Weeks GenerationalDifferencesDefinitions 2019

Generational Differences in Definitions of Meaningful Work: A Mixed Methods Study
Author(s): Kelly Pledger Weeks and Caitlin Schaffert

Source: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 156, No. 4 (June 2019), pp. 1045-1061
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/45093290
Accessed: 22-03-2024 14:47 +00:00
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Business Ethics
This content downloaded from 149.156.208.249 on Fri, 22 Mar 2024 14:47:21 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
J Bus Ethics (2019) 156:1045-1061
DOI 10.1007/sl0551-017-3621-4
ORIGINAL PAPER
Generational Differences in Definitions of Meaningful Work:

A Mixed Methods Study
Kelly Pledger Weeks1 • Caitlin Schaffert2
Received: 11 February 2017 /Accepted: 22 June 2017 /Published online: 1 July 2017
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017
Abstract The search for meaningful work has been

meaning inof
their jobs differently, and they hold negative
interest to researchers from a variety of disciplines
perceptions for
about the lack of desire for meaning in each of
decades and seems to have grown even more therecently.
other cohorts. Study 2 maps generational cohorts on the
Much of the literature assumes that employees share a model of meaningful work designed by
comprehensive
sense of what is meaningful in work and thereLips-Wiersma
isn't much and Morris (J Bus Ethics 88(3):491- 51 1,
attention given to how and why meanings might2009) todiffer
reveal that although there are some differences in
(Rosso et al. in Res Organ Behav 30:91-127, 2010). of sources of meaningful work, all genera-
prioritization
Researchers have not only called for more research
tional cohorts share similar desire to "develop and become
studying demographic differences in definitionsthemselves"
of meaningwhen asked about their definitions of mean-
(e.g., Michaelson et al. in J Bus Ethics 121(l):77-90, ingful work. Implications and future research are discussed.
2014), but also more research utilizing mixed methods to
study psychological concepts like meaningful work (e.g., Keywords Generational differences • Meaningful work •
Eid and Diener, in Eid, Diener (eds) Handbook of multi- Mixed methods design • Stereotypes
method measurement in psychology, American Psycho-
logical Association, Washington, 2006). This study
specifically examines differences across generational Introduction
cohorts on their prioritization of sources of meaningful
work through qualitative, in-depth interviews followed by a There is an ongoing ethical discussion about what consti-
more generalizable, quantitative survey. Findings from the tutes a meaningful life and how much of the meaning
qualitative study show that generational cohorts define the construed about one's life comes from the meaning one
finds at work (Beadle and Knight 2012; Kovacs 1986;
Michaelson et al. 2014). Because so much of a person's life
Permission was granted through Springer Publishing License # is spent at work and people often associate parts of their
403604059432 to reprint Figure 1 in this manuscript. The original identities with their particular job or work (Chalofsky and
figure can be found as Figure 2 in Journal of Business Ethics,
Discriminating between 'meaningful work' and the 'management of
Cavallaro 2013), ethicists argue that "experiencing mean-
meaning,' volume 88, issue 3, 2009, Lips-Wiersma, M. and Morris, L. ingful work is a fundamental human need" (Yeoman 2014,
p 236), and therefore, organizations have a moral obliga-
Eā Kelly Pledger Weeks tion to provide meaningful work to all (Bowie 1998;
weeksk® rhodes.edu
Yeoman 2014). In addition, insofar as individuals have a
Caitlin Schaffert
choice in their work, they likewise have an ethical obli-
Schaffert.caitlin @ gmail.com
gation to pursue work that is meaningful (Michaelson et al.
1 Rhodes College, 2000 N. Parkway, Memphis, TN 38112, 2014). While philosophers are examining the characteris-
USA tics of meaningful work which are common to all;
2 Centenary College of Louisiana, 4504 Ainsworth Cir, researchers of organizational studies have recognized the
Grapevine, TX 76051, USA need to also focus on the individual experiences and
Springer
1046 K. P. Weeks, C. Schaffen
perceptions provides
of meaningfulopport w
Scroggins 1998).
2008). The Going
ethical furt
res
to provide respect
meaning, the
along abili
with
create meaning,being.
both The fit
necessita be
what tasks,
contributes to context
meaningfu an
tions of cept
meaning -
may job fit)
differ h
fo
Studies on meaningfulness
meaningful work
plines of philosophy,
managers psycho
can cre
organizational an adequate
behavior, wage
among
(2003) define tion, cross-train
meaningful work
and significant.(Pfeffer
However, et al.
muc 19
that people In
share addition
a sense of to
what
there is not work,
much there has
attention b
gi
meanings on differ
might the positive
(Rosso w
e
research on meaningfulness
managing meaning
ing from the emerges from
perspective of th
th
Wiersma and certain
Morriscore
2009). F
char
and family nificance
likely and
influence tas
att
of meaningfulence of
work, meaning
and more
differences (Michaelson
1976). et
Feeling al.
th
have been to
moremany
mixedd leads
calls for
chological son
researchet (e.g.,
al. 2014),
Eid
lack of comprehensive
Ferris studie
1987), job
prioritization (Cardador
of et
potential al.
so
necessitates zenship
such a behavi
methodol
designs combine
decrease
the benefits
in turno
o
individual There
stories has from
gained been
define
generalizability of meaningf
quantitative
a deeper understanding
argue for of the
what e
Onwuegbuzie to achieve
2004). This it or
paper w
w
the provide.
research
by As
examining rese
the
differenceson definitions
ingful work, of
the
mixed methodsvalues fit
design. with
practices instill
Research on Meaningful
relationships Wo
are
tional culture (M
Since individuals spend
work-role the
fit, ma
sel
work often antecedents
defines a to of
portion ex
that one's joballow
is meaningful
employees
well-being through
and providetheir w
signif
work is more than
Most just job sat
researchers
or or
organizational 'significance'
commitmen
2013). A (Rosso
person's etof
sense al.self
201
her values, beliefs,
a strengths
growing numb
sense of self interacts
work as with
a the
'person
Cavallaro a
(2013) 'career.'
posit a In
model thi
o
the work overlaps
moralwith the ba
imperative
determine their perception
meaningful. of
The
clear need for that
authentic,
a key moral
part o
Wiersma and Morris
line of 2009),
research t
monopolize the time
meaning of
canindiv
be f
argument thatHowever,
they have Wrześn
an et
that is freely pursue
chosen, a 'job,'
providesa '
Springer
Generational Differences in Definitions of Meaningful Work: A Mixed Methods Study 1047
reasons for and meanings found in work. In addition, BriefFull Potential (self/doing), Unity with Others
Expressing
and colleagues have shown the importance of compensa- and Serving Others (others/doing) as source
(others/being)
tion as a predictor of well-being in employees,of meaning in work. Meaning is found from all fou
especially
when there is more financial need (e.g., Brief sources,
et al. 1997).
as well as from balancing the tensions of 'being'
The question remains whether compensation or goal
versus 'doing' and between 'self versus 'other.' Becaus
achievement can be considered sources of meaningful
of the distinct quadrants found in the Lips-Wiersma and
work. Overall, studies of meaningful work do not seem
Morris (2009) model, we have chosen to use this model as
governed by an overarching theory with which totheoretical
the make foundation for our comparison of meanin
across
predictions, and this is necessary for any practical generational cohort. See Fig. 1 for the origina
answers
model.
to the ethical duty to provide meaning at work.
In response to the lack of a comprehensive theory, two
As discussed above, there is an ethical imperative to pro
groups have attempted to integrate the vastvide
amount of
meaningful work for all employees. Most of the research
research on meaningful work (Lips-Wiersma and Morris
on meaningful work to date focuses on determining or findin
2009; Rosso et al. 2010). Although both models the
have been
best sources of that meaning for employees in the work
cited regularly in the literature, there does not force and to
yet seem then determining how employees can also develo
that meaning for themselves (Michaelson et al. 2014). As
be a consensus on which represents a more comprehensive
model. researchers examine what is missing from the stream, severa
Rosso et al. (2010) reviewed the literaturehave
in a noted
clear,that it really is not clear whether there are uni
structured manner examining sources of meaning and
versal definitions of meaning. Subjective perceptions of wh
is meaningful
methods of meaning development. In their theory, they dif- may actually not be as important as an over
ferentiate the dimensions of meaningful workarching
along two
idea of a universal sense of meaningfulness (Beadle
distinct axes - self versus other and agency versus
and commu-
Knight 2012), and Rosso et al. (2010) point out that ther
nal. The 'self dimension refers to 'self-concept' and assumption. . .that there exists a shared, generi
is a "common
sense of
includes things such as values, motivations and beliefs work common to all types and levels of work" (
about
117). found
work. The dimension of 'others' refers to meaning Lips-Wiersma and Morris (2009, p. 499) found th
from relationships with or working with other
their people,
participants wanted a sense of coherence among all o
including coworkers, the organization, the community.
the sources of meaning and enjoyed discussing their "com-
Work context and spiritual life are also found tomon humanity"
affect per- about issues of meaning, even if individual
ceptions of meaning in work. Rosso et al. (2010) were a bit
prioritized portions differently. Although coherence may
the goal,
more vague on the other axis, which included agency there are still questions about whether there ar
versus
differences
communion. Agency was defined as the "drive to differen- in what individuals consider most meaningfu
Using
tiate, separate, assert, expand, master and create" the Comprehensive Meaningful Work Scale (CMWS
whereas
communion was defined as the drive to "contact, attach,by Lips-Wiersma and Wright (2012), Lopez and
developed
connect and unite" (Rosso et al. 2010, p. 114). Together,
Ramos (2016) found no age-related differences on the variou
CMWSwhich
these axes form four pathways to meaningful work, dimensions of meaningful work. However, they did
include what Rosso and colleagues call Individuation
find that
(self/
employees in the 'career stage' (ages 40-54) had
agency), Contribution (others/agency), Self-Connection
trouble balancing the tensions. Michaelson et al. (2014) as
(self/communion) and Unification (other/communion).
whether there might be cultural differences in sources o
Although the literature review in Rosso et al.meaning,
(2010) was
as well as whether factors such as "gender, age, an
thorough and informative, the final theoreticalfamily
model or
wasother economic and non-economic responsibilities
(p. 87)
lacking. As Lips-Wiersma and Morris (2009) point outmay
in influence perceptions of meaning. The presen
their integration of the literature, when Bakan study
(1966) seeks
wroteto examine a specific area of potential differen
about agency and communion, it seemed to overlap con-
in prioritization of sources of meaning-generational cohort
siderably with the dimension that Rosso et al. Do employees
(2010) call from different cohorts perceive meaning i
self and other. Lips-Wiersma and Morris (2009)theiralso work
pos- differently, and if so, how? Finding an answer to
ited a theoretical model with similar quadrants to that of should help managers and organizational leader
this question
Rosso and colleagues, except that the axes included
determine'self
more specific ways to ethically provide organiz
vs 'other' and 'being' vs 'doing.' Through their tional climates that enhance meaning in work for everyone
significant
consulting and qualitative 'action' research, which focused
Generational
on letting individuals explore their own definitions Differences at Work
and
sources of meaning, Lips-Wiersma and Morris (2009)
developed a theoretical model with four The quadrants,
scientific study of generational differences has explo-
ded in the last 15 years, and consensus is still elusive
including Developing and Becoming Self (self/being),
â Springer
Fig. 1 Meaningful BEING work model

by Lips-Wiersma and Morris
(2009). The holistic
ļ Morał Development
development framework
] Working Together
based
on ; Personal
Lips-Wiersma Growth | Sharing
and Values
Morris
current i Bcuigresearch
action true to Belonging
/^I^/DEVELOPING U
/ ļ AND BECOM
¡h
I ' ' EXPRESSING / /
(
' ' FULL . SERVING / /
j V ' POTENTIAL % OTHERS / /
I Creating
! Achieving -
ļ Influencuig Meeting the needs of humanity

DOING
around how to define generations, whether generational

defines generational cohorts as those individuals grouped
identity is real, and if it is, how to measure itby
(Twenge
birth years that have experienced common historical
2010). However, just because the construct is still devel-
events during formative years. We chose demarcations of
oping does not mean that there are no importantbirth
effects
years that most closely resembled others in the liter-
ature: Traditionalists were born between 1922 and 1945,
based on generational cohort in the workplace (Campbell
Baby
et al. 2015). Lyons and Kuron (2014) reviewed the Boomers between 1946 and 1964, Generation X
litera-
between 1965 and 983 and Millenniais between 1984 and
ture to date and found differences based on personality,
002lead-
work values, work-life balance, career patterns and (Becton et al. 2014; Smola and Sutton 2002; Sullivan
ership preferences, among others. Generational etcohorts
al. 2009; Twenge 2010).
have similar recollections of experiences and eventsResearch
com- examining meaningful work across genera-
tions has
mon to their generation, as well as unique preferences for found that Baby Boomers experience higher
levels of work meaningfulness than Millennials (Hoole and
leadership styles, which gives evidence that "generational
Bonnema 2015). This work was done in South Africa and
differences are a legitimate diversity issue that organiza-
tions need to recognize and understand" (Arsenault 2004, that as employees age, they gain more experience
theorized
which
p. 134). In addition, 'generational identity' is a stable could lead to a higher feeling of meaningfulness.
con-
struct over time, even if the people on the 'cusp' (birththe researchers suggest that differences in what
Although
years on the borderline between two generationalconstitutes
cohorts) meaning may also change, they didn't actually
test(Lyons
may not clearly identify with a specific generation this. In addition, employees' values may influence their
and Schweitzer 2017). The current paper will experiences
use the of meaningful work (Hirschi 2012). Research
on values
construct of age-based generation, discussed by Joshi et al. across generations suggests that younger gener-
(2010), which takes its roots from Mannheim (1952), and
ations are not seeking meaning at work because Millennials
£) Springer
were 'slightly' less likely to value intrinsic rewards (which work found in Study 1 and comparing these to
meaningful
are defined as working for work's sake), andthe
they also
Lips-Wiersma and Morris' (2009) model.
scored lower on valuing finding a job that is interesting,
provides a challenge and makes an impact on others
Study 1 Introduction
(Twenge et al. 2010). There is evidence that Millinneals
value freedom and status more than Baby Boomers, but no
generational differences were found in other values, such to take a step back to determine whether
We decided
as social and altruistic values (Cennamo and Gardner 2008;were missing an important interpretation of the
researchers
Twenge et al. 2010). Baby Boomers had a significantly
data on generational differences. The research shows that
there are clear value differences across generations
higher work centrality than Gen X, who had a significantly
higher work centrality than Millenniais (Twenge et 2010),
(Twenge al. but do all generations value meaningful
work?
2010). Additionally, Generation X valued extrinsic Maybe there are different definitions of what
rewards
(such as pay and status) more than Millennial, who valuedwork constitutes for different generations, as
meaningful
them more than Baby Boomers, and, contrary to waspopular
implied by Chalofsky and Caravallo (2013). They
belief, Millennial valued social interactions the least of all
indicated that younger generations want more focus on
of the generational cohorts (Twenge et al. 2010).other people or on the community; however, they did not
Overlapping with work ethic and work centrality,
provide empirical evidence that this was the case. Starting
researchers have examined the desire for work-life balance. with qualitative, in-depth interviews give us a deeper look
Sullivan et al. (2009) found that Generation X desired more at how individuals from various generational cohorts define
balance than Baby Boomers, and Twenge et al. (2010) meaningful work (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie 2004).
found that Millennial seek freedom and balance more so
than Generation X and Generation X seek more than Baby
Methods
Boomers. This same trend held for valuing leisure. Mil-
lennial valued leisure more than Generation X, who val-
ued it more than Baby Boomers. Similarly, Sullivan et al.Participants
(2009) also found that Generation X have higher needs for
We interviewed five participants from each of the four gen-
balance than Baby Boomers. These findings lend support to
a difference in values across generations, which may erations, for a total of 20 participants. Participants were at a
translate into different definitions of what constitutes managerial or professional level in the workforce, with many
meaningful work. being attorneys, accountants, professors or retail managers.
All of the participants were from the same regional area, and
Based on discussions with executives wanting to learn
how to recruit and retain Millenniais, as well as with45% of them were female. Thirteen of the participants had
completed a graduate degree, three had completed their
Millennial in current college classes, the authors of this
paper saw a disconnect in the interpretation of the data bachelor's degree, and four had a high school diploma.
from some of the previous studies. What if the definitions
Interview Questions and Procedures
of concepts, such as 'meaningful work,' are actually dif-
ferent in different generations? The current study uses a
mixed methods design to examine differences in definitions
Through in-depth interviews, we attempted to determine
of meaningful work across generations. Combining quali-what employees think about their own generation and how
tative and quantitative methodologies to understand con-
they compare that to their perceptions of other generations
cepts more fully is advantageous (Johnson and on the definition of meaningful work. The interviews took
Onwuegbuzie 2004). A benefit of qualitative researchbetween
is 30 min and an hour per participant and were
that the data are based on participants' personal experi-
recorded and then transcribed for accuracy. Researchers
ences and stories. Therefore, Study 1 uses an inductive
followed a semi-structured interview guide with each par-
methodology to determine various definitions of mean-ticipant receiving the same questions with some ability for
ingful work from qualitative interviews with individuals
follow-up responses if necessary.
from different generations. We analyze the interviews toEven though there are distinctions made between the
determine whether generational cohorts spontaneously perception of an individual's occupation as a job, career or
coalesce around certain quadrants in the Lips-Wiersma and
calling, there are clear overlaps between these concepts.
Morris (2009) model when discussing what they find most
Arneson (1987, p. 522) defines meaningful work as "work
meaningful at work. Study 2 uses a larger, more general-
that is interesting, that calls for intelligence and initiative and
izare sample to deductively examine definitions is
ofattached to a job that gives the worker considerable
£) Springer
freedom... each generational cohort defines meaningful

"(emphasis added). work, as well T
theinterviewsas someoninteresting stereotypes
practicalityabout how other genera-
lowed tions view work. See Table 1 for an
Michaelson's overview of how
(2009) m
participant's generations view meaningful
current jobwork and verses
Table 2 for an
what things overview of how they
they think other generations
valued in perceive
a m
focused the meaningful
questions work. on the pa
and allowed them to compare i
job, instead
of asking them to
Traditionalists' Perception of Meaning
all workers. This also correspon
tional studies literature on the
Traditionalists believed that it was very important for a job
(Hackman and Oldham 1976)
to have meaning. One individual said, "I can't even
characteristics of a particular j
imagine going to a job that I didn't like, that I didn't think
meaningfulness (e.g., Scroggi
had value" (77-year-old female). This seemed to be the
asked questions like, "How imp
general consensus among Traditionalists. When asked what
job has meaning?", "What w
a meaningful job would look like, Traditionalists seemed to
like?" and "Do you see any g
think a job that is personally challenging and growth-ori-
desire for meaningful a job?".
ented, while giving one an opportunity to help others would
into a meaningful job, other qu
be what a true meaningful job consists of. For example, this
vant were ones like, "Please
71 -year-old female Traditionalist said,
Finally, the correspondence be
company values ... it has to
isbe challenging
also and I think if your job does
relevant
job, so the not challenge you to improve
question your skills then you're
used was,
that your not in the right job. . . so Ivalues
personal think you have to hope that are s
future your job always allows
company's you to grow.
values? Why
The ideal job for Traditionalists seemed to be one that was

both challenging and flexible. They wanted to be able to set
Results
their own hours, but still be challenged by the work they
were doing. Traditionalists found it extremely important
Interview Coding
that their personal ethics were not compromised by the
business' s ethics. One 70-year-old, male Traditionalist put
To assess the results, the lead author first analyzed four
it this way,
interviews (one from each generation, chosen at random) to
establish an initial set of codes. The second author and a ... I think character, integrity, moral behavior, all of
third research assistant then applied these initial codes to that is just critically important. And the company, the
four randomly chosen interviews (one from each genera- thing that I see, I don't think there's any difference
tion) in order to refine the list and develop any new codes between business ethics and personal ethics. And the
necessary. After discussion and resolution of differences, a reason I say that is because business ethics is a
master code list was developed. We used this code list to reflection of the people that run the company.
code all of the interviews. This process resulted in a list of
eight categories that were covered. These included: Indi-Baby Boomers' Perception of Meaning
vidual Values, Definitions of Work-Related Concepts,
Stress at Work, Working in Teams, Technology, Work-
Baby Boomers also believed it is very important for a job
Life Balance, Work Ethic and Perceptions of Other Gen-to be meaningful. A 51 -year-old female Baby Boomer said,
erations. In order to examine the definitions and percep-
If I didn't get personal fulfillment and feel like I was
tions of generational cohorts, we focus on the trends
doing something good, it would be miserable to put
relating to definitions of meaningful and ideal job, as well
that much time and effort into something... it would
as perceptions of other generations on these concepts for
be miserable and I'm sure I would regret it terribly.
this paper.
When asked what a meaningful job would look like, Baby
Interview Results Boomers believed that it was when their work aligned with
personal goals and when they could help others accomplish
After coding each interview and agreeing on trendstheir goals. One Baby Boomer said, "... success at
throughout the transcripts, we found differences in the wayachieving your personal goals and if you're working with
£) Springer
other people, helping them achieve their goals, whether

When askedit's
what their ideal job would be, Millennials
yourself or your clients" (59-year-old male). The ideal
wanted a jobjob
that included interaction with others and was
relaxed. Awith
for Baby Boomers provides independence, interaction 26-year-old female Millennial said, "I like
others and clear communication. They seemed dealing
a littlewithless
people, I like meeting everyone... the way the
adamant than the Traditionalists that personalfirm
values
treatsand
me is very relaxed atmosphere, very casual."
company values be aligned, but they still believed it was
Millennials believed that it was fairly important for per-
important. A 59-year-old male Baby Boomer said,
sonal "It's
values to align to company values. One Millennial
important; I don't think they have to be exact, but you
said, "... have
I think if I was constantly in conflict with what I
to be pretty close on the same page or it's not going
felt like I was to
doing in my job and how I wanted to do it
work for you, you're going to be unhappy." and those with I was trying to work with I would never feel
satisfied with the work I was trying to produce" (23-year-
old female) (Table 1).
Generation X Perception of Meaning
Perceptions of Other Generations' Definitions of Meaning

Generation X also values meaningful work. One Genera-
tion X member said, "From my perspective, if your job is
When asked about whether they saw generational differ-
without meaning or seemingly without purpose, what
ences in desire for a meaningful job, Traditionalists gen-
would get you out of bed?" (36-year-old male). Generation
erally believed that the younger generations did not care as
X believed that a meaningful job would be one that allowed
much about a job that had meaning. However, some of
them to pursue individual career goals and growth, while
them were willing to admit that it could just be their per-
still maintaining balance. They saw their ideal job as one
ception of the younger generations. For example, a
that allows them to be independent, flexible and innovative.
71 -year-old female Traditionalist mentioned, "I think it's a
One member of Generation X said,
perceived image. I have perceived that some who might
... if you feel like you are progressing as even
an indi-
have college degrees are not exerting the same
vidual, that you are not just stuck, that you amount
feel that
of effort as I am. And I mean younger people."
your work is not all-consuming or that you feel that
Baby Boomers believed that Millennials and Generation X
you can strike a good balance... that you are care
part ofabout money than meaning. A 52-year-old female
more
an organization with good values, those kinds of mentioned, "I really find some of our younger
Baby Boomer
things (40-year-old female). employees, it's more about the compensation. I think the
meaning of the job tends to come a little bit later. . . " They also
When it came to the alignment of personal and company
believed that Traditionalists just want to work all the time.
values, Generation X members did not think it was as
Generation X participants also perceived generational
important as Baby Boomers and Traditionalists did. A
differences when it came to a meaningful job. They
41 -year-old male Generation X member put it this way:
believed that Traditionalists will work long hours without
"Company values change a lot more often than mine -
depending on who is running the company. I can't count on
the company to have consistent values." Table 1 Meaningfulness of work - self perceptions
Generations Definitions of meaningful work

Millennial ' Perception of Meaning Millennials Nice coworkers
Serving others
Similarly to other generations, Millennials said that having Seeing lives improved
a meaningful job was very important. One Millennial said,
Personal happiness
"Absolutely important. I've always told my dad that I
Generation X Working with good people
would rather make nothing and love going to work every Work-life balance
day than make a ton of money and hate going to work
Pursue individual goals
every day" (23-year-old female). Millennial believe a
Baby Boomers Success
meaningful job is one that includes personal happiness and
Reaching personal goals
fulfillment, having nice coworkers, helping others and
Helping others achieve goals
being challenged. A 24-year-old male Millennial stated, "I
Traditionalists Challenging work
really think the most meaningful job is a job of service. . . if
Self satisfaction with work
you can do something that you know in one way or another
Helping others
directly benefits somebody else, it can also be very
Company values correspond to own values
rewarding."
â Springer
complaint, that Baby

work Boomers
differently
don't care the
about Lips-Wiersm
meaning, and t
concerned about their
work, wepersonal
can see
member of Generation
by each X sa
generati
exemplifies some
model
of (see
theseFig.
view
1
results suggest t
I do see that the different gen
meaning in the m
job differently... the closer
workplace. Tradit
tionalists, the more that you ar
ingful work bet
right because
it's right. And th
helping others in
the Millennials... you are want
challenging, but
for you, and if that coincides
community). The
good, but if it doesn't then it
side of the framework and straddle the line between
likely to go in search of some
focusing on self and other. Therefore, Traditionalists may
Millennials believed that
be right on the border between they
'Expressing Full Potential'
a meaningful and
job 'Serving Others.'
than Baby Boomers
any had similarofdefini- t
contradicts the older
tions of meaningful generat
work, but they seem more focused on
Several achieving goals and helping
Millennials said others achieve
that goals, rather
Ba
and Traditionalists only
than helping the community. work
Because of this focus on goal
care about achievement, Baby Boomersin
meaning will likely fall in the 'Ex-
the job
lot of ways I pressing Full Potential'
feel like quadrant, although they
I'm moremay also
part of that is
fall into
that
the 'Serving Others'
he's quadrant. Generation
just X thinks
re
think that I that
need to
a meaningful job will find
bring growth, me
reward and work-
something life balance,
and feel which supports
that the findingsit's
of Twenge etrea
al.
by" (2010), who found
(23-year-old that Generation X valued extrinsic
female) (Tab
reward more than the other generations, and that they
valued leisure more than Baby Boomers, but not more than
Study 1 Discussion
Millennials. They focused on balance and personal growth,
which may lead them to fall into the 'Developing and
The results of
Becoming
Study
Self quadrant (Self/Being).
1 provide
Finally, Millennials
ation believes agree
that
that challenge ishaving a also
important in a career, but they me
which confirms
want personal
past
happiness, nice coworkers
research and to be able to
Lips-Wiersma help others.
and These findings
Morris
may push Millennials back
200
also believes toward Quadrant
that the1; however, based off of popular
other per-
gen
for money ceptionsdo
and and past research
not (e.g., Chalofsky
care and Cavallaro
abou
effects of these
2013), it seems
negative
that Millennials find meaning from
perce
cow-
will be discussed
orker relationships,
later. which also indicates
For a position in
now
the
out that each generation
"Unity with Others" quadrant. Research is mixed defion the
Table 2 Perceptions of other

Generation Beliefs about other generations
generations' views on
meaningfulness
Millennials Baby Boomers and Traditionalists just work for money
Baby Boomers and Traditionalists are more loyal, but really just waiting to retire
Generation X Traditionalists work without complaint
Baby Boomers are only in it for money and don't care about meaning
Millennials are more concerned with their personal life
Baby Boomers Gen X and Millennials care more about money than meaning
Traditionalists work just to work
Millennials want more balance
Traditionalists Younger generations don't work as much

Younger generations don't have as much energy as older generations
Younger generations don't care about meaning in their work
Springer
The main goal of Study 2 is to determine whether

amount that Millenniais value social interactions though,
and there is evidence that the value may not begenerational
as high cohorts
as fall into different quadrants of the
this study indicates (Twenge et al. 2010). Lips-Wiersma and Morris (2009) model of meaningful
work.
In this study, while all care about meaning and We must first determine whether the items induc-
helping
others, their definitions of these vary, which would
tively defi-
determined from Study 1 fit the model put forward
by Lips-Wiersma
nitely affect their answers on a quantitative, specific survey and Morris (2009). We do this with the
question. It will likely also affect their interactions with
following pilot test. Then, following the ethical stream of
the literature
each other at work. If one of the most important things in a trying to determine a more universal defini-
job to Millennial is coworkers, then they will respond
tion of meaningful work (e.g., Bowie 1998, Yeoman 2014),
better to teamwork and interactive activities, aswe will testto
opposed the items developed from the results of Study 1
in a forced
Traditionalists, who might want to work from home when choice survey to determine whether genera-
possible. If each generation believes that the tional
others are on a wider scale agree on their definitions of
cohorts
meaning
only materialistic and do not care about value or or whether these definitions differ across
meaning,
they will likely have a cynical view of people's generations.
intentions,
behaviors and attitudes at work. This could cause conflict
and distrust. If everyone thinks that their cohort is more Study 2 Pilot Test
invested, cares more, etc., there will likely be differences of
opinion that are based in faulty perceptions. Communica- In their comprehensive model of meaningful work, Lips-
tion would likely help this problem. Understanding that Wiesma and Morris (2009) posit four quadrants along the
most employees want meaningful work and even what that 'Self/Other' axis and the 'Being/Doing' axis. The first
means to each group could help ward off unnecessary quadrant in the framework in the Lips-Wiersma and Morris
conflict. (2009) model is entitled 'Unity with Others' (Others/Be-
Although Study 1 indicates initial evidence that gener- ing) and includes descriptors such as "working together,
ational cohorts define meaning differently and prioritize sharing values, and belonging" (p. 503). Although Lips-
sources of meaning in different ways, the study itself is Wiersma and Morris (2009) listed "working with others"
limited. The stories and quotes provide rich qualitativeas fitting into this quadrant, we argue that this is more of a
information, but the sample size is small and geographi- 'doing' item rather than a 'being' item. The second quad-
cally constrained. The goal was to gain some perspectives rant in the Lips-Wiersma and Morris (2009) model,
on definitions and to assist as we develop a better under- 'Developing and Becoming Self (Self/Being) incorporates
standing of meaningful work across difference. As in mostfactors such as enjoying the work itself and being able to be
mixed methods research, these stories and personal expe- one's true self at work, as well as balancing work and
rience should set the stage for a more empirical studynonwork activities. According to Lips-Wiersma and Morris
across a broader set of participants. (2009), it also includes a dimension of moral development.
The third quadrant in the Lips-Wiersma and Morris (2009)
framework, 'Expressing Full Potential' (Self/Doing)
Study 2 Introduction includes items such as "creating, achieving and influenc-
ing" (p. 503), and finally, the fourth quadrant, the 'Serving
Study 1 presents some initial evidence into how differentOthers' (Others/Doing) quadrant, includes items such as
generational cohorts prioritize sources of meaning at"making a difference and meeting the needs of the com-
work. Beginning with the individual-level perceptions andmunity" (p. 503). Please refer to Fig. 1 for the original
definitions discovered in Study 1, we developed a list of model.
items to help us generalize these individual definitions to
a broader population of each generational cohort and Participants in Study 2 Pilot Test
determine whether generations differ from each other in
their perceptions of meaningful work. In doing so, weThe pilot test included fifty-nine participants recruited from
hope to answer Michaelson et al. 's (2014) call for moreAmazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk) program. Of the
research at the crossroads of business ethics and organi- participants, 57% were male, and 76.1% identified them-
zational studies. Study 1 provides individual-level stories selves as white, 10.2% identified as Hispanic/Latino, 8.5%
of preferences and difference in meaning while discussing identified as Asian and 5.1% identified as African Ameri-
their specific jobs and comparing them to their ideal jobs,can. MTurk is an online labor market where participants
while Study 2 provides a more generic look at broad are paid to perform work from their home computers.
definitions of meaningful work in general, across differentMany studies have compared the results of surveys con-
generations. ducted on MTurk to those of traditional student surveys,
£) Springer
1054 K. P. Weeks, C. Schaffert
social media then, we chose the three items

surveys andthat scored highest
othe for
vey data. each quadrant of the
Overall, model. For example,
the results for the item,
nificantly different
'being able to be my true self at work,' (Casier
participants chose
Chandler it to represent
2014). The 'self 94.2% studies
of the time, and they alsodi
chose itwith
demographics, to represent 'being'MTurk
92.2% of the time. There-pa
percentage offore, males,
this item was chosen as an item in the Self/Being
more eth
diversity Quadrant
than of
other the theoretical model. See Table 3 for an
samples
2013; Paloacci and
overview Chandler
of the items chosen in each quadrant and the
study is percentages each item was
examining chosen in each dimension.
generation
is an Since we
especially planned to use a forced choice methodology
attractive qualit in
sample, we only included
Study 1, we chose to pa
keep the number of items to three
entire survey per quadrant.
and In a forced choice survey, each item is
currently l
were paid compared against
thirty every other item,each
cents so adding a fourth
to
item to each quadrant would exponentially increase the
Procedures for
number ofStudy
choices participants would
2 have Pilot
to make, and T
having three items in each quadrant lent itself to a
Based on the quotes
manageable number of comparisons.and tre
careful reading
Participants clearly
of agreed
Lips-Wie
that all items except one
developed a list of
(work-life balance) belonged20 items
in the Quadrants represented.
meaningful Participants equally
work chose the Work-Life
that Balance item as a
should
model. 'being' and a 'doing' item.saw
Participants As Munn (2013)a
indicated
seri in a
meaningful study
work, such
on work-life integration, as
work-life balance affects the 'e
'having perception of meaningful
coworkers work, and is therefore
who shar an
impacting important conceptthrough
others for organizations to consider. Munnwo
rate each item(2013) on
defined work-life
whether balance as "how individualsit f
The first choose to prioritize work,
category was family, individual
whethe and commu-
'self or 'other.'
nity responsibilities
The (p. 404)."
following
Each individual may do this
dimension: "is the main idea of the item focused on self or differently, but the organizational culture can influence
self-concept? - for example it could refer to personal how effective individuals are at accomplishing their
growth, personal values or personal achievements," and the desired level of balance. This item is also a common
other dimension was described as "is the main idea of the concept in the research on generational differences in the
item focused on interactions with or relating to others? -workplace. Quadrant 1 is titled 'Developing and Becoming
for example, it could refer to interactions with groups, Self,' and is defined as focused on "moral development,
individuals or the community." In addition to ratings on personal growth, and being true to self' (Lips-Wiersma
'self and 'other,' participants saw the same list of items and Morris 2009, p. 503, see Fig. 1). Therefore, we kept
and were asked whether the items focused more on 'being' work-life balance in the first quadrant as an extension of
or 'doing' as defined in Lips-Wiersma and Morris (2009):'being true to self.'
the "being" dimension was described as "Is the main idea
Study 2
of the item focused on 'being' (in the moment, reflective,
no action) as opposed to acting or doing something
specific?" and the 'doing' dimension as "is the main idea The goal for Study 2 was to determine whether genera-
of the item focused on 'doing' (action or doing something),tional cohorts would choose meaningful work items that
as opposed to simply 'being'?" The 20 items were ran-fall into different quadrants of the chosen model (Lips-
domly generated in each list for each participant, and theWiersma and Morris 2009). Based on the results of Study
order of the lists was also given randomly. 1, the responses of both Traditionalists and Baby Boomer
about their definitions of meaningful work indicate that
they might value the "Expressing Full Potential" quadrant
Results of Study 2 Pilot Test of the Lips-Wiersma and Morris (2009) model, with some
prioritization of the "Serving Others" quadrant as well.
To determine whether the items chosen fell into the The definitions from Generation X suggested that they
quadrants suggested by the theory, we examined would
thefall into the "Developing and Becoming Self'
percentage of times participants chose each item for quadrant,
each and the results from Millennials suggested that
of the four dimensions (self, other, being, doing), theyand
would fall into the "Unity with Others" and the
£) Springer
Table 3 Pilot test: percentage of participant choosing items for each quadrant
Self-being quadrant Other-being quadrant
Self Being Other Being
Enjoying the work itself 94.2 72.5 Having coworkers who share my values 71.2 88.2
Being able to be my true self at work 94.2 92.2 Having an inspiring leader 73.1 84.3
Having work-life balance 88.5 51 Having close relationships with my coworkers 88.5 64.7
Self-doing quadrant Other-doing quadrant
Self Doing Other Doing
Developing professional skills 90.4 82.4 Serving the community through my work 88.5 98
Accomplishing personal goals 98 80.4 Helping others accomplish their goals 90.4 98
Having work that allows me to make 88.5 62.7 Positively impacting others through work 82.7 86.3
a lot of money
Procedures
"Developing and Becoming Self' quadrants. Since this
study is the first of its kind, these assumptions are merely
After
speculative and the purpose of Study 2 is to test theparticipants signed on to their Mechanical Turk
empirical research questions below: account, they were asked to participate in a study on
generational differences in the workplace. They had to
Research Question 1 complete the study to receive compensation (although they
did not have to complete every question). Participants
received
Which quadrant does each generational cohort fit into when an Informed Consent form, which explained the
purpose of the study and allowed them to skip questions or
defining and prioritizing sources of meaningful work?
opt out at any time. By continuing to the survey, partici-
Research Question 2 pants gave their consent to participate.
Do the generational cohorts differ significantly among the

Measure
quadrants on the amount that they value each when
defining meaningful work?
Lips-Wiersma and Wright (2012) developed a Comprehen-
sive Meaningful Work Scale (CMWS) to measure the con-
tent of the construct Meaningful work" across multiple
Study 2 Methods
dimensions. In addition, their scale captures the relationships
between and across these dimensions and how individuals
Participants
balance the conflicts between dimensions. Although this
scale is an outstanding way to measure a comprehensive
For Study 2, we had 303 participants, who were 48.6% male
version of how the dimensions work together to provide
and 71.3% White (4% African American, 3.4% Hispanic,
meaning, the current research is more focused on allowing
and 5.7% Asian). We used TurkPrime to help recruit specific
generational cohorts to express which dimension they pri-
participants in each generational cohort, and the participants
oritize over others, if any, and then to examine whether the
were paid $1 to participate. Therefore, we had 100 partici-
generations differ on their priorities in terms of meaningful
pants who were born between 1984 and 2002 (Millennials),
work. Study 1 indicated that generational cohorts prioritize
106 who were born between 1965 and 1983 (Generation X)
one dimension over another when defining meaning at work
and 92 who were born between 1946 and 1964 (Baby
and that generations differ from each other in the prioriti-
Boomers). Unfortunately, we only had two participants who
zation. Therefore, instead of using the CMWS, we chose to
fell into the Traditionalist age group (born between 1922 and
develop items from our qualitative analysis into a forced
1945) and we had three participants who were born before
choice scale, allowing generations to directly compare items
1922. Therefore, we could not examine Traditionalists in
to other items in order to find the highest preference in each
Study 2, and these five participants were removed from
pair. In addition to exposing clear preferences, forced choice
further analysis, leaving us with a total of 298 participants.
rating scales have been shown to reduce rater biases found in
Springer
1056 K. P. Weeks, C. Schaffert
more GenerationLikert
traditional X scales (Bar
and 1991).Rosnow
Participants For Generation X,
were the 2-way interaction the
shown (self-other x fol
then asked to being-doing)
pick was also
a significant,
phrase F(l, 105) = 95.241,
from
corresponded p < .0001). Specifically,
best to the results showed that
their Genera-
defini
tion X define meaningful work using the Self-Being items
We are interested in differing p
significantly more than all other quadrants. There was no
ing at work. In the next few qu
significant difference in their use of items from Self-Doing
you to pick an item in each p
and Other-Doing items in their definitions, but these two
meaningful work to you per
were both significantly used more to define meaningful
meaningful when:
work than were the items from the Other-Being quadrant.
Each of the 12 items chosen from
each Millennials
Quadrant) was randomly pa
three other Quadrants until all p
seen. For Millennials, the 2-way interaction (self-other x being-
doing) was significant, F(l, 99) = 54.597, p < .0001. The
pattern of results for Millennials was similar to that of
Generation X with Millennials defining meaningful work
Study 2 Results using items from the Self-Being quadrant significantly
more than any of the other quadrants, with Self-Doing and
To examine the results of the survey, a 2 (self-other) x 2
Other-Doing not being significantly different from each
(being-doing) x 3 (generational cohort) mixed methods
other, but being chosen significantly more than the items
analysis of variance was performed. The three waythe
from inter-
Other-Being quadrant.
action was significant, F( 2, 295) = 8.163, p < .001).
Therefore, we looked specifically at the pattern of results
Differences Between Generations
within each generational cohort. See Table 4 for a sum-
mary of the results described below.
We also analyzed the results across generational cohorts to
determine the differences in how different generational
cohorts defined meaningful work within each quadrant.
Baby Boomers
There were no significant differences in the value put on
the Self-Being and Self-Doing items among each genera-
For Baby Boomers, the 2-way interaction (self-other x
tional cohort. However, when examining the Other-Doing
being-doing) was significant, F(l, 91) = 193.737,
p < .0001. Specifically, the results showed that Baby quadrant, there is a linear trend with Baby Boomers
choosing Other-Doing significantly more than Millennials
Boomers define meaningful work using the Self-Being and
choosing items from this quadrant, F( 2, 295) = 6.142,
the Other-Doing quadrant items significantly more than
p = .002, with Generation X falling in the middle, but not
they used the Self-Doing items and the Self-Doing items
significantly different than Millennials or Baby Boomers.
significantly more than the Other-Being items.
When examining Other-Being, the pattern is the opposite,
with Millennials choosing items from this quadrant sig-
nificantly more than Baby Boomers F( 2, 295) = 6.413,
p = .002), with Generation X falling in the middle, but not
Table 4 Average selection of each type of statement by generational significantly different than Millennials or Baby Boomers.
cohorts
Generation
Baby boomers Generation X Millennial Study 2 Discussion

Self Other Self Other Self Other
The results of Study 2 showed that although all generations
Being 17.99a 5.65b 18.32a 7.06b 17.73a 8.01b define meaning similarly, they also differ somewhat across
Doing 12.59c 17.77a 13.08c 15.55c 14.12c 14.14« generational cohort. Specifically, all generations prioritized
the Self-Being quadrant entitled "Developing and
All significance results are comparisons within generation only.
Becoming Self' the highest when defining meaningful
Means with different subscripts are significantly different at p < .05.
Comparisons across generations are discussed in the textwork. According to Lips-Weirsma and Morris (2009), this
£) Springer
meaning,pro-
quadrant involves things such as moral development, and the differences don't seem to be as pro-
fessional growth, and being true to self. Baby Boomers
nounced as employees believe them to be.
Although
equally chose the 'Other-Doing' quadrant entitled, 'Serv- Study 1 indicated some differences across
generations
ing Others' in their definition of meaningful work. in defining meaningful work, Study 2 did not
In fact,
show as
they chose the Other-Doing quadrant significantly many as were predicted from Study 1. All gen-
more
than Millennials did. This supports the finding in Study
erations 1 meaningful work through personal growth
define
and being
indicating that Baby Boomers enjoy helping others true to themselves, which indicates that all
achieve
generations
their goals, and it also supports the findings from Twenge may define meaning using intrinsic rewards
et al. (2010) that Baby Boomers scored slightly more than
higher was indicated in previous literature on genera-
than
Millennials on wanting a job that helps others; however,
tions (e.g., Twenge et al. 2010), but supports research from
the humanities
the overall differences in valuing altruistic rewards was not on the common search for meaning as a
human condition (Lips-Wiersma and Morris 2009; Lips-
significant across generations in the Twenge study.
In addition to the strong support for 'Developing
Wiersma
and
and Wright 2012). It also supports the idea that
Becoming Self as the favored definition of meaningful
meaningful work fulfills a basic human need and is there-
work, all generations rated items in the "Unity
forewith Oth- in and of itself (Yeoman 2014). Managers
important
have
ers" quadrant the lowest. The idea of having an an ethical duty to consider the basic needs of their
inspiring
leader, close relationships with coworkers, employees and provide work that supports the moral
and having
shared values with coworkers does not seem todevelopment
be a strongof the employees without compromising the
source of meaningful work for any generation. However,
employees' abilities to choose their own route to happiness
(Bowie 1998).
Millennials rated the items in this category significantly
higher than Generation X or Baby Boomers did,Perhaps
showingthe negative (and likely inaccurate) perceptions
some support for the finding from Study 1 that having
and nice of other generations depicted in Study 1 are
stereotypes
coworkers is more important to the definition of mean-
driving the differences that employees experience in the
ingful work for Millennials than it is for otherworkplace
generations.
more than actual differences in the definitions of
meaningful work. If each generation thinks that the other
generations are only working for money, then they will
treat each other differently than if they believe that they are
Overall Discussion all striving for intrinsic meaning in their jobs. In actuality,
Study 2 showed that employees firom all generations define
The ethical call for organizations to provide meaningful
meaningful work as being able to "Develop and become
work for all employees necessitates an understanding their
of true selves," which included enjoying the work (in-
how individual employees define meaning. In examiningtrinsic motivation), being able to be your true self, and
differing definitions of meaningful work across genera-
balancing work/nonwork activities. Only Baby Boomers
tional cohorts, we have made several useful contributions
valued Serving Others as much as this, which is different
to the field. First of all, we used a mixed methods design to previous research showing no differences across
from
test the comprehensive theoretical model developed by
generations in valuing altruistic rewards (Twenge et al.
Lips-Wiersma and Morris (2009) across generational
2010).
cohort. Testing theoretical models in this way should
happen more often as researchers advance the knowledge
Implications for Managers
on key issues that affect managers and employees today.
The authors of this model called for testing the theoriesEven
in athough the two studies here initially indicate con-
more diverse and generalizable setting, as well as with
flicting results, there are some strong implications for
quantitative data. We have done both, and our results
managers. The main purpose of the research was to
support the model in that there are clear commonalities in
determine whether generations have different definitions of
the ways employees seek meaning. Our studies also meaning at work, and Study 2 showed that all generations
answered the call to look at how different demographicwant meaning, and may even agree on their definitions of
factors affect perceptions of meaning (Michaelson et meaning.
al. Even with agreement of values, there may be
differences in abilities to obtain desired characteristics
2014). Specifically, we examined generational differences
in definitions and prioritization of sources of meaning at work across generations. For example, all generations
from
work. Meaning is likely found through experiencing all
prioritize "developing and becoming self'; however, Baby
four quadrants together (Lips-Wiersma and Wright 2012),
Boomers may have an easier time realizing the factors
and although there may be slight differences in prioritiza-
included in this dimension because they typically have
tion of sources of meaning, all employees are seeking
more power in the organization. Thory (2016) found that
£) Springer
senior meaning. Managers

managers who should create awere
supportive organiza-int
more able work fewer hours and therefore balance work tional climate, which will help employees find their
and nonwork without being reprimanded. intrinsic meaning and keep balance in their lives. One
specific way to do this might be to incorporate Emotional
Study 1 also indicated that there is a perception that dif-
Intelligence (EI) training in the workplace. Thory (2016)
ferent generations define meaning differently, and therefore,
found that voluntary EI training for managers proved to be
each generation is likely experiencing stereotypes about other
a valuable tool for the managers to recognize and build
generations, which could prevent understanding across dif-
their own meaning and coherence around the Lips-
ferences. Urick et al. 2017 developed a theoretical model of
Wiersma and Morris (2009) four dimensions, as well as
conflict across generations and found identity-based, values-
based and behavior-based tensions that occur because of enabling them to encourage their subordinates to do the
perceived generational differences at work. The fact that
same. Learning EI skills can help managers and employees
understand the sources of meaning at work and work
Study 1 found stereotypes that all "other" generations do not
care about meaning and only care about money shows that
toward applying them on a daily basis (Thory 2016).
much more research is needed into the stereotypes and prej-
Limitations
udices that occur as a result of our generational identities
(Joshi et al. 2010). There is evidence that generational
Although the current study has made some important
stereotypes are well-known and may elicit stereotype threat,
which is the underperformance by a stereotyped individual
contributions, it is not without its limitations. The study of
generational differences has been criticized over the years
because of the awareness of a stereotype (Steele and Aronson
because of definitions of generational cohorts, measure-
1995). Research has also shown that if people know that there
is a strong negative stereotype about their generation, they ment
are of the constructs and whether there is even a gener-
ational construct (e.g., Constanza and Finklestein 2015;
likely to bolster their responses when asked about those items,
Twenge 2010). One criticism is that the use of cross-sec-
presumably to make their generation look better than others
tional data has been shown to be problematic because
view them. Even when their group isn't plagued by a strong
results are not clearly defined as "generational." Our cross-
stereotype, they still tend to favor their in-group and differ-
entiate themselves from the outgroup (Weeks et al. 2017).sectional
If results could be attributed solely to age of the
participants or the stage of life differences which people
generations perceive that generational outgroups are less
motivated and care less, they are likely to be less effective encounter
at throughout their careers (Constanza and Fin-
transmitting knowledge or working together across groups klestein 2015; Lyons and Kuron 2014; Twenge 2010).
(which Joshi et al. 2010, call "resistive" interactions). Man-
Researchers suggest using longitudinal studies or time-lag
methodologies to more clearly show that differences are
agers, therefore, have an ethical duty to help generational
attributable to generations and not other factors (Lyons and
cohorts identify common goals and learn to overcome conflict
Kuron 2014). In addition, when researchers believe that a
(which Joshi et al. 2010, call "transmitative" interactions).
generational construct exists, they do not agree on the exact
Therefore, it is imperative that managers begin to learn more
"generational intelligence" (Biggs and Lowenstein 20 1 1 ) birth
and years of the cohorts (Twenge 2010). Research has
assist as generational cohorts learn how to understand each
shown that at least 25 percent of individuals do not identity
other and work together. with a generational cohort at all (Lyons and Schweitzer
Lips-Wiersma and Morris (2009) have used "action 2017). Future research should definitely focus on whether
these individuals who are typically on the "cusp" (their
research" to allow employees to openly talk about and face
conflicts over what constitutes meaning in their lives and
birth years fall close to the distinctions between two gen-
work. Instead of leaders in organizations dictating what
erations) react differently than others in either generation
on key factors being studied. Even with the criticism of
should be meaningful in work, they should strive to engage
methodology and definitions, researchers have still found
the existing meanings within individual employees. Lips-
importance in making predictions based on generational
Wiersma and Morris (2009) encourage companies to allow
meaning and culture to emerge. Employees may differ group
in differences (Campbell et al. 2015), and maybe even
how they prioritize sources of meaning, as we found more importantly, it is necessary to examine the way per-
(especially in Study 1), but they also will likely benefit
ceptions form across generations and how these stereotypes
affect behavior in the workplace (Lyons and Kuron 2014).
from workshops that help them integrate multiple sources
of meaning into one picture to increase a feeling of
Interestingly, our second study showed that there were not
as many differences across generations as we initially
coherence. Lips-Wiersma and Morris (2009) suggest rec-
ognizing and discussing differences in perception, while
predicted, and maybe the answer is to focus on the fact that
also helping employees see commonalities in desire for stereotypes still exist.
â Springer
Future Research between the cohorts and work to teach employees how to
communicate well across such difference.
On the other hand, if the employee holds the moral
This research is an initial step toward examining the inter-
play between business ethics and organizational studiesimperative
on to seek work that is meaningful, we must
assume that he has an economic and practical choice of
the ways that managers can better provide an environment
where employees can experience meaningfulness at work,
positions, and that he desires that his work contribute to the
and the ways that employees can also work towardmeaning
an in his life. If this is the case, then we can look at
the present data and draw conclusions about how
understanding of their own values and how they comple-
ment and differ from others at work. Future research should
employees from different generations will choose their jobs
replicate the mixed methods design to examine other fac-
and why they will choose the ones that they choose. The
fact that generational cohorts agreed that meaningful work
tors, such as gender, race and family structures to determine
corresponds
whether there are differences in prioritization of sources of to intrinsic values, we may assume that, if
meaning across other demographic characteristics. given the choice, they would choose work that contributes
In addition, researchers can continue the researchtoon their self-concept and moral development. However,
Michaelson (2011) has argued that not every individual
generational cohorts by examining similarities and differ-
ences in definitions of other important work-related desires
con- to find meaning in their work. Even so, recognizing
cepts, such as work ethic or work-life balance across the common desire for meaning across generations can
generations. Future research should use longitudinal help employees overcome stereotypes and work together
designs to follow participants through work stages more and effectively, which may, in the end, help each
employee experience more meaning and well-being at
changes in work situations to determine whether prioriti-
work.
zation of certain dimensions changes as contexts change. In
addition, researchers should focus more specifically on
Compliance with Ethical Standards
identifying key stereotypes across generation and measur-
ing the effectiveness of various proposed solutionsConflict
to of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
conflict caused by those stereotypes (Urick et al. 2017).
interest.
Each of these directions for future research will likely

Human and Animal Rights All procedures performed in studies
build continued support for the comprehensive model of
involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical
meaning at work developed by Lips-Wiersma and Morris
standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and
(2009). Lips-Wiersma and Wright (2012) suggest that itwith
is the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or
in seeking balance and coherence across dimensions comparable

that ethical standards.
employees actually find meaning. Therefore, using their

Informed consent Informed consent was obtained from all individ-
CMWS to examine the ability to balance tensions between
ual participants included in the study.
the dimensions over time is another fruitful avenue for
future research.
References
Conclusion
Arneson, R. J. (1987). Meaningful work and market socialism. Ethics,
97(3), 517-545.
Once we understand some of the nuances of different
Arsenault, P. (2004). Validating generational differences: A legiti-
definitions of meaningful work, the question remains: Whomate diversity and leadership issue. Leadership and Organiza-
holds the ethical responsibility to provide such meaning?tion
Is Development Journal, 25(1/2), 124-141.
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence : Isolation and
it the employer? Michaelson (2011, pp. 552-553) states
communion in western man. Boston: Beacon Press.
that "all questions of responsibility are practical questions,
Bartlett, C. J., Quay, L. C., & Wrightsman, L. S., Jr. (1960). A
in the sense that the assignment of responsibility must comparison
be of two methods of attitude measurement: Likert-type
practically feasible." In other words, if the employerand
is forced choice. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
20(4), 699-704.
ethically responsible to provide meaningful work, she must
Beadle, R., & Knight, K. (2012). Virtue and meaningful work.
understand the differences in definitions across genera-Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(2), 433-450.
tions, in order to provide, at the very least, an environment
Becton, J. B., Waker, H. J., & Jones-Farmer, A. (2014). Generational
that supports meaningful work for each employee. She
differences in workplace behavior. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 44(3), 175-189.
must consider generational differences in definitions of
Biggs, S., & Lowenstein, A. (2011). Generational intelligence : A
meaning as she designs jobs, recruits and selects employ-
critical approach to age relations. New York, NY: Routledge.
ees, and allows them to develop throughout their career.
Bowie, N. E. (1998). A Kantian theory of meaningful work. Journal
She should be aware of the similarities and differences of Business Ethics, 77(9/10), 1083-1092.
£) Springer
Brief, A. P., Brett, J.

Lyons, S. T., & Schweitzer, F.,
L. (2017). A qualitativeFutter,
exploration of
economically generational identity: Making sense on
dependent of young and old in the
one's j
with regard tocontext worker well-bein
of today's workplace. Work, Aging, and Retirement,
Psychology , 3(2), 209-224.
27(15), 1303-1307.
Bunderson, J. Mannheim,
S., K. (1952).& TheThompson,
problem of generations. Psychoanalytic J.
Zookeepers, Review, 57(3), 378-404. and
callings the dual
work. May, D. R., Gilson, L., & Harter,
Administrative L. M. (2004). The psychological
Science Quart
Campbell, W. K., conditionsCampbell,
of meaningfulness, safety and availability andS.
the M.,
(2015). Generational
engagement of the human differences
spirit at work. Journal of Occupa- a
and Organizational Psychology,
tional and Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 11-37. 5
Cardador, M. T.,
Michaelson, Dane, E.,
C. (2009). Teaching meaningful &
work: PhilosophicalPrat
orientations to organizational
discussions on the ethics of career choice. Journal of Business att
Ethics Journal
instrumentality. Education, 6, 43-67. of Vocatio
Casier, K., Bickel,
Michaelson, C. (2011).
L., Whose responsibility
& Hackett,
is meaningful work?
comparison ofJournal participants
of Management Development, 30(6), 548-557. and
MTurk, social Michaelson,
media,C., Pratt, M. G., Grant, A. M.,
and& Dunn, C. P. (2014).
face-
Computers in Human Behavior,
Meaningful work: Connecting business ethics and organization 2
Cerniamo, L., & studies. Journal of Business Ethics, 727(1),
Gardner, D. 77-90.
(2008). G
values, Munn, S. L. (2013).
outcomes and Unveiling theperson-organ
work-life system: The influence of
Managerial Psychology,
work-life balance on meaningful work. Advances23(8),
in Developing 89
Chalofsky, N., & Human Resources,
Cavallaro,75(4), 401. L. (201
life: Meaning,Paloacci, purpose, and
G., & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the turk: Understanding HR
Human Resources, mechanical turk as 75(4),
a participant pool. Current331-340
Directions in
Constanza, D. P., Psychological
& Science, 23(3), 184-188.
Finklestein, L.
differences in Pfeffer,
the J., Hatano, workplace:
T., & Santalainen, T. (1995). Producing sustain- Is th
and Organizational Psychology,
able competitive advantage through the effe. The Academy of 5
Eid, M., & Diener, Management
E.Executive,
(2006).9(1), 55. The need
in psychology. Piccolo, R. F., In
& Colquitt, J.M. Eidleadership
A. (2006). Transformational & E.
multimethod measurement in psych
and job behaviors: The mediating role of core job characteristics.
DC: American Psychological
Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 327-340. Asso
Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The validity of the job Pratt, M. G., & Ashforth, B. E. (2003). Fostering meaningfulness in
characteristics model: A review and a meta-analysis. Personnel working and at work. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R.
Psychology, 40(2), 287-322. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship (pp.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Work redesign. Reading, 309-327). San Francisco: Berret-Koehler Publishers.
MA: Addison-Wesley. Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral
Hirschi, A. (2012). Callings and work engagement: Moderated research: Methods and data analysis (pp. 157-177). New York:
mediation model of work meaningfulness, occupational identity, McGraw-Hill.
and occupational self-efficacy. Journal of Counseling Psychol- Rosso, B. D., Dekas, K. H., & Wrześniewski, A. (2010). On the
ogy, 59(3), 479-485. meaning of work: A theoretical integration and review. Research
Hoole, C., & Bonnema, J. (2015). Work engagement and meaningful in Organizational Behavior, 30, 91-127.
work across generational cohorts. SA Journal of Human Scroggins, W. A. (2008). Antecedents and outcomes of experienced
Resource Management, 73(1), 1-11. meaningful work: A person-job fit perspective. Journal of
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods Business Inquiry, 7, 68-78.
research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educa- Smola, K. W., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences:
tional Researcher, 33(7), 14-26. revisiting generational work values for the new millennium.
Joshi, A., Dencker, J. C., Franz, G., & Martocchio, J. J. (2010). Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(4), 363-382.
Unpacking generational identities in organizations. Academy ofSteele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the
Management Review, 35(3), 392-414. intellectual performance of African Americans. Journal of
Kovacs, G. (1986). Phenomenology of work and self-transcendence. Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797-811.
The Journal of Value Inquiry, 20(3), 195-207. Sullivan, S. E., Forret, M. L., Carraher, S. M., & Mainiero, L. A.
Lips-Wiersma, M., & Morris, L. (2009). Meaningful work' and the (2009). Using the kaleidoscope career model to examine
Management of meaning. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(3), generational differences in work attitudes. Career Development
491-511. International, 14(3), 284-302.
Lips-Wiersma, M., & Wright, S. (2012). Measuring the meaning Thory,
of K. (2016). Developing meaningfulness at work through
meaningful work: Development and validation of the compre-emotional intelligence training. International Journal of Train-
hensive meaningful work scale. Group and Organizational ing and Development, 20(1), 58-77.
Management, 37(5), 655-685. Twenge, J. M. (2010). A review of empirical evidence on genera-
Lopez, F. G., & Ramos, K. (2016). An exploration of gender and tional differences in work attitudes. Journal of Business
career stage differences on a multidimensional measure of workPsychology, 25(2), 201-210.
meaningfulness. Journal of Career Assessment, online Twenge,
first J. M., Campbell, S. M., Hoffman, B. J., & Lance, C. E.
publication., doi: 10. 11 77/ 10690727 16639851. (2010). Generational differences in work values: leisure and
Lyons, S. T., & Kuron, L. (2014). Generational differences in theextrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values decreas-
workplace: A review of the evidence and directions for future
ing. Journal of Management, 36(5), 1117-1142.
research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(S1), SUrick,
139- M. J., Hollensbe, E. C., Masterson, S. S., & Lyons, S. T.
S157. (2017). Understanding and managing intergenerational conflict:
Springer
Wrześniewski,
An examination of influences and strategies. Work, Aging, and A. (2002). "It's not just a job": Shifting meanings of
Retirement, 3(2), 166-185. work in the wake of 9/11. Journal of Managerial Inquiry, 11(3),
Weeks, K. P., Weeks, M., & Long, N. (2017). Generational 230-234.
perceptions at work: in-group favoritism and out-group stereo- Yeoman, R. (2014). Conceptualizing meaningful work as a funda-
types. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 36(1), 1-21. mental human need. Journal of Business Ethics, 125, 235-251.
£) Springer

Weeks GenerationalDifferencesDefinitions 2019

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Weeks GenerationalDifferencesDefinitions 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Generational Differences in Definitions of Meaningful Work: A Mixed Methods Study

Author(s): Kelly Pledger Weeks and Caitlin Schaffert

Generational Differences in Definitions of Meaningful Work:

Abstract The search for meaningful work has been

Fig. 1 Meaningful BEING work model

ļ Influencuig Meeting the needs of humanity

around how to define generations, whether generational

freedom... each generational cohort defines meaningful

The ideal job for Traditionalists seemed to be one that was

other people, helping them achieve their goals, whether

Perceptions of Other Generations' Definitions of Meaning

Generations Definitions of meaningful work

complaint, that Baby

Table 2 Perceptions of other

Traditionalists Younger generations don't work as much

The main goal of Study 2 is to determine whether

social media then, we chose the three items

Self-being quadrant Other-being quadrant

Self Being Other Being

Self-doing quadrant Other-doing quadrant

Self Doing Other Doing

Do the generational cohorts differ significantly among the

Baby boomers Generation X Millennial Study 2 Discussion

senior meaning. Managers

Each of these directions for future research will likely

in seeking balance and coherence across dimensions comparable

employees actually find meaning. Therefore, using their

Brief, A. P., Brett, J.

You might also like