346 s e a n lyo n s e t a l .

Rudolph, C. W., & Zacher, H. (2015). Intergenerational perceptions and conflicts in multi-
age and multigenerational work environments. In L. M. Finkelstein, D. M. Truxillo,
F. Fraccaroli, & R. Kanfer (Eds.), Facing the challenges of a multi-age workforce: A use-
inspired approach (pp. 253–282). New York, NY: Routledge.
Schaie, K. W. (2013). Developmental influences on adult intelligence: The Seattle Longitudinal
Study (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Weiss, D. (2014). What will remain when we are gone? Finitude and generation identity in
the second half of life. Psychology and Aging, 29, 554–562. doi:10.1037/a0036728
Weiss, D., & Lang, F. R. (2009). Thinking about my generation: Adaptive effects of a dual
identity in later adulthood. Psychology and Aging, 24, 729–734.
Zacher, H. (2015). Successful aging at work. Work, Aging, and Retirement, 1(1), 4–25.
doi:10.1093/workar/wau006

Generational Differences in the Workplace: There

Is Complexity Beyond the Stereotypes
Sean Lyons
University of Guelph
Michael Urick
St. Vincent College

Lisa Kuron
Wilfrid Laurier University

Linda Schweitzer
Carleton University

The topic of generational differences in the workplace has been immensely

popular over the past decade, spawning a large number of academic publi-
cations and a far greater number of consulting reports, popular press books,
magazine articles, media reports, blogs, and infographics. Indeed, a new in-
dustry of consultants and public speakers seems to have emerged primar-
ily to capitalize on the popularity of this topic. As Costanza and Finkelstein
(2015) note, the research on this “hot topic” has often seemed opportunistic,
lacking rigor and depth. The relative ease of cutting existing cross-sectional
data by age and calling it a generation study has tempted researchers to
hop on the bandwagon, resulting in a large number of empirical studies

Sean Lyons, Department of Management, University of Guelph; Michael Urick, Alex

G. McKenna School of Business, Economics, and Government, St. Vincent College; Lisa
Kuron, School of Business and Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University; Linda Schweitzer,
Sprott School of Business, Carleton University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sean Lyons, Depart-
ment of Management, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1,
Canada. E-mail: sean.lyons@uoguelph.ca
c om p l e x i t y b e yo n d t h e s t e r e o t y p e s 347

with nearly identical literature reviews that overrely on popular press and
opinion-based literature. There has been a lamentable tendency toward blind
empiricism with little or no connection to theory, as has been stated else-
where (Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Parry & Urwin, 2011).
We concur with Costanza and Finkelstein’s apt warnings about the dan-
gers of relying on weak research evidence and generational stereotypes as
a basis for managerial and human resource (HR) decision making, which
reiterate similar warnings made in previous reviews of the generational liter-
ature (Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Parry & Urwin, 2011; Twenge, 2010). We fully
agree that an appreciation of the diversity and inclusiveness of individual
differences does not benefit from stereotyping and overgeneralization of the
available evidence. However, we are not as willing as Costanza and Finkel-
stein to throw out the baby with the bath water. We contend that the study
of generations, despite the challenges described above, holds the potential
to contribute valuable information about the changing nature of work and
careers within the broader historical context. In order to realize this poten-
tial, researchers must move away from mere description of intergenerational
differences toward a deeper consideration of what generations are and how
they affect change (Lyons & Kuron, 2014).
In this commentary, we address several arguments that Costanza and
Finkelstein use in their effort to discredit the generational literature, and
we show that the research and theory on this topic are quite robust and
are advancing rapidly. Specifically, we address Costanza and Finkelstein’s as-
sertions about the supposed lack of evidence concerning intergenerational
differences in work-related outcomes, the supposed paucity of foundational
generational theory, the conceptual complexity of the construct of genera-
tions, methodological issues in conducting intergenerational research, epis-
temological considerations, and directions for future research. We hope that
our brief commentary reveals to readers who are unfamiliar with genera-
tional research that there is indeed something there, and that something is
rich, complex, and worthy of study.

The Supposed Lack of Evidence

Costanza and Finkelstein argue that there is insufficient evidence of gener-
ationally based differences in work-based outcomes. This is a very serious
claim for which they provide limited support. Recent systematic and critical
reviews of the research (Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Parry & Urwin, 2011; Twenge,
2010) have documented a growing body of evidence concerning intergen-
erational differences in various work-based variables, including personality,
work values, work–life balance, leadership styles and preferences, and career
experiences (cf. Lyons & Kuron, 2014). Recent research has also documented
evidence of perceived intergenerational differences in work values among
348 s e a n lyo n s e t a l .

managers and employees, which are related to but different from actual ob-
served intergenerational differences (Foster, 2013; Lester, Standifer, Schultz,
& Windsor, 2012). However, as might be expected with a nascent field of
inquiry, the existing evidence is difficult to aggregate and compare because
it relies on different contexts (e.g., industry and country), different method-
ologies, different conceptualizations and operationalizations of generation,
and different data collection periods (Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Parry & Urwin,
2011).
Costanza and Finkelstein further argue that the effect size of intergen-
erational differences is small, suggesting that the differences lack practical
significance. Twenge (2010) has noted that the effect sizes observed in gen-
erational research are often moderate and are sometimes large in size. She
argued that there is no agreement on what a practically significant effect size
should be in the context of generational comparisons, resulting in an expec-
tation of effect sizes that are larger than are feasible for a variable as complex
as generation. Twenge further showed that some researchers tend to dismiss
moderate-sized generational effects as trivial even though they are similar
in magnitude to those observed for gender and other individual difference
variables (Twenge, 2010).
It is our contention that there is abundant evidence that intergenera-
tional differences exist both in objective and perceptual terms. The problem
is not a lack of evidence so much as a lack of comparability between the grow-
ing body of evidence that exists. Lyons and Kuron (2014) have advocated for
a more detailed description of sample demographics and contextual factors,
as well as consistent reporting of effect sizes in order to bring clarity and
consistency to the research and to facilitate meta-analyses.

The Age–Period–Cohort Confound

Like many previous commentators (e.g., Kelan, 2014; Parry & Urwin, 2011;
Rhodes, 1983; Ryder, 1965), Costanza and Finkelstein have argued that the
construct of generation faces a validity challenge because generational ef-
fects are inherently confounded with age (i.e., life cycle) and historical pe-
riod effects. For decades, psychologists have sought to disentangle these
confounded effects through increasingly elaborate research designs and sta-
tistical processes. A number of recent studies have employed longitudi-
nal research such as time-lag studies (Twenge et al., 2010), cross-temporal
meta-analyses (Twenge & Campbell, 2001), sequential longitudinal designs
(Krahn & Galambos, 2014), and sample reconstructions (Cogin, 2012; Smola
& Sutton, 2002), which offer better insights into generational change over
time. These studies have documented intergenerational differences that can-
not be attributed solely to age. However, none of these approaches adequately
controls for historical period, because we cannot step “outside of history” to
c om p l e x i t y b e yo n d t h e s t e r e o t y p e s 349

observe the variance that a historical period creates. Readers interested in

a fuller consideration of these issues should refer to Parry’s (2014) edited
volume, which offers many useful perspectives on the matter.
We refer to the foundational theory of generations, which does not sup-
pose that disentangling these confounding effects is necessary or advanta-
geous to our understanding of the phenomenon. Karl Mannheim (1952),
the father of modern generational theory, argued that for generation to be
a useful construct above and beyond age and period, we must view it as a
gestalt—as a fundamental confluence of biology and history. Viewed from
this perspective, we should always examine the joint influences of age within
cohort within period. There is significant recent evidence that suggests that
the human life cycle is not static but is dynamic as social and historical
forces continue to evolve. For example, Arnett (2000) has documented a
prolonged period of entry into adulthood in recent decades, which he has
termed “emergent adulthood.” Census statistics and large-scale survey data
from North America confirm Arnett’s hypothesis; people are spending more
time in education, are living with their parents later into adulthood, and are
getting married and bearing children later in life than in the past (Statis-
tics Canada, 2011; Taylor, 2014; U.S. Census Bureau, 2014). Curiously, even
seemingly fixed biological markers, such as the age of menarche (one’s first
menstrual cycle) appear to be dynamic over time (Okasha, McCarron, Smith,
& McEwen, 2001).This suggests that although age is an important factor
shaping individual differences, it only has meaning relative to the experi-
ences of one’s cohort and the historical events that intersect with each stage
of the life cycle. Likewise, historic events provide a context that shapes indi-
viduals, but their influence is moderated by the age at which one encounters
these events and the nature of the cohort-peers with whom one contempo-
raneously experiences them. Again, we see the inherent confluence of these
three factors not to be a failure of the generational construct but rather to be
the purpose for it.

The Supposed Lack of Theory

Costanza and Finkelstein argue that there is “no sufficient explanation for
why [intergenerational] differences should even exist” (p. 3), implying that
there has been no theory to guide extant research. They conclude by stating,
We would welcome a comprehensive theory of generations, or even minimally a sound theo-
retical rationale for any of the proposed differences in qualities among generational members,
accompanied by rigorous methods that investigate not only differences themselves but also the
processes by which these differences have developed. (p. 20)

The good news is that they do not need to wait for the development of
such theory; it already exists. There is a rich body of theory concerning gen-
erations as a social phenomenon (e.g., Alwin & McCammon, 2007; Eyerman
350 s e a n lyo n s e t a l .

& Turner, 1998; Mannheim, 1952). Beyond the broad sociological theories,
Joshi and colleagues (Dencker, Joshi, & Martocchio, 2008; Joshi, Dencker,
& Franz, 2011; Joshi, Dencker, Franz, & Martocchio, 2010) have proposed
a theory (and definitions) of generational cohorts and how they influence
interactions and behaviors within workplaces. This theory largely draws
on (and highlights the applicability to generations of) social identity and
self-categorization theories (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Other theories from a
variety of disciplines have also been applied to intergenerational phenomena.
For example, Urick (2014) applied dramaturgical theory (Goffman, 1959) to
theorize when and how individuals choose to conform (or not) to stereotypes
of generational categories.
Unfortunately, a great many researchers have neglected to draw on such
theoretical contributions, relying instead on the rather weak justification of
testing popular caricatures or depictions of the generations (Lyons & Kuron,
2014; Twenge, 2010). We do not endeavor in this brief commentary to re-
view the body of theory supporting generations as a genuine and important
social phenomenon. Instead, we refer readers to the works cited above and to
the reviews by Gilleard (2004), Kelan (2014), and Lyons and Kuron (2014),
which discuss various theoretical contributions in greater detail. Efforts to
integrate and expand intergenerational theory are ongoing, several of which
are discussed below.

The Problem of Demographic Determinism

A key tenet of Costanza and Finkelstein’s argument against generational dif-
ferences as a legitimate workplace phenomenon is the tendency to apply
stereotypes to all members of a birth cohort. They cite examples of stereo-
types of four different generational cohorts gleaned from media and pop-
ular press that are often used as supporting evidence in academic work on
the topic. The crux of Costanza and Finkelstein’s argument is that, because
the influences that are purported to shape a generation might not apply to
“any one member” (p. 7) of a generation, the construct of generation is in-
valid. We would argue that this logic relies on an expectation of demographic
determinism—that demographics such as birth year determine the future
for which individuals are destined—which does not reflect the nuances of
generational theory.
Mannheim’s (1952) seminal theoretical work expressly states that gen-
erations are not monolithic. A generation, from this broader theoretical per-
spective, is more than simply a cohort of people born in the historical pe-
riod. It is a collective consciousness that emerges within a cohort with which
individuals will identify to varying degrees (Alwin & McCammon, 2007).
Mannheim (1952) posited that each generation comprises subunits that
are supportive of, opposed to, and ambivalent to the broader generational
c om p l e x i t y b e yo n d t h e s t e r e o t y p e s 351

consciousness. It is one’s identification with one of these generational units

that defines one’s place within the larger generation. It is possible that the
opposing unit within one generation holds values similar to the “leading”
unit of the preceding generation. The similarity of these individuals’ val-
ues would suggest between-generation invariance, which is often taken to
be proof of the nonexistence of generations. However, their similarities belie
important differences in their relative positions within their respective gen-
erations. Although one might be labeled conservative or traditionalist within
the context of his or her generation, the other might be labeled progressive or
liberal within his or her generation. Thus, within-cohort variance does not
disprove the existence of generations; it is an interesting empirical feature of
generations that helps us to delineate patterns of thought and action within
the generation.
Surely we would not apply the same logic to other demographic vari-
ables. For instance, should we dismiss gender as a demographic basis for in-
dividual differences because we cannot show that all women are exposed to
the exact same environmental and biological influences? Our understanding
of gender and other demographic variables such as ethnicity and socioeco-
nomic status has evolved over time to become more nuanced and complete.
Our understanding of generation must also undergo such examination and
refinement. Thus, although we concur with Costanza and Finkelstein that
we should not presume that birth cohort imbues individuals with homoge-
neous values, attitudes, or behaviors, we accept this as a fundamental tenet of
Mannheim’s generational theory, not a failure of it. The problem, therefore,
lies with the assumptions of cohort-focused research, not with the construct
of generation itself.

Generations as Social Identities: One Person’s Stereotypes Are Another

Person’s Prototypes
Costanza and Finkelstein make the apt point that the use of stereotypes
as the basis for management and HR decision making is a dubious prac-
tice that should be avoided. They give examples from the media and pop-
ular press that make exaggerated claims and unwarranted extrapolations
based on stereotypes and advise that this is inappropriate. We have no cause
to argue with this position, which we believe most academics would view
to be a truism. We certainly echo the voices who have advocated for in-
formed, evidence-based decision making rather than reliance on glaring
generalizations and unsubstantiated news articles and popular press books
(e.g., Latham, 2009). However, we wish to note that stereotypes are key
to understanding perceptions and identity in organizations. If we substi-
tute the pejorative term stereotype with the more neutral term prototype,
we can link our understanding of generations to the substantial body of
352 s e a n lyo n s e t a l .

work concerning social identity and social categorization theory (Ashforth

& Mael, 1989) as noted earlier. This theory tells us that the prototypes that
we carry in our minds are an important sense-making tool. We agree that
such heuristics are appealing because they are quick and easy, but they
are also part of the innate process of defining social identity (Ashforth
& Mael, 1989). Joshi and colleagues (2010, 2011) have considered this as
part of their theoretical contribution to understanding generations in the
workplace.
We unreservedly concur with Costanza and Finkelstein that managers
would be ill advised to revamp their management styles and HR systems on
the basis of generational caricatures and support the notion of celebrating
diversity and inclusiveness on various bases, including generation. However,
we also contend that managers can gain a deeper understanding of the iden-
tity patterns of their employees by listening for evidence of generation talk
within employee discourse. We take issue with the suggestion that managers
and employees are mere parrots of the stereotypes purveyed by the media.
Those stereotypes resonate because they “fit” as explanations of the work-
place dynamics they are encountering. For example, generational labels are
known by managers and employees, and they impact behaviors and interac-
tions (Urick & Hollensbe, 2014). It is quite possible in many situations that
there are deeper bases for social identity and sense making that should be ex-
plored. An awareness of the use of generational prototypes as sense-making
tools can help managers to push for the deeper connections that might bridge
the gap between superficial generational differences.

Where Do We Go From Here? Future Directions for Research

A number of commentators have previously noted the empirical challenges
inherent in studying generations and have offered guidance as to how the re-
search might move forward (e.g., Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Parry, 2014; Parry &
Urwin, 2011). Costanza and Finkelstein seem to be suggesting that we aban-
don generational research altogether. Giving up on generational research
now would be a mistake. Costanza and Finkelstein argue that all of the im-
portant individual difference variables and their relationships to work out-
comes have already been investigated, so a generational perspective adds
nothing to our existing knowledge. The same argument could have been
made against any of the other individual difference variables for which there
is now an amassed body of research. Every field of empirical research starts
somewhere. As Colquitt and Zapata-Phelan (2007) have noted, research in a
new area tends to begin with description, which leads to theory testing and
refinement. What is needed at this juncture is not an end to generational
research but a change in its focus. Rather than asking the same questions in
different ways, it is time to ask different questions.
c om p l e x i t y b e yo n d t h e s t e r e o t y p e s 353

We reiterate the recommendations of Lyons and Kuron (2014) and Urick

(2012) that future research on generations should employ multiple and
mixed methods. Specifically, what is needed now is greater understanding
of generations from a qualitative perspective, which will help us better un-
derstand the ways that generation shapes our perceptions, our discourse, and
our identities. It will also give us a clearer sense of how well the generational
cohort approach, embodied in the use of birth years as demographic cate-
gories, actually predicts the generational identification. Research has already
begun to move in this direction. Foster (2013) has applied discursive the-
ory to generational phenomena to understand how generations are talked
about in relation to work. Roberto and Biggan (2014) used a mixed-method
quantitative and qualitative approach to examine people’s identification with
generational categories and their tendency to stereotype generational out-
groups. Schuman and Scott (1989) have investigated the role of collective
memories as the common bond that bonds members of a generation. All
of these promising avenues for research serve to enlighten and further our
understanding of generation as a phenomenon far richer and more complex
than mere demographic categorization.
Costanza and Finkelstein argue that researchers and managers should
abandon the quest for evidence of generational differences and focus in-
stead on “real” differences that have been documented more convinc-
ingly in previous research. However, the fact that a phenomena has not
yet been adequately measured does not necessarily imply that it is “un-
real.” Michell (1997) argues that legitimate quantitative science involves two
tasks: (a) the scientific task of showing that a phenomenon is quantitative
and (b) the instrumental task of operationalizing the phenomenon for the
purpose of accurate measurement. Michell (1997) also argues that impa-
tient researchers often ignore the difficult task of proving that a complex
phenomenon can be quantified and skip straight to the task of tinkering
with measurement issues. The generational research appears to be a prime
example of this phenomenon. Researchers have rushed to provide “proof (or
disproof) of concept,” according to their particular bias, by merely mea-
suring mean differences between people falling within various ranges of
birth years. This approach presumes that (a) mean scores based on birth
year are a reasonable measure of the attitudes or values of a generation
and, more important, (b) generation is a quantifiable phenomenon to begin
with (Alwin & McCammon, 2007). Generations, as theorized by Mannheim
(1952), are complex and dynamic multilevel systems of influences that may
be difficult to quantify. A generation might be an example of a complex
emergent phenomenon, in which novel and coherent structures, patterns,
and properties arise and are perceptible at the macro level through
self-organization in a multifaceted system of factors at the micro level
354 s e a n lyo n s e t a l .

(Goldstein, 1999). If such a system is quantifiable, it certainly defies simple

measurement.
Although we do not disagree that other sources of individual differ-
ence are important sources of understanding diversity and inclusion, this
does not preclude seeking a deeper understanding of generations as in-
terpersonal workplace phenomena. Employees’ and managers’ perceptions
regarding generational differences, whether accurate or not, have real
implications for practice and are worthy of study (Foster, 2013; Lester et al.,
2012). Costanza and Finkelstein agree but caution that the reality of these
perceptions is potentially harmful to good management. It is our opinion
that a better understanding of perceptions of intergenerational differences
and their sources is an important element of diversity management and of-
fers excellent potential for learning.

Conclusion
Although researchers studying intergenerational differences in the work-
place must grapple with theoretical and empirical questions as they seek a
clearer understanding of the phenomenon, recent work in the field shows
clear signs of progress toward more mature and robust inquiry. This nascent
research field has predictably begun to move beyond cross-sectional descrip-
tor studies toward qualifier studies that ground predictions in conceptual ar-
guments and add boundary conditions and mediators and moderators and,
beyond that, toward theory building, refinement, and testing (cf. Colquitt &
Zapata-Phelan, 2007). Although researchers and practitioners should heed
Costanza and Finkelstein’s warnings about overgeneralization and reduc-
tionism, they should also be encouraged to dig deeper in their understanding
of this complex and fascinating phenomenon.

References
Alwin, D. F., & McCammon, R. J. (2007). Rethinking generations. Research in Human De-
velopment, 4, 219–237.
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens
through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of
Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.
Cogin, J. (2012). Are generational differences in work values fact or fiction? Multi-country
evidence and implications. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
23, 2268–2294.
Colquitt, J. A., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2007). Trends in theory building and theory testing:
A five-decade study of the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management
Journal, 50, 1281–1303.
Costanza, D. P., & Finkelstein, L. M. (2015). Generationally based differences in the work-
place: Is there a there there? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on
Science and Practice, 8(4), 308–323.
c om p l e x i t y b e yo n d t h e s t e r e o t y p e s 355

Dencker, J. C., Joshi, A., & Martocchio, J. J. (2008). Towards a theoretical framework linking
generational memories to workplace attitudes and behaviors. Human Resource Man-
agement Review, 18, 180–187.
Eyerman, R., & Turner, B. S. (1998). Outline of a theory of generations. European Journal of
Social Theory, 1, 91–106.
Foster, K. (2013). Generation and discourse in working life stories. The British Journal of
Sociology, 64(2), 195–215.
Gilleard, C. (2004). Cohorts and generations in the study of social change. Social Theory &
Health, 2, 106–119.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York, NY: Anchor.
Goldstein, J. (1999). Emergence as a construct: History and issues. Emergence: Complexity
and Organization, 1(1), 49–72.
Joshi, A., Dencker, J. C., & Franz, G. (2011). Generations in organizations. Research in Or-
ganizational Behavior, 31, 177–205.
Joshi, A., Dencker, J. C., Franz, G., & Martocchio, J. J. (2010). Unpacking generational iden-
tities in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 392–414.
Kelan, E. K. (2014). Organizing generations—What can sociology offer to the understand-
ing of generations at work. Sociology Compass, 8(1), 20–30.
Krahn, H. J., & Galambos, N. L. (2014). Work values and beliefs of “Generation X” and
“Generation Y.” Journal of Youth Studies, 17, 92–112.
Latham, G. P. (2009). Becoming the evidence-based manager: How to put the science of man-
agement to work for you. Boston, MA: Nicholas Brealey.
Lester, S. W., Standifer, R. L., Schultz, N. J., & Windsor, J. M. (2012). Actual versus perceived
generational differences at work: An empirical examination. Journal of Leadership &
Organizational Studies, 19, 341–354.
Lyons, S., & Kuron, L. (2014). Generational differences in the workplace: A review of the
evidence and directions for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(1),
139–157.
Mannheim, K. (1952). Essays on the sociology of knowledge. London, United Kingdom: Rout-
ledge & Kegan Paul.
Michell, J. (1997). Quantitative science and the definition of measurement in psychology.
British Journal of Psychology, 88(3), 355–383.
Okasha, M., McCarron, P., Smith, G. D., & McEwen, J. (2001). Age at menarche: Secular
trends and association with adult anthropometric measures. Annals of Human Biology,
28(1), 68–78.
Parry, E. (Ed.). (2014). Generational diversity at work: New research perspectives. London,
United Kingdom: Routledge
Parry, E., & Urwin, P. (2011). Generational differences in work values: A review of theory
and evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(1), 79–96.
Rhodes, S. R. (1983). Age-related differences in work attitudes and behaviors: A review and
conceptual analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 93(2), 328–367.
Roberto, K. J., & Biggan, J. R. (2014). Keen, groovy, wicked, or phat, it is all cool: Genera-
tional stereotyping and social identity. In E. Parry (Ed.), Generational diversity at work:
New research perspectives (pp. 129–147). London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Ryder, N. B. (1965). The cohort as a concept in the study of social change. American Socio-
logical Review, 30, 843–861.
Schuman, H., & Scott, J. (1989). Generations and collective memories. American Sociological
Review, 54, 359–381.
356 dav i d m . c a d i z e t a l .

Smola, K., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting generational work
values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 363–382.
Statistics Canada. (2011). Census: Families, households and marital status: Census in Brief
Series (Census Year 2011, no. 3, Catalog No. 98-312-X-2011003). Retrieved from
http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/olc-cel/olc.action?ObjId=98-312-X&ObjType=2&lang=
en&Limit=0
Taylor, P. (2014). The next America: Boomers, Millennials, and the looming generational show-
down. New York, NY: Pew Research Center.
Twenge, J. M. (2010). A review of the empirical evidence on generational differences in work
attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 201–210.
Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2001). Age and birth cohort differences in self-esteem: A
cross-temporal meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(4), 321–344.
Twenge, J. M., Campbell, S. M., Hoffman, B. J., & Lance, C. E. (2010). Generational differ-
ences in work values: Leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values
decreasing. Journal of Management, 36(5), 1117–1142.
Urick, M. J. (2012). Exploring generational identity: A multiparadigm approach. Journal of
Business Diversity, 12(3), 103–115.
Urick, M. J. (2014). The presentation of self: Dramaturgical theory and generations in orga-
nizations. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 12(4), 398–412.
Urick, M. J., & Hollensbe, E. C. (2014). Toward an identity-based perspective of generations.
In E. Parry (Ed.), Generational diversity at work: New research perspectives (pp. 114–
128). New York, NY: Routledge.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2014). Decennial census data on families and living arrangements.
Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/hhes/families/data/decennial.html

What Are the Benefits of Focusing on

Generation-Based Differences and at What
Cost?
David M. Cadiz
Oregon Nurses Foundation, Tualatin, Oregon
Donald M. Truxillo
Portland State University

Franco Fraccaroli
University of Trento-Polo di Rovereto

We agree with and expand on the points made by Costanza and Finkelstein
(2015) regarding the definition of “generation” and its measurement, the

David M. Cadiz, Oregon Nurses Foundation, Tualatin, Oregon; Donald M. Truxillo, De-
partment of Psychology, Portland State University; Franco Fraccaroli, Department of Psychol-
ogy and Cognitive Science, University of Trento-Polo di Rovereto.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to David M. Cadiz, Oregon
Nurses Foundation, 18765 SW Boones Ferry Road, Suite 200 Tualatin, Oregon 97062. E-mail:
dave.cadiz@gmail.com