1
2
3 shown in the correlation Table 2 a meaningful pattern of correlations was observed among
4 most of the dependent variables, suggesting the appropriateness of a MANOVA. The Box’s
5 M value of 15.134 was associated with the p value of .785, which was interpreted as non-
6 significant based on Huberty and Petoskey’s (2000) guideline (i.e., p < .005). Thus, the
7 covariance matrices between the groups were assumed to be equal for the purposes of the
8 MANOVA.
9 Insert Table 2 here
Jo
10
A one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to test the
11
12
hypothesis that there would be mean differences among the four factors namely Intrinsic,
u
13 Extrinsic, Prestige, Social. A statistically significant MANOVA effect was obtained, Pillais’
14 Trace=.092, F (8,636) = 3.83, p < .001,). The multivariate effect size was estimated
rn
15 (multivariate ή2 ) 0 .046), which implies that 4.60% of the variance in the canonically derived
16 dependent variable was accounted for by all for dependent variable. Prior to conducting a
17
al
series of follow-up ANOVAs, the homogeneity of variance assumption was tested for all the
18 four factors Based on a series of Levene’s F tests, the homogeneity of variance assumption
19 was considered satisfied. A series of one-way ANOVA’s on each of the four dependent
of
20 variables was conducted as follow-up tests to the MANOVA. As can be seen in Table II, all
21 of the ANOVA’s were statistically significant, with effect sizes (partial η2) ranging from a
22 low of .023 (Prestige, Extrinsic values) to a high of .041 (Social values).
23
As

Finally, a series of post-hoc analyses (Fisher’s LSD) were performed to examine individual
24
25
mean differences between all three Generations (Baby Boomers Generation X and
26 Generation Y) and work values dimension subscales. The results revealed that 2/3rd of the
ia

27 post-hoc mean comparisons were statistically significant (p < .05). Table 3 shows Mean
28 differences and effect sizes for generational differences on work values.
29 Insert table 3 here
Bu

30
31 Hypothesis Testing
32
sin

33 Insert table 4 here

34
35 Results for the hypothesis testing can be found in Table 4. The Results shows that there are
36
es

significant differences among the three generations in the importance of dimensions of their
37
Work Values Pillais’ Trace=.092, F (8,636) = 3.83, p < .001).
38
39 There were significant differences among the three generations for Intrinsic Work Values
sS

40 (F(2,320) = 2.086, p < 0.01). Post hoc tests indicated that for Generation Y (M = 20.581) and
41 Generation X (M= 19.039) Intrinsic values are more important than Baby Boomers (M
42 =18.748), although the effect size is medium (d =0.364 to 0.416). Hence H01: there will be no
tu

43 significant differences in intrinsic work values among the three generations get rejected.
44 There were significant differences among the three generations for Extrinsic Work Values
45 (F(2,320) = 1.876, p < 0.000). Post hoc tests indicated that for Generation X (M =16.924) and
die

46 Generation Y (M= 17.352) Extrinsic values are more important than Baby Boomers (M
47 =15.886), though, the effect size is medium (d =0.286 to 0.374). Hence H02: There will be
48 no significant differences in extrinsic work values among the three generations get rejected.
49
s

Significant differences were found among the three generations for the Prestige Work values
50
(F(2,320) = .200, p < 0.001). Post hoc tests indicated that for Generation Y (M =11.171) and
51
52
Generation X (M= 10.412) Prestige values are more important in comparison to Baby
53 Boomers (M = 10.161), however, the effect size is medium (d =0.282 to 0.347). Hence H03:
54 there will be no significant differences in prestige work values among the three generations
55 get rejected.
56
57
58
59
60
 Journal of Asia Business Studies Page 8 of 19

1
2
3 Significant differences were found among the three generations for Social Work Values
4 (F(2,320) = 1.831, p < 0.01). Post hoc tests indicated that for Generation Y (M = 7.429) and
5 Generation X (M= 6.992 ) Social values are more important than Baby Boomers (M =6.426),
6 with a medium the effect size (d =0.318 to 0.510). Hence H04: There will be no significant
7 differences in social work values among the three generations get rejected.
8
9
Jo
10
11
12 Discussion
u
13
14 The present study aims to explore and examine generational differences in work values and
rn
15 proposes that Baby Boomers, Generation X and Generation Y will have different set of
16 expectations from their employers. The results of the study suggest that there are marked
17
al
generational differences in work values of the employees. Our results are in agreement with
18 findings of extant literature on generation differences on work values and substantiate that
19 different generations have different set of work values related to different aspects of their job
of
20 (Dries et al., 2008; Chen and Choi, 2008; Lancaster and Stillman, 2005; Solnet and Hood,
21 2008).Toeing with previous findings which have found Generation Y employees rate
22 intrinsic, extrinsic and prestige work values higher in comparison to the older generations
23
As

(Howe and Strauss, 2007; Lancaster and Stillman, 2005).

24
25
26 To be more precise, it was found that for Generation Y and Generation X intrinsic values
ia

27 carry more importance than for the Baby Boomer generation. Challenging and stimulating
28 jobs was found to motivate the Generation Y intrinsically. They prefer jobs that gives them
29 opportunities to utilize their capabilities and abilities. Hence it is recommended to provide
Bu

30 Generation Y with jobs that are challenging and involve greater responsibility (Rani, &
31 Samuel 2016). Strategies such as Web-based training and job shadowing will help in creating
32 an environment of continuous learning and development (Terjesen et al., 2007).Results on
sin

33 intrinsic work values show that the Generation Y employees value regular and consistent
34 feedback and recognition. Thus, it becomes important for superiors to provide instant
35 feedback honestly and to have a good rapport with the younger employees (Gibson et al.,
36
es

2009; Cennamo and Gardner, 2000). Using tools like blogs and internet bulletin boards will
37
help in better communication with the Generation Y and also satisfy their expectations
38
39 regarding technology usage as they prefer to collaborating in teams through text and instant
sS

40 messaging and blogging with their peers (Skiba, 2006).

41 While catering to Generation Y’s expectations of extrinsic work values it is important to
42 deliver quick and personalized rewards. They expect freedom and flexibility to do their work
tu

43 in their own way and at their own pace (Martin, 2005). Giving them autonomy in their work
44 is critical (Weyland, 2011).
45 Considering the social values of Generation Y, it is important to create a workplace that
die

46 emphasizes on social relationships. Thus, organizations must focus on creating a fun and
47 exciting atmosphere at work (Rai, 2012). Organizations need to invest in recreational
48 facilities which will energize them (Weyland, 2011). Further, with regards to prestige values,
49
s

Generation Y demonstrates the need to be influential at their workplace. They seek a

50
participative leader who respects their views and is flexible in accepting their opinions (Beck
51
52
and Wade, 2004).
53
54 Managerial Implications
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 9 of 19 Journal of Asia Business Studies

1
2
3 The organizations are facing many challenges and will yet encounter more challenges in the
4 coming decades .Research suggests that Generation Y, and to a lesser extent GenX,
5 employees are difficult to motivate and retain. We suggest that management need to come up
6 with more generation-specific approach to manage their workforce (Christensen Hughes and
7 Rog, 2008). They also need to modify their human resources management practices to
8 include more generation-friendly practices ( Davidson et al., 2011). Not doing so will perhaps
9 result in intensifying the recruitment and retention challenges (Barron, 2008).
Jo
10
The present study provides an understanding of generational differences in work values in
11
12
India. Studies report that generational differences in work values results in conflict (Society
u
13 for Human Resources Management, 2004), hence, the understanding of the generational
14 differences in an Indian context will help professionals deal with such conflicts cropping up
rn
15 due to generational diversity . More so, it is important on the part of manager to leverage
16 generational diversity as an opportunity to benefit the organization in the long run. This can
17
al
be done by aligning business goals with the values of each generation so that employees
18 within each generation are able to work in synergy. Managers need to optimize the talents of
19 different generations by reconciling their differences in the workplace (McGuire et al. 2007).
of
20 Thus it is important to create awareness, educate and develop employees to use this
21 generational diversity for individual and organizational advantage.
22
23
As

The management must understand that Generation X and Y will benefit from coaching as it
24
25
will help in minimizing intergenerational conflict due to differences in work values. Another
26 such approach that facilitates intergenerational understanding is reverse mentoring. In reverse
ia

27 mentoring it is the protégé that share their technological knowledge to senior employees, and
28 in return older employees give managerial and administrative training to the young
29 employees. This can change the perception and help in creating an interactive culture among
Bu

30 members of different generations and thus promoting understanding of each other’s’ value
31 system (Koster, 2013). Further, training employees on reducing intergenerational conflict and
32 training leaders to effectively lead younger generation of employees would be useful in
sin

33 managing the dynamics of the multigenerational workforce. But there is need to make
34 conscious efforts in this direction. So our results imply that management should carefully
35 handle the differences in work values and expectation of the employees of the different
36
es

generation and make them more explicit. By doing so, a better fit can be created between
37
employees and the organization
38
39 Theoretical Implications
sS

40 The present study is an attempt to develop a theoretical framework on Generational diversity

41 Though there is presence of literature in regards to generational diversity but they focus on
42 the existence of generational differences in the general workforce (Twenge and Campbell,
tu

43 2008: Ng et al., 2010;) Mostly the researched areas on generational differences includes the
44 IT sector, hospitality, tourism and the health care industry.( Barron, 2008; Davidson et al.,
45 2010). However, there are very few studies that deal with the subject of generational
die

46 differences in the coal industry in Indian context. Evidences on generational differences are
47 available, but still findings and topics of study vary widely. There is need for further research
48 to have a better understanding of how generational differences impact different aspects of
49
s

work.
50
51
52 Limitations & Suggestions
53 One of the major limitations of our study was that the data were collected from only from a
54 single subsidiary of CIL, that is BCCL, located in city of Dhanbad, India. As the coal sector
55 employs a large percentage of casual and contract workers we recommend to include contract
56 work status as a control variable for future studies(Poulston, 2008).Further, the use of a
57
58
59
60
 Journal of Asia Business Studies Page 10 of 19

1
2
3 cross-sectional study in understanding generational differences is questionable because of the
4 confounding effects of age. A longitudinal study may be better suited for an in-depth
5 examination of generational differences.
6
7 Conclusion
8 Generational Diversity management intends to foster a positive work environment where the
9 similarities as well as the differences of the individuals are valued to maximize their
Jo
10
contribution towards organization’s goal. This study provides interesting insights in work
11
12
values research for a multigenerational workforce. The differences in work values of
u
13 Generation Y and other generations, as pointed in our study suggest that managers must be
14 prepared to deal with a new breed of workers having a range of work values. By
rn
15 understanding the specific drivers of a generational cohort, practitioners, researches and
16 academicians can develop policies for improving communication, satisfaction, commitment
17
al
and retention, and enhance organizational knowledge management and productivity. Given
18 the fact that such generational differences will further get accentuated, strategies suggested in
19 the paper may be adopted to make sure that there is a proper coordination between the
of
20 generational cohorts and the much needed synergy is arrived at.
21
22
23
As

References
24
25
26
ia

27
Barron, P. (2008), “Education and talent management: implications for the hospitality
28 industry”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp.
29 730-42.
Bu

30
31 Beck, J. C., & Wade, M. (2004). Got game: How the gamer generation is reshaping business
32 forever.
sin

33
34 Berl, P. S. (2006). Crossing the Generational Divide: Supporting Generational Differences at
35 Work. Exchange: The Early Childhood Leaders' Magazine Since 1978, 168, 73-78.
36
es

37 Cennamo, L., & Gardner, D. (2008). Generational differences in work values, outcomes and
38 person-organisation values fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 891-906.
39
sS

40 Chen, P. J., & Choi, Y. (2008). Generational differences in work values: a study of hospitality
41 management. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20(6), 595-
42
615.
tu

43
44
45
Cherrington, D. J. (1980). The work ethic: Working values and values that work. Amacom.
die

46 Christensen Hughes, J., & Rog, E. (2008). Talent management: A strategy for improving
47
employee recruitment, retention and engagement within hospitality
48
49
organizations. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20(7), 743-
s

50 757.
51
Chu, K. H. L. (2008). A factorial validation of work value structure: Second-order
52
53 confirmatory factor analysis and its implications. Tourism Management, 29(2), 320-330.
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 11 of 19 Journal of Asia Business Studies

1
2
3 Davidson, M.C.G., McPhail, R. and Barry, S. (2011), “Hospitality HRM: past, present and
4 the future”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 23 No.
5 4,pp. 498-516.
6
7
De Hauw, S., & De Vos, A. (2010). Millennials’ career perspective and psychological
8
contract expectations: does the recession lead to lowered expectations?. Journal of business
9
Jo
10 and psychology, 25(2), 293-302.
11
Deloitte, 2006. Hospitality 2010: a five-year wake up call. Available from the Preston Robert
12
u
13
Tisch Center for Hospitality, Tourism and Sports Management, New York University.
14
rn
Dose, J. J. (1997). Work values: An integrative framework and illustrative application to
15
organizational socialization. Journal of occupational and organizational psychology, 70(3),
16
17
219-240.
al
18
Dose, J.,(1997), Work Values and Integrative framework and illustrative application to
19
organisational socialization, Jouranl of Occupational and Organissational Psychology 70,
of
20
21 291-241
22
23 Dries, N., Pepermans, R. and De Kerpel, E. (2008), “Exploring four generations’ beliefs about
As

24 career”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 907-928.

25
26 Dries, N., Pepermans, R., & De Kerpel, E. (2008). Exploring four generations' beliefs about
ia

27 career: Is “satisfied” the new “successful”?. Journal of managerial Psychology, 23(8), 907-
28 928.
29
Bu

30 Dwyer, R. J., & Azevedo, A. (2016). Preparing leaders for the multi-generational
31 workforce. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global
32 Economy, 10(3), 281-305.
sin

33
34 Dwyer, R. J., & Azevedo, A. (2016). Preparing leaders for the multi-generational
35 workforce. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global
36
es

Economy, 10(3), 281-305.

37
38 Dwyer,R.J. ‘’ Prepare for the impact of Multigenerational workforce’’ Transforming
39
sS

Government People,Process & Government, Vol 3 No.2, pp. 101-110

40
41
Edge, K. (2014). A review of the empirical generations at work research: Implications for
42
tu

43 school leaders and future research. School Leadership & Management, 34(2), 136-155.
44
45
Elizur, D., Borg, I., Hunt, R., & Beck, I. M. (1991). The structure of work values: A cross
die

46 cultural comparison. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12(1), 21-38.

47
Erickson, T(2009), ‘’ Generational Differences in India and US’’, Harvard Business Review,
48
49 available at: https://hbr.org/2009/02/global generation-focus-on-in
s

50
51 Gentry, W. A., Griggs, T. L., Deal, J. J., Mondore, S. P., & Cox, B. D. (2011). A comparison
52 of generational differences in endorsement of leadership practices with actual leadership skill
53 level. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 63(1), 39.
54
55 Georgel, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1997). Experiencing work: Values, attitudes, and
56 moods. Human relations, 50(4), 393-416.
57
58
59
60
 Journal of Asia Business Studies Page 12 of 19

1
2
3 Gibson, J. W., Greenwood, R. A., & Murphy Jr, E. F. (2009). Generational differences in the
4 workplace: Personal values, behaviors, and popular beliefs. Journal of Diversity
5 Management, 4(3), 1.
6
7 Glass, A. (2007). Understanding generational differences for competitive success. Industrial
8 and commercial training, 39(2), 98-103.
9
Jo
10 Gursoy, D., Maier, T. A., & Chi, C. G. (2008). Generational differences: An examination of
11
work values and generational gaps in the hospitality workforce. International Journal of
12
u
13 Hospitality Management, 27(3), 448-458.
14
rn
15 Howe, N. and Strauss, W. (2007), “The next 20 years: how customer and workforce
16 attitudes will evolve”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 85 No. 7, pp. 41-52.
17
al
18 Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2007). The next 20 years. Harvard business review, 85(7-8), 41-52.
19
https://www.coalindia.in/Portals/0/CIL_HR_VISION_(FINAL)_18052015.pdf
of
20
21
22 Huberty, C.J. and Petoskey, M.D. (2000), “Multivariate analysis of variance and covariance”,
23 in Tinsley, H. and Brown, S. (Eds), Handbook of Applied Multivariate Statistics and
As

24 Mathematical Modeling, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 183-208.

25
26 Kim, H. J., Shin, K. H., & Umbreit, W. T. (2007). Hotel job burnout: The role of personality
ia

27 characteristics. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 26(2), 421-434.

28
29 Koster, K. (2013), “Communication and engagement”, Employee Benefit News.
Bu

30
Kupperschmidt, B. R. (2000). Multigeneration employees: Strategies for effective
31
32 management. The health care manager, 19(1), 65-76.
sin

33
34 Lancaster, L. C., & Stillman, D. (2002). When generations collide: Who they are. Why they
35 clash.
36
es

37 Lancaster, L.C. and Stillman, D. (2005), When Generations Collide, Collins Business, New
38 York, NY.
39
sS

40 Lyons, S., & Kuron, L. (2014). Generational differences in the workplace: A review of the
41 evidence and directions for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(S1).
42
tu

43 Martin, C. A. (2005). From high maintenance to high productivity: What managers need to
44 know about Generation Y. Industrial and commercial training, 37(1), 39-44.
45
die

46 Martin, C.A. and Tulgan, B. (2001), Managing Generation Y. Global Citizens Born in The
47 Late Seventies and the Early Eighties, HRD Press, Amherst, MA.
48
49 McGuire, D., Todnem By, R., & Hutchings, K. (2007). Towards a model of human resource
s

50 solutions for achieving intergenerational interaction in organisations. Journal of European

51
industrial training, 31(8), 592-608.
52
53 Meyers, L.S., Gamst, G. and Guarino, A. (2006), Applied Multivariate Research: Design and
54 Interpretation, Sage Publishers, Thousand Oaks, CA
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 13 of 19 Journal of Asia Business Studies

1
2
3 Murphy Jr, E. F., Gordon, J. D., & Anderson, T. L. (2004). Cross-cultural, cross-cultural age
4 and cross-cultural generational differences in values between the United States and
5 Japan. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 9(1), 21.
6
7 Ng, E.S.W., Schweitzer, L. and Lyons, S.T. (2010), “New generation, great expectations: a
8 field study of the millennial generation”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 2,
9
pp. 281-92.
Jo
10
11
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1978). Psychometric theory.
12
u
13 Parry, E., & Urwin, P. (2011). Generational differences in work values: A review of theory
14
rn
and evidence. International journal of management reviews, 13(1), 79-96.
15
16 Poulston, J. (2008), “Hospitality workplace problems and poor training: a close
17
al
relationship”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 20 No. 4,
18
19 pp. 412-27.
of
20
21
PwC & ICC Report (2012). The Indian Coal Sector: Challenges and Future Outlook, Indian
22 Chamber of Commerce.
23
As

24 PwC & ICC Report (2016). Bridging the gap Increasing coal production and sector
25 augmentation (Rep.).
26
ia

27 Rai, S. (2012). Engaging young employees (Gen Y) in a social media dominated world–
28 Review and Retrospection. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 37, 257-266.
29
Bu

30 Raines, C. (1997). Beyond generation X: A practical guide for managers. Thomson Crisp
31 Learning.
32
sin

33 Raines, C. (2003). Connecting generations: The sourcebook for a new workplace. Thomson Crisp
34 Learning.
35
36 Rani, N., & Samuel, A. (2016). A study on generational differences in work values and
es

37 person-organization fit and its effect on turnover intention of Generation Y in

38 India. Management Research Review, 39(12), 1695-1719.
39
sS

40 Rani, N., & Samuel, A. (2016). A study on generational differences in work values and
41 person-organization fit and its effect on turnover intention of Generation Y in
42 India. Management Research Review, 39(12), 1695-1719.
tu

43
44 Rhodes, S. R. (1983). Age-related differences in work attitudes and behavior: A review and
45 conceptual analysis. Psychological bulletin, 93(2), 328.
die

46
47 Roe, R. A., & Ester, P. (1999). Values and work: Empirical findings and theoretical
48 perspective. Applied psychology, 48(1), 1-21.
49
s

50 Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. Free press.

51
52 Schuman, H., & Scott, J. (1989). Generations and collective memories. American
53
54 sociological review, 359-381.
55
56
57
58
59
60
 Journal of Asia Business Studies Page 14 of 19

1
2
3 Skiba, D. J. (2005). The Millennials: Have they arrived at your school of nursing?. Nursing
4 Education Perspectives, 26(6), 370-371.
5
6 Solnet, D. and Hood, A. (2008), “Generation Y as hospitality employees: framing a research
7 agenda”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 59-68.
8
9 Terjesen, S., Vinnicombe, S., & Freeman, C. (2007). Attracting Generation Y graduates:
Jo
10 Organisational attributes, likelihood to apply and sex differences. Career Development
11 International, 12(6), 504-522.
12
u
13 Tulgan, B. (2003), “Generational shift: what we saw at the workplace revolution”, available
14
rn
at: www.rainmakerthinking.com/rrwp.htm (accessed 20 November 2016).
15
16 Tulgan, B. (2004). Trends point to a dramatic generational shift in the future
17
al
workforce. Employment Relations Today, 30(4), 23-31.
18
19
Twenge, J. M., Campbell, S. M., Hoffman, B. J., & Lance, C. E. (2010). Generational
of
20
21 differences in work values: Leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values
22 decreasing. Journal of management, 36(5), 1117-1142.
23
As

24 Twenge, J.M. and Campbell, S.M. (2008), “Generational differences in psychological traits
25 and their impact on the workplace”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp.
26
ia

862-77.
27
28
Wey Smola, K., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting generational
29
Bu

30 work values for the new millennium. Journal of organizational behavior, 23(4), 363-382.
31
32 Weyland, A. (2011). Engagement and talent management of Gen Y. Industrial and
sin

33 commercial training, 43(7), 439-445.

34
35 White, C. (2006). Towards an understanding of the relationship between work values and
36 cultural orientations. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 25(4), 699-715.
es

37
38 White, C. (2006). Towards an understanding of the relationship between work values and
39 cultural orientations. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 25(4), 699-715.
sS

40
41 Zemke, R.,Raines, C & Filipczak, B (2000) Generations at Work: Managing the Clash of
42 Vetrens, Boomers, Xers,and Nexters in your workplace, New York:AMACOM.
tu

43
44
45
die

46
47
48
49
s

50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 15 of 19 Journal of Asia Business Studies

1
2
3
4 Table 1 Exploratory Factor Analysis
5
6 Component Mean Std. Extraction
7 Deviation
8
1 2 3 4
9 Int22 .895 3.545 1.120 .710
Jo
10
11 Int21 .857 3.523 1.079 .644
12
u
3.523 1.143
13 Int19 .846 .682
14
rn
Int20 .839 3.526 1.087 .775
15
16 3.455 1.075
17 Int23 .740 .776
al
18 4.142 1.048
Ext16 .925 .792
19
of
20 Ext17 .901 4.276 0.960 .858
21
22 Ext18 .901 4.183 1.055 .814
23
As

24 Ext15 .887 4.183 1.098 .821

25
26 Pstg1 .838 3.904 1.098 .727
ia

27
Pstg3 .809 3.746 1.047 .710
28
29
Bu

Pstg2 .795 3.820 1.068 .741

30
31 3.855 1.063
32
Soc13 .878 .806
sin

33 4.136 0.975
Soc12 .878 .582
34
35 Eigenvalue 4.408 2.523 2.048 1.458
36 % of
es

37 31.485 18.019 14.625 10.415

variance
38
39 Cronbach’s
sS

0.893 0.924 0.747 0.724

40 _
41 Notes: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
42 Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization.
tu

43
44
45
die

46
47
48
49
s

50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
 Journal of Asia Business Studies Page 16 of 19

1
2
3 Table 2: Pearson correlations, means and standard deviations
4
5 Pearson correlations, means and standard deviations
6 Std.
7 Prestige Social Extrinsic Intrinsic Mean Deviation N
8 Prestige 1 10.5913 2.72329 323
9 Social .168** 1 6.9814 1.91422 323
Jo
10
11
Extrinsic .135* .064 1 16.7833 3.75939 323
12 Intrinsic .121* .070 .261** 1 19.4613 4.39871 323
u
13
14
rn
Notes: **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
15 *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
16
17
al
18
19
of
20
21
22
23
As

24
25
26
ia

27
28
29
Bu

30
31
32
sin

33
34
35
36
es

37
38
39
sS

40
41
42
tu

43
44
45
die

46
47
48
49
s

50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 17 of 19 Journal of Asia Business Studies

1
2
3 Table 3: Results of generational differences in work values as measured by the Lyons
4 work values survey
5 Work values F Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
6 BabyBoomers Gen X Gen Y
7
8
9 Prestige .200* 10.161 2.727 10.412 2.697 11.171 2.680
Jo
10
11
12
u
Social 1.831* 6.426 1.834 6.992 1.730 7.429 2.089
13
14
rn
15
16 Extrinsic 1.876* 15.886 3.850 16.924 3.407 17.352 3.995
17
al
18
19 Intrinsic 2.086* 18.748 4.606 19.039 4.267 20.581 4.206
of
20
21 Notes: * p , 0:01; df (between groups) = 2; df (within groups) = 320
22
23
As

24
25
26
ia

27
28
29
Bu

30
31
32
sin

33
34
35
36
es

37
38
39
sS

40
41
42
tu

43
44
45
die

46
47
48
49
s

50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
 Journal of Asia Business Studies Page 18 of 19

1
2
3
4 Table 4: post-hoc analysis for generational differences in Work Values
5
6 Mean differences and effect sizes for generational differences
7 Work Age Age Mean Difference Sig. Cohen’s
8 values (I) (J) (I-J) d
9 *
GenX < GenY -.7592 .033 0.282
Jo
10
11
GenY > GenX .7592* .033 0.282
Prestige
12 GenY > BB 1.0105* .010 0.374
u
13 BB < GenY -1.0105* .010 0.374
14 GenX > BB 1.0386* .045 0.286
rn
15 GenY > BB 1.4673* .007 0.374
16 Extrinsic
BB < GenX -1.0386* .045 0.286
17
al
BB < GenY -1.4673* .007 0.374
18 GenX GenY -1.5428* .007 0.364
<
19
GenY > GenX 1.5428* .007 0.364
of
20 Intrinsic
21 GenY > BB 1.8338* .004 0.416
22 BB < GenY -1.8338* .004 0.416
23 GenX > BB .5671* .030 0.318
As

24 GenY > BB 1.0033* .000 0.510

Social
25 BB < GenX -.5671* .030 0.318
26 BB < GenY -1.0033* .000 0.510
ia

27 Notes: *. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

28
29
Bu

30
31
32
sin

33
34
35
36
es

37
38
39
sS

40
41
42
tu

43
44
45
die

46
47
48
49
s

50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 19 of 19 Journal of Asia Business Studies

1
2
3 Figure 1: Confirmatory Factor Analysis Model
4
5
6
7
8
9
Jo
10
11
12
u
13
14
rn
15
16
17
al
18
19
of
20
21
22
23
As

24
25
26
ia

27
28
29
Bu

30
31
32
sin

33
34
35
36
es

37
38
39
sS

40
41
42
tu

43
44
45
die

46
47
48
49
s

50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60