Journal of HUmAN RESOURCE mANAGEmENT, vol.

XXII, 2/2019

Journal of HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

www.jhrm.eu • ISSN 2453-7683

Generational similarities in work values of generations X, Y and Z

Shanna D. Dick

A B STR AC T K E Y WOR D S
Human resources professionals (HRPs) must understand generational work values to lead personnel, personnel management, generations,
organizations. While this study acknowledges the generations’ differences in work values throughout work values, motivation, generation X, millennials.
the academic literature, its purpose is to identify the similarities in work values between Generations
X, Y, and Z employees to provide HRPs the basis for employee motivation. HRPs should be cognizant
of individual differences and not focus solely on generational differences and recognize stereotyping
of generational differences in the workplace. It is recommended that HRPs motivate employees based
on their individual needs, monitor stereotypes in the workforce, and remain committed to employee JE L Co de: m5, m5 30, m54 0
flexibility. is study’s research purpose, approach, and results prove there are more similarities than
differences.
manuscript received 15 July 2019
Accepted after revisions 10 October 2019

1 INTRODUCTION
Human resources professionals (HRPs) and managers must understand the generations’ work values, and the
similarities and differences between them, to effectively lead an organization (mencl & Lester, 2014) as today’s
workforce includes the traditionalist generation, baby boomer generation, Generation X, Generation Y, and
Generation Z. Employees exhibit unique work values respective to their generation which drive differing views
in an organization and present managerial opportunities and challenges (Chen & Lian, 2015; Locmele-Lunova &
Cirjevskis, 2017; Lyons & Kuron, 2014).
The idea of a generational cohort was established in the 1940s and is used to define the group of individuals
born during the same timeframe (Woodward, Vongswasdi & more, 2015). The definition of a generation has
numerous meanings in the academic literature; however, the most commonly used definition of a generation is a
cohort of individuals who share similar birth years, significant life events, and shared historical atmospheres
throughout their critical developmental years and as they collectively move through life (Amayah & Gedro, 2014;
Clark, 2017). mannheim’s theory defines generations as a group of people who identify with location, historical-
social process, and patterns of experience (mannheim, 1952; Padayachee, 2018).
e traditionalist and the baby boomer generations are retiring, or nearing their retirement age, leaving much
of the workforce to be members of Generation X, Generation Y, and Generation Z. Having five generations present
in the workforce creates a unique dynamic given their differing views on workplace values. To increase retention and
motivate top talent, froese (2013) stated HRPs should create an atmosphere that corresponds with the work values
of future employees. HRPs and managers must successfully lead their organization without treating generations of
employees differently because of their diverse work values (Dixon, mercado & Knowles, 2015).
Jiri (2016) posits the most significant challenges for managers in the 21st-century workplace are the
generations’ differences. Viewing work as an adventure in which they work to live, the baby boomer generation
is known as the workaholic generation desiring in-person communication, quality work, and personal fulfillment

CONTACT INfORmATION:
Shanna D. Dick / Northcentral University, United States of America / [email protected]
 11 Shanna D. Dick/Journal of HRm, vol. XXII, 2/2019, 10-27

from the workplace whereas Generation X views work as a contract (Jiri, 2016). maintaining self-reliance and a
solid work-life balance, Generation X prefers direct and immediate communication and is skeptical of
management (Jiri, 2016; Rani & Samuel, 2016). However, mencl and Lester (2014) reported there are more
similarities than differences between the generations such as the desire for a challenging job in which the manager
consistently provides feedback in addition to the job being financially rewarding with room for career
advancement. Employee productivity and turnover drive workplace morale; therefore, HRPs should be aware of
the differences in employee work values before the organization’s effectiveness is jeopardized (Ramkumar & Priyal,
2013). Chow, Galambos, and Krahn (2017) stated employees could predict their work values as early as age 18;
therefore, Generation Z is determining its work values as it enters the workplace. As the multigenerational
workforce continues to evolve, HRPs and managers should acknowledge and celebrate the similarities and
differences between the generations to foster high-functioning and effective teams (Bencsik, Horvath-Csikos &
Juhasz, 2016; Eastland, 2015).
Individuals may overemphasize the differences between the generations due to their life stage; however, the
literature unveils differences between the generations (Anderson, Baur, Griffith & Buckley, 2017; Lyons & Kuron,
2014). These differences in work values cause conflict in the workplace. The differing life stages or generational
cohorts exhibit unique characteristics that affect staffing strategies and effectiveness (Joniakova & Blstakova,
2015). Generation Y and Generation Z have rewritten the procedures for how human resources management
should function to remain competitive in today’s job market (Bencsik et al., 2016). Conflict can result from varied
value systems, behavioral patterns, and character traits across the generations. Eastland and Clark (2015)
confirmed the unavoidable conflict and distress that happens in a workplace when employees do not value and
respect generational differences. When there is miscommunication in the workplace, work-value conflict can
ignite between the different generations of employees (Hillman, 2014). Critical to the telecommunications
industry, the conflict in work values can lead to decreased motivation (Kukreja, 2017). When this happens,
employee motivation challenges managers to provide quality supervision in a workplace comprised of
multigenerational employees. Joniakova and Blstakova (2015) reported staffing idiosyncrasies between the
generations, which leads HRPs to adopt personnel policies to be in accordance with respective generations’
differences; however, Bencsik et al. (2016) stated the cooperation and co-working of the generations provides not
only conflicts but also positive results for the organization such as more significant potential for increased
communication.

2 PROBLEM AND PURPOSE

The problem addressed by this study was to determine the significant differences in work values between
Generation X, Generation Y, and Generation Z for HRPs to develop targeted motivational strategies for the
multigenerational employees of the telecommunications industry. froese (2013) stated work values are evaluative
standards relevant in the workplace. There have been dramatic changes in work values from the baby boomers
to Generation Y (Anderson et al., 2017; Twenge & Kasser, 2013). Chen and Lian (2015) discovered a marked
difference between the work values of baby boomer employees and Generation Y employees. The baby boomers
are workaholics achieving their identity through work performance; whereas, Generation Y values flexible work
schedules to create a more family-centric lifestyle (Wiedmer, 2015). There is a minimal number of Generation Z
employees in the workplace; therefore, their workplace values and problems are not as easily identified as their
preceding generations (Bencsik et al., 2016). With opposing views, attitudes, and behaviors, the three generations
differ in their perception of organizational commitment, professional goals, workplace values, and issues related
to balancing professional work with personal lives. These generational cohorts display different ways of thinking,
different behaviors, different attitudes, different perceptions of flexibility, and different levels of technical
knowledge; all of which lead to workplace conflict (Bencsik et al., 2016). HRPs should explore the difference in the
generations’ work values in order to motivate their multigenerational employees.

3 LITERATURE REVIEW
There is a plethora of scholarly literature on employee motivation and its differences among the generations;
however, there is little research identifying each generation’s work values with the impetus of showing the
differences in generational, work motivation. motivation is a crucial area of interest for HRPs (Rakic & Zivkovic,
2017). This study expands the research of Prasad, Enns, and ferratt (2007) by including the telecommunications
industry in the study on the different work values of Generation X, Generation Y, and Generation Z, by
hypothesizing that work value patterns noted in the respective generations could explain the differences in each
 12 Shanna D. Dick/Journal of HRm, vol. XXII, 2/2019, 10-27

generation’s work motivation; however, this study discovered increased similarities between the work values of the
three generations. The scholarly literature was reviewed to identify the differences between Generation X,
Generation Y, and Generation Z in the workplace with an emphasis on work values and motivation. The literature
review is separated into the following thematic areas: the theoretical framework, generational cohorts and
differences, motivating a multigenerational workforce, and work values of a multigenerational workforce.

3.1 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The theoretical framework for this study is Abraham maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory. Research supports
maslow’s theory that an individual’s need acts as a motivator (Babic, Kordic & Babic, 2014; Zargar, Vandenberghe,
marchand & Ayed, 2014; Zameer, Ali, Nisar & Amir, 2014); therefore, this theory can assist HRPs in determining
motivational strategies to use with the multigenerational workforce. maslow’s hierarchy of needs was selected
over Herzberg’s two-factor theory and other motivational theories because of its close alignment to intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation and job satisfaction. In 1991, Howe and Strauss furthered mannheim’s generational theory
by viewing generations in a cyclical manner (Howe & Strauss, 1991); however, these theories do not encapsulate
the work values and motivation component to this research study. HRPs can utilize maslow’s theory when
studying employee retention and talent acquisition. When considering employee performance and business
management, Jerome (2013) used maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory. In doing so, employers discovered they
should adjust their leadership styles to promote employees’ self-actualization (Jerome, 2013). Atan, Raghavan,
and mahmood (2015) used maslow’s theory when studying employees in a manufacturing environment and
explained the employees’ performance levels increased through self-actualization. for employees to achieve self-
actualization on the job, employers must ensure the employees fulfill their physiological and safety needs (Atan
et al., 2015). Individuals must meet their physiological and safety needs before ascending the pyramid in pursuit
of self-actualization (maslow, 1943). In the study of employee retention and human motivation, maslow’s theory
is one of the most extensively acclaimed and referred theories (Adiele & Abraham, 2013).
maslow’s theory provides a significant contribution to management research and employee behavior because
of the practical implication of the hierarchy of needs (Kaur, 2013). Theories on motivation are scholarly sources
for employers and HRPs to discover the levels of motivation which lead employees to act (Lee, Raschke & St.
Louis, 2016). It is critical for employers to assist employees with their self-actualization journey if they want to
achieve desired workplace results (Kaur, 2013). Additionally, if employers want to increase employee retention and
boost organizational success, it is paramount they understand the five levels of maslow’s hierarchy of needs to
assess the employees’ developmental and motivational needs.

3.2 GENERATIONAL COHORTS AND DIFFERENCES

Employees are associated with different generational cohorts determined by the year they were born, and the
cohorts have specific differences germane to the respective generation. The historical events that occur during
an employee’s formative years affect how they perceive the workplace (Twenge, Gentile & Campbell, 2015). This
section will address the generational cohorts, describe the historical events which affected the formative years of
the generational cohorts and discuss the stereotypes associated with each generational cohort.
As the workplace structure continues to evolve, three generations are simultaneously working together to
achieve the common business goal (Jora & Khan, 2014). Ledimo (2015) stated the differences in values, historical
experiences, beliefs, and social experiences between the generational cohorts would affect their professional and
workplace interactions which can have a negative impact on employee performance and employee retention.
Because the generational cohorts use a categorical approach, the timeline for each cohort is subjective as opposed
to scientific (Wang & Peng, 2015). This scientific research study will not be negatively affected by the categorical
approach because the difference in birth years does not affect the generational cohort descriptions.
The early 21st-century workplace includes three generational cohorts of employees: a) Generation X, born
between 1965 and 1980, b) Generation Y, born between 1981 and 1994, and c) Generation Z born between 1995
and 2010 (DeVaney, 2015). As older employees from previous generations retire, Generation X and Generation
Y employees will be the dominant generations in the workforce (Keys, 2014). There is an additional generational
cohort identified as the Cuspers (Shaw, 2013). Shaw defined the Cuspers as individuals who are born close to the
separating line between generational cohorts and reap the benefit of association with both generations. Howe
and Strauss (1991) identified Cuspers as the individuals who fall into two generational cohorts and are influenced
by the historical and social events of each. Duh and Struwig (2015) stated employees in the same cohort share
similar life experiences and historical events which occurred during their formative years.
 13 Shanna D. Dick/Journal of HRm, vol. XXII, 2/2019, 10-27

STEREOTYPES

Campione (2015) stated there are differences across the generations; however, it is paramount to understand
if the difference is attributed to the generation or the individual’s age and maturation level. The individuals of
Generation X have been stereotyped as not wanting to climb the corporate ladder; however, they are loyal to the
organization for which they choose to work (Al-Asfour & Lettau, 2014; Gilley et al., 2015). Exhibiting little desire
to stay in the same position with the same employer for two decades, the individuals of this generation want to
reap the benefits of higher paying jobs earlier in their careers (Hernaus & Poloski Vokic, 2014). In other studies,
it is noted that members of this generation are not loyal to the organizations for which they work (Karsh &
Templin, 2013). However, Al-Asfour and Lettau (2014) confirm how motivated Generation X individuals are in
the workplace. Because this generation had to be independent during the formative years due to single-parent
homes or dual working parents, it is stated these individuals are more cynical than other generations (Bianchi,
2014; DeVaney, 2015; Karsh & Templin, 2013; Sutton-Bell, Hamilton, mcminn & Bell, 2014).
Challenging to manage, Generation Y employees want to start working in their dream position as opposed
to starting in an entry-level position and working their way up (Akkucuk & Turan, 2016; Kong, Wang, & fu, 2015).
Considered high-maintenance employees, these individuals want clear direction, immediate feedback, and
constant managerial support while maintaining their autonomy in the workplace (Latkovikj, Popovska & Popovski,
2016; Vanmeter, Grisaffe, Chonko & Roberts, 2013). Speaking their mind and asking numerous questions,
Generation Y employees have a short attention span, need instant gratification, and yearn for entertainment in
the workplace (Bolton et al., 2013). Because this generation of employees was not taught how to be independent
during their childhood, they need constant reassurance, feedback, and support in the workplace (Weirich, 2017).
Self-interested and overconfident, Generation Z is stereotyped for always being online and connected virtually
(Puiu, 2016; Stanton, 2017). Because of their obsession with being online, this generation lacks personality and is
confused (Chicca & Shellenbarger, 2018; Seemiller & Grace, 2016; Stanton, 2017); however, Tulgan (2013) stated
this generation expects humor from supervisors in the workplace. Stereotyped as the emoji-onal generation, this
generation frequently uses emojis to express their emotions (Puiu, 2016). Tulgan (2013) stated Generation Z
individuals are stereotyped with an escapist mentality in that they escape the pressures of reality by playing video
games, and they remain continuously tethered online. Understanding these stereotypical traits about Generation
Z will assist HRPs in motivating this generation and ultimately retaining them in the organization.

3.3 MOTIVATING A MULTIGENERATIONAL WORKFORCE

It is essential to understand why employees leave an organization; but, to understand why employees choose
to remain with an organization is paramount to the organization’s overall success (George, 2015). George (2015)
confirms that retaining top talent eliminates the costly detriment of turnover which impacts sourcing, recruiting,
selecting, hiring, onboarding, orienting, and training. Pandta, Deri, Galambos, and Galambos (2015) stated
employees’ motivation is the critical component to their overall performance levels and their decisions to remain
with an organization. maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory posits unsatisfied needs motivate behavior to the
dominant need (Sandrick, Contacos-Sawyer & Thomas, 2014).
An employee’s motivation directly affects his/her productivity level in turn affecting the company’s
competitive advantage (Islam & Ahmed, 2014). Tillott, Walsh, and moxham (2013) proved there is a relationship
between workplace satisfaction, employee engagement, and empowerment. When employees are not motivated,
their performance is negatively affected, their co-workers are negatively affected, and their overall work demeanor
will lead to burn out over time (Khan, Khan & Zakir, 2016). The manager’s primary goal is to create cohesive
teams composed of employees who work efficiently and effectively, while producing positive results that have a
positive impact on the overall bottom line (Pandta et al., 2015). As managers are responsible for creating dynamic
teams of employees, they should understand how the different generations of employees are uniquely motivated
thereby capitalizing on the multi-generational workforce’s unique characteristics which are exemplified in their
teams of employees (Eastland & Clark, 2015). Award and reward systems should be updated to reflect the different
motivators of a multigenerational workforce (Chekwa et al., 2013; Giaque, Anderfuhren-Biget & Varone, 2013).
HRPs must work in conjunction with organizational leaders to determine feasible motivators and how frequently
they should be used (Islam & Ahmed, 2014).
motivating employees from Generation X, Generation Y, and Generation Z requires managers to understand
their employees’ work values. The motivational elements are different for the generations (Hernaus & Poloski-
Vokic, 2014; Özçelik, 2015). Johnson and Johnson (2016) report Generation X places tremendous value on work-
life balance which creates a motivational factor of flexible work schedules and teleworking. Catania and Randall
(2013) stated it is undetermined if Generation X employees value extrinsic over intrinsic rewards or if intrinsic
rewards motivate them. They want work-life balance, appreciation for quality work, the potential for advancement,
 14 Shanna D. Dick/Journal of HRm, vol. XXII, 2/2019, 10-27

and increased responsibility (Islam & Ahmed, 2014). Generation Y prefers more overtime than Generation X as
Generation X values work-life balance more than the money generated from working overtime (Becton, Walker
& Jones-farmer, 2014). Generation Y has different work expectations and requirements when compared to other
generations (Gordon, 2017; Johnson & Johnson, 2016). They seek immediate feedback, want a structured working
environment, and must have daily supervision (Johnson & Johnson, 2016; Özçelik, 2015). This generation is status
conscious, and money motivates them to belong to a certain status (Kultalahti & Viitala, 2014). To motivate the
millennial employees, managers must frequently communicate work expectations, and when the expectations
are met or exceeded, the managers must immediately and frequently recognize and applaud the employees for
their work (Clark, 2017; Gordon, 2017; Johnson & Johnson, 2016). When it comes to workplace motivation,
Generation Z is different from Generation X and Generation Y. Gordon (2017) posits Generation Z desires
nominal face-to-face supervision. managers can succeed in motivating this generation by electronically
communicating with them through text messages, instant messages, or emails as opposed to in person (Clark,
2017). Eastland and Clark (2015) confirm Generation Z’s desire to know their work adds value to the organization
which is a motivational tool for managers.
Of the three Generations X, Y, and Z, Generation Y needs the most hands-on, face-to-face motivational
inspiration from their managers (Stewart, Oliver, Cravens & Oishi, 2017). Acar (2014) reports all generations
value intrinsic rewards. However, due to this generation’s sense of entitlement, they expect immediate and
frequent rewards for their work (Stewart et al., 2017). muthuveloo, Basbous, Ping, and Long (2013) discovered
recognition plays a crucial role in Generation Y’s employee engagement. Appealing to Generation Y’s ownership
of work, responsibility, and sense of worth, the rewards they seek are not always cash-based; instead they seek
intrinsic rewards such as knowing their manager perceives their work as important (Alexander & Sysko, 2013;
Rajput, marwah, Balli & Gupta, 2013).
In contrast, Neckermann and frey (2013) stated monetary awards and rewards have a significant impact on
motivation for Generation Y. Kultalahti and Viitala (2014) stated Generation Y demonstrates increased motivation
from work composition in that these employees seek new, short-term projects in addition to flexible, as opposed
to stringent, scheduling options in the workplace. managers can motivate this generation by providing them with
ample time to cultivate close working relationships with colleagues and supervisors (Kilber, Barclay & Ohmer,
2014). Another motivational factor for Generation Y is through formal recognition programs in the workplace
(Neckermann & frey, 2013). Because this generation grew up in an era where every child on the sports team
received a trophy for participation, they are not accustomed to the rigorous competition other generations faced
during their formative years (Alexander & Sysko, 2013). Because of the trophy mentality and the case made
through the literature that Generation Y desires such praise into adulthood, formal recognition programs in the
workplace motivate this generation (Stewart et al., 2017). Neckermann and frey (2013) discovered a higher
motivational factor for Generation Y when their rewards and awards were publicized and incorporated into a
ceremony with fanfare. To satisfy their need for competition and praise, employees who seek extrinsic rewards
will continually strive for publicized recognition (Achilles, Blaskovich & Pitre, 2013). Peters, Lau, and Ng (2014)
stated this generation appreciates a fair rewards and awards system but must receive recognition for all the work
they individually accomplished.

3.4 WORK VALUES – MULTIGENERATIONAL WORKFORCE

Contributing to the intricacy of the workplace environment, the differences in work values between the
multiple generations in today’s workforce present challenges for the organizational leadership, managers, and
HRPs (Yarbrough, martin, Alfred & mcNeill, 2016). This research study is different from other published studies
because it includes Generation Z, the up and coming generation to challenge HRPs in today’s workplace. Work
values are the factors that influence employees’ behavior and their motivation while at work (Ueda & Ohzono,
2013). Choi et al. (2013) note work values as an individual’s needs and reinforced preferences which are satisfied
by their role in the workplace. Popovska, Latkovic, Jakimovski, and Popovski (2015) stated work values change over
time and are the justification for individuals’ and generational cohorts’ behaviors and opinions. An employee’s
work values directly impact career choice and career development (Choi et al., 2013). To promote employee
motivation, transparent communication, and intergenerational synergy, managers must understand each
generation’s foundation of work values (Gursoy et al., 2013).
Several critical areas highlight the differences between the generations’ work. Because of the millennials’
constant parental support during their formative years, they need mentoring and meaningful feedback from their
supervisors on a regular basis (Kilber et al., 2014; Weirich, 2017). Kroth and Young (2014) report that the
millennials expect and need more frequent feedback than the previous generational cohorts; however, Coates
(2017) confirmed millennials’ antipathy for micromanagement and their desire for workplace empowerment with
autonomy. Generation X and preceding generations did not question policies, procedures, or regulations in the
 15 Shanna D. Dick/Journal of HRm, vol. XXII, 2/2019, 10-27

workplace; whereas, the millennials question every directive and policy to understand why policies are made and
why they are asked to perform certain tasks (Rajput, marwah, Balli & Gupta, 2013). Another difference in work
values is noted in work-life balance which has shifted over the years. Generations preceding Generation X had a
primary focus on work; whereas, Generation X and Generation Y desire more of a balance between their personal
and professional lives (Bush, 2017; Kroth & Young, 2014). Kroth and Young (2014) stated the older generations
viewed work as a critical component to and an important extension of their lives, but Generation X and
Generation Y view work as the necessary means to achieve their ambitions. Several studies confirmed the
foundational points that drive millennial employees to find employment elsewhere include autonomy, personal
freedom to balance work and life, and have a flexible work schedule (Coates, 2017; Queiri, Yusoff & Dwaikat,
2014). Employer loyalty is another work value that has shifted with the generational cohorts. Bush (2017) stated
Generation Y employees do not stay with the same employer for the length of their career. To adjust to the newer
generations’ needs, managers should cultivate loyalty through robust mentoring and coaching proving the
company’s plan for the employee’s future growth (ferri-Reed, 2014; Weirich, 2017).
Additional research proves there are similarities in how the generations relate their work values (De meuse
& mlodzik, 2010; fatima, Shafique, Qadeer & Ahmad, 2015; Johnson & Lopes, 2008; montana & Petit, 2008;
Peachey, Burton, & Wells, 2014; Peltokorpi, Allen, & froese, 2015; Radford & Chapman, 2015; Wesner & miller,
2008; Yang & Guy, 2006). Older research studies prove more similarities than differences in attitudes and work
values between the generations (Deal, 2007; furnham, 1982; Jurkiewicz, 2000; Singer & Abramson, 1973; Tang &
Tzeng, 1992). There is no significant difference between the appraisal of work values of the baby boomer
generation and Generation X (Yang & Guy, 2006). Generation X and Generation Y share the same work motivators
including opportunities for promotion and continuous employment (De meuse & mlodzik, 2010; montana &
Petit, 2008). Additionally, the level of workplace commitment is the same across the generations (Johnson &
Lopes, 2008), and Generation Y has similar needs to the baby boomer generation (Wesner & miller, 2008).

4 RESEARCH METHOD
is research study’s underlying hypothesis was that there is a difference in motivation for employees due to the
difference in work values for each generation. Prasad et al. (2007) categorized the 11 employment arrangements on the
Employment Arrangement Survey into three categories of work values which are work security, achievement, and
flexibility; therefore, the work values identified by this research study were work security, achievement, and flexibility.
In parallel with the research problem statement and purpose, there were three research questions and corresponding
hypotheses supporting this quantitative research study.
RQ1. Are there differences in the way Generation X, Generation Y, and Generation Z value work security?
RQ2. Are there differences in the way Generation X, Generation Y, and Generation Z value achievement?
RQ3. Are there differences in the way Generation X, Generation Y, and Generation Z value flexibility?

5 POPULATION AND SAMPLE

e target population for this research study was the employees of a telecommunications company located in the
northeastern United States. e company provides telecommunications cabling and equipment modernization services
for the private sector. e population size for the company was 100 American professional employees from Generation
X, Generation Y, and Generation Z. e population can be narrowly or broadly defined according to Delost nad Nadder
(2014). According to Cozby and Bates (2012), if the population increases, the sample size necessary to gain the same
result will not significantly fluctuate or compromise the validity. is study achieved a 95% confidence level with a 5%
margin of error by using a minimum sample size of 80 participants where the independent variable was the generational
cohort, and the dependent variable was the work values. ere were 81 employee participants who responded to the
survey. Two respondents did not provide any answers beyond the first question of the survey; therefore, the final sample
size used for investigating the research questions had 79 participants that provided answers to the survey questions.

6 INSTRUMENTATION
e Employment Arrangement Survey which utilized a 5-point Likert scale was used to gather the data for this
research study. e validity of the Employment Arrangement Survey is proved by several previous research projects
that used this instrument and validated the scales using the random half-sample method (Enns et al., 2006 and Prasad
et al., 2007) and identified the survey items that were used in their studies. e limited sample size and performing the
 16 Shanna D. Dick/Journal of HRm, vol. XXII, 2/2019, 10-27

research at only one employment place in the telecommunications industry limits the generalizability of the results and
thus lowers the external validity of the study. Internal validity is defined as the degree to which the detected changes
in a dependent variable is attributed to differences detected in the independent variables (Halperin, Pyne & martin,
2015) and will be tested by checking statistical significance of the differences detected in the data.
Although previous research studies using the Employment Arrangement Survey reported high validity and
reliability (Prasad et al., 2007) of the instrument, it may vary when the scales are applied to different populations and
in a different context; therefore, internal consistency and reliability were re-tested in this study by computing Cronbach’s
alpha. Job preference subscales from the Employment Arrangement Survey were first checked for reliability by
investigating their internal consistency by calculating Cronbach's alpha statistic that corresponds to the correlation
between each of the subscales and the total mean value that is calculated for the set. All 11 subscales showed very good
internal consistency (Table 2) with reliability values ranging from .833 to .904 which shows that the scales can be reliably
used for further analysis to test the research hypotheses.

7 FINDINGS AND RESULTS

ere were 81 participants who took part in the study, distributed into three generational groups (Table 1). e
majority of respondents belonged to Generation Y (n = 45, 55.6%) and to Generation X (n = 28, 34.6%), while only
eight participants (9.9%) were born in or after 1995 and belonged to Generation Z. e small size of the Generation Z
group is not a limitation to use mANOVA per se, but it could result in showing statistically insignificant results due to
small sample size overall and for this particular group.

Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of the Participants

Generation Count Percent

Generation X (born between 1965 and 1980) 28 34.6%

Generation Y (born between 1981 and 1994) 45 55.6%
Generation Z (born in 1995 or after) 8 9.9%

Two respondents did not provide any answers beyond the first question of the survey; therefore, the final sample
size used for investigating the research questions had 79 participants that provided answers to the survey questions.
According to the Employment Arrangement Survey analysis procedure and manual, the survey consists of 37
questions that can be scored to construct 11 work values subscales. e subscales were constructed by taking the
mean responses of the corresponding questions for each subscale for each respondent to indicate his/her perception
of the corresponding work value subscale.

Table 2: Employment Arrangement Survey Descriptive Statistics

Cronbach’s
Generation Mean SD # of items
alpha

Security Job security 4.2 0.8 3 .856

Pay 3.8 0.8 2 .864
Benefits 3.6 0.9 2 .871
Achievement Social interaction and support 3.4 0.9 5 .833
Specificity of performance requirements 4.1 0.8 3 .850
Career development opportunities 3.9 0.9 3 .904
Recognition 3.6 0.9 3 .887
Work choice discretion 3.3 0.9 2 .845
flexibility Discretion in choosing when to work 3.3 1.0 2 .902
Discretion in choosing where to work 3.2 1.1 2 .841
Travel discretion 2.3 1.3 2 .899

Note: 5-point Likert scale

 17 Shanna D. Dick/Journal of HRm, vol. XXII, 2/2019, 10-27

Job security (m = 4.2, SD = 0.8) and specificity of performance requirements (m = 4.1, SD = 0.8) had the largest
mean scores on five-point Likert scale used in the study indicating that these two work values are most preferred by
the participants. While travel discretion (m = 2.3, SD = 1.3) and discretion in choosing where to work (m = 3.2, SD
= 1.1) had the least values (i.e. they are less preferable by the survey participants compared with other work value
measures).
ere were three research questions aimed that will be examined in the current study; each of which
corresponding to appropriate null and alternative hypotheses that will be tested. mANOVA was used to test the
hypotheses. mANOVA procedure is the most appropriate procedure to compare and test if the work values measures
are different across the three generation groups. mANOVA requires several assumptions to be satisfied for the
results to be valid. According to Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson (2004), the following assumptions are required and
were checked (Hair et al., 2004, p. 362):
• there should be no univariate or multivariate outliers – that can be checked by visual inspection of the boxplots
constructed for each of the variables;
• there should be a multivariate normality of the measures. is can be assessed using Shapiro-Wilk test with a
p-value greater than .05 indicating that the distribution is approximately normal;
• there should be a moderate correlation of the dependent variables with the absolute value of correlation
coefficients being greater than 0.5 but less than 0.9 (which could indicate a multicollinearity issue);
• there should be the homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices. is can be tested using Box's m test of
equality of covariance showing a p-value greater than .001 for the assumption to be satisfied. Here a lower than
usual value of significance level is used as Box’s m test is a very sensitive test;
• there should be the homogeneity of variances, which can be assessed using Levene's test of equality of variances,
showing a p-value greater than .05.
To further investigate the difference for each of the 11 work values subscales, a set of post hoc ANOVAs was
performed (one for each of the 11 work values, if the overall mANOVA is statistically significant). ANOVA test was
used to provide a separate analysis for each of the 11 work values. e underlying assumptions of ANOVA are similar
to the ones of mANOVA (they are a subset of mANOVA assumptions), no further tests of underlying assumptions
are needed. e corresponding p-values of the test statistics were compared to conventional significance level α =
.05. e null hypothesis of equality of values was rejected if p < .05.

7.1 RESEARCH QUESTION ONE

The first research question and corresponding hypotheses were to investigate whether work security differs
between generational cohorts.
RQ1 Are there differences in the way Generation X, Generation Y, and Generation Z value work security?
H0 There is no statistically significant difference in the way Generation X, Generation Y, and Generation Z
value work security.
H1 There is a statistically significant difference in the way Generation X, Generation Y, and Generation Z
value work security.
mANOVA analysis was used to compare work security values between the three generational cohorts. first,
the assumptions of mANOVA were tested. There were no significant outliers in any of the three subscales (job
security, pay, and benefits) measuring work security values domain. All mean values were calculated based on five-
point Likert scales and their minimum and maximum values ranged between one to five. Several respondents
with the least (equal to one) and highest (equal to five) values were included in the analysis as they were not a result
of a typo or otherwise invalid data (they were not outliers). The normality of the distribution was violated for all
three subscales; however, this result was not a major violation for mANOVA. According to Johnson & Wichern
(2007), mANOVA is robust to non-normality. multicollinearity was assessed by calculating Pearson correlation
coefficients between the three subscales of security. The test revealed that all subscales are moderately correlated
to each other (Pearson correlation coefficients ranged from a minimum of 0.596 to maximum of 0.697, all
statistically significant with p < .05, Appendix 1). Homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices was tested using
Box’s m test showing a p-value equal to .0012, which is slightly higher than .001 – a borderline for this test.
Homogeneity of variance assessed by Levene’s test was proven for job security and pay (p > .05) but not for benefits
subscale (p = .015). To account for this violation when running individual scale tests using ANOVA, a more
stringent alpha level was used for this subscale (α = .025).
The results of mANOVA showed no statistically significant difference in work security between the three
generational cohorts (f(6,148) = 1.263, p = .279). follow-up univariate ANOVAs was performed for each subscale
and also showed no significant differences either (Table 3). These results support the null hypothesis that there
is no statistically significant difference in the way Generation X, Generation Y, and Generation Z value work se-
curity and provide a negative response to the first research question.
 18 Shanna D. Dick/Journal of HRm, vol. XXII, 2/2019, 10-27

Table 3: Univariate ANOVAs for Work Security Value Subscales by Generational Cohort.

Generation X Generation Y Generation Z ANOVA F

Percent p-value
M SD M SD M SD (2, 76)

Job security 4.05 .97 4.30 .66 4.52 .69 1.425 .247
Pay 3.66 .90 3.78 .76 3.86 1.11 249 .780
Benefits 3.59 1.05 3.67 .70 3.29 1.41 .249 .578
Note: 5-point Likert scale

7.2 RESEARCH QUESTION TWO

The second research question and corresponding hypotheses were to investigate whether work achievement
differs between the three generational cohorts.
RQ2 Are there differences in the way Generation X, Generation Y, and Generation Z value achievement?
H0 There is no statistically significant difference in the way Generation X, Generation Y, and Generation Z
value achievement.
H1 There is a statistically significant difference in the way Generation X, Generation Y, and Generation Z
value achievement.
To compare work achievement between generational cohorts, mANOVA was applied. Before running the
test, the underlying assumptions for mANOVA were checked. There were no significant outliers in any of the five
variables included in the achievement values domain. All mean values were calculated based on five-point Likert
scales and their minimum and maximum values were between one to five. Several respondents with the lowest
(equal to one) and highest (equal to five) responses were included in the analysis as they were not due to typos or
otherwise invalid data. The normality of the distribution was violated for all subscales; however, this result is not
major for mANOVA, as according to Johnson & Wichern (2007) this method is robust to non-normality.
multicollinearity was assessed by calculating Pearson correlation coefficients for the five subscales. The test
revealed that all subscales are moderately correlated to each other (Pearson correlation coefficients ranging from
a minimum of 0.383 to maximum of 0.744, all statistically significant with p < .05, Appendix 1). Homogeneity of
variance-covariance matrices was proven by Box’s m test showing a p-value equal to 0.798. Homogeneity of
variance assessed by Levene’s test was proven for all five subscales (p > .05).
The results of mANOVA showed no statistically significant difference in work achievement between the
three generational cohorts (f(10,146) = 0.805, p = .625). These results support the null hypothesis that there is no
statistically significant difference in the way Generation X, Generation Y, and Generation Z value work
achievement and provide a negative answer to the second research question.
follow-up univariate ANOVAs were performed for each subscale. The results showed no statistically
significant difference for all work achievement except the specificity of performance requirements (Table 4). A set
of pairwise comparisons were performed to further explore the difference between the three generational cohorts.
However, the pairwise comparisons did not show statistically significant differences. These results however
indicated that the value of specificity of performance requirements was slightly increasing from Generation X
(m = 3.77, SD = 0.87) to Generation Y (m = 4.14, SD = 0.73) and then to Generation Z (m = 4.52, SD = .54), but
these differences were not statistically significant.

Table 4: Univariate ANOVAs for Achievement Value Components by Generational Cohort.

Generation Z Generation Z Generation Z ANOVA

p-value
M SD M SD M SD F (2, 76)

Social interaction and support 3.21 1.00 3.49 .80 3.54 .86 .994 .375
Specificity of performance
requirements 3.77 .87 4.14 .73 4.52 .54 3.461* .036
Career development opportunities 3.60 .98 3.95 .80 4.38 .76 2.805 .067
Recognition 3.39 .96 3.61 .84 3.76 .92 .783 .461
Work choice discretion 3.20 .98 3.28 .83 3.64 .75 .722 .489

Note: * indicates a statistically significant difference at p < .05; 5-point Likert scale
 19 Shanna D. Dick/Journal of HRm, vol. XXII, 2/2019, 10-27

7.3 RESEARCH QUESTION THREE

The third research question and corresponding hypotheses were dedicated to investigate whether work
flexibility value differs between generational cohorts.
RQ3 Are there differences in the way Generation X, Generation Y, and Generation Z value flexibility?
H0 There is no statistically significant difference in the way Generation X, Generation Y, and Generation Z
value flexibility.
H1 There is a statistically significant difference in the way Generation X, Generation Y, and Generation Z
value flexibility.
One of the subscales for work flexibility value was travel discretion that received a lower number of responses
(56 compared to 79 for all other subscales) as 23 respondents responded to these questions as inapplicable to
them. Therefore, the total number of cases included in the analysis for flexibility subscale was 56. However, to
check whether this reduction in sample size plays a significant role on the results, the analysis was performed
twice: for 56 responses obtained for these subscales and for 76 responses obtained for discretion in choosing
when and where to work subscales. The results were consistent, so the first approach including all three subscales
as supposed by Prasad et al. (2007) and was reported below.
The mANOVA was useful to examine the third research question and test the corresponding hypotheses.
Before running the mANOVA analysis, the underlying assumptions were tested. There were no significant outliers
in any of the three dependent variables included in flexibility values domain as all mean values were calculated
based on five-point Likert scales, and their minimum and maximum values did not exceed the range from one to
five. Several respondents with the lowest (equal to one) and highest (equal to five) values were included in the
analysis as they were not a result of typos or otherwise invalid data. The normality of the distribution was not
satisfied for all three subscales; however, this violation was not a major one for mANOVA as according to Johnson
& Wichern (2007) this method is robust to non-normality. multicollinearity was assessed by calculating Pearson
correlation coefficients among the three subscales. The test revealed that all subscales are moderately correlated
to each other (Pearson correlation coefficients ranged from a minimum of 0.342 to maximum of 0.689, all
statistically significant with p < .05, Appendix 1). Homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices was proven by
Box’s m test results showing a p-value equal to .145, which is higher than .001 – a borderline for this test.
Homogeneity of variance was assessed using Levene’s test and showed that all three subscales satisfy the
assumption (p > .05).
The results of mANOVA showed no statistically significant difference in work flexibility between the three
generational cohorts (f(6,104) = 0.412, p = .870). follow-up univariate ANOVAs were performed for each
subscale, and the results revealed no statistically significant difference either (Table 5). These results support the
null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference in the way Generation X, Generation Y, and
Generation Z value flexibility in work and provide a negative answer to the third research question.

Table 5: Univariate ANOVAs for flexibility Value Components by Generational Cohort.

Generation Z Generation Z Generation Z ANOVA

p-value
M SD M SD M SD F (2, 76)

Discretion in choosing when to work 3.32 1.14 3.3 .81 3.64 1.03 0.402 .670
Discretion in choosing where to work 3.23 1.18 3.19 1.03 3.29 1.38 0.026 .975
Travel discretion 2.45 1.25 2.15 1.21 2.5 1.66 0.424 .657
Note: * for travel discretion subscale the error df is equal to 53, as there were only 56 respondents who provided a valid answer to this
question.; 5-point Likert scale

8 IMPLICATIONS
first, this study implies there are more similarities between the generations than differences; therefore, HRPs
should be cognizant of individual employee differences and not focus solely on employee generational differences.
Because there is great variability among people, within generational cohort individual differences likely are far greater
than across generational cohort differences (De meuse & mlodzik, 2010; Zhang, Tang, & Tang, 2016). Prudent to
the human resources industry, this implication suggests managers should motivate employees based on their
individualistic needs as opposed to their subscribed generational cohort’s needs. HRPs should provide individualized
consideration to employees as there is a significant relationship between individual motivation and employee
engagement (El Badawy & Bassiouny, 2014). Another noteworthy individual difference is education level. Because
 20 Shanna D. Dick/Journal of HRm, vol. XXII, 2/2019, 10-27

an employee’s education level affects his work values (Li, Liu, & Wan, 2008), HRPs must ensure that managers take
an individualistic approach when managing employees. is implication is congruent with maslow’s hierarchy of
needs theory on the individual pursuit of self-actualization. Individuals, as opposed to generational cohorts, fulfill
the five levels of maslow’s pyramid in the pursuit of self-actualization. Given the individualistic nature of people, the
individual differences highlighted within generations are more significant than the group differences noted across
generations (Davis, Pawlowski & Houston, 2006).
Second, HRPs must recognize stereotyping of generational differences in the workplace. An example stereotype
of generational differences is the trophy mentality of Generation Y in which these employees must receive public
praise and formal recognition through tangible achievement (Stewart et al., 2017). Because there was not a
statistically significant difference in the way the three generations value achievement in the workplace, HRPs should
be aware and monitor the risk of the sweeping generational stereotypes regarding achievement. e mere perception
of generational differences regarding workplace achievement can cause damage to the workforce (De meuse &
mlodzik, 2010). HRPs should educate managers on these generational stereotypes to ensure managerial attitudes and
behaviors are not based on all-encompassing generalizations about employees’ generations as opposed to the
workforce reality where employees should be treated as individuals. Because managerial attitudes and behavior
influence subordinate employees, HRPs should remain vigilant of and sensitive to the generational stereotypes and
make a concerted effort to mitigate them by offering professional development training to managers.
ird, employee flexibility is a critical component of HRPs’ recruiting and retention efforts. e findings from
this study suggest that employees, regardless of their generation, value flexibility in the workplace. Krywulak and
Roberts (2009) posit all employees regardless of their generation want flexibility in the workplace. is concept was
echoed in a research study on the Canadian nurse workforce in which Generation X and Generation Y similarly
valued flexibility (Lavoie-Tremblay, Paquet, Duchesne, Santo, Gavrancic, Courcy & Gagnon, 2010). Generation Y
employees seek employers that have enough flexibility in their benefits and compensation structure to offer
development activities, training, and new challenges (Robyn & du Preez, 2013). When bolstering recruitment
initiatives, human resources professionals should include the organization’s commitment to embrace employee
flexibility. Climate surveys can identify which aspect of flexibility is essential to employees (Li & Hsu, 2016).
Remaining committed to understanding the employee’s interpretation of and need for flexibility in the workplace,
human resources professionals can strengthen retention efforts. Regardless of the generational differences or
similarities, human resources professionals must understand what it takes to recruit and retain individuals for their
workplace.

9 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRACTICE

e findings of this research study provide evidence that there are no significant differences in the work values
between Generation X, Generation Y, and Generation Z. ese findings are supported in the academic literature
(Deal, 2007; De meuse & mlodzik, 2010; Hart et al., 2003; Johnson & Lopes, 2008; Jurkiewicz, 2000; Levy et al.,
2005; Stapleton et al., 2007; Wesner & miller, 2008; Zhang, Tang & Tang, 2016), and they reinforce the individuality
of employees as opposed to stereotypes assigned to the generational cohorts. Employee motivation is an
undocumented, psychological contract between an employer and the employee (Kukreja, 2017), and employee
motivation is a critical component of organizational success (Zameer et al., 2014). is research study was limited
to one employer in the telecommunications industry and may not be indicative of the population as a whole. Because
this research study utilized the quantitative method to gather data, it could be lacking in the personal anecdotes
that are gleaned from face-to-face interviews via the qualitative methodology. Another limitation could be the risk
of system errors as a result of the online environment used to orchestrate the instrument. If there is an insufficient
sample size, there could be a limitation of generalizability. future research could revise this cross-sectional study into
a longitudinal study following the sample of employees over a more extended period of time. finally, additional
research could contain additional demographic questions to include the participant’s educational level, as Li, Liu, and
Wan (2008) posit employees’ education level directly impacts their work values.
It is recommended that HRPs motivate employees based on their individual needs, monitor generational
stereotypes in the multigenerational workforce, and remain committed to the importance of flexibility for all
employees. It is recommended HRPs deliver targeted professional development training to managers on the
importance of coaching employees based on their individual needs, determining the difference between fact and
fiction when it comes to generational stereotypes in the workplace, and valuing the importance of employee
flexibility. finally, it is recommended that HRPs remain vigilant of current employee needs to bolster recruitment
initiatives and strengthen retention efforts.
 21 Shanna D. Dick/Journal of HRm, vol. XXII, 2/2019, 10-27

REFERENCES

Acar, A. B. (2014). Do intrinsic and extrinsic motivation factors differ for Generation X and Generation Y?
International Journal of Business and Social Science, 5(5), 12-21. https://doi.org/10.30845/ijbss
Achilles, W. W., Blaskovich, J., & Pitre, T. J. (2013). The relationship between compensation, motivation, and earn-
ings management. Journal of Applied Business Research, 29(2), 579-587. https://doi.org/10.19030/jabr.v29i2.7658
Adiele, E., & Abraham, N. (2013). Achievement of Abraham maslow’s needs hierarchy theory among teachers:
Implications for human resource management in the secondary school system in Rivers State. Journal of
Curriculum and Teaching, 2(1), 140-153.
https://doi.org/10.5430/jct.v2n1p140
Akkucuk, U., & Turan, C. (2016). mobile use and online preferences of the millennials: A study in Yalova. Journal
of Internet Banking and Commerce, 21(1), 1-11.
Al-Asfour, A., & Lettau, L. (2014). Strategies for leadership styles for multi-generational workforce. Journal of
Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 11(2), 58-69.
Alexander, C. S., & Sysko, J. m. (2013). I’m Gen Y, I love feeling entitled, and it shows. Academy of Educational
Leadership Journal, 17(4), 127-131.
Amayah, A., & Gedro, J. (2014). Understanding generational diversity: Strategic human resource management and
development across the generational “divide.” New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Develop-
ment, 26(2), 36-48. https://doi.org/10.1002/nha3.20061
Anderson, H., Bauer, J., Griffith, J., & Buckley, m. (2017). What works for you may not work for (Gen)me: Limita-
tions of present leadership theories for the new generation. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 245-260.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.08.001
Atan, J., Raghavan, S., & mahmood, N. (2015). Impact of training on employees’ job performance: A case study of
malaysian small medium enterprise. Review of Management, 5(1), 40-50.
Babic, L., Kordic, B., & Babic, J. (2014). Differences in motivation of health care professionals in public and private
health care centers. European Journal of Applied Economics, 11(2), 45-53. https://doi.org/10.5937/sjas11-6957
Becton, J. B., Walker, J. W., & Jones-farmer, A. (2014). Generational differences in workplace behavior. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 44(3), 175-189. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12208
Bencsik, A., Horvath-Csikos, G., & Juhasz, T. (2016). Y and Z generations at workplaces. Journal of Competitiveness,
8(3), 90-106. https://doi.org/10.7441/joc.2016.03.06
Bianchi, E. C. (2014). Entering adulthood in a recession tempers later narcissism. Psychological Science, 25(7), 1429–
1437. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614532818
Bolton, R. N., Parasuraman, A., Hoefnagels, A., migchels, N., Kabadayi, S., Gruber, T., Loureiro, Y.K., & Solnet, D.
(2013). Understanding Generation Y and their use of social media. A review and research agenda. Journal of
Service Management, 24(3), 245–267. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564231311326987
Bush, C. (2017). Leading and motivating Generation Y employees. Radiology Management, 39(2), 19-26.
Campione, W. A. (2015). Corporate offerings: Why aren’t millennials staying? Journal of Applied Business and
Economics, 17(4), 60-75.
Catania, G., & Randall, R. (2013). The relationship between age and intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in workers in
a maltese cultural context. The International Journal of the Arts in Society, 6(2), 31-45.
Chekwa, C., Chukwuanu, m., & Richardson, D. (2013). Generational gap: Intrinsic (nonmonetary) versus extrinsic
(monetary) rewards in the workforce. China -USA Business Review, 12, 414-424.
Chen, J., & Lian, R. (2015). Generational differences in work values in China. Social Behavior and Personality: An
International Journal, 43(4), 567-578. https://doi:10.2224/sbp.2015.43.4.567
Chicca, J., & Shellenbarger, T. (2018). Connecting with Generation Z: Approaches in nursing education. Teaching
and Learning in Nursing, 13(3), 180-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teln.2018.03.008
Chow, A., Galambos, N. L., & Krahn, H. J. (2017). Work values during the transition to adulthood and mid-life
satisfaction: Cascading effects across 25 years. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 41(1), 105-114.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025415608518
Clark, K. R. (2017). managing multiple generations in the workplace. Radiologic Technology, 88(4), 379-396.
Coates, T. L. (2017). Hearing the voices of Generation Y employees: A hermeneutic phenomenological study. Human
Resource Development International, 20(1), 37-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2016.1222486
 22 Shanna D. Dick/Journal of HRm, vol. XXII, 2/2019, 10-27

Cozby, P. C., & Bates, S. C. (2012). Method in behavioral research (11th ed.). New York, NY: mcGraw-Hill.
Davis, J. B., Pawlowski, S. D., & Houston, A. (2006). Work commitments of baby boomers and Gen-Xers in the IT
profession: Generational differences or myths? Journal of Computer Information Systems, 46(3), 43-49.
Deal, J. J. (2007). Retiring the generational gap: How employees young and old can find common ground. Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley.
Delost, m. E., & Nadder, T. S. (2014). Guidelines for initiating a research agenda: Research design and dissemination
of results. Clinical Laboratory Science, 27(4), 237-244.
De meuse, K., & mlodzik, K. (2010). A second look at generational differences in the workforce: Implications for HR
and talent management. People & Strategy, 33(2), 50-58.
DeVaney, S. (2015). Understanding the millennial generation. Journal of Financial Service Professionals, 69(6),
11-14.
Dixon, G., mercado, A., & Knowles, B. (2015). followers and generations in the workplace. Engineering Management
Journal, 25(4), 62-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2013.11431996
Duh, H., & Struwig, m. (2015). Justification of generational cohort segmentation in South Africa. International
Journal of Emerging Markets, 10(1), 89-101. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEm-08-2012-0078
Eastland, R., & Clark, K. R. (2015). managing generational differences in radiology. Radiology Management, 37(3),
52-56.
El Badawy, T. A., & Bassiouny, m. (2014). Employee engagement as a mediator between transformational leadership
and intention to quit. Competition Forum, 12(1), 152-160.
Enns, H. G., Prasad, J., & ferratt, T. W. (2006). Beyond stereotypes of IT professionals: Implications for IT HR
practices. Communications of the ACM, 49(4), 105-109. https://doi.org/10.1145/1121949.1121956
fatima, m., Shafique, m., Qadeer, f., & Ahmad, R. (2015). HR practices and employee performance relationship in
higher education: mediating role of job embeddedness, perceived organizational support and trust. Pakistan
Journal of Statistics and Operation Research, 11(3), 421-439. https://doi.org/10.18187/pjsor.v11i3.882
ferri-Reed, J. (2014). millennializing the workplace. Journal for Quality and Participation, 37(1), 13-14.
froese, f. (2013). Work values of the next generation of business leaders in Shanghai, Tokyo, and Seoul. Asia Pacific
Journal of Management 30(1), 297-315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-011-9271-7
furnham, A. (1982). The protestant work ethic and attitudes toward unemployment. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 55(4), 277-285 http://dx.doi.org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1982.tb00101.x
George, C. (2015). Retaining professional workers: What makes them stay? Employee Relations, 37(1), 102-121.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-10-2013-0151
Giaque, D., Anderfuhren-Biget, S., & Varone, f. (2013). HRm practices, intrinsic motivators, and organizational per-
formance in the public sector. Public Personnel Management, 42(2), 123-150. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0091026013487121
Gordon, P. A. (2017). Exploring generational cohort work satisfaction in hospital nurses. Leadership in Health
Services (1751-1879), 30, 233-248. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHS-02-2016-0008
Gursoy, D., Chi, C. G., & Karadag, E. (2013). Generational differences in work values and attitudes among frontline
and service contact employees. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32, 40-48. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhm.2012.04.002
Hair, J. f., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2004). Multivariate data analysis: International edition
(7th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson, pp. 361-364.
Halperin, I., Pyne, D. B., & martin, D. T. (2015). Threats to internal validity in exercise science: A review of overlooked
confounding variables. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 10(7), 823-829. https://doi.org/
10.1123/ijspp.2014-0566
Hart, P. m., Schembri, C., Bell, C. A., & Armstrong, K. (2003). Leadership, climate, work attitudes, and commitment:
Is generation X really different? Paper presented at the Academy of management meeting, Seattle, WA.
Hernaus, T., & Pološki Vokic, N. (2014). Work design for different generational cohorts. Determining common and
idiosyncratic job characteristics. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 27(4), 615-641. https://doi.org/
10.1108/JOCm-05-2014-0104
Hillman, D. R. (2014). Understanding multigenerational work-value conflict resolution. Journal of Workplace
Behavioral Health, 29(3), 240-257. https://doi.org/10.1080/15555240.2014.933961
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (1991). Generations: The history of America’s future, 1584 to 2069. New York, NY: morrow.
 23 Shanna D. Dick/Journal of HRm, vol. XXII, 2/2019, 10-27

Islam, R., & Ahmed, S. (2014). Do managers and employees perceive motivating factors differently in malaysia?
International Journal of Business and Systems Research, 8(1), 72-90. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBSR.2014.057977
Jerome, N. (2013). Application of the maslow’s hierarchy of need theory; impacts and implications on organiza-
tional culture, human resource and employee’s performance. International Journal of Business and Management
Invention, 2(3), 39-45.
Jiri, B. (2016). The employees of baby boomer’s generation, generation X, generation Y, and generation Z in selected
Czech corporations as conceivers of development and competitiveness in their corporation. Journal of Competi-
tiveness, 8(4), 105-123. https://doi.org/10.7441/joc.2016.04.07
Johnson J. A., & Lopes, J. (2008). The international workforce, revisited. Organization Development Journal, 26(1),
31-36.
Johnson, m., & Johnson, L. (2016). Signposts: Harbingers of things to come. Generations, incorporated: From Boomers
to Linksters – managing the friction between generations at work. New York, NY: AmACOm.
Joniakova, Z., & Blstakova, J. (2015). Age management as contemporary challenge to human resources management
in Slovak companies. Procedia Economics and Finance, 35, 202-209.
Jora, R., & Khan, S. (2014). motivating multigenerational human resource. International Journal of Organizational
Behavior & Management Perspectives, 3, 1276-1281.
Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2000). Generation X and the public employee. Public Personnel Management, 29(1), 55-74.
https://doi.org/10.1177/009102600002900105
Kaur, A. (2013). maslow’s need hierarchy theory: Applications and criticisms. Global Journal of Management and
Business Studies, 3, 1061-1064.
Karsh, B., & Templin, C. (2013). How millennials will rewrite the rules of management. MWorld,12(4), 36-38.
Keys, Y. (2014). Looking ahead to our next generation of nurse leaders: Generation X Nurse managers. Journal of
Nursing Management, 22(1), 97-105. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.12198
Khan, A., Khan, I., & Zakir, Z. (2016). Relationship between employee motivation and turnover intention: Empiri-
cal study of traffic police of District Charsadda. Sarhad Journal of Management Sciences, 2(2), 19-30.
Kilber, J., Barclay, A., & Ohmer, D. (2014). Seven tips for managing Generation Y. Journal of Management Policy and
Practice, 15(4), 80-91.
Kong, H., Wang, S., & fu, X. (2015). meeting career expectation. Can it enhance job satisfaction. International Jour-
nal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 27(1), 147-168. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHm-08-2013-0353
Kroth, A., & Young, S. J. (2014). New professionals, new desires: What millennials want in their work. Recreational
Sports Journal, 38(1), 23-32.
Krywulak, T., & Roberts, m. (2009). Winning the “Generation Wars”: making the most of generational differences
and similarities in the workplace. The Conference Board of Canada (November 2009).
Kukreja, J. (2017). Internal marketing: a prelude or an outcome of employee motivation? BVIMSR’s Journal of
Management Research, 9(1), 54–59.
Kultalahti, S., & Liisa Viitala, R. (2014). Sufficient challenges and a weekend ahead -Generation Y describing moti-
vation at work. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 27(4), 569-582. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCm-
05-2014-0101
Latkovikj, m. T., Popovska, m. B., & Popovski, V. (2016). Work values and preferences of the new workforce. HRm
implications for macedonian millennial generation. Journal of Advanced Management Science, 4(4), 312-319.
https://doi.org/10.12720/joams.4.4.312-319
Lavoie-Tremblay, m., Paquet, m., Duchesne, m. A., Santo, A., Gavrancic, A., Courcy, f., & Gagnon, S. (2010).
Retaining nurses and other hospital workers: An intergenerational perspective of work climate. Journal of
Nursing Scholarship,42(4), 414-422. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2010.01370.x
Ledimo, O. (2015). Generational differences in organizational justice perceptions: An exploratory investigation
across three generational cohorts. Foundations of Management, 7(1), 129-142. https://doi.org/10.1515/fman-
2015-0031
Lee, m. T., Raschke, R. L., & Louis, R. S. (2016). Exploiting organizational culture: Configurations for value through
knowledge worker’s motivation. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 5442-5447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbus-
res.2016.04.152
Levy, L., Carroll, B., francoeur, J., & Logue, m. (2005). The generational mirage? A pilot study into the perceptions
of leadership of Generations X and Y. Sydney: Hudson Global Resources Li, m., & Hsu, C. (2016). Linking
customer-employee exchange and employee innovative behavior. International Journal of Hospitality Manage-
ment, 56, 87-97. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ijhm.2016.04.015
 24 Shanna D. Dick/Journal of HRm, vol. XXII, 2/2019, 10-27

Li, W., Liu, X., & Wan, W. (2008). Demographic effects of work values and their management implications. Journal
of Business Ethics, 81, 875-885. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9554-6
Locmele-Lunova, R., & Cirjevskis, A. (2017). Exploring the multigenerational workforce’s personal and work values:
the future research agenda. Journal of Business Management, 13, 7-19.
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(S1), S123-S157. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1913
mannheim, K. (1952). Essays in the sociology of knowledge. London, UK: Routledge, & Kegan Paul.
maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. https://doi.org/
10.1037/h0054346
mencl, J., & Lester, S. W. (2014). more alike than different: What generations value and how the values affect
employee workplace perceptions. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21(3), 257-272. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1548051814529825
montana, P. J., & Lenaghan, J. A. (1999). What motivates and matters most to Generation X and Y? Journal of
Career Planning and Employment, 59(4), 27-30.
muthuveloo, R., Basbous, O. K., Ping, T. A., & Long, C. S. (2013). Antecedents of employee engagement in the man-
ufacturing sector. American Journal of Applied Sciences, 10(12), 1546-1552. https://doi.org/
10.3844/ajassp.2013.1546.1552
Neckermann, S., & frey, B. S. (2013). And the winner is…? The motivating power of employee awards. Journal of
Socio-Economics, 46, 66-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2013.06.006
Özçelik, G. (2015). Engagement and retention of the millennial generation in the workplace through internal bran-
ding. International Journal of Business and Management, 10(3), 99-107. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v10n3p99
Padayachee, K. (2018). The myths and realities of generational cohort theory on ICT integration in education:
A South African perspective. The African Journal of Information Systems, 19(1), 54-84.
Pandta, J., Deri, L., Galambos, A., & Galambos, T. (2015). Two-factor analysis of employee motivation at postal
traffic department in Novi Sad. European Journal of Economics Studies,12(2), 101-111. https://doi.org/
10.13187/es.2015.12.101
Peachey, J., Bruton, L., & Wells, J. (2014). Examining the influence of transformational leadership, organizational
commitment, job embeddedness, and job search behaviors on turnover intentions in intercollegiate athletics.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 35(8), 740-755. http://dx.doi.org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.1108/LODJ-
10-2012-0128
Peltokorpi, V., Allen, D., & froese, f. (2015). Organizational embeddedness, turnover intentions, and voluntary
turnover: The moderating effects of employee demographic characteristics and value orientations. Journal of Or-
ganizational Behavior, 36(2), 292-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1981
Peters, S., Lau, T., & Ng, C. (2014). Determinants of job satisfaction and ethical behaviour towards organisational
commitment - a review. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 4(7), 573-591.
https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v4-i7/1052
Popovska, m. B., Latkovic, m. T., Jakimovski, J., & Popovski, V. (2015). Work values of the macedonian work-
force. Journal of Advanced Management Science, 3(2), 158-161. https://doi.org/10.12720/joams.3.2.158-161
Prasad, J., Enns, H. G., & ferratt, T. W. (2007). One size does not fit all: managing IT employees’ employment arrange-
ments. Human Resource Management, 46(3), 349-372. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20168
Puiu, S. (2016). Generation Z: A new type of consumers. Young Economists Journal, 13(27), 67-78.
Queiri, A., Yusoff, W. f. W., & Dwaikat, N. (2014). Generation-Y employees’ turnover: Work-values fit perspec-
tive. International Journal of Business and Management, 9(11), 199-213. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v9n11p199
Radford, K., & Chapman, G. (2015). Are all workers influenced to stay by similar factors, or should different reten-
tion strategies be implemented? Comparing younger and older aged-care workers in Australia. Australian Bul-
letin of Labour, 41(1), 58-81.
Rajput, N., marwah, P., Balli, R., & Gupta, m. (2013). managing multigenerational workforce: Challenge for millen-
nium managers. International Journal of Marketing and Technology, 3(2), 132-149.
Rakic, T., & Zivkovic, S. (2017). Hierarchy of needs and correlation connections as an important element of successful
employees’ motivation. Ekonomika, 63(4), 61-73. https://doi.org/10.5937/ekonomika1704061R
Ramkumar, N., & Priyal, V. V. (2013). Examining the relationship between positive aura, interpersonal effectiveness,
and generation gap. Journal of Contemporary Research in Management, 8(4), 61-74.
 25 Shanna D. Dick/Journal of HRm, vol. XXII, 2/2019, 10-27

Rani, N., & Samuel, A. (2016). A study on generational differences in work values and person organization fit and
its effect on turnover intention of Generation Y in India. Management Research Review, 39(12). https://doi.org/
10.1108/mRR-10-2015-0249
Robyn, A., & du Preez, R. (2013). Intention to quit amongst Generation Y academics in higher education. SA Jour-
nal of Industrial Psychology, 39(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/:10.4102/sajip.v39i1.110
Sandrick, C., Contacos-Sawyer, & Thomas, B. (2014). Effects of long-term care insurance on employee motivation,
satisfaction, and retention. Competition Forum, 12, 228-233.
Seemiller, C., & Grace, m. (2016). Generation Z goes to college. San francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Shaw, H. (2013). Sticking points: How to get 4 generations working together in the 12 places they come apart. Carol
Stream, IL: Tyndale House.
Singer, H., & Abramson, P. (1973). Values of business administrators: A longitudinal study. Psychological Reports,
33(1), 43-46. http://dx.doi.org.proxy1.ncu.edu/10.2466/pr0.1973.33.1.43
Stanton, R. (2017). Communicating with employees: Resisting the stereotypes of generational cohorts in the work-
place. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 60(3), 256-272. https://doi.org/10.1109/
TPC.2017.2702078
Stapleton, J. L., Wen, H. J., Starrett, D., & Kilburn, m. (2007). Generational differences in using online learning
systems. Human Systems Management, 26(2), 99-109.
Stewart, J. S., Oliver, E. G., Cravens, K. S., & Oishi, S. (2017). managing millennials: Embracing generational
differences. Business Horizons, 60(1), 45-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2016.08.011
Sutton-Bell, N., Hamilton, H. C., mcminn, N. A., & Bell, N. (2014). Bringing out the best in every generation. Insights
to A Changing World Journal, 2014(1), 64-80.
Tang, T., & Tzeng, J. (1992). Demographic correlates of the protestant work ethic. Journal of Psychology, 126(2),
163-170. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1992.10543351
Tillott, S., Walsh, K., & moxham, L. (2013). Encouraging engagement at work to improve retention. Nursing
Management, 19(10), 27-31. PmID: 23577562
Tulgan, B. (2013). How to bring out the best in today’s talent. Professional Safety, 58(10), 38-40.
Twenge, J. m., & Kasser, T. (2013). Generational changes in materialism and work centrality, 1976–2007: Associa-
tions with temporal changes in societal insecurity and materialistic role modeling. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 39(7), 883-897. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213484586
Twenge, J. m., Gentile, B., & Campbell, W. K. (2015). Birth cohort differences in personality. In m. mikulincer, P. R.
Shaver, m. L. Cooper, & R. J. Larsen (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Vol. 4. Personal-
ity processes and individual differences (pp. 535-551). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14343-024
Ueda, Y., & Ohzono, Y. (2013). Effect of work values on work outcomes: Investigating differences between job
categories. International Journal of Business Administration, 3(2), 98-111.
Vanmeter, R. A., Grisaffe, D. B., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. (2013). Generation Y’s ethical ideology and its
potential workplace implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(1), 93-109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-
1505-1
Wang, Y., & Peng, Y. (2015). An alternative approach to understanding generational differences. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 8(3), 390-395. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.56
Weirich, B. (2017). A millennial leader’s views on the millennial workforce. Nurse Leader, 15, 137-139.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mnl.2016.12.003
Wesner, m. S., & miller, T. (2008). Boomers and millennials have much in common. Organization Development
Journal, 26(3), 89-96.
Wiedmer, T. (2015). Generations do differ: Best practices in leading traditionalists, boomers, and generations X, Y,
and Z. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 82(1), 51-58.
Woodward, E., Vongswasdi, P., & more, E. (2015). Generational diversity at work: A systematic review of the
research. INSEAD Working Papers Collection, 48, 1-71.
Yang, S. B., & Guy, m. E. (2006). GenXers versus Boomers: Work motivators and management implications. Public
Performance & Management Review, 29(3), 276-284. https://doi.org/10.2753/PmR1530-9576290302
Yarbrough, S., martin, P., Alfred, D., & mcNeill, C. (2016). Professional values, job satisfaction, career development,
and intent to stay. Nursing Ethics 24(6), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733015623098
 26 Shanna D. Dick/Journal of HRm, vol. XXII, 2/2019, 10-27

Zameer, H., Ali, S., Nisar, W., & Amir, m. (2014). The impact of the motivation on the employees’ performance in
beverage industry of Pakistan. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Manage-
ment Sciences, 4(1), 293-298. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARAfmS/v4-i1/630
Zargar, m. S., Vandenberghe, C., marchand, C., & Ayed, A. K. (2014). Job scope, affective commitment, and turnover:
The moderating role of growth need strength. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(2),
280-302. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12046
 27 Shanna D. Dick/Journal of HRm, vol. XXII, 2/2019, 10-27

Appendix 1: Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Work Values Subscales

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Job security
2. Pay .661**
3. Benefits .593** .697**
4. Social interaction and support .409** .383** .396**
5. Specificity of performance .744** .637** .570** .489**
requirements
6. Career development .693** .692** .571** .485** .763**
opportunities
7. Recognition .512** .540** .387** .681** .539** .594**
8. Work choice discretion .519** .560** .501** .402** .476** .546** .499**
9. Discretion in choosing when .500** .654** .388** .328** .510** .527** .469** .670**
to work
10. Discretion in choosing .502** .672** .476** .340** .394** .526** .514** .689** .640**
where to work
11. Travel discretion .301* .451** .221 .088 .167 .369** .225 .342** .524** .441**
Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01