Generational Differences in Work Ethic

Author(s): Keith L. Zabel, Benjamin B. J. Biermeier-Hanson, Boris B. Baltes, Becky J. Early

and Agnieszka Shepard
Source: Journal of Business and Psychology , June 2017, Vol. 32, No. 3 (June 2017), pp.
301-315
Published by: Springer

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/48700689

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
and Psychology

This content downloaded from

149.156.208.249 on Fri, 22 Mar 2024 14:41:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
J Bus Psychol (2017) 32:301–315
DOI 10.1007/s10869-016-9466-5
ORIGINAL PAPER
Generational Differences in Work Ethic: Fact or Fiction?
Keith L. Zabel1 • Benjamin B. J. Biermeier-Hanson2 • Boris B. Baltes1
Becky J. Early1 • Agnieszka Shepard1
Published online: 11 October 2016
Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016
Abstract Even though stereotypes suggest that older
generational cohorts (e.g., Baby Boomers) endorse higher
levels of work ethic than younger generations (e.g., Mil-
lennials), both the academic literature and popular press
have found mixed evidence as to whether or not genera-
tional differences actually exist. To examine whether
generational differences exist in work ethic, a dataset was
compiled (k = 105) of all published studies that provided
an average sample age and average work ethic score, with
each sample becoming an observation, and being assigned
a generational cohort based upon the average age of the
sample. Three hierarchical multiple regressions found no
effect of generational cohort on work ethic endorsement. In
two of the three phases, results found a main effect of
sample type, such that industry samples had higher work
ethic endorsement than student samples. Implications for
applied practitioners and future research streams for gen-
erational and work ethic research are discussed.
Keywords Work ethic
Generational differences

Twenty-first-century skills
Aging
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this
article (doi:10.1007/s10869-016-9466-5) contains supplementary
material, which is available to authorized users.
& Keith L. Zabel
keith.zabel@wayne.edu
1
Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA
2
Radford University, Radford, VA, USA
This content downloaded from
149.156.208.249 on Fri, 22 Mar 2024 14:41:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
•
Generational Differences in Work Ethic: Fact
or Fiction?
At the present time, an unprecedented percentage of the US
workforce consists of members from the Baby Boomer
generation (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2014). A number of
factors, such as decreasing fertility rates, broken retirement
systems, and increasing life expectancy due to medical
advances, have caused nations to consistently increase their
retirement ages. All these factors have motivated individ-
uals to continue working and delay retirement (Finkelstein
et al. 2015). Given that Baby Boomers, Generation X, and
Millennial generations will continue working together for
decades, it is of vital importance to determine whether
generational differences exist in the Protestant work ethic
(PWE) endorsement, an important enabler of twenty-first-
century skill development.
PWE originated in the writings of Max Weber (1958),
who argued that egalitarian principles, a disdain of leisure
activities, and the belief in the importance of hard work
were responsible for economic successes seen in the USA
and Europe during the turn of the twentieth century.
Although it was originally conceptualized as being asso-
ciated with the Protestant denomination of Christianity, the
current conceptualization of PWE does not involve any
specific religious orientation. Those with high PWE place
work central to their life, avoid wasting time, and are
ethical in their dealings with others (Miller et al. 2002). As
examples, PWE has been associated with engaging in a
greater number of work-related behaviors while commut-
ing to work on a train (Greenberg 1978). In addition, PWE
has been associated with increased job satisfaction, orga-
nizational commitment, and job performance (Meriac et al.
2013), as well as decreased social loafing (Smrt and Karau
2011) and conscientiousness (Christopher et al. 2008a).
123
302
In their development of a multifaceted PWE measure,
Miller et al. (2002) developed seven smaller facets of
PWE, including centrality of work, hard work yields suc-
cessful outcomes, morality/ethics, wasting time, avoiding
leisure activities, delaying gratification, and self-reliance.
Centrality of work refers to the importance of work to
one’s meaning in life. Hard work refers to the extent to
which one believes that working hard will yield desirable
outcomes. Morality/ethics refers to the extent to which
individuals should be moral and ethical when dealing with
others. Wasting time refers to one’s belief that time is a
precious commodity that should not be wasted. Avoiding
leisure activities refers to the extent one prefers work over
leisure activities. Delaying gratification refers to the extent
to which one is willing to postpone immediate rewards for
larger future research rewards. Finally, self-reliance is the
extent to which one strives to be independent from others.
We argue that PWE is an important precursor to collabo-
rative solving, and a key component that keeps individuals
moving forward in the face of obstacles, which often
occurs during collaborative problem-solving and other
twenty-first-century skills and activities. In the following
sections, we outline the most common twenty-first-century
skills, their link to PWE, and the implications generational
differences in PWE have on twenty-first-century skills.
The most common twenty-first-century skills include
collaboration, problem solving, and the ability to perform
non-routine and interactive tasks (Neubert et al. 2015).
Five types of collaborative problem-solving skills have
been identified by Griffin et al. (2012), including par-
ticipation, perspective taking, social regulation, task
regulation, and learning and knowledge building. Several
of these skills require high PWE endorsement for opti-
mization of twenty-first-century skills. For example,
individuals with higher levels of centrality of work
should be more likely to persevere and complete tasks in
the face of obstacles than those with low centrality of
work. Thus, centrality of work should be positively
associated with the participation dimension of collabo-
rative problem solving.
Similarly, the problem-solving skill of task regulation
requires organizing, setting goals, resource management,
flexibility and ambiguity, collecting elements of informa-
tion, and systematicity (Griffin et al. 2012). Organizing and
setting goals often requires that one is internally motivated
to complete tasks, which is consistent with high PWE,
especially the facet of centrality of work. Furthermore, the
creation and organization of smaller goals to create larger
goals requires a mindset of delaying gratification, another
facet of PWE. To complete multiple projects with multiple
deadlines often requires that employees put in long hours
with the belief that their hard work will yield desirable
outcomes, another facet of PWE.
123
This content downloaded from
149.156.208.249 on Fri, 22 Mar 2024 14:41:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
J Bus Psychol (2017) 32:301–315
In addition to the collaborative problem-solving skills,
collaboration with others is a key piece of problem solving
in the twenty-first century. According to Griffin et al.
(2012), collaboration involves the components of com-
munication, cooperation, and responsiveness. Since coop-
eration and responsiveness require actions and the creation
of a division of labor by team members, it is important to
cooperate that one places work central to their life and
avoids wasting time. In addition, projects requiring twenty-
first-century skills often take a long time to complete,
meaning that individuals with higher levels of delay of
gratification—a facet of PWE—may be more likely to take
the proper steps to cooperate and be responsive.
Several authors have discussed the importance of
studying the precursors or enablers of twenty-first-century
skills. For example, Riggio and Saggi (2015) argue that
interpersonal communication skills are vital to collabora-
tive problem solving and are an exemplar of the ‘‘soft
skills’’ (p. 283) that are vital to the success of collaborative
problem solving. Indeed, Robles (2012) surveyed 90
executives to determine the top ten ‘‘soft skills’’ required
for business success. Results suggested integrity, commu-
nication, interpersonal skills, teamwork skills, and work
ethic as the top ten ‘‘soft skills’’ required for success. This
is similar to Riggio and Saggi (2015), who argued a ‘‘soft
skill’’ required for success is having a moral and ethical
orientation. Given that living a moral and ethical life is a
facet of PWE, there is a clear link between moral and
ethical behavior, PWE, and the ‘‘soft skills’’ that are
required as precursors to using twenty-first collaborative
problem-solving skills. Furthermore, the enablers of col-
laborative problem solving, such as participation and task
regulation, are regulated best through the use of placing
work central to one’s life, avoiding wasting time, delaying
gratification, and living a moral and ethical life, all facets
of PWE. Thus, it is clear that PWE is an important pre-
cursor for enabling twenty-first-century skills.
Empirical research has already found that generational
differences exist in pride in craftsmanship (Smola and
Sutton 2002), intrinsic and extrinsic rewards at jobs
(Twenge et al. 2010), and job satisfaction and turnover
intentions (Costanza et al. 2012; Kowske et al. 2010).
Within the PWE literature, one of the most contested
academic and applied research questions is whether or not
generational differences exist in PWE endorsement. Sev-
eral empirical and popular press articles have examined
generational differences in PWE, with conflicting results.
Five studies have examined generational differences in
PWE, with three finding little to no generational differ-
ences in PWE (Hite et al. 2015; Khosravi 2014; Real et al.
2010) and the others finding generational differences that
do exist in PWE (Jobe 2014; Meriac et al. 2010). Fur-
thermore, a recent issue of the journal Industrial and
J Bus Psychol (2017) 32:301–315
Organizational Psychology included a focal issue (Cost-
anza and Finkelstein 2015) and commentaries devoted
entirely to whether or not generational differences exist in
work values. In their focal article, Costanza and Finkelstein
(2015) argue that it is difficult to study true generational
differences in workplace values due to the overreliance of
cross-sectional data, operational definitions of the different
generations (e.g., Baby Boomers), and the difficulty in
distinguishing generational effects from aging, period, and
cohort effects. They conclude stating ‘‘there is little solid
empirical evidence supporting the existence of genera-
tionally based differences’’ (p. 321). While this focal article
and commentaries address possible improvements in gen-
erational theory and methodology, the suggested tech-
niques were not actually applied to an empirical study, as
the purpose of the journal is to provide ideas and
hypotheses for how to improve research in a given area. To
apply some of the methodological suggestions from Cost-
anza and Finkelstein (2015), this study employed a unique
methodology to examine whether generational differences
exist in PWE.
Indeed, to examine whether generational differences
existed in PWE, we completed a comprehensive analysis of
all published studies that have ever measured and reported
PWE and reported the average age of the sample. Each
sample that met the inclusion criteria of the study became a
study observation and was assigned a generational cohort
based upon the average age of the sample. The analysis
was completed in three phases. As the analysis moved from
Phase 1 to Phase 3, stricter controls were put in place to
ensure that in Phase 3, nearly all participants of the
included studies were part of the generational cohort
assigned to it. In each phase, the independent variable was
generational cohort and dependent variable was PWE.
If generational differences in PWE are found, there are
important implications for human resource management
activities (e.g., talent management and succession plan-
ning) and how organizations and academics should struc-
ture organizational interventions to increase productivity,
motivation, innovation climate, and many other types of
twenty-first-century skills. If generational differences in
PWE are not found, the implication is that future research
should reconsider examining the relationship between
generations and PWE, as well as generational differences
in work attitudes. This study will shed light on the validity
of generational differences in PWE, as academic studies
and popular press articles have both offered conflicting
findings.
Determining whether PWE differences exist by gener-
ations have important implications for twenty-first-century
skills, given that PWE is an important soft skill and pre-
cursor to twenty-first-century skills. Specifically, support-
ing traditional stereotypes, if Baby Boomers endorse higher
This content downloaded from
149.156.208.249 on Fri, 22 Mar 2024 14:41:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
303
levels of PWE than Millennials, training and development
of twenty-first-century skills should focus on twenty-first-
century skills unrelated to PWE (e.g., perspective taking,
knowledge building; Griffin et al. 2012). On the other hand,
if there are no generational differences in PWE, organi-
zations should still take PWE into account when develop-
ing employees’ twenty-first-century skills, but not change
the program based solely upon the generational consistency
of the workforce. In the next section, we outline the three
most studied generational cohorts in the USA, with the
understanding that there is an active discussion in the lit-
erature about the events that shaped each generation and
the years that reflect each generation.
Generational Cohorts
Generational cohorts have been defined as ‘‘an identifiable
group that shares birth years, age location, and significant
life events at critical development stages’’ (Kupperschmidt
2000, p. 66). Given that different types of historical events
happen at different points in time, each generational cohort
develops a unique personality and set of values based upon
the experiences of their generational cohort. Kupper-
schmidt (2000) points out that even though there is without
question individual differences within generations, there
tends to be relative agreement among generational mem-
bers in areas such as work values and personality.
Baby Boomers
The beliefs and attitudes of Baby Boomers were shaped by
events such as the Vietnam War (Kupperschmidt 2000),
lack of support for troops returning from that war (Smola
and Sutton 2002), as well as the push for Civil Rights for
African-Americas (Kupperschmidt 2000) and assassina-
tions of prominent leaders (e.g., President Kennedy,
Senator Robert Kennedy, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.;
Smola and Sutton 2002). Baby Boomers challenged, pro-
tested, and often rejected social norms (Kupperschmidt
2000). Baby Boomers have been described as born in times
of economic expansion where they had beliefs of entitle-
ment. As young adults, they challenged social norms and
defined maturity as childlessness, and dual careers. Fur-
thermore, Baby Boomers viewed technology as a com-
modity and viewed work as a meaningful part of life that
led to self-fulfillment (Kupperschmidt 2000). Baby
Boomers place work as central to their lives and often have
difficulty separating it from their other life priorities (e.g.,
family; Lester et al. 2012). Indeed, Baby Boomers are
believed to be fiercely loyal to their employer (Wong et al.
2008), which may be an extension of the loyalty shown by
their parents toward one another. Typically, Baby Boomers
123
304
are defined as those born between 1946 and 1964 (Meriac
et al. 2010).
Generation X
The beliefs and attitudes of Generation Xers were shaped
by the first Iraq War (Smola and Sutton 2002), President
Bill Clinton’s sex scandal (Smola and Sutton 2002), a
climate of school shootings such as the one in Littleton, CO
(Smola and Sutton 2002), reality television shows (Kup-
perschmidt 2000), and the HIV epidemic (Smola and Sut-
ton 2002). Generation Xers have been described as being
born in poor economic conditions where independence was
stressed. As young adults, they extended adolescence and
had a tendency to leave home and come back (Kupper-
schmidt 2000) and defined maturity as a hesitance to
commit to long-term relationships (O’Bannon 2001). This
hesitancy may be due to the increasing US divorce rates
that began to occur during their childhood (Wong et al.
2008). Furthermore, Generation Xers viewed technology as
a fact of life and placed more of an emphasis on balancing
one’s work and social life (Kupperschmidt 2000; O’Ban-
non 2001). At work, Generation Xers strive to work inde-
pendently and autonomously from others and strive for
work–family balance (Twenge et al. 2010). Typically,
Generation Xers are defined as those born between 1965
and 1980 (Meriac et al. 2010).
Millennials
The beliefs and attitudes of Millennials have been shaped
by the terrorist attacks of 9/11, second Iraq war, and
election of America’s first African-American president.
Given the Millennial generation is rather new to the
workforce, much less research or conceptualization of the
Millennial generation has been done compared to the
Generation X and Baby Boomer generations. Millennials
have been described as being full of promise, confident,
team-oriented, achievement-oriented, conventional, pres-
sured to excel, and having lived a sheltered life (Howe and
Strauss 2000). Zemke et al. (2000) describe the core values
of Millennials as optimism, civic duty, confidence,
achievement, sociability, morality, street smarts, and the
importance of diversity. More than other generations,
Millennials value work–life balance, the freedom that
technology enables one to work from anywhere, and
working in collaborative, team-oriented environments
(Lancaster and Stillman 2002). Millennials value job
security less than other generations (Hart 2006) and have a
strong desire to understand why decisions were made the
way they were, whereas other generations believe in a
more hierarchical organizational structure (McCrindle and
Hooper 2006; Wong et al. 2008). Furthermore, Millennials
123
This content downloaded from
149.156.208.249 on Fri, 22 Mar 2024 14:41:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
J Bus Psychol (2017) 32:301–315
are stereotyped by Baby Boomers to be entitled (Deal et al.
2010). Typically, Millennials are defined as those born
between 1981 and 1999 (Meriac et al. 2010).
Although there is general agreement about the experi-
ences each generation had in the USA, there is wide dis-
agreement on the birth years that correspond to each
generation. For example, as reported by Parry and Urwin
(2011), Baby Boomers have been operationalized as those
born between 1946 and 1964 (Chen and Choi 2008; Parker
and Chusmir 1990; Smola and Sutton 2002), 1943 and
1960 (Appelbaum et al. 2005; Gursoy et al. 2008; Jurkie-
wicz and Brown 1998), 1946 and 1961 (Cennamo and
Gardner 2008), and 1946 and 1962 (Jurkiewicz 2000).
Generation Xers have been operationalized as those born
between 1965 and 1979 (Cennamo and Gardner 2008;
Lyons et al. 2007), 1965 and 1977 (Chen and Choi 2008),
and 1961 to 1980 (Gursoy et al. 2008; Lamm and Meeks
2009). Finally, Millennials have been operationalized as
those being born 1980 and later (Cennamo and Gardner
2008; Lyons et al. 2007), and 1981 to 2000 (Gursoy et al.
2008; Lamm and Meeks 2009).
In addition to specific birth years, the experiences that
shaped one’s generation depend on the culture one grows
up in. Therefore, the experiences, and even the number of
generations, differ by country. For example, Nakai (2015)
describes the Dankai generation in Japan, which is the
equivalent to the Baby Boomer generation in the USA, and
operationalized as those born between 1947 and 1949. In
another example, Deal et al. (2012) describe how apartheid
and its end have shaped formation of and influence South
African generations. In addition, Deal et al. (2010) explain
how generations within Israel are shaped by the beginning
and end of wars. Because there are no standard definitions
of the number of generations, events that shaped genera-
tions, or birth years that correspond to generations globally,
we decided to only examine US generational differences in
this study. However, as international research on genera-
tional differences in PWE continues to grow (e.g., Cogin
2012), this methodology should be applicable in the near
future, once enough studies outside of the USA on gener-
ational differences in PWE have been completed.
Generational Cohorts and PWE
Because Baby Boomers view work as a meaningful part of
life leading to self-fulfillment, theory suggests Baby
Boomers endorse high levels of PWE. In addition, since
Baby Boomers were born in a period of economic expan-
sion, theory suggests Baby Boomers believe that simply by
working hard, one can create a better life for themselves
and their family (Kupperschmidt 2000). On the other hand,
Generation Xers grew up in a time when battlefields were
J Bus Psychol (2017) 32:301–315
not Vietnam or Cuba, but rather American cities such as
Detroit and Pittsburgh. Indeed, Zemke et al. (2000) argued
Generation X developed a survival mentality, perhaps
because during their childhood America seemed to fail in
many areas (e.g., economically, politically). Since Gener-
ation Xers grew up in a time of economic reduction as
opposed to expansion, they may endorse lower levels of
PWE than Baby Boomers. Indeed, previous research found
that Baby Boomers endorsed higher levels of self-reliance,
morality/ethics, hard work, centrality of work, the belief in
not wasting time, and delay of gratification (all dimensions
of PWE) compared to Millennials, and in most cases,
Generation Xers.
Perhaps the biggest difference between Millennials and
other generations is the importance in understanding how
to use technology in all phases of life (e.g., Meriac et al.
2010). On the whole, however, there is not as much as
theory on the differences between Millennials, the Baby
Boomers, and Generation Xers compared to the amount of
theory on the differences between Baby Boomers and
Generation Xers. This is mostly because the Millennial
generation is still rather young, and many of its younger
members may not have yet entered the workforce.
Previous popular press articles and research reflect the
lack of refinement on differences between Baby Boom-
ers, Generation Xers, and Millennials in PWE. Numerous
popular press articles have discussed generational dif-
ferences in work ethic, with some articles concluding
that Baby Boomers endorse higher levels of work ethic
than Millennials (e.g., Housel 2015; Marikar 2013),
whereas others claim that no generational differences
exist (e.g., Hartman 2014; Rampell 2011). Furthermore,
at least five studies have examined generational differ-
ences in PWE with mixed results. Several studies have
found little to no generational differences in PWE (e.g.,
Hite et al. 2015; Khosravi 2014; Real et al. 2010). Other
studies have found Baby Boomers endorse higher levels
of PWE than Generation X and Millennials (Meriac et al.
2010). Other studies have found Millennials endorse
higher levels of PWE than Generation X and Baby
Boomers (Jobe 2014).
Real et al. (2010) examined generational differences in
PWE using samples of individuals in the construction/
building trades industry. They found few meaningful dif-
ferences in PWE between the three generations on the
seven PWE dimensions. Millennials endorsed higher levels
of PWE than the two other generational cohorts on the
PWE dimensions of hard work yielding desirable outcomes
and centrality of work, where Baby Boomers had higher
levels of PWE than the other two generational cohorts on
the PWE dimension of avoiding wasting time. Overall,
there were few practically significant differences between
the generations on PWE dimensions. In addition, Real
This content downloaded from
149.156.208.249 on Fri, 22 Mar 2024 14:41:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
305
et al.’s (2010) analysis of comments illustrated that Baby
Boomers tended to believe that Millennials were very good
at working hard with new technology, but hated physical
labor. Khosravi (2014) examined generational differences
on the two PWE dimensions of centrality of work and
leisure in a sample of employees. She found no genera-
tional differences between the generational cohorts on
endorsement of these two factors. Hite et al. (2015)
examined generational differences on the seven PWE
dimensions in a sample of undergraduate and graduate
students. Results suggested Baby Boomers endorsed higher
levels of self-reliance but lower levels of delay of gratifi-
cation than Millennials. The differences between the three
generational cohorts on the other PWE dimensions were
not significant.
Regarding the two studies that have found generational
differences in PWE, Meriac et al. (2010) examined gen-
erational differences on the seven PWE dimensions among
samples of Millennial and Generation X students and Baby
Boomer employees. They found that Baby Boomers
endorsed higher levels of all PWE dimensions (with the
exception of leisure) than Generation X and Millennials.
Finally, Jobe (2014) examined generational differences on
the seven dimensions of PWE in a sample of hospital
employees. Results indicated Millennials endorsed higher
levels of the PWE dimensions of leisure, hard work, and
delay of gratification than Baby Boomers.
It is unquestionable that generational differences in
PWE, if they exist, have important implications for how to
structure workplace interventions and other types of talent
management initiatives. If generational differences in PWE
do not exist, it would prompt future research to focus on
aspects of generational differences in the workplace other
than PWE and to focus on possible generational differences
in other skills important for the twenty-first century. Due to
the conflicting results that exist on generational differences
in PWE, it is important to approach this question from a
new perspective. Therefore, the current study examines
generational differences in PWE by comparing the mean
level of PWE reported in all published studies that have
ever measured and reported PWE, using average age of the
sample as a proxy by which to determine generational
cohort. Because we examined all possible published studies
for inclusion (based on inclusion criteria), this study
maximized statistical power, even though the final sample
of studies that met inclusion criteria was seemingly small.
Relying largely on Kupperschmidt’s (2000) theory of
generational differences, as well as popular press articles
(e.g., Housel 2015; Marikar 2013) and Meriac et al.’s
(2010) findings, the following hypotheses are offered:
H1 Baby Boomer samples have higher PWE means than
Millennial samples.
123
306
H2 Baby Boomer samples have higher PWE means than
Generation X samples.
H3 Generation X samples have higher PWE means than
Millennial samples.
Method
Literature Search
A literature search on both PsycINFO and Google Scholar
was initially conducted using the following terms: Gener-
ational Differences, Protestant Work Ethic, and Work
Ethic. This literature review identified eight primary mea-
sures of PWE used in the extant literature, as outlined by
Furnham (1990). The different PWE measures include
Goldstein and Eichhorn’s (1961) 4-item measure, Blood’s
(1969) 8-item measure, Mirels and Garrett’s (1971)
19-item measure, Hammond and Williams’ (1976) 6-item
measure, Buchholz’s (1978) 8-item measure, Ray’s (1982)
18-item measure, Ho and Lloyd’s (1984) 7-item measure,
and Miller et al.’s (2002) 65-item measure. A cited refer-
ence search on Google Scholar for published articles and
dissertations as of November 2015 was utilized to identify
and retrieve relevant articles for coding. This search also
revealed that Mirels and Garrett’s (1971) study was cited
most (598 citations), followed by Blood (1969; 475 cita-
tions), Buchholz (1978; 213 citations), Miller et al. (2002;
185 citations), Ray (1982; 96 citations), Ho and Lloyd
(1984; 78 citations), Goldstein and Eichhorn (1961; 76
citations), and finally Hammond and Williams (1976; 50
citations). Starting with the earliest PWE measure (i.e.,
Goldstein and Eichhorn 1961), all studies that cited
Goldstein and Eichhorn (1961; n = 76) were downloaded
and considered for inclusion in this study. Next, we pro-
ceeded to move to the next PWE measure in chronological
order (i.e., Blood 1969) and downloaded all articles that
cited Blood (1969; n = 598), considering them for inclu-
sion. We repeated the same process until it was complete
for all eight PWE measures. Given many studies cited
multiple PWE measures, the final sample of studies con-
sidered for inclusion included 1386 distinct studies from
eight different PWE measures.
Inclusion Criteria
Studies were considered for inclusion if they (a) used a US
sample, (b) reported the average age of the sample or
reported that all participants were undergraduates or part of
only one generational cohort, (c) gave enough information
to determine the response range used in the PWE measure,
and (d) reported the average PWE score in the study. Non-
123
This content downloaded from
149.156.208.249 on Fri, 22 Mar 2024 14:41:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
J Bus Psychol (2017) 32:301–315
US samples were omitted due to (1) the potential con-
founding effect of culture (i.e., work ethic may have dif-
ferent meanings in different cultures: Deal et al. 2010) and
(2) the lack of comparative generational cohorts in other
parts of the world.
In total, 91 distinct studies with 121 means met these
qualifications and were considered for inclusion. As an
example of why the number of studies and means is dif-
ferent, Chudzicka-Czupala et al. (2015) reported separately
the PWE means and average ages of both an industry
sample and student sample. Therefore, we were able to use
the one study with two separate PWE means as part of the
analysis. Further review of the 91 studies and 121 means
revealed that several studies utilized the same sample in
different publications (i.e., Christopher 1999; Christopher
and Schlenker 2005; Gonsalves and Bernard
1983, 1985a, b; Parkhurst et al. 2011; Parkhurst 2013). To
avoid double counting, we included the earlier published
study in each case and removed the other duplicate from
inclusion in our analyses.
Next, several studies were excluded for several different
reasons. Two studies and three PWE means were excluded
because their samples were high school age or younger
(Iso-Ahola and Buttimer 1982; Levy et al. 2006). One
study was excluded because the PWE mean reported in the
study did not make sense given the measure reported in the
Methods section (Blau 2001). The aforementioned exclu-
sions resulted in remaining 85 distinct studies with 113
PWE means considered for inclusion.
It is important to note that we initially conceptualized
this study as a meta-analytic investigation examining the
relationship between age and PWE. Upon investigating the
literature, however, we found a very limited number of
studies that provided information to directly examine this
relationship (k = 18). That is, the majority of the studies
found examined work ethic in relation to a variety of non-
age-related outcomes, reporting age only in the demo-
graphic sample information and precluding traditional
meta-analytic analyses that examine bivariate correlations
(cf. Hunter and Schmidt 1990). This finding forced us to
reconsider our approach and to abandon these traditional
techniques. While we recognize that we have sacrificed the
ability to ask some interesting questions (i.e., examining
potential moderators), our approach of coding studies
represents a novel solution that allows us to test our fun-
damental theoretical question of whether there are gener-
ational differences in PWE endorsement.
Coding of Studies
The following information was coded in each study:
(a) sample size, (b) PWE measure used, (c) reliability of
PWE measure, (d) average age of the sample, (e) range of
J Bus Psychol (2017) 32:301–315
ages for the sample, (f) sample type (i.e., student vs.
industry), (g) the mean level of PWE reported in the study,
and (h) the response range used to measure PWE. To
classify each PWE mean into a generational cohort, we
subtracted the average age of the sample from the year the
study was published to determine, on average, what year
the average participant in the sample was born. We then
used that corresponding year to determine the generational
cohort of that sample. For example, Christopher et al.
(2008) reported an average age of 42 years and mean PWE
score of 4.94 on a 1–7 response range. Since the study was
published in 2008, we subtracted 42 from 2008 to deter-
mine that the average participant in the sample was born in
1966. Since those born in 1966 are part of Generation X,
this study would be considered a sample of Generation
Xers. We also examined whether information existed in the
Methods section that could help refine the year data was
actually collected. As one example, Meriac et al. (2009)
published their article in 2009, but stated that data collec-
tion occurred from 1996 to 2002 in their methods sec-
tion. Therefore, we subtracted the average age of the
sample from 1996 to 2002 as opposed to 2009 to determine
the generational cohort to ascribe the PWE mean to.
Although a rather large amount of disagreement exists
within the literature on the exact birth years of each cohort
(see Parry and Urwin 2011, for a review), Baby Boomers’
studies were those in which the average participant in the
sample was born between 1946 and 1964. Generation X
studies were those in which the average participant in the
sample was born between 1965 and 1980. Millennial
studies were those in which the average participant in the
sample was born between 1981 and 1999. The same con-
ceptualization has been used in several other studies (e.g.,
Lancaster and Stillman 2002; Meriac et al. 2010).
Assigning a generational cohort for each PWE mean based
upon the aforementioned process revealed seven studies
with an average age year earlier than 1946, which is
defined as the Traditionalist generation as opposed to Baby
Boomer generation. Because these seven studies (Adams
and Rau 2004; Chonko 1983; Dobson and Morrow 1984;
Greenberg 1978; Hooker and Ventis 1984; Jones 1984; and
Kidron 1978) were part of the Traditionalist generation as
opposed to Baby Boomer generation, they were excluded
from further analyses. This resulted in a final total of 77
distinct studies with 105 PWE means that were included in
the study analyses. Because nearly all 77 studies did not
report the relationship (e.g., bivariate correlation) between
age and work ethic needed to perform a meta-analytic
investigation, a three-phased approach was used instead.
This process determined whether there was an effect of
generational cohort on PWE, using the average age of the
sample and publication year of the study to determine
This content downloaded from
149.156.208.249 on Fri, 22 Mar 2024 14:41:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
307
generational cohort, and is explained in detail on pages
21–23.
Standardization of PWE Means and Coding
Decisions
PWE mean scores had to be standardized to the same
7-point response range. Indeed, 46 of the 105 PWE mean
scores used a 5-point response range to measure PWE. In
addition, one study used a 4-point response range (Garcia
2003), one study used a 9-point response range (Ganster
1981), and six studies utilized a 6-point response range.
Transformations were made to standardize scores from
5-point, 4-point, 9-point, and 6-point response ranges to a
7-point response range, using the following transforma-
tions, respectively, Y = (1.5x) - 0.5; Y = (2x) - 1;
Y = (0.75x) ? 0.25, and Y = (1.2x) - 0.20, where
Y equals the transformed 7-point score and x equals the
PWE score on the original scale. There were several
studies that reported the sample included graduates and/or
undergraduates who were employed (e.g., Miller and
Konopaske 2014; Mudrack 1993; Tang et al. 2005). Often,
these were samples of MBA students. Because these entire
samples consisted of students, it was decided to count these
as student samples as opposed to industry samples.
Analysis Strategy
The analysis was completed in three phases. In each phase,
hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted
to determine whether there were significant differences in
PWE endorsement between generational cohorts, control-
ling for type of sample (student vs. industry) and scale
length (on the PWE measure used in the study). The dif-
ference between each phase was the number of PWE
means and studies included in the analysis, based upon the
percentage of the study sample that we could be sure
actually belonged to the generational cohort ascribed to.
Phase 1 included all 105 aforementioned PWE means that
met all inclusion criteria. Phase 2 included a subset of the
original 105 PWE means where plus or minus one standard
deviation of the average age of the study sample belonged
to the generational cohort ascribed to it. Phase 3 included a
subset of the original 105 PWE means where plus or minus
two standard deviation of the average age) of the study
sample belonged to the generational cohort ascribed to it.
The use of three phases allowed simultaneously for com-
parison of results with more statistical power at Phase 1
and less statistical power at Phases 2 and 3, but greater
validity at Phases 2 and 3, given it was clear in the last
phase that a great majority of the sample was in the gen-
erational cohort ascribed to it.
123
308
Phase 1
Phase 1 involved conducting hierarchical multiple regres-
sion analyses on the aforementioned 105 PWE means. By
subtracting the average age of the sample from the year the
study was published, 38 PWE means were categorized as
Baby Boomer samples, 31 PWE were categorized as
Generation X samples, and 36 were categorized as Mil-
lennial samples. Of the 105 PWE means, 49 were catego-
rized as industry samples and 56 were categorized as
student samples. While Generation X had a rather even
distribution of industry and student samples (17 vs. 14,
respectively), Baby Boomers had many more industry
samples (29) than student samples (9), and Millennials had
many more student samples (33) than industry samples (3).
Phase 2
Phase 2 involved conducting hierarchical multiple regres-
sion analyses on a subset of the samples used in Phase 1.
To determine the PWE means to include in Phase 2, we
examined the standard deviation of the average sample age
of all PWE means included in Phase 1, as well as the
average sample age, to determine the age range of the
sample that fell within one standard deviation of the
average age (plus or minus one standard deviation). As an
example, the sample included in Kidron’s (1978) study had
an average age of 26 years and standard deviation of three
years. Therefore, using one standard deviation above or
below the average as a guide, the majority of participants
included in this study were between the ages of 23 and
29 years of age. Subtracting these ages from the year of
publication indicates a majority of participants were born
between the years 1949 and 1955. Since the range of these
years fell completely within the Baby Boomer generation,
this study was included as a Baby Boomer study in Phase 2.
In many ways, Phase 2 is a more precise analysis of Phase
1, as the majority of all studies included for analysis had a
majority of their sample belonging to the generation
ascribed to it.
After examining all 105 studies for inclusion in Phase 2,
55 studies met the aforementioned inclusion criteria.
Seventeen PWE means were categorized as Baby Boomer
samples, 7 PWE were categorized as Generation X sam-
ples, and 31 were categorized as Millennial samples. Of the
55 PWE means, 16 were categorized as industry samples
and 39 were categorized as student samples. While Baby
Boomers and Generation X had a rather even distribution
of industry and student samples (9 vs. 8, respectively, for
Baby Boomers; 4 vs. 3, respectively, for Generation X),
Millennials had many more student samples (28) than
industry samples (3).
123
This content downloaded from
149.156.208.249 on Fri, 22 Mar 2024 14:41:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
J Bus Psychol (2017) 32:301–315
Phase 3
Similar to Phase 2, Phase 3 involved conducting hierar-
chical multiple regression analyses on a subset of the
samples used in Phase 2. To determine the PWE means to
include in Phase 3, we examined the standard deviation of
the average sample age, as well as the average sample age,
to determine the age range of the sample that fell within
two standard deviations of the average age (plus or minus
two standard deviations). As an example, the sample
included in Parkhurst et al.’s (2011) study had an average
age of 22 years and a standard deviation of 1 year.
Therefore, using two standard deviations above or below
the average as a guide, the great majority of participants
included in this study were between the ages of 20 and
24 years of age. Subtracting these ages from the year of
publication indicates that a great majority of participants
were born between the years 1987 and 1991. Since the
range of these years fell completely within the Millennial
generation, this study was included as a Millennial sample
in Phase 3.
After examining all 55 studies for inclusion in Phase 3,
44 studies met the aforementioned inclusion criteria.
Fourteen PWE means were categorized as Baby Boomer
samples, 7 PWE were categorized as Generation X sam-
ples, and 23 were categorized as Millennial samples. Of the
44 PWE means, 14 were categorized as employee samples
and 30 were categorized as student samples. While Baby
Boomers and Generation X had a rather even distribution
of industry and student samples (7 vs. 7, respectively, for
Baby Boomers; 4 vs. 3, respectively, for Generation X),
Millennials had many more student samples (20) than
employee samples (3). There were several studies (e.g.,
Hite et al. 2015; Khosravi 2014; Real et al. 2010) that
reported PWE endorsement by different generational
cohorts as part of their results. These studies were included
in all three phases of the analysis.
Results
Phase 1
All studies included as part of Phase 1–3 analyses can be
found in ‘‘Appendix.’’ In addition, each study included as
part of the Phase 1–3 analyses can be found in the reference
section, with an asterisk (*) at the end of the reference. To
determine the extent to which generational cohort differ-
ences exist in PWE endorsement, hierarchical multiple
regression analyses were conducted. In order to control for
the effects the length of the PWE scale and type of sample
used (industry vs. sample) might have on PWE endorsement,
J Bus Psychol (2017) 32:301–315
sample type was controlled for in Step 1 and length of PWE
scale was controlled for in Step 2. To test Hypotheses 1 and 2,
generational cohort was entered on Step 3 by two dummy
variables (Generation X and Millennials), with Baby
Boomers serving as the referent group.
Multiple regression analyses revealed that in Step 1,
type of sample (industry vs. student) did not contribute
significantly to the regression model, F (1, 103) = 3.30,
p = .07. Results suggested that in Step 2, length of PWE
scale contributed significantly to the regression model,
F (1, 102) = 5.86, p = .02, accounting for an additional
5.3 % of the variance in PWE endorsement over and above
Step 1. Results indicated a negative relationship existed
between length of PWE scale and PWE endorsement
(B = -.11, SE = .04), with studies utilizing lower
response ranges (e.g., 5-point) reporting higher PWE
endorsement than studies utilizing higher response ranges
(e.g., 7-point scales). Contrary to Hypotheses 1 and 2,
results suggested in Step 3 that no significant differences in
PWE endorsement existed between Generation X and
Millennials with the referent group of Baby Boomers, F (2,
100) = 1.03, p = .36. Results of the Phase 1 hierarchical
regression can be found in Table 1.
To test Hypothesis 3, the same hierarchical multiple
regression analyses were conducted. The only change was
that the referent group switched to Millennial, and Genera-
tion X and Baby Boomer were entered on Step 3. Contrary to
Hypothesis 3, results from Step 3 suggested no significant
differences in PWE endorsement existed between Genera-
tion X with the referent group of Millennials, F (2,
100) = 1.03, p = .36. As seen in Table 4, the PWE means of
Table 1 Phase 1 hierarchical regression of generational cohort on
PWE endorsement
DR2 B (b)
Step 1
Sample typea .031 .17 (.18)
Step 2
Scale length* .053* -.11 (-.23)
Step 3
Generational Cohort .019
b
Gen X versus baby Boomer .14 (.13)
Millennial versus Baby Boomerb .18 (.18)
Gen X versus Millennial c
-.04 (-.04)
Total R2 .102
* p \ .05
a
Coded as 0 = Student, 1 = Industry
b
From the first multiple regression where generational cohort was
represented as two dummy variables with Baby Boomers serving as
the referent group
c Multiple regression analyses revealed that in Step 1, type
From the second multiple regression where generational cohort was
represented as two dummy variables with Millennial serving as the
referent group
This content downloaded from
149.156.208.249 on Fri, 22 Mar 2024 14:41:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
309
studies coded as Baby Boomer (M = 4.54, SD = 0.41),
Generation X (M = 4.64, SD = 0.44), and Millennial
(M = 4.61, SD = 0.58) were remarkably similar.
Phase 2
To determine the extent to which generational cohort dif-
ferences exist in PWE endorsement, hierarchical multiple
regression analyses were conducted. Similar to Phase 1
analyses, sample type was controlled for in Step 1 and
length of PWE scale was controlled for in Step 2. To test
Hypotheses 1 and 2, generational cohort was entered on
Step 3 by two dummy variables (Generation X and Mil-
lennials), with Baby Boomers serving as the referent group.
Multiple regression analyses revealed that in Step 1, type
of sample (industry vs. student) contributed significantly to
the regression model, F (1, 53) = 4.82, p = .03. Results
indicated studies with industry samples reported higher
levels of PWE than studies with student samples (B = .33,
SE = .29), accounting for 8.3 % of the variance in PWE
endorsement. Results suggested that in Step 2, length of
PWE scale did not contribute significantly to the regression
model, F (1, 52) = 0.05, p = .83. Contrary to Hypotheses 1
and 2, results suggested in Step 3 that no significant differ-
ences in PWE endorsement existed between Generation X
and Millennials with the referent group of Baby Boomers,
F (2, 50) = 0.18, p = .84. Results of the Phase 2 hierarchical
regression can be found in Table 2.
To test Hypothesis 3, the same hierarchical multiple
regression analyses were conducted. The only change was
that the referent group switched to Millennial, and Genera-
tion X and Baby Boomer were entered on Step 3. Contrary to
Hypothesis 3, results from Step 3 suggested no significant
differences in PWE endorsement existed between Genera-
SE tion X with the referent group of Millennials, F (2,
50) = 0.18, p = .84. As seen in Table 4, the PWE means of
.09 studies coded as Baby Boomer (M = 4.70, SD = 0.32),
Generation X (M = 4.64, SD = 0.46), and Millennial
.04 (M = 4.60, SD = 0.63) were remarkably similar.
Phase 3
.12
.14
To determine the extent to which generational cohort dif-
.13
ferences exist in PWE endorsement, hierarchical multiple
regression analyses were conducted. Similar to Phases 1
and 2, sample type was controlled for in Step 1 and length
of PWE scale was controlled for in Step 2. To test
Hypotheses 1 and 2, generational cohort was entered on
Step 3 by two dummy variables (Generation X and Mil-
lennials), with Baby Boomers serving as the referent group.
of sample (industry vs. student) contributed significantly to
the regression model, F (1, 42) = 5.63, p = .02. Results
123
310 J Bus Psychol (2017) 32:301–315

Table 2 Phase 2 hierarchical regression of generational cohort on Table 3 Phase 3 hierarchical regression of generational cohort on
PWE endorsement PWE endorsement
DR2 B (b) SE DR2 B (b) SE

Step 1 Step 1
a
Sample type * .083 .33 (.29) .15. Sample typea* .118 .34 (.34) .14
Step 2 Step 2
Scale length .001 -.02 (-.03) .07 Scale length .002 -.02 (-.05) .07
Step 3 Step 3
Generational cohort .007 Generational cohort .003
b b
Gen X versus Baby Boomer -.09 (-.06) .24 Gen X versus Baby Boomer -.06 (-.05) .22
Millennial versus Baby Boomerb .05 (.05) .19 Millennial versus Baby Boomerb .01 (.02) .18
Gen X versus Millennialc -.14 (-.09) .23 Gen X versus Millennialc -.08 (-.06) .21
2
Total R .091 Total R2 .124
* p \ .05 * p \ .05
a a
Coded as 0 = Student, 1 = Industry Coded as 0 = Student, 1 = Industry
b b
From the first multiple regression where generational cohort was From the first multiple regression where generational cohort was
represented as two dummy variables with Baby Boomers serving as represented as two dummy variables with Baby Boomers serving as
the referent group the referent group
c c
From the second multiple regression where generational cohort was From the second multiple regression where generational cohort was
represented as two dummy variables with Millennial serving as the represented as two dummy variables with Millennial serving as the
referent group referent group

indicated studies with industry samples reported higher

levels of PWE than studies with student samples (B = .34, Table 4 PWE means and standard deviations by generational cohort
SE = .14), accounting for 11.8 % of the variance in PWE across three phases
endorsement. Results suggested that in Step 2, length of k Mean PWE SD PWE
PWE scale did not contribute significantly to the regression
model, F (1, 41) = 0.12, p = .74. Contrary to Hypotheses 1 Phase 1
and 2, results suggested in Step 3 that no significant differ- Baby Boomers 38 4.54 .41
ences in PWE endorsement existed between Generation X Generation X 31 4.64 .44
and Millennials with the referent group of Baby Boomers, Millennials 36 4.61 .58
F (2, 39) = 0.07, p = .93. Results of the Phase 3 hierarchical Phase 2
regression can be found in Table 3. Baby Boomers 17 4.70 .32
To test Hypothesis 3, the same hierarchical multiple Generation X 7 4.64 .46
regression analyses were conducted. The only change was Millennials 31 4.60 .63
that the referent group switched to Millennial, and Genera- Phase 3
tion X and Baby Boomer were entered on Step 3. Contrary to Baby Boomers 14 4.66 .29
Hypothesis 3, results from Step 3 suggested no significant Generation X 7 4.64 .46
differences in PWE endorsement existed between Genera- Millennials 23 4.56 .55
tion X with the referent group of Millennials, F (2,
39) = 0.07, p = .93. As seen in Table 4, the PWE means of
studies coded as Baby Boomer (M = 4.66, SD = 0.29), generational cohorts by subtracting the average sample age
Generation X (M = 4.64, SD = 0.46), and Millennial from the year the study was published. Analyses were
(M = 4.56, SD = 0.55) were remarkably similar. conducted in three phases, with each phase offering more
precise measurement of generational cohorts. Results using
hierarchical multiple regression analyses were consistent
Discussion across all three phases. In each phase, contrary to
Hypotheses 1–3, there was no effect of generational cohort
The purpose of this study was to examine whether gener- on PWE endorsement. Contrary to many popular press
ational differences exist in PWE endorsement by creating a articles and Meriac et al.’s (2010) finding, results suggest
dataset of all published studies that had reported an average there are no generational differences in PWE. These find-
sample age and average PWE score, and creating ings support other studies that have found no generational

123

This content downloaded from

149.156.208.249 on Fri, 22 Mar 2024 14:41:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
J Bus Psychol (2017) 32:301–315
differences in variables related to PWE endorsement (e.g.,
hours worked; Families and Work Institute 2005; Jovic
et al. 2006; Staff and Schulenberg 2010). Findings also
support Costanza and Finkelstein’s (2015) recent con-
tention that little actual empirical evidence exists that
generational differences exist in work attitudes like PWE.
There are several meaningful implications of this
study’s methodology and findings. First, this study utilized
a novel approach to measure generational differences in
workplace attitudes that can be utilized to measure gener-
ational differences across a number of workplace attitudes
(e.g., organizational commitment, job satisfaction). Fur-
thermore, the finding that generational differences in PWE
do not exist suggests that organizational initiatives aimed at
changing talent management strategies and targeting them
for the ‘‘very different’’ Millennial generation may be
unwarranted and not a value-added activity. We argue in
the introduction that PWE is a key enabler of twenty-first-
century skills. The finding that generational differences do
not exist in PWE suggests that twenty-first-century skills
should not be affected by any generational differences in
PWE. Organizational interventions aimed at building
twenty-first-century skills should not be concerned with
generational differences in PWE as part of the intervention.
Limitations
There are several limitations of the current study. First, the
generational cohorts were created by subtracting the aver-
age age of the sample from the year the study was pub-
lished. Especially in Phase 1, it is very possible that a study
classified as a Baby Boomer study (for example) has a
greater proportion of Generation X participants relative to
Baby Boomers. We felt it was important to include Phase 1
in order to increase statistical power. In addition, we
completed Phases 2 and 3 to mitigate the limitations
associated with the Phase 1 analysis. Indeed, in Phases 2
and 3, it is clear that a majority and great majority,
respectively, of participants actually belonged to the gen-
erational cohort ascribed to it. Furthermore, the results
were consistent across all three phases of the analysis. A
second limitation is that only studies with participants from
the USA were included. This was necessary because the
number and type of generational cohorts differ by national
country. A third limitation is that this study included only
studies that measured PWE and not more broadly studies
that measured work ethic or work values for analysis.
Therefore, it is possible that generational differences may
exist in more broadly defined ‘‘work values’’ or ‘‘work
ethic.’’ Although the latter two limitations decreased the
included sample size, the limitations increased the internal
validity of the study and the confidence with which we can
This content downloaded from
149.156.208.249 on Fri, 22 Mar 2024 14:41:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
311
conclude that results suggest generational differences do
not exist in PWE.
Future Research
Across multiple phases of the analysis, there was signifi-
cant effect of sample type (industry vs. student) on PWE
endorsement, with industry samples endorsing significantly
higher levels of PWE than student samples. One possible
explanation for these findings is that once entrenched in the
workforce, individuals’ meaning of hard work and work
centrality changes from when they are a student. Another
possible explanation is social desirability. Individuals
likely have the desire to appear hard working to others.
While this effect could occur for both student and industry
samples, it is likely amplified in industry samples, where
participants may have the feeling that their survey results
can be viewed by management or co-workers, even when
they are reassured this is not the case. Future studies should
examine the effect of social desirability on PWE endorse-
ment for both industry and student samples.
Together, the significant main effect of sample type and
nonsignificant effect of generational cohort on PWE
endorsement have important implications for future
research. Results suggest future studies should collect data
from only one sample type (i.e., industry or student) when
making comparisons between different generational
cohorts. Otherwise, found effects could be driven by the
type of participant sample as opposed to the generational
cohort. Also, future studies should examine generational
differences in PWE cross-culturally. Given PWE origi-
nated in the writings of German sociologist Max Weber
(1958), who explained that PWE was responsible for eco-
nomic growth seen in both Europe and the USA during the
twentieth century, it seems reasonable to test whether
generational differences exist in European nations. Indeed,
no known studies have examined generational differences
in PWE in European nations. Results from this study,
which used a comprehensive and unique methodology,
suggest that there are actually no generational differences
in PWE, a finding which has important implications for
academic researchers and practitioners alike.
References
Adams, G., & Rau, B. (2004). Job seeking among retirees seeking
bridge employment. Personnel Psychology, 57, 719–744. doi:10.
1111/j.1744-6570.2004.00005.x.
Appelbaum, S., Serena, M., & Shapiro, B. (2005). Generation X and
the boomers: An analysis of realities and myths. Management
Research News, 28, 1–33. doi:10.1108/01409170510784751.
123
312
Atieh, J. M., Brief, A. P., & Vollrath, D. A. (1987). The Protestant
work ethic-conservatism paradox: Beliefs and values in work
and life. Personality and Individual Differences, 8, 557–560.
doi:10.1016/0191-8869(87)90222-4*.
Baugous, A. M. (2007). More than a mean: Broadening the definition
of employee performance (Doctoral dissertation).*
Blau, G. (2001). Testing the discriminant validity of occupational
entrenchment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 74, 85–93. doi:10.1348/096317901167244.
Blood, M. R. (1969). Work values and job satisfaction. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 53, 456–459. doi:10.1037/h0028653.
Brockner, J., Grover, S. L., & Blonder, M. D. (1988). Predictors of
survivors’ job involvement following layoffs: A field study.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 436–442. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.73.3.436*.
Buchholz, R. (1978). An empirical study of contemporary beliefs
about work in American society. Journal of Applied Psychology,
63, 219–227. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.63.2.219.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, The Editor’s
Desk, Share of labor force projected to rise for people age 55
and over and fall for younger age groups on the Internet at
http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2014/ted_20140124.htm.
Cennamo, L., & Gardner, D. (2008). Generational differences in work
values, outcomes and person-organisation values fit. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 23, 891–906. doi:10.1108/
02683940810904385.
Chen, P., & Choi, Y. (2008). Generational differences in work values:
A study of hospital management. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20, 595–615. doi:10.
1108/09596110810892182.
Chonko, L. B. (1983). Job involvement as obsession-compulsion:
Some preliminary empirical findings. Psychological Reports, 53,
1191–1197.
Christopher, A. N. (1999). The Protestant work ethic and social
attributions: A matter of obligation, control, or clarity (Doctoral
dissertation).*
Christopher, A. N., & Jones, J. R. (2002). How is the Protestant work
ethic related to need for cognition? A factor analytic answer.
Social Behavior and Personality, 30, 741–750. doi:10.2224/sbp.
2002.30.8.741*.
Christopher, A. N., & Jones, J. R. (2004). Affluence cues and first
impressions: The moderating impact of the Protestant work
ethic. Journal of Economic Psychology, 25, 279–292. doi:10.
1016/S0167-4870(02)00196-4*.
Christopher, A. N., Marek, P., & May, J. C. (2003). The protestant
work ethic, expectancy violations, and criminal sentencing.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 522–535. doi:10.
1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01910.x*.
Christopher, A. N., & Mull, M. S. (2006). Consverative ideology and
ambivalent sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30,
223–230. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00284.x*.
Christopher, A. N., & Schlenker, B. R. (2005). The Protestant work
ethic and attributions of responsibility: Applications of the
triangle model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35,
1502–1518.
Christopher, A. N., Zabel, K. L., & Jones, J. R. (2008a). Conscien-
tiousness and work ethic ideology: A facet-level analysis.
Journal of Individual Differences, 29, 189–198. doi:10.1027/
1614-0001.29.4.189*.
Christopher, A. N., Zabel, K. L., Jones, J. R., & Marek, P. (2008b).
Protestant ethic ideology: Its multifaceted relationships with just
world beliefs, social dominance orientation, and right-wing
authoritarianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 45,
473–477. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.05.023*.
Chudzicka-Czupala, A., Cozma, I., Grabowski, D., & Woehr, D. J.
(2015). A comparison of the Multidimensional Work Ethic
123
This content downloaded from
149.156.208.249 on Fri, 22 Mar 2024 14:41:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
J Bus Psychol (2017) 32:301–315
Profile across two countries. Journal of Management and
Business, 3, 14–33*.
Chusmir, L. H., & Koberg, C. S. (1988). Religion and attitudes toward
work: A new look at an old question. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 9, 251–262. doi:10.1002/job.4030090305*.
Cogin, J. (2012). Are generational differences in work values fact or
fiction? Multi-country evidence and implications. The Interna-
tional Journal of Human Resource Management, 23, 2268–2294.
doi:10.1080/09585192.2011.610967.
Cokley, K., Komarraju, M., Pickett, R., Shen, F., Patel, N., Belur, V.,
et al. (2007). Ethnic differences in endorsement of the Protestant
work ethic: The role ethnic identify and perceptions of social
class. Journal of Social Psychology, 147, 75–89. doi:10.3200/
SOCP.147.1.75-89*.
Costanza, D. P., Badger, J. M., Fraser, R. L., Severt, J. B., & Gade, P.
A. (2012). Generational differences in work-related attitudes: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology,. doi:10.
1007/s10869-012-9259-4.
Costanza, D. P., & Finkelstein, L. M. (2015). Generationally based
differences in the workplace: Is there a there there. Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, 8, 303–323. doi:10.1017/iop.
2015.15.
Cowan, G., Martinez, L., & Mendiola, S. (1997). Predictors of
attitudes toward illegal Hispanic immigrants. Hispanic Journal
of Behavioral Sciences, 19, 403–415. doi:10.1177/
07399863970194001*.
Cozzarelli, C., Wilkinson, A. V., & Tagler, M. J. (2001). Attitudes
toward the poor and attributions for poverty. Journal of Social
Issues: Special Issue: Listening to the Voices of Poor Women,
57, 207–227. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00209*.
Deal, J. J., Altman, D. G., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2010). Millennials at
work: What we know and what we need to do (if anything).
Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 191–199. doi:10.1007/
s10869-010-9177-2.
Deal, J. J., Stawiski, S., Graves, L. M., Gentry, W. A., Ruderman, M.,
& Weber, T. J. (2012). Perceptions of authority and leadership:
A cross-national, cross-generational investigation. In E. S. Ng, S.
T. Lyons, & L. Schweitzer (Eds.), Managing the new workforce:
International perspectives on the Millennial generation (pp.
281–306). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Dobson, C., & Morrow, P. C. (1984). Effects of career orientation on
retirement attitudes and retirement planning. Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior, 24, 73–83. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(84)90067-8.
Families and Work Institute, 2005. Generation and gender in the
workplace. Retrieved December 20, 2015 from http://familie
sandwork.org/site/research/reports/genandgender.pdf.
Finkelstein, L. M., Truxillo, D. M., Fraccaroli, F., & Kanfer, R.
(2015). An introduction to facing the challenges of a multi-age
workforce: A use-inspired approach. In L. M. Finkelstein, D.
M. Truxillo, F. Fraccaroli, & R. Kanfer (Eds.), Facing the
challenges of a multi-age workforce: A use-inspired approach.
SIOP Frontiers Series, Taylor & Francis/Routledge: London.
Furnham, A. (1990). A content, correlational, and factor analytic
study of seven questionnaire measures of the protestant work
ethic. Human Relations, 43, 383–399. doi:10.1177/
001872679004300406.
Furnham, A., et al. (1993). A comparison of Protestant work ethic
beliefs in thirteen nations. Journal of Social Psychology, 133,
185–197. doi:10.1080/00224545.1993.9712136*.
Ganster, D. C. (1981). Protestant ethic and performance: A re-
examination. Psychological Reports, 48, 335–338. doi:10.2466/
pr0.1981.48.1.335*.
Garcia, K. K. (2003). The role of Protestant work ethic beliefs in
influencing dieting behavior and the effectiveness of dieting
related health interventions (University of California, Los
J Bus Psychol (2017) 32:301–315
Angeles), (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses database (UMI No. 3100673)*.
Ghorpade, J., Lackritz, J., & Singh, G. (2006). Correlates of the
Protestant ethic of hard work: Results from a diverse ethno-
religious sample. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36,
2449–2473. doi:10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00112.x*.
Goldstein, B., & Eichhorn, R. L. (1961). The changing Protestant
ethic: Rural patterns in health, work, and leisure. American
Sociological Review, 26, 557–565.
Gonsalves, S. V., & Bernard, G. A. (1983). The relationship between
the Protestant ethic and social class for Afro-Caribeans and Afro-
Americans. Psychological Reports, 53, 645–646.
Gonsalves, S. V., & Bernard, G. A. (1985a). The Protestant ethic and
conservatism scales: Correlation and validation among different
ethnic groups. High School Journal, 68, 247–253.
Gonsalves, S. V., & Bernard, G. A. (1985b). The relationship between
parental social class and endorsement of items on the Protestant
ethic and conservatism scales. Psychological Reports, 57,
919–922. doi:10.2466/pr0.1985.57.3.919.
Goulet, L. R., & Singh, P. (2002). Career commitment: A reexam-
ination and an extension. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61,
73–91. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1844.
Greenberg, J. (1978). Protestant ethic endorsement and attitudes
toward commuting to work among mass transit riders. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 63, 755–758. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.63.6.
755*.
Griffin, P., McGraw, B., & Care, E. (Eds.). (2012). Assessment and
teaching of 21st century skills. New York, NY: Springer.
Gursoy, D., Maier, T., & Chi, C. (2008). Generational differences: An
examination of the work values and generational gaps in the
hospitality workforce. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 27, 448–458. doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2007.11.002.
Hammond, P., & Williams, R. (1976). The Protestant ethic thesis: A
social psychological assessment. Social Forces, 54, 579–589.
doi:10.1093/sf/54.3.579.
Hart, S. M. (2006). Generational diversity: Impact on recruitment and
retention of registered nurses. Journal of Nursing Administra-
tion, 36, 10–12.
Hartman, M. (2014). Millennials at work: Young and callow, like
their parents. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.
nytimes.com/2014/03/25/your-money/Millennials-at-work-young-
and-callow-like-their-parents.html?_r=0.
Hite, D. M., Daspit, J. J., & Dong, X. (2015). Examining the influence
of transculturation on work ethic in the United States. Cross
Cultural Management, 22, 145–162. doi:10.1108/CCM-12-
2013-0190*.
Ho, R., & Lloyd, J. I. (1984). Development of an Australian work
ethic scale. Australian Psychologist, 19, 321–332. doi:10.1080/
00050068408255438.
Hooker, K., & Ventis, D. G. (1984). Work ethic, daily activities, and
retirement satisfaction. Journal of Gerontology, 39, 478–484.
doi:10.1093/geronj/39.4.478.
Housel, M. (2015). Why your parents are disappointed in you. The
Motley Fool. Retrieved from http://www.fool.com/investing/
general/2015/12/16/why-your-parents-are-disappointed-in-you.
aspx.
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great
generation. New York: Vintage.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis:
Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications.
Iso-Ahola, S. E., & Buttimer, K. J. (1982). On the measurement of
work and leisure ethics and resultant correlations. Education and
Psychological Measurement, 42, 429–435. doi:10.1177/
001316448204200205.
This content downloaded from
149.156.208.249 on Fri, 22 Mar 2024 14:41:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
313
Jobe, L. L. (2014). Generational differences in work ethic among 3
generations of registered nurses. Journal of Nursing Adminis-
tration, 44, 303–308. doi:10.1097/NNA.0000000000000071*.
Jones, A. P. (1984). Organizational reward systems: Implications for
climate. Motivation and Emotion, 8, 259–274. doi:10.1007/
BF00991893*.
Jones, J. R., Christopher, A. N., Marek, P., & Reinhart, D. F. (2005).
Students’ perceptions of questionable workplace behaviors: The
effects of perceiver and actor attributes. Individual Differences
Research, 3, 14–26*.
Jovic, E., Wallace, J. E., & LeMaire, J. (2006). The generation and
gender shifts in medicine: An exploratory survey of internal
medicine physicians. BMC Health Service Research, 6. doi:10.
1186/1472-6963-6-55.
Judge, T. A., & Martocchio, J. J. (1996). Dispositional influences on
attributions concerning absenteeism. Journal of Management,
22, 837–861. doi:10.1177/014920639602200603*.
Jurkiewicz, C. (2000). Generation X and the public employee. Public
Personnel Management, 29, 55–74. doi:10.1177/00910260000
2900105.
Jurkiewicz, C., & Brown, R. (1998). GenXers and vs. boomers vs.
matures: Generational comparisons of public employees’ moti-
vation. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 18(4),
18–37. doi:10.1177/0734371X9801800403.
Khosravi, J. Y. (2014). Generational differences in work-family balance:
A quantitative and qualitative assessment (Doctoral dissertation)*.
Kidron, A. (1978). Work values and organizational commitment.
Academy of Management Journal, 21, 239–247. doi:10.2307/
255757*.
Kleiber, D. A., & Crandall, R. (1981). Leisure and work ethics and
locus of control. Leisure Sciences, 4, 477–485. doi:10.1080/
01490408109512982*.
Kowske, B. J., Rasch, R., & Wiley, J. (2010). Millennials (lack of)
attitude problem: An empirical examination of generational
effects on work attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology,
25, 265–279. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9171-8.
Kupperschmidt, B. R. (2000). Multigeneration employees: Strategies
for effective management. Health Care Manager, 19, 65–76.
Lamm, E., & Meeks, M. M. (2009). Workplace fun: The moderating
effects of generational differences. Employee Relations, 31,
613–631. doi:10.1108/01425450910991767.
Lancaster, L. C., & Stillman, D. (2002). When generations collide.
Who they are. Why they clash. How to solve the generational
puzzle at work. New York: Vintage Books.
Lester, S. W., Standifer, R. L., Schultz, N. J., & Windsor, J. M.
(2012). Actual versus perceived generational differences at
work. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19,
341–354. doi:10.1177/1548051812442747.
Levy, S. R., Freitas, A. L., Mendoza-Denton, R., Kugelmass, H., &
Rosenthal, L. (2010). When sociopolitical events strike cultural
beliefs: Divergent impact of Hurricane Katrina on African
Americans’ and European Americans’ endorsement of the
Protestant work ethic. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
32, 207–216. doi:10.1080/01973533.2010.495673*.
Levy, S. R., Freitas, A. L., & Salovey, P. (2002). Construing action
abstractly and blurring social distinctions: Implications for
perceiving homogeneity among, but also empathizing with and
helping, others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
83, 1224–1238. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.5.1224*.
Levy, S. R., West, T. L., Ramierez, R., & Karafantis, D. M. (2006).
The Protestant work ethic: A lay theory with dual intergroup
implications. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9,
95–115. doi:10.1177/1368430206059874*.
Lyons, S., Duxbury, L., & Higgins, C. (2007). An empirical
assessment of generational differences in basic human values.
123
314
Psychological Reports, 101, 339–352. doi:10.2466/pr0.101.2.
339-352.
MacDonald, A. P. (1972). More on the Protestant ethic. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 39, 116–122. doi:10.1037/
h0033156*.
Marikar, S. (2013). For Millennials, a generational divide. The New
York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/
22/fashion/Millennials-Millennials-Generation-Y.html.
McCrindle, M., & Hooper, D. (2006). Gen Y: Attracting, engaging
and leading a new generation at work. Hobart: University of
Tasmania.
McElroy, J. C., Morrow, P. C., & Wardlow, T. R. (1999). A career
stage analysis of police officer work commitment. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 27, 507–516. doi:10.1016/S0047-
2352(99)00021-5*.
Meriac, J. P. (2012). Work ethic and academic performance:
Predicting citizenship and counterproductive behavior. Learning
& Individual Differences, 22, 549–553. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.
2012.03.015*.
Meriac, J. P. (2015). Examining relationships among work ethic,
academic motivation and performance. Educational Psychology,
35, 523–540. doi:10.1080/01443410.2014.895291*.
Meriac, J. P., Poling, T. L., & Woehr, D. J. (2009). Are there gender
differences in work ethic: An examination of the measurement
equivalence of the multidimensional work ethic profile. Person-
ality and Individual Differences, 47, 209–213. doi:10.1016/j.
paid.2009.03.001*.
Meriac, J. P., Slifka, J. S., & Labat, L. R. (2015a). Work ethic and
grit: An examination of empirical redundancy. Personality and
Individual Differences, 86, 401–405. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.
009*.
Meriac, J. P., Thomas, A. L. E., & Milunski, M. (2015b). Work ethic
as a predictor of task persistence and intensity. Learning and
Individual Differences, 37, 249–254. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2014.
11.006*.
Meriac, J. P., Woehr, D. J., & Banister, C. (2010). Generational
differences in work ethic: An examination of measurement
equivalence across three cohorts. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 25, 315–324. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9164*.
Meriac, J. P., Woehr, D. J., Gorman, C. A., & Thomas, A. L. E.
(2013). Development and validation of a short form for the
multidimensional work ethic profile. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 82, 155–164. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2013.01.007*.
Merrens, M. R., & Garrett, J. B. (1975). The Protestant Ethic Scale as
a predictor of repetitive work performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 60, 125–127. doi:10.1037/h0076297*.
Miller, B. K., & Konopaske, R. (2014). Dispositional correlates of
perceived work entitlement. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
29, 808–828. doi:10.1108/JMP-12-2012-0386*.
Miller, M. J., Woehr, D. J., & Hudspeth, N. (2002). The meaning and
measurement of work ethic: Construction and initial validation
of a multidimensional inventory. Journal of Vocational Behav-
ior, 60, 451–489. doi:10.1006/jvbe.2001.1838*.
Mirels, H. L., & Garrett, J. B. (1971). The Protestant ethic as a
personality variable. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy-
chology, 36, 40–44. doi:10.1037/h0030477*.
Morrow, P. C., & Goetz, J. F. (1988). Professionalism as a form of
work commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 92–111.
doi:10.1016/0001-8791(88)90008-5*.
Morrow, P., & McElroy, J. C. (1987). Work commitment and job
satisfaction over three career stages. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 30, 330–346. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(87)90009-1*.
Mudrack, P. E. (1993). The Protestant work ethic and Type A
behaviour: Overlap or orthogonality? Personality and Individual
Differences, 14, 261–263. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(93)90200-M*.
123
This content downloaded from
149.156.208.249 on Fri, 22 Mar 2024 14:41:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
J Bus Psychol (2017) 32:301–315
Mudrack, P. E. (1997). Protestant work-ethic dimensions and work
orientations. Personality and Individual Differences, 23,
217–225. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(97)00041-X*.
Mudrack, P. E. (1999). Time structure and purpose: Type A behavior,
and the protestant work ethic. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 20, 145–158. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-
1379(199903)20:2\145:AID-JOB868[3.3.CO;2-T*.
Mudrack, P. E. (2005). An outcomes-based approach to just world
beliefs. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 817–830.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.06.006*.
Mudrack, P. E., & Mason, E. S. (2010). The asceticism dimension of
the Protestant work ethic: Shedding its status of invisibility.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 2043–2070. doi:10.
1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00650.x*.
Mudrack, P. E., Mason, E. S., & Stepanski, K. M. (1999). Equity
sensitivity and business ethics. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 72, 539–560. doi:10.1348/
096317999166833*.
Nakai, Y. (2015). Why we study generations. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Prac-
tice, 8, 331–334.
Neubert, J. C., Mainert, J., Kretzschmar, A., & Greiff, S. (2015). The
assessment of 21st Century Skills in industrial and organizational
psychology: Complex and collaborative problem solving. Indus-
trial and Organizational Psychologist, 8, 238–268.
Newsom, A. (2014). The effect of meriocratic worldviews on mental
illness stigma (Doctoral dissertation)*.
O’Bannon, G. (2001). Managing our future: The Generation X factor.
Public Personnel Management, 30, 95–109.
Parker, B., & Chusmir, L. (1990). A generational and sex-based view
of managerial work values. Psychological Reports, 66, 947–950.
doi:10.2466/pr0.1990.66.3.947.
Parkhurst, J. T. (2013). Academic work ethic: Predicating student
assignment choice and evaluating the academic work ethic-
student measure (Doctoral dissertation).
Parkhurst, J. T., Fleisher, M. S., Skinner, C. H., Woehr, D. J., &
Hawthorn-Embree, M. L. (2011). Assignment choice, effort, and
assignment completion: Does work ethic predict those who
choose higher-effort assignments? Learning and Individual
Differences, 21, 575–579. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.04.003*.
Parry, E., & Urwin, P. (2011). Generational differences in work
values: A review of theory and evidence. International Journal
of Management Reviews, 13, 79–96. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.
2010.00285.x.
Patton, E. (2010). The devil is in the details: Judgments of
responsibility and absenteeism from work. Journal of Occupa-
tional and Organizational Psychology, 84, 759–779. doi:10.
1348/096317910X521510*.
Pesek, J. G., Raehsler, R. D., & Balough, R. S. (2006). Future
professionals and managers: Their attitudes toward unions,
organizational beliefs, and work ethic. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 36, 1569–1594. doi:10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.
00072.x*.
Pogson, C. E., Cober, A. B., Doverspike, D., & Rogers, J. R. (2003).
Differences in self-reported work ethic across three career
stages. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 189–201. doi:10.
1016/S0001-8791(02)00044-1*.
Quinn, D. M., & Crocker, J. (1999). When ideology hurts: Effects of belief
in the Protestant ethic and feeling overweight on the psychological
well-being of women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
77, 402–414. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.2.402*.
Ramirez, L., Levy, S. R., Velilla, E., & Hughes, J. M. (2010).
Considering the roles of culture and social status: The Protestant
work ethic and egalitarianism. Revista Latinoamericana de
Psicologia, 42, 381–390*.
J Bus Psychol (2017) 32:301–315
Rampell, C. (2011). A generation of slackers? Not so much. The New
York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/
29/weekinreview/29graduates.html.
Randall, D. M., & Cote, J. A. (1991). Interrelationships of work
commitment constructs. Work and Occupations, 18, 194–211.
doi:10.1177/0730888491018002004*.
Ray, J. J. (1982). The Protestant ethic in Australia. Journal of Social
Psychology, 116, 127–138. doi:10.1080/00224545.1982.
9924402.
Real, K., Mitnick, K. D., & Maloney, W. F. (2010). More similar than
different: Millennials in the U.S. building trades. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 25, 303–313. doi:10.1007/s10869-
010-9163-8*.
Riggio, R. E., & Saggi, K. (2015). Incorporating ‘‘soft skills’’ into the
collaborative problem-solving equation. Industrial and Organi-
zational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 8,
281–284.
Robles, M. M. (2012). Executive perceptions of the top 10 soft skills
needed in today’s workplace. Business Communication Quar-
terly, 75, 453–465. doi:10.1177/1080569912460400.
Ryan, J. J. (1998). Testing moral reasoning and the protestant work
ethic as determinants of organizational citizenship behaviors
(Doctoral dissertation)*.
Sauley, K. S., & Bedeian, A. G. (2000). Equity sensitivity:
Construction of a measure and examination of its psychometric
properties. Journal of Management, 26, 885–910. doi:10.1177/
014920630002600507*.
Schlenker, B. R., Chambers, J. R., & Le, B. M. (2012). Conservatives
are happier than liberals, but why? Political ideology, person-
ality, and life satisfaction. Journal of Research in Personality,
46, 127–146. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2011.12.009*.
Seider, S. C., Gilmor, S. C., & Rabinowicz, S. A. (2010). Compli-
cating college students’ conception of the American dream
through community service learning. Michigan Journal of
Community Service Learning, 17, 5–19.
Sekaran, U. (1986). Mapping bank employee perceptions of organi-
zational stimuli in two countries. Journal of Management, 12,
19–30. doi:10.1177/014920638601200103*.
Sekaran, U. (1989). Paths to the job satisfaction of bank employees.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 347–359. doi:10.1002/
job.4030100405.
Shore, T. H., Thornton, G. C., & Shore, L. M. (1990). Distinctiveness
of three work attitudes: Job involvement, organizational com-
mitment, and career salience. Psychological Reports, 67,
851–858*.
Smola, K. W., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences:
Revisiting generational work values for the new millennium.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 363–382. doi:10.1002/
job.147.
Smrt, D. L., & Karau, S. J. (2011). Protestant work ethic moderates
social loafing. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Prac-
tice, 15, 267–274.
Staff, J., & Schulenberg, J. (2010). Millennials and the world of work:
Experiences in paid work during adolescence. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 25, 247–255.
Stillman, T. F., Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., Lambert, N. M.,
Fincham, F. D., & Brewer, L. E. (2010). Personal philosophy and
This content downloaded from
149.156.208.249 on Fri, 22 Mar 2024 14:41:49 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
315
personnel achievement: Belief in free will predicts better job
performance. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 1,
43–50. doi:10.1177/1948550609351600*.
Suazo, M. M., & Turnley, W. H. (2009). Perceived organizational
support as a mediator of the relations between individual
differences and psychological contract breach. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 25, 620–648. doi:10.1108/
02683941011056969*.
Tang, T. L. (1992). The meaning of money revisited. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 13, 197–202. doi:10.1002/job.
4030130209*.
Tang, T. L., & Gilbert, P. R. (1995). Attitudes toward money as
related to intrinsic and extrinsic job satisfaction, stress and work-
related attitudes. Personality and Individual Differences, 19,
327–332. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(95)00057-D*.
Tang, T. L., Singer, M. G., & Roberts, S. (2000). Employees’
perceived organizational instrumentality: An examination of the
gender differences. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 15,
378–406. doi:10.1108/02683940010337112*.
Tang, T. L., Tang, D. S. H., & Luna-Arocas, R. (2005). Money
profiles: The love of money, attitudes, and needs. Personnel
Review, 34, 603–618. doi:10.1108/00483480510612549*.
Tang, T. L., & Weatherford, E. J. (1998). Perception of enhancing
self-worth through service: The development of a service ethic
scale. Journal of Social Psychology, 138, 734–743. doi:10.1080/
00224549809603258*.
Twenge, J. M., Campbell, S. M., Hoffman, B. J., & Lance, C. E.
(2010). Generational differences in work values: Leisure and
extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values decreas-
ing. Journal of Management, 36, 1117–1142. doi:10.1177/
0149206309352246.
Van Ness et al. (2010). Work ethic: Do new employees mean new
work values. Journal of Managerial Issues, 1, 10–34*.
Weber, M. (1958). The Protestant ethic and spirit of capitalism.
(Talcott Parsons, Trans). New York: Scribner. [Original work
published 1904–1905].
Woehr, D. J., Arciniega, L. M., & Lim, D. H. (2007). Examining work
ethic across populations: A comparison of the multidimensional
work ethic profile across three diverse cultures. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 67, 154–168. doi:10.1177/
0013164406292036*.
Wong, M., Gardiner, E., Lang, W., & Coulon, L. (2008). Generational
differences in personality and motivation: Do they exist and
what are the implications for the workplace. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 23, 878–890. doi:10.1108/
02683940810904376.
Woolley, J. K. (2012). The effects of narrative media on self-
perceptions: The role of identification and narrative engagement
(Doctoral dissertation)*.
Yiu, F. M. (2013). Personality and attitudes toward school and work
(Doctoral dissertation)*.
Zemke, R., Raines, C., & Filipczak, B. (2000). Generations at work:
Managing the clash of Veterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in
your workplace. Washington, DC: American Management
Association.
123