EBSCO FullText 2024 02 27

The Psychologist-Manager Journal
© 2021 American Psychological Association 2021, Vol. 24, No. 2, 115–139

ISSN: 1088-7156 https://doi.org/10.1037/mgr0000113
Working With Generationally Similar or Different

Colleagues: Impacts on Perceptions of Generational
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Stereotypes and Work-Related Attitudes

1 2
Sarah Moore and Alan Krause
1
Department of Psychology, University of Puget Sound
2
School of Business and Leadership, University of Puget Sound
Conceptualizing generational cohorts as socially constructed identities, we

examine the relationship between exposure to colleagues believed to be from
different generational cohorts on generational stereotypes toward Gen Y as
well as work-related attitudes and behaviors. Results from an online survey
of over 500 employees demonstrate, as hypothesized, increasingly greater
positive impacts as employees work with colleagues perceived to be from their
own generational cohort or from one other generational cohort. Employees
who work with colleagues perceived to be from many generational cohorts
report more negative Gen Y stereotypes, increased perceptions of age dis-
crimination climate, and work-related attitudes and behaviors. Contrary to our
hypotheses, however, employees from different generational cohorts responded
differently to similar types of perceived generational cohort diversity. We discuss
the potential explanation for these findings as well as their implications for
managers of generationally diverse organizations.
Keywords: generational cohort, multigenerational workplace, diversity, stereotype, social identity
As lifespans have lengthened, employees remain in the workforce longer,

and tech savvy young employees play increasingly important roles in orga-
nizations, employees interact more and more often with colleagues of different
This article was published Online First January 14, 2021.

Sarah Moore https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8914-1752
Alan Krause https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0768-2289
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sarah Moore, Department
of Psychology, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, WA 98416, United States. Email:
smoore@pugetsound.edu
115
116 MOORE AND KRAUSE
ages (Liebermann et al., 2013). At the same time, academic studies and the
popular press have broadly disseminated the concept of generational cohorts:
that large historical events create distinct eras and imbed different values in
each generation—values that individuals hold for their entire lives (Lyons &
Kuron, 2014). As a result, employees may see themselves as distinct from
colleagues from different generational cohorts, form in-groups with others that
they believe to be from their generational cohort, and hold unfavorable opinions
about co-workers they believe to be from other cohorts, creating obstacles to

working effectively together (Kunze et al., 2013). Some scholars claim that
ageism is now the third workplace “ism,” rivaling both racism and sexism in
creating conflict and inefficiencies at work (Palmore, 1999).
Recent studies have transformed the discussion of generational cohorts
from one of the embedded values to socially constructed identities. Although
studies of generational cohorts in the workplace have documented both the
presence and influence of differences between cohorts (Arsenault, 2004), these
studies have also shown that actual differences between generational cohorts
pale in comparison with expected differences (King et al., 2019; Zabel et al.,
2017). In turn, scholars have examined generational cohorts as a social identity
that individuals enact as a stereotype (Van Rossem, 2019). This research argues
that perceived generational differences lead to the formation of in-groups with
employees of the same generational cohort, and prejudices toward employees
from other generational cohorts (Lieberman et al., 2013; Weeks et al., 2017).
More recent evidence suggests that such perceptions also impact the type of
workplace training one may receive (e.g., King et al., 2019).
Understanding generational cohorts as a social construct raises questions
about the conditions under which individuals enact generational stereotypes in
their expectations for self and others. Although the extant literature on this topic
specifically is not extensive, studies of other forms of demographic diversity in
the workplace have examined this question. In short, they have demonstrated
that employees who work with colleagues with similar demographic char-
acteristics typically do not enact demographic characteristics in their self-
identity or in their understanding of others; however, employees who work
with colleagues from different demographic groups typically do enact demo-
graphic characteristics in their self-identity and in their expectations for
colleagues (Kunze et al., 2011; Mannix & Neale, 2005).
This article extends this literature of demographic diversity to the study of
generational differences specifically by examining the relationship between
working with others perceived to be from similar or dissimilar generational
cohorts and its association with Gen Y stereotypes, perceptions of age discrimi-
nation, and work-related attitudes and behaviors. It accomplishes this by
conceptualizing diversity in generational cohorts as variety: The presence of
different categories of employees in a workgroup. Drawing on MTurk survey
data, we examine the effect of working with colleagues perceived to be from the
GENERATIONAL COHORT DIVERSITY IN THE WORKPLACE 117
same generational cohort, from one other cohort, and from multiple cohorts. In
general, we find positive effects from spending more work time with colleagues
perceived to be from the same generational cohort, mixed effects from spending
more work time with those perceived to be from one other cohort, and negative
effects from working with colleagues perceived to be from multiple generational
cohorts. These findings create opportunities for scholars to further investigate
distinct reactions from different generational cohorts as well as different reactions
to working with colleagues perceived to be from different generational cohorts.

Our findings also give practicing managers the opportunity to anticipate and
address combinations of generational cohorts that challenge employees and
reduce organizations’ ability to achieve their goals.
Literature Review
The study of generational cohorts originated with Mannheim’s (1952)

claim that birth cohorts give individuals a common range of experiences that
bring out certain characteristics and prepare them for action relevant to their
historical period. Strauss and Howe (1991) defined four groups in the work-
force, each with a clear set of values and expectations defined by historical
events: Traditionalists formed by World War II, Boomers formed by the Cold
War, Gen X formed by economic and social upheaval of the 1960s and 1970s,
and Gen Y (Millennials) formed by the advent of communications technology
in the 1990s. More recently, scholars have added a fifth cohort, Generation Z,
whose childhoods were marked by the war on terror, the 2008 economic
recession, and high profile reports of gun violence and sexual assault
(American Psychological Association, 2018). Often three or four, and some-
times five organizational cohorts work together. Different worldviews held by
each generational cohort can produce different perspectives on multiple topics,
with work ethic, work–life balance, and use of technology standing out as the
most commonly studied differences (Weeks et al., 2017).
When faced with differences or perceived differences, individuals typically
prefer to work with colleagues who share the same surface level demographic
characteristics (Mannix & Neale, 2005) as well as deeper similarities in values
and attitudes (Byrne, 1971). Differences in surface level demographics and
deeper values truly are “in the eye of the beholder”: The mere presence of a
demographic difference, such as generational cohort or perceived generational
cohort, can make this characteristic salient in employees’ individual identities
(Kunze et al., 2011). Once they notice these differences, employees engage in
social categorization and form expectations about others, including deeper
values and attitudes about how to communicate and interact (McGrath et al.,
1995), form in-groups, and seek information that affirms their group identity
(Tajfel & Turner, 1986). In the case of age, individuals assign colleagues not
only a perceived age but also a perceived generational cohort, replete with a
stereotypical set of values, attitudes, and skills.
The resulting separations between groups create problems for organizations
and for individual employees. At the level of the organization, perceptions of
demographic differences and the resulting division into social groups can
amplify stratification and inequalities in influence (Harrison and Klein, 2007;
Klabuhn & Thommes, 2017), and perceptions of discriminatory treatment

(Avery et al., 2008). Studies of differences in age, a demographic variable

that overlaps considerably with the perceived generational cohort, have shown
that employees who work in age-diverse groups perceive a climate of age
discrimination (Kunze et al., 2011) that affects both younger and older employ-
ees (Raymer et al., 2017). At the level of the individual, forming social groups on
the basis of perceived age can lead to reductions in employees’ satisfaction,
engagement (Avery et al., 2007), and collective affective commitment (Kunze
et al., 2011), as well as to increases in turnover intentions (Gonzales et al., 2015).
Our theoretical lens differs in two primary ways from much of the literature
on age diversity. Although prior scholarship has studied both employee age and
perceived age, we operationalize the age construct as perceived generational
cohort. We focus on perceived generational cohort rather than actual genera-
tional cohort because employees often do not know their colleagues’ ages or,
for that matter, their generational cohort placement, and because it measures
the perceptions of differences that are integral to social identity theory,
self-categorization theory, and relational demography (Avery et al., 2007;
Harrison & Klein, 2007; Riordan, 2000)—underlying constructs for our article.
Further, we focus on generational cohort rather than chronological age because
employees often identify as part of an age group and they identify colleagues as
part of the same age group, older/younger, much older/younger, etc. (Shelma
et al., 2016). In addition, employees engage not only with their colleagues’ age
but also with the myriad of attitudes and perspectives that colleagues bring to
the workplace (Harrison et al., 2002): Generational cohorts provide employees
a convenient way to anticipate and organize these perspectives (Van Rossem,
2019). Our focus on perceived generational cohort difference also allows for
nuance pertaining to the values that individual employees hold rather than
reducing all difference to a chronological distance. For example, a 20-year age
difference between a member of Gen Y and a member of Gen Z may demonstrate
an entirely different set of characteristics as compared to a 20-year age difference
between a member of Gen X and a member of the Baby Boomer generation.
Second, our theoretical lens differs as we operationalize difference not as
separation but as variety. Harrison and Klein’s (2007) seminal article on
diversity constructs provides valuable insight on these two terms. They define
diversity as separation as “members [who] differ from one another in their
position along a single continuous attribute” (Harrison & Klein, 2007, p. 1203);
in contrast, they define diversity as variety as “members [who] differ from one
another qualitatively—that is on a categorical attribute” (Harrison & Klein,
2007, p. 1204). Although to our knowledge, no other study has conceptualized
diversity as separation in the study of age or perceived generational cohort
differences, Harrison and Klein (2007) state explicitly that “demographic
attributes may be meaningfully conceptualized as separation or as variety”
(p. 1209; italics in original). Our conceptualization of demographic diversity as
variety in perceived generational cohorts creates an opportunity for additional

nuance and fidelity to subjects’ experiences: It recognizes that attitudes may not
progress in a linear fashion from one generation to the next, as conceptualizing
diversity as separation would imply. Conceptualizing diversity as variety,
moreover, allows researchers to investigate “composition of differences in
kind, source, or category of relevant knowledge of experience” and challenges
that may arise when individuals who identify in the same category “for
coalitions with like others” (Harrison & Klein, 2007, p. 1203, p. 1205).
Finally, our approach allows for greater nuance in the type of diversity that
subjects experience: For example, an employee could interact with colleagues
perceived to be from their own generational cohort, from one other cohort, or
from many cohorts.
In this study, we focus on stereotypes associated with Gen Y—currently
the generational cohort with the largest representation in the U.S. workforce at
over 30% (Fry, 2018). Because they may often represent a departure from
established workplace norms, attitudes toward Gen Y may demonstrate more
sensitivity to generational stereotypes than attitudes toward other generational
cohorts. Popular media also regularly report on Gen Y’s shortcomings, creating
potential for employees to hold negative bias against colleagues from Gen Y.
Although there is variation in such stereotypes and not all qualities are
inherently negative, members of Gen Y are portrayed as wanting dedication
from their leaders despite their tendency to change jobs frequently themselves
(Sessa et al., 2007); they expect constant learning and immediate feedback
(Cahill & Sedrak, 2012). Although they are team oriented, they are also
described as being narcissistic, less willing than their older colleagues to
prioritize work over nonwork or to make personal sacrifices for their employer
(Lester et al., 2012); for this reason have been characterized as less dedicated
than older employees. In addition, Gen Y enjoys no legal protections against
age discrimination, and studies show that members of Gen Y suffer from
“reverse” age discrimination (Raymer et al., 2017). Furthermore, academic
studies suggest that Gen Y does not merit such a negative assessment as
perceived differences between Gen Y and other generational cohorts are much
larger than real differences (King et al., 2019; Lester et al., 2012). As a result,
in our study of stereotypes, organizational climate, and traditional work-related
attitudes (e.g., organizational commitment) we focus on beliefs and attitudes
toward Gen Y co-workers.
Hypothesis Development
In assessing employees’ contact with colleagues, we examine three types of

variety in generational cohorts: Employees who work primarily with colleagues
who they perceive to be from their generational cohort (homogenous), employ-
ees who work primarily with colleagues who they perceive to be from one other
generational cohort (focused variety), and employees who work primarily with
colleagues who they perceived to be from multiple other generational cohorts

(broad variety). For the first two forms of variety, we consider how spending
increasingly more time impacts the outcome measures whereas for the last, we
compare employees who do versus do not interact with colleagues who they
perceive to be from multiple generational cohorts. Specifically, we examine
how such perceived variety affects employees’ (a) application of negative
stereotypes to Gen Y colleagues, (b) perception of age discrimination at work,
and (c) work-related attitudes, intentions, and behaviors.
No Variety—Working With One’s Own Generational Cohort
We expect employees who spend increasingly more work time with

colleagues who they perceive to belong to their own generational cohort to
invoke few if any generational stereotypes. Although research shows that
within a peer group, members are assessed in relation to a group standard
(Marques et al., 1998, 1988) and that deviant behavior from in-group members
is punished more harshly than that of out-group members (Bown & Abrams,
2003), we expect that working with perceived peers will not trigger employees’
sense of belonging to a generational cohort or a perception of age discrimina-
tion. Rather, we follow scholarship claiming that age similarity in workgroups,
a variable with ties to generational cohort, correlates with numerous benefits,
including employee engagement (Avery et al., 2007), involvement (Hobman
et al., 2004), cohesion (Sacco & Schmitt, 2005), communication (Zenger &
Lawrence, 1989), job-challenge, person-group fit (Kirchmeyer, 1995), peer-
related performance (Zalesny & Kirsch, 1989), increased organizational-
citizenship behavior (Chattopadhyay, 1999), and reduced intention to quit
(Sacco & Schmitt, 2005). As a result, we hypothesize as follows:
Hypothesis 1: The more time an employee works with colleagues who

they perceive to identify with their own generational cohort, (a) the less the
employee will invoke Gen Y stereotypes, (b) the less the employee will
perceive a climate of age discrimination, and (c) the more the employee
will experience positive work-related attitudes, intentions, and behaviors.
Focused Generational Cohort Diversity—Working With One Other

Generational Cohort
We expect that employees who spend increasingly more work time with
colleagues who they perceive to belong to one other generational cohort will also
invoke few if any generational stereotypes. Prior scholarship has shown that,
generally speaking, age diversity in workgroups triggers age as a salient
characteristic of personal identity. In such age-diverse contexts, employees

are also more likely to report an increase in perceived age discrimination and
form in- and out-groups based on age; however, we expect that focused time with
colleagues who they perceive belong to one other cohort will allow employees to
move beyond surface level differences (Harrison et al., 1998; Harrison & Klein,
2007; Harrison et al., 2002; Kunze et al., 2011). This focused time allows
individuals to create social groups based on deeper aspects of personal identity,
including attitudes, beliefs, and values (Harrison et al., 1998). In addition,
working together to achieve common goals reduces the importance of age
differences (Harrison et al., 2002). With enough collaboration, demographic
differences fade and deeper personal characteristics (Harrison et al., 1998), such
as personality, goal alignment, and organizational commitment take precedence
in the formation of in- and out-groups, group attitudes, and group behaviors
(Harrison et al., 2002). Importantly, as previous research has demonstrated that
expected generational differences are much greater than actual ones, we also
posit that with increased time spent with colleagues from another generational
cohort, employees will come to understand and see these actual similarities (King
et al., 2019; Lester et al., 2012). As a result, we hypothesize as follows:
Hypothesis 2: The more time an employee spends with colleagues that

they perceive to belong to a single other generational cohort at work, (a) the
less the employee will invoke Gen Y stereotypes, (b) the less the employee
will perceive a climate of age discrimination, and (c) the more the
employee will experience positive work-related attitudes, intentions,
and behaviors.
Broad Generational Cohort Diversity—Working With Multiple Other

Generational Cohorts
The last configuration of coworker interaction that we examine in this article

recognizes that an employee may work with many colleagues who they perceive
belong to several other generational cohorts; for example, a Gen Y employee
may spend part of each workweek engaged with Gen Z, Gen Y, Gen X, and Baby
Boomer co-workers. We expect that employees who work with colleagues who
they perceive to be from multiple generational cohorts will enact generational
stereotypes and that these will have a negative impact on organizational climate
and individual attitudes and behavior. Namely, we expect employees who work
with those whom they perceive to be from multiple generational cohorts to
identify generational cohort as a salient element in their identity, to enact
generational stereotypes, to form in- and out-groups based on generational
cohorts, to perceive an increase in age discrimination, and to develop negative

affect and behavior. We reason that these employees will spend less time with
colleagues who they perceive to be from any single generational cohort, and,
subsequently, have less opportunity to move beyond surface level differences to
identify common values and attitudes and form relationships that circumvent the
negative impacts enumerated above. As a result, we hypothesize as follows:
Hypothesis 3: Employees who work with colleagues who they perceive to

be from multiple generational cohorts will (a) engage stereotypes of Gen
Y, (b) experience an increased perception of age discrimination climate,
and (c) experience negative work-related attitudes, intentions, and beha-
viors as compared to employees who do not work with multiple generational
cohorts.
Method
Participants
Five-hundred fifteen participants (307 male, 205 female, 3 nonbinary or

missing) provided data for the analyses. The results below are based on the
responses from those who responded consistently to questions asking if they
were employed (to check for random responding) and who did not complete the
survey inordinately quickly (i.e., less than 3 min, or approximately one-third
the amount of time required by the median respondent). This resulted in an
overall total sample size of 483; however, as noted in the tables below, we
conducted some analyses on slightly fewer participants, eliminating those
participants who skipped questions or who reported that they did not work with
colleagues whom they perceived to be from certain generational cohorts.
Internal consistency reliability estimates and the pattern of correlations
between measures for the data reported in this article were similar to the
values obtained in other published articles that have used these measures,
thereby lending further support to the integrity of these data.
Over 96% of the sample was employed either full (85.8%) or part-time
(10.5%), and over half of the sample reported that they had earned a Bachelor’s
degree or higher. Based on a participant’s reported age as of May, 2018

(M = 35.47, SD = 11.17), we categorized participants as belonging to Gen Z
(age 23 or younger, n = 31% or 6.1% of sample), Gen Y (age 24–38, n = 340%
or 66.4% of sample), Gen X (age 39–53, n = 96% or 18.8% of sample), or Baby
Boomer (age 54–72, n = 45% or 8.8% of sample). Participants’ time employed at
their current position was slightly more than 3 years on average, and participants
worked in a variety of industries ranging from business and finance (20.1%),
health services (10.4%), food and hospitality, (9.8), to education (7.9%).

Materials
We asked participants to complete an online survey that contained a

number of demographic questions (e.g., gender, age, educational level,
employment status, time employed, type of industry of employment) and
published measures related to job attitudes, age discrimination, and genera-
tional stereotypes. In all cases, these measures were obtained by combining
participant’s responses to several items, anchored on a Likert-type scale, and
were treated as interval-level data. Table 1 presents the scale means, standard
deviations, reliabilities, and intercorrelations between the measures. In addi-
tion, we also asked participants to “estimate the percentage of time you spend
with each of the following age groups at work in a typical month.” Response
options included alone, Gen Z, Gen Y, Gen X, and Baby Boomers: For each of
the generational groups, we included the birth year range (e.g., “born between
1946 and 1964”) and age range (e.g., “54–72”) alongside the generational
group name. We structured this question so that the percent time estimates
across the five options were required to be total 100%.
Generational Stereotypes
Positive and Negative Generational Y Stereotypes. Using a subset of

items from Raymer et al.’s (2017) measures of Generation Y stereotypes, we
asked respondents to indicate the degree to which they believed that this
generation possessed certain characteristics that have been the basis for various
stereotypes (e.g., service oriented, team player, constantly needs praise,
extrinsically motivated), with 1 corresponding to completely untrue and 5
completely true. The sum of eight positive descriptors and the sum of seven
negative descriptors comprised the positive and negative scales, respectively.
Generation Y Positive Work Skills. In addition, we asked respondents to
rate the degree of skill they believe the millennial generation possesses (from
124
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations Between the Measures
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Age (1) 35.47 11.17 —
Gender (2) 59.6% Male .18 —
Educ (3) 4.32 .49 .08 −.01 —
Time empl (4) 3.66 1.07 .30** −.01 .01 —
Neg Gen Y Stereotypes 20.47 6.61 .12** −.12** .03 .09 (.90)
(5)
Pos Gen Y Stereotypes 24.81 4.81 −.20** .05 .11 −.05 −.54** (.82)
(6)
Gen Y pos work skills 17.28 3.60 −.24** .04 .07 −.09 −.49** .72** (.81)
(7)
Age discrimination (8) 12.17 5.82 −.11* −.05 .12* −.08 .24** .02 −.01 (.95)
Job satisfaction (9) 10.79 3.19 .09 .07 −.02 .11* −.16** .27** .22** −.22** (.89)
Organizational 9.53 2.81 .05 −.02 −.01 .17** −.10* .21** .16** −.15** .75** (.67)
commitment (10)
Intent to quit (11) 8.00 3.64 −.16** −.05 .09 −.22** .20** −.10* −.10* .37** −.72** −.66** (.88)
Helping others (12) 8.48 2.02 .01 .10* .06 .12* .02 .20** .17** .03 .30** .31** −.18** (.79)
Self-learning (13) 6.90 2.38 −.03 −.04 .16** .05 .08 .20** .13** .22** .27** .35** −.06 .50** (.79)
Note. Gender coded 1 = male, 2 = female. Educ = educational level coded as 1 = some high school, 2 = graduated from high school or equivalent,
3 = some college or technical school, 4 = associate’s degree, 5 = graduated from college or university with Bachelor’s degree, 6 = some graduate school,
7 = graduate degree. Time empl = time employed at current organization coded as 1 = 0–6 months, 2 = 7–12 months, 3 = 1–3 years, 4 = 4–7 years,
5 = 8–15 years, 6 = more than 15 years. Internal consistency reliability estimates are in parentheses along the mail diagonal.
* p < .05. ** p < .01.
MOORE AND KRAUSE
Raymer et al., 2017) in six specific work-related areas (e.g., phone and email
etiquette, face-to-face communication). Respondents indicated their beliefs on
a four-point scale anchored from (1) not at all skilled to (4) very skilled, and
answers were summed such that higher scores reflected a more positive
assessment of Generation Y’s work-specific skills.
Age Discrimination Climate
Age Discrimination. We measured perceived age discrimination at

one’s workplace with Kunze et al.’s (2011) five-item measure that asks
respondents to rate the degree to which age-discriminatory behavior exists
in areas such as job assignments or opportunities for individual promotion.
Participants indicated their response using a scale anchored from (1) strongly
disagree to (5) strongly agree: Higher scores reflected higher perceptions of
age discrimination.
Work Related Attitudes, Intentions, and Behaviors
Job Satisfaction. We used Cammann et al. (1983) three-item scale to

measure general job satisfaction (e.g., “In general, I like working at my job”),
rated on a 5-point scale anchored from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
Higher scores reflected higher overall levels of job satisfaction.
Organizational Commitment. Commitment to one’s organization was
assessed with three items (e.g., “I am proud to work for my organization”)
answered on a 5-point scale anchored from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
Higher scores reflected higher overall levels of commitment (Cammann
et al., 1983).
Intent to Quit. We measured one’s intention to leave their job by asking
respondents to answer three items such as “I often think about quitting my job,”
also rated on a 5-point scale and summed so that higher scores reflected higher
intent to quit (Cammann et al., 1983).
Help Others and Self-Learning. We used a subset of items from Tsui
et al. (2002) measure of organizational citizenship to assess two aspects of this
construct. The frequency with which one reported helping others (three items)
was measured with questions such as “help others who have heavy workloads”
whereas the self-learning dimension (three items) was assessed with questions
such as “search for new ideas outside of the organization.” For both subscales,
respondents answered using a four-point response scale anchored from (1)
never to (4) very often: Responses were summed such that higher scores
reflected higher frequency of helping others and more time spent participating
in activities such as nonmandatory trainings or functions aimed at improving
one’s own work-related skills.
Procedures
We administered our survey via Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Overseen by

Amazon, MTurk operates as a virtual labor market where individuals may
register as “workers” to complete online tasks for pay, online survey comple-
tion being one such task. In recent years, this has become an increasingly
popular method of data collection due to its ability to reach a broad and diverse
participant pool with relative ease. A number of scholars have examined the
reliability and validity of data gathered from MTurk samples and concluded
that they do not differ markedly from samples drawn via more conventional
methods (Berinsky et al., 2012; Hauser & Schwartz, 2015).
After securing institutional review board (IRB) approval, we posted our
survey to MTurk by stating that we were examining generational differences in
the workplace. Potential subjects were told that they would “answer questions
related to your employment type, the age groups with whom you work, as well
as your job motivations and satisfaction levels.” We attempted neither to
restrict participation in any way, nor to recruit participants of certain ages or
employment types: Those who indicated that they were not employed (3.7% of
sample) were routed to the end of the survey without being asked to complete
any of the job-related questions and have not been included in the analyses
reported below. Those who completed the survey, including those who were
not asked to complete the job-related questions, were paid $2.50, a slightly
higher rate of pay than surveys of comparable length posted to MTurk.
Power analyses as well as our expectations for the numbers of participants
from the different generational cohorts prompted us to set an overall sample
size target of 500 respondents. Once data were collected from 500 participants,
we closed the survey and collected responses from the few participants who
were midway through their survey completion.
Results
Examination of Table 1 shows that age and time on job were significantly
correlated; to the extent that age and reported generational cohort were highly
interrelated, we controlled for time on job in all analyses so that we could
examine the independent effects of generational cohort on the dependent
measures. Before conducting analyses to test our hypotheses, we explored
generational cohort differences on the work and stereotype measures with a

series of analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs), controlling for the amount of
time employed, on the various dependent measures. As illustrated in Table 2,
and consistent with previous investigations, we failed to find generational
differences on many of the work-related outcomes with the exception of intent
to quit; in this case, increasingly lower levels of intent to quit were observed
with increasingly older generational cohorts, and several of these post hoc
comparisons were statistically significant. Because older generational groups

tend to have more time invested in the organization, may be more established in
their careers, and may perceive themselves to have less mobility, this finding is
not surprising and consistent with previous research. We found, however, a
number of significant differences in perceptions of Gen Y employees. Negative
Gen Y stereotypes were significantly higher among Gen X than in Gen Z or
Gen Y participants, and significantly higher for Baby Boomer participants than
Gen Y participants. Similarly, positive Gen Y stereotypes were significantly
higher in Gen Z and Gen Y participants than in Gen X and Baby Boomer
participants. We observed a similar pattern for questions related to positive
perceptions of specific Gen Y work skills. Thus, similar to the results of Lester
et al. (2012) we found little difference between the actual work attitudes of
different generational cohorts but significant differences between the percep-
tion of each generation’s attitudes toward work.
To address Hypotheses 1 and 2, we conducted a series of partial correla-
tions: For each, we correlated the percentage of time spent with colleagues
perceived to be from a given generational cohort with our dependent measures,
controlling for time employed. We performed these analyses within each of the
generational cohort groupings (e.g., among Gen X participations, we corre-
lated percent of time spent with others who they perceived to also be Gen X
colleagues with job satisfaction, controlling for time employed). Table 3
presents these partial correlations for Gen X and Gen Y participants as limited
sample sizes for Gen Z and Baby Boomer participants precluded such analyses.
Although different generations demonstrated different results, almost all
significant results supported Hypothesis 1. Consistent with Hypothesis 1c,
we found that for Gen X participants, increasingly greater amounts of time
spent with colleagues who they perceived to be members of their own Gen X
cohort (Column 2) were significantly correlated with higher levels of job
satisfaction (r = .26), higher levels of organizational commitment (r = .21),
and lower levels of intent to quit (r = −.25). Consistent with Hypothesis 1a and
c, we found that for Gen Y participants, increasingly greater amounts of time
spent with colleagues who they perceived to be members of their own Gen Y
cohort (Column 7) were significantly associated with fewer negative Gen Y
stereotypes (r = −.19) and higher levels of helping others at work (r = .16).
The only significant result that failed to support Hypothesis 1 was that the more
members of Gen Y worked with colleagues who they perceived to be members
128
Table 2
Mean (Standard Error) Comparisons Between Generational Cohorts on Work and Stereotype Measures, Controlling for Time Employed at Current
Organization
Gen Z Gen Y Gen X F, ( p) Post hoc
Variable n = 26 (1) n = 324 (2) n = 91(3) BB n = 41 (4) df = 3, 480 comparisons
Neg Gen Y stereotypes 17.82 (1.23) 20.15 (.36) 21.74 (.70) 21.95 (1.02) 3.36 (.019) 1 < 3; 2 < 3, 4
Pos Gen Y stereotypes 26.26 (.88) 25.26 (.26) 23.48 (.51) 23.68 (.73) 4.64 (.003) 1 > 3, 4; 2 > 3, 4
Gen Y pos work skills 17.62 (.65) 17.74 (.19) 16.02 (.37) 16.20 (.54) 6.79 (.000) 1 > 3, 4; 2 > 3
Age discrimination 13.64 (1.09) 12.46 (.32) 10.97 (.63) 11.40 (.91) 2.14 (.095)
Job satisfaction 10.04 (.59) 10.67 (.18) 11.10 (.34) 11.54 (.50) 1.62 (.184)
Organizational commitment 9.04 (.52) 9.57 (.16) 9.56 (.30) 9.63 (.44) .33 (.804)
Intent to quit 9.33 (.66) 8.15 (.20) 7.52 (.38) 6.94 (.56) 3.13 (.026) 1 > 3, 4; 2 > 4
Helping others 8.45 (.37) 8.51 (.11) 8.54 (.22) 8.28 (.31) .19 (.899)
Self-learning 6.68 (.44) 7.04 (.13) 6.49 (.26) 6.71 (.37) 1.40 (.243)
Note. Bolded values reflect significant mean group differences; exact p values are provided in parentheses following the F value.
MOORE AND KRAUSE
Table 3
Partial Correlations Between Dependent Measures and Percent Time Spent With Colleagues Perceived to be From Each Generational Cohort,
Controlling for Time Employed at Current Organization
Gen X participants Gen Y participants
BB Gen Gen Gen BB Gen Gen Gen
(Col 1) X (Col 2) Y (Col 3) Z (Col 4) (Col 5) X (Col 6) Y (Col 7) Z (Col 8)
Neg Gen Y stereotypes .07 −.07 −.07 .13 .01 −.03 −.19* .12*
Pos Gen Y stereotypes −.10 .10 .04 −.07 −.03 −.01 .14* .01
Gen Y pos work skills −.15 .11 .01 −.16 −.02 −.03 .15* .05
Age discrimination at workplace .02 −.16 .08 .06 .06 −.11* −.01 .20*
Jobsatisfaction .15 .26* −.01 −.19 .02 .10 .05 −.04
Organizationalcommitment .15 .21* −.11 −.18 .02 .10 .05 .01
Intent to quit −.01 −.25* −.03 .15 .02 −.15* −.08 .11*
Helping others .04 .17 −.04 .20 .04 .15* .16* .09
Self-learning .01 .06 .06 .06 .21*
GENERATIONAL COHORT DIVERSITY IN THE WORKPLACE
−.06 −.05 −.01

Note. Bolded values reflect significant mean group differences; exact p values are provided in parentheses following the F value.
129
of their own (Gen Y) cohort, the more they invoked positive Gen Y stereotypes
(r = .14 and .15).
Hypothesis 2 likewise predicted positive effects between spending increas-
ingly greater amounts of time with colleagues who they perceived to belong to
one other cohort and the dependent measures. We found different results for
different generations. For our Gen X participants, we failed to find any support
for this hypothesis (Table 3, Columns 1, 3, and 4); however, among our Gen Y
participants, we found partial support for Hypothesis 2a and c. As shown in

Table 3 Column 6, Gen Y participants who spent increasingly greater amounts

of time with co-workers who they perceived to belong to Gen X reported less
perceived age discrimination at work (r = −.11), lower levels of intent to quit
(r = −.15), and higher levels of helping others at work (r = .15). We found an
opposite pattern, however, when examining these partial correlations for the
amount of time spent with co-workers perceived to be from Gen Z (Column 8).
In this instance, Gen Y participants who spent more time with co-workers
perceived to be from Gen Z reported significantly higher levels of perceived
age discrimination (r = .20), more negative Gen Y stereotypes (r = .12),
higher levels of intent to quit (r = .11), and increased time spent enhancing
their own workplace learning (r = .21).
To address Hypothesis 3, we identified those who reported that they spent
at least 15% or more of their time with colleagues who they perceived to belong
to each of the four generational groups (i.e., Gen Z, Gen Y, Gen X, and Baby
Boomer, coded as “yes”), versus those who did not (coded as “no”). This
designation was intended to differentiate between those participants who
reported working with colleagues who they perceived belonged to a broad
diversity of generational cohorts versus those who did not. We chose 15% as a
minimum threshold largely for pragmatic considerations given that the litera-
ture offers little guidance on what constitutes an impactful degree of association
with demographic groupings. Namely, we reasoned that with four generational
cohorts, 15% for each cohort resulted in a minimum of 60% of one’s total
workweek time, and most respondents indicated higher percentages than 15%
for one or more generational groups. We also needed to account for the fact that
participants indicated that they spent part of their workweek alone. Thus, 15%
for each generational cohort identified the breadth of range we sought to
examine while summing to a total that did not exceed 100%.
We compared these two groups (i.e., “yes” vs. “no”) on each of the
dependent measures, separately for Gen X and Gen Y participants, controlling
for time employed at the organization (Table 4). We obtained significant
findings for fewer than half of the comparisons, but those that were significant
were consistent with Hypothesis 3. Gen X participants who perceived that they
worked with broad generational cohort diversity reported significantly more
perceived age discrimination (Hypothesis 3a). Likewise, Gen Y participants
who perceived that they worked with broad generational cohort diversity
Table 4
Comparison of Participants Who Do Versus Do Not Spend at Least 15% of Their Workweek With Colleagues Perceived to be From Each Generational
Cohort: By Generational Group, Controlling for Time Employed at Current Organization
Gen X participants work with each generational Gen Y participants work with each generational cohort
cohort 15% or more 15% or more
Variable Yes (n = 10) No (n = 81) F p Yes (n = 50) No (n = 274) F p
Neg GenY stereotypes 23.86 (1.94) 21.65 (.68) 1.16 .285 21.92 (.92) 19.78 (.39) 4.57 .033
Pos Gen Y stereotypes 22.93 (1.35) 23.56 (.48) .19 .661 24.50 (68) 25.39 (29) 1.48 .224
Gen Y pos work skills 15.29 (1.05) 16.05 (.37) .47 .495 17.40 (.49) 17.82 (.21) .61 .435
Age discrimination at workplace 14.57 (1.70) 10.41 (.60) 5.34 .023 14.63 (.82) 12.09 (.35) 8.11 .005
Job satisfaction 9.87 (.96) 11.41 (.34) 2.31 .132 9.39 (.44) 10.86 (.19) 9.32 .002
Organizational commitment 8.28 (.87) 10.00 (.30) 3.52 .064 8.67 (.39) 9.66 (.16) 5.49 .020
Intent to quit 7.82 (1.09) 7.07 (.38) .42 .520 10.17 (.50) 7.89 (.21) 17.50 .000
Helping others 8.11 (.52) 8.74 (.18) 1.29 .259 8.30 (.29) 8.51 (.12) .41 .523
Self-learning 6.09 (.64) 6.65 (.22) .68 .412 7.64 (.34) 6.91 (.15) 3.86 .050
GENERATIONAL COHORT DIVERSITY IN THE WORKPLACE
131
reported significantly more perceived age discrimination, more negative Gen Y

stereotypes, lower levels of job satisfaction and organizational commitment,
higher levels of intent to quit, and higher levels of time spent enhancing their
own workplace learning (Hypothesis 3a, b, c).
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which employees
who perceive that they work with different varieties of generational cohort
diversity engaged generational stereotypes, perceived a climate of age dis-
crimination, and suffered negative work related affects and behaviors. In some
instances, different generational cohorts responded in distinct ways to the same
types of perceived diversity in generational cohorts. As illustrated in Table 3,
we found some modest benefits associated with perceived homogeneity,
working with colleagues perceived to be from one’s own cohort, for both
Gen X and Gen Y participants (Hypothesis 1).
Tests of Hypothesis 1 showed surprising results relative to positive and
negative stereotypes. Only negative Gen Y stereotypes decreased as Gen Y
employees perceived that they worked more with Gen Y colleagues, supporting
Hypothesis 1a. Positive Gen Y stereotypes increased as Gen Y employees
perceived that they worked more with Gen Y colleagues, failing to support
Hypothesis 1a. This simultaneous decrease in negative stereotypes and increase
in positive stereotypes could result from a simple drive to raise self-esteem. In-
group affiliation can occur even in the absence interaction between groups
(Turner et al., 1979), and groups may affirm their identity by optimizing
images associated with their in-group (Avery et al., 2007; Hogg & Terry,
2000). As we only collected data on Gen Y stereotypes, we do not know
whether this finding might generalize to other generational cohorts and positive
stereotypes about them. It could apply to all generations, indicating that
individuals maintain their identity as a member of a generational cohort
even when they work with colleagues who they perceive to be members of
the same cohort. It is also possible that this finding could apply only to certain
generations, indicating that only these generations maintain their identity as a
member of a generational cohort even when they perceive that they work with
members of the same cohort. In the latter case, we speculate that individuals
from marginalized generational cohorts (in this case, Gen Y employees) would
maintain a sense of group identity even when they worked with others who they
perceived to be from their cohort. Prior study of demographic differences
supports the argument that, for members of marginalized demographic groups,
group identity remains salient in individual identity even in the absence of
demographic diversity (Harrison & Klein, 2007; Levine & Moreland, 1990).
With respect to Hypothesis 2, we demonstrated modest benefits associated

with focused variety: Concentrated time with colleagues perceived to be from
one other cohort. For Gen Y, these results varied depending on the cohort that
provided the focused variety. Gen Y employees who spent concentrated time
with colleagues that the perceived to be from Gen X realized some benefits;
however, Gen Y employees who spent concentrated time with colleagues who
they perceived to be form Gen Z did not realize any benefits. Although we did
not collect data that allow us to examine the basis for these differences, we
speculate that Gen Y employees may benefit from their contacts with employ-
ees who they perceive to be older (Gen X) who may model effective workplace
behavior, provide mentoring, or convey status (Chattopadhyay et al., 2004).
Multiple studies assert that middle-aged employees (Gen X) enjoy favored
status in the workplace (Avery et al., 2008; Liebermann et al., 2013); thus, the
more time Gen Y employees engaged with colleagues who they perceived to
belong to Gen X, the more they may have benefited from such status, an
opportunity that colleagues who they perceived to be from Gen Z may not have
provided.
For Gen X employees, we failed to find any benefit to spending focused
time with colleagues who they perceived to be from any of the other genera-
tional cohorts. While this could be an issue of low statistical power, it may also
reflect the central role that members of Gen X held in the workplace at the time
of the study. First, as Gen Xers fell in the middle of the spectrum of age groups
at work, their employers may have embraced a model of employee identity that
embodied many traits of Gen X. In such an environment, members of Gen X
would understand their age-related identity as the norm and the presence of
colleagues who they believed to be from other generational cohorts would not
activate generational cohort in their personal identities (Kunze et al., 2011;
Lieberman et al., 2013). Second, due to their tenure and experience, Gen X
employees may have held relatively more positions that conferred status and
authority: They may have enjoyed the opportunity to impose their values,
follow familiar processes, and ensure that their voices were heard, even when
they participated in groups that included colleagues that they perceived to
belong to multiple other generations (Harrison & Klein 2007; Levine &
Moreland, 1990). Such an opportunity to interact and communicate in their
preferred style would have absolved employees from Gen X from learning or
perhaps even noticing the different perspectives and communication styles of
colleagues who they perceived to be from other generations, allowing members
of Gen X to proceed as if they were always interacting with colleagues who
they perceived to be from their own generational cohort.
Hypothesis 3 examined the impacts of working with broad variety,
working with colleagues perceived to be from many generational groups,
expressed as spending at least 15% of one’s workday with colleagues perceived
to be from each of the four generational cohorts (i.e., Gen Z, Gen Y, Gen X,
and Baby Boomers). We found consistent support in the anticipated direction

among Gen Y participants. Namely, when they worked with colleagues who
they perceived to be from a wide variety of generational cohorts, Gen Y
participants demonstrated higher perceptions of age-related discrimination,
higher levels of negative Gen Y stereotypes, lower levels of job satisfaction and
organizational commitment, higher levels of intent to quit, and more invest-
ment in self-learning. We found much more limited support for Hypothesis 3
with Gen X participants: Increased perception of age discrimination climate

was the only significant result. The lack of negative effects of perceived broad
generational diversity for Gen X can be explained by the argument in the
preceding paragraph: That Gen X employees may enjoy a position of privilege
and might be able to expect employees who they perceive to belong to other
generational cohorts to adopt their values and communication styles, absolving
members of Gen X from having to learn about and accommodate colleagues
from other generational cohorts. We found that Gen X employees exposed to
perceived broad generational diversity suffered only the inconvenience of
increased perception of age discrimination climate, a climate that appears to
have had little effect on them directly.
Limitations and Recommendations
One limitation of our work is the inequities in sample size across different
generations. As noted above, a difference in the number of statistically
significant findings for Gen X and Gen Y could result from differences in
the sample size (Gen Y n = 324; Gen X n = 91). This inequity in sample size
also applies to Baby Boomers (n = 41) and Gen Z (n = 26). As it stands, our
findings are much more robust with respect to our Gen Y participants insofar as
they speak to the ways in which perceived generational diversity affects Gen
Y’s perceptions of age discrimination, self-stereotyping, and job attitudes.
Sampling via MTurk may have limited our access to older employees as it
holds relatively greater appeal to younger rather than older respondents. This
made analyses of Baby Boomers not possible and made analyses of Gen X less
statistically robust. Although unfortunate, we believe that the limitations of this
sampling strategy were not markedly different from had we collected our data
from a single organization using more traditional (i.e., paper and pencil)
administration methods. Future researchers seeking to extend this line of
inquiry may be well served by more deliberate sampling of various genera-
tional cohorts.
Our findings are also limited by our choice to collect information only
about Gen Y stereotypes. Collecting a limited amount of data did prove to be
prudent in this article’s exploration of how exposure to colleagues perceived
to be from a variety of generational cohorts influences employees’ engagement

of generational stereotypes. Subsequent studies, however, that collect informa-
tion on stereotypes for each generational cohort will allow for more generalized
conclusions on generational stereotypes and the opportunity to differentiate how
employees apply stereotypes to colleagues perceived to be from each generation.
In addition, like all survey data, our findings are limited by the reliability
and validity of self-reported attitudes, specifically workers’ estimates of the
amount of time spent with colleagues perceived to be from different genera-

tional cohorts. To this concern, we note that we made this question as clear as
possible by including both age and birth year range each time we referenced a
given generational cohort and have no reason to believe that these data were
inaccurate. Moreover, we note that the internal consistency reliability estimates
for all of the standardized measures were similar to those estimates published in
the extant literature and the intercorrelations between measures were also
similar to those found in many published studies. Further, the cross-sectional
nature of our data collection limits the degree to which we are able to understand
the directionality of our findings. While it is certainly the case that increased time
spent with colleagues from a perceived generational cohort prompted, for
example, a reduction in Gen Y-related stereotypes, it is, of course, possible
that those who already possessed favorable attitudes toward Gen Y were more
likely to seek out and spend time with Gen Y colleagues. We also did not collect
data on any possible third variable or mediating variable explanations for our
findings that could have assisted us in understanding how or why such impacts
may occur, discussed above (e.g., receipt of mentoring, effective modeling).
These shortcomings noted, our findings illustrate a number of important
considerations for scholars and practitioners. First, our study reinforces the
conceptualization of generational cohorts as social constructs that individuals
enact to understand themselves and others, develop expectations, and form in-
and out-groups. Further study of the conditions under which individuals enact
generational cohort as part of their personal identity could solidify academic
understanding of generational cohorts as a social construct for individuals as
well as for groups. Practicing managers would benefit from understanding that
their employees often identify with a generational cohort and view their
colleagues in the same way. This insight into employees’ workplace experience
would equip mangers to reduce the divisions and inefficiencies that genera-
tional prejudice can create in the workplace.
Second, our study demonstrates that individuals respond to different types
of perceived generational cohort variety in different ways. Specifically, we find
that when employees must navigate a greater amount of perceived generational
cohort variety, perhaps at the expense of having sufficient time to spend with
any given perceived cohort, employees perceive increased organizational age
discrimination and employee attitudes become more negative. By contrast,
focused time spent with colleagues perceived to be from one other generation
often confers benefit. Further study of how employees respond to workgroups

that include colleagues who they perceive to be from three or more generations
could further academic understanding of what prevents employees from
overcoming this experience of perceived difference and help practitioners
mitigate negative experiences for employees. Practicing managers would
benefit by anticipating and circumventing the problems that multigenerational
workgroups face. For example, when employees face focused perceived
diversity, mangers can create opportunities for concentrated time between

colleagues from different generational cohorts which allows them to connect

on common values and interests. Alternatively, when employees face broad
perceived diversity, managers can provide training that informs employees that
perceptions of generational differences far surpass actual differences, breaks
down differences between groups based on generational cohort stereotypes,
and identifies common goals and beliefs to unify employees across generations.
Third, our study demonstrates that different generations respond in distinct
ways to broad perceived variety in multigenerational workgroups. In our study,
Gen X responded entirely differently to broad perceived variety than Gen Y.
We believe that future researchers would benefit from directly examining the
basis for such differences, and we have offered a number of potential
explanations for these differences (e.g., embodying organization norms, men-
toring opportunities, power differentials). Practitioners could take advantage of
these insights and foster affiliation across perceived generational cohorts. For
example, asking Baby Boomers and members of Gen X to provide training and
mentoring to members of Gen Y and Gen Z could improve the extent to which
these employees support colleagues and decrease their intent to quit.
Fourth, our study extends the generational cohort literature by combining it
with the concept of diversity as variety (Harrison & Klein, 2007). This adds
nuance to scholars’ study of interactions between cohorts by introducing
distinct types of variety, such as those studied in this article: Focused variety
and broad variety. This more nuanced conceptualization of diversity as variety
will allow future studies to more readily understand individuals’ experiences of
perceived generational cohort diversity. Further studies of different types of
perceived variety in multigenerational workgroups could better explain in-
dividuals’ psychological processes and groups’ sociological processes of
forming in- and out-groups in the workplace and allow managers to further
decrease unnecessary divisions between employees.
As noted by Bill Greenhalgh, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Human
Resources Professionals Association, “There can be up to four different
generations in today’s workplaces and if companies aren’t taking steps to
mitigate the potential tensions that generational differences can make, they will
face major problems” (Human Resources Professionals Association, 2016).
With a clearer understanding of the circumstances in which employees enact
generational stereotypes, suffer a compromised workplace atmosphere, and
develop diminished workplace attitudes and behaviors, human resource (HR)

managers could design trainings that directly target the specific type of genera-
tional cohort diversity in their organizations. Given that organizations are
experiencing increasingly more generational cohort-related diversity (Kunze
et al., 2013; Raymer et al., 2017; Ryan et al., 2015), and that employees at the
younger and older ends of the age spectrum are most negatively affected by it,
practitioners and scholars will benefit from understanding more precisely the
challenges and opportunities that a multigenerational workplace presents.

References
American Psychological Association. (2018). Stress in America: Generation Z. Stress in

AmericaTM Survey. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2018/stress-gen-z.pdf
Arsenault, P. M. (2004). Validating generational differences: A legitimate diversity and leader-
ship issue. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 25(2), 124–141. https://
doi.org/10.1108/01437730410521813
Avery, D., McKay, P., & Wilson, D. (2007). Engaging the aging workforce: The relationship
between perceived age similarity, satisfaction with coworkers, and employee engagement.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1542–1556. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-
9010.92.6.1542.
Avery, D., McKay, P., & Wilson, D. (2008). What are the odds? How demographic similarity
affects the prevalence of perceived employment discrimination. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 93, 235–249. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.235.
Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G., & Lenz, G. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental
research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20, 351–368. https://doi.org/
10.1093/pan/mpr057
Bown, N., & Abrams, D. (2003). Despicability in the workplace: Effects of behavioral deviance
and unlikeability on the evaluation of in-group and out-group members. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 33, 2413–2426. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01892.x
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. Academic Press.
Cahill, T., & Sedrak, M. (2012). Leading a multigenerational workforce: Strategies for attracting
and retaining millennials. Frontiers of Health Services Management, 29(1), 3–15. https://
doi.org/10.1097/01974520-201207000-00002
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G. D., & Klesh, J. R. (1983). Assessing the attitudes and
perceptions of organizational members. In S. E. Seashore, E. E. Lawler, P. H. Mirvis, &
C. Cammann (Eds.), Assessing organizational change (pp. 71–138). John Wiley.
Chattopadhyay, P. (1999). Beyond direct and symmetrical effects: The influence of demographic
dissimilarity on organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 42,
273–287. https://doi.org/10.5465/256919
Chattopadhyay, P., Tluchowska, M., & George, E. (2004). Identifying the in-group: A closer look
at the influence of demographic dissimilarity on employee social identity. Academy of
Management Review, 29, 180–202. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2004.12736071
Fry, R. (April 11, 2018). Millennials are the largest generation in the U.S. Labor Force, pew
research center fact tank. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/11/millennials-
largest-generation-us-labor-force/
Gonzales, E., Marchiondo, L. A., Ran, S., Brown, C., & Goettge, K. (2015). Age discrimination in
workplace and its association with health and work: Implications for social policy. Boston
University, Research Brief 201502.
Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J., (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation,
variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1199–1228.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.26586096
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography—time and the
effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 41(1), 96–107. https://doi.org/10.5465/256901
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and
task performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group
functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1029–1045. https://doi.org/10.5465/
3069328
Hauser, D. J., & Schwarz, N. (2016). Attentive turkers: MTurk participants perform better
on online attention checks than subject pool participants. Behavior Research Methods, 48,
400–407. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0578-z
Hobman, E. V., Bordia, P., & Gallois, C. (2004). Perceived dissimilarity and work group
involvement: The moderating effects of group openness to diversity. Group & Organization
Management, 29, 560–587. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601103254269
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in
organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121–140. https://doi.org/
10.5465/amr.2000.2791606
Human Resources Professionals Association. (2016). Companies are failing to integrate millennials
into their workplaces; HRPA report. https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/companies-
arefailing-to-integrate-millennials-into-their-workplaces-hrpa-report-603764926.html
King, E., Finkelstein, L., Thomas, C., & Corrington, A. (2019). Generational differences at
work are small: Thinking they’re big affects our behavior. Harvard Business Review. https://
hbr.org/2019/08/generational-differences-at-work-are-small-thinking-theyre-big-affects-
ourbehavior
Kirchmeyer, C. (1995). Demographic similarity to the work group: A longitudinal study of
managers at the early career stage. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 67–83. https://
doi.org/10.1002/job.4030160109
Klabuhn, J., & Thommes, K. (2017). Age diversity and its effects on team performance. Academy
of Management Annual Proceedings, 2017, 15119–15126. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP
.2017.108
Kunze, F., Boehm, S., & Bruch, H. (2011). Age diversity, age discrimination climate, and
performance consequences—a cross organizational study. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 32, 264–290. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.698
Kunze, F., Boehm, S., & Bruch, H. (2013). Organizational performance consequences of age
diversity: Inspecting the role of diversity-friendly HR policies and top managers’ negative
age stereotypes. Journal of Management Studies, 50, 413–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/
joms.12016
Lester, S., Standifer, R., Schultz, N., & Windsor, J. (2012). Actual versus perceived generational
differences at work: An empirical examination. Journal of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 19, 341–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051812442747.
Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1990). Progress in small group research. Annual Review of
Psychology, 41, 585–634. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190
.003101.
Liebermann, S., Wegge, J., Jungmann, F., & Schmidt, K.-H. (2013). Age diversity and individual
team member health—the moderating role of age and age stereotypes. Journal of Occupa-
tional and Organizational Psychology, 86, 184–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12016
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, S139–
S157. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1913
Mannheim, K. (1952). The problem of generations. In K. Mannheim (Ed.), Essays on the
sociology of knowledge. RKP (first published 1923).
Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What differences make a difference?: The promise and reality
of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(2), 31–55.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2005.00022.x.
Marques, J., Abrams, D., Paez, D., & Martinez-Taboada, C. (1998). The role of categorization and
in-group norms in judgments of groups and their members. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 75, 976–988. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.976
Marques, J., Yzerbyt, V., & Leyens, J.-P. (1988). The “black sheep effect”: Extremity of
judgments towards ingroup members as a function of group identification. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 18(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180102
McGrath, J. E., Berdahl, J. L., & Arrow, H. (1995). Traits, expectations, culture, and clout: The
dynamics of diversity in work groups. In S. E. Jackson & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity
in work teams: Research paradigms for a changing workplace (pp. 17–45). American
Psychological Association. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/10189-001
Palmore, E. (1999). Ageism: Negative and positive. Springer.
Raymer, M., Reed, M., Spiegel, M., & Purvanova, R. (2017). An examination of generational
stereotypes as a path toward reverse ageism. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 20, 148–175.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/mgr0000057.
Riordan, C. M. (2000). Relational demography within groups: Past developments, contradictions,
and new directions. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 19,
131–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-7301(00)19005-X
Ryan, K., King, E., & Finkelstein, L. (2015). Younger workers’ metastereotypes, workplace
mood, attitudes, and behaviors. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30, 54–70. https://
doi.org/10.1108/JMP-07-2014-0215
Sacco, J. M., & Schmitt, N. (2005). A dynamic multilevel model of demographic diversity and
misfit effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 203–231. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10
.1037/0021-9010.90.2.203
Sessa, V., Kabacoff, R., Deal, J., & Brown, H. (2007). Generational differences in leader values
and leadership behaviors. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 10(1), 47–74. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10887150709336612
Shemla, M., Meyer, B., Greer, L., & Jehn, K. (2016). A review of perceived diversity in teams:
Does how members perceive their team’s composition affect team processes and outcomes?
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37, S89–S106. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1957
Strauss, W.. & Howe, N. (1991). Generations: The history of America’s future. William Morris.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S.
Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Nelson.
Tsui, A., Porter, L., & Egan, T. (2002). When both similarities and dissimilarities matter:
Extending the concept of relational demography. Human Relations, 55, 899–929. https://
psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/0018726702055008176
Turner, J. C., Brown, R. J., & Tajfel, H. (1979). Social comparison and group interest in ingroup
favoritism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 9(2), 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1002/
ejsp.2420090207
Van Rossem, A. H. (2019). Generations as social categories: An exploratory cognitive study of
generational identity and generational stereotypes in a multigenerational workforce. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 40, 434–455. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2341
Weeks, K. P., Weeks, M., & Long, N. (2017). Generational perceptions at work: In-group
favoritism and out-group stereotypes. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 36(1), 33–53.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-07-2016-0062
Zabel, K. L., Biermeier-Hanson, B. B., Baltes, B. B., Early, B. J., & Shepard, A. (2017).
Generational differences in work ethic: Fact or fiction. Journal of Business and Psychology,
32, 301–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9466-5
Zalesny, M. D., & Kirsch, M. P. (1989). The effect of similarity on performance ratings and interrater
agreement. Human Relations, 42, 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872678904200105.
Zenger, T. R., & Lawrence, B. S. (1989). Organizational demography: The differential effects of
age and tenure distributions on technical communication. Academy of Management Journal,
32, 353–376. https://doi.org/10.5465/256366

EBSCO FullText 2024 02 27

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

EBSCO FullText 2024 02 27

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Psychologist-Manager Journal

© 2021 American Psychological Association 2021, Vol. 24, No. 2, 115–139

Working With Generationally Similar or Different

Stereotypes and Work-Related Attitudes

Conceptualizing generational cohorts as socially constructed identities, we

As lifespans have lengthened, employees remain in the workforce longer,

This article was published Online First January 14, 2021.

about co-workers they believe to be from other cohorts, creating obstacles to

to working with colleagues perceived to be from different generational cohorts.

The study of generational cohorts originated with Mannheim’s (1952)

Klabuhn & Thommes, 2017), and perceptions of discriminatory treatment

(Avery et al., 2008). Studies of differences in age, a demographic variable

variety in perceived generational cohorts creates an opportunity for additional

In assessing employees’ contact with colleagues, we examine three types of

colleagues who they perceived to be from multiple other generational cohorts

No Variety—Working With One’s Own Generational Cohort

We expect employees who spend increasingly more work time with

Hypothesis 1: The more time an employee works with colleagues who

Focused Generational Cohort Diversity—Working With One Other

characteristic of personal identity. In such age-diverse contexts, employees

Hypothesis 2: The more time an employee spends with colleagues that

Broad Generational Cohort Diversity—Working With Multiple Other

The last conﬁguration of coworker interaction that we examine in this article

cohorts, to perceive an increase in age discrimination, and to develop negative

Hypothesis 3: Employees who work with colleagues who they perceive to

Five-hundred ﬁfteen participants (307 male, 205 female, 3 nonbinary or

degree or higher. Based on a participant’s reported age as of May, 2018

health services (10.4%), food and hospitality, (9.8), to education (7.9%).

We asked participants to complete an online survey that contained a

Positive and Negative Generational Y Stereotypes. Using a subset of

Age Discrimination Climate

Age Discrimination. We measured perceived age discrimination at

Work Related Attitudes, Intentions, and Behaviors

Job Satisfaction. We used Cammann et al. (1983) three-item scale to

We administered our survey via Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Overseen by

generational cohort differences on the work and stereotype measures with a

comparisons were statistically signiﬁcant. Because older generational groups

−.06 −.05 −.01

participants, we found partial support for Hypothesis 2a and c. As shown in

Table 3 Column 6, Gen Y participants who spent increasingly greater amounts

reported signiﬁcantly more perceived age discrimination, more negative Gen Y

With respect to Hypothesis 2, we demonstrated modest beneﬁts associated

and Baby Boomers). We found consistent support in the anticipated direction

with Gen X participants: Increased perception of age discrimination climate

Limitations and Recommendations

to be from a variety of generational cohorts inﬂuences employees’ engagement

amount of time spent with colleagues perceived to be from different genera-

often confers beneﬁt. Further study of how employees respond to workgroups

diversity, mangers can create opportunities for concentrated time between

colleagues from different generational cohorts which allows them to connect

develop diminished workplace attitudes and behaviors, human resource (HR)

challenges and opportunities that a multigenerational workplace presents.

American Psychological Association. (2018). Stress in America: Generation Z. Stress in

You might also like