Millennials Manuscript

394 views

Published on

A Multi-Cohort Examination of Generational Differences in
Competency-based Performance and Engagement

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
394
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Millennials Manuscript

  1. 1. Human Performance ee rP Fo Journal: Manuscript Type: Draft Original Article ie Keywords: Human Performance ev Manuscript ID: rR A Multi-Cohort Examination of Generational Differences in Competency-based Performance and Engagement generational differences, employee performance, employee engagement, Millennial employees w ly On URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hhup Email: hupeditor@pdri.com
  2. 2. Page 1 of 31 Generational Differences Running head: GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES IN COMPETENCY PERFORMANCE rP Fo A Multi-Cohort Examination of Generational Differences in ee Competency-based Performance and Engagement w ie ev rR ly On 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Human Performance URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hhup Email: hupeditor@pdri.com 1
  3. 3. Human Performance Generational Differences 2 Abstract This study investigated potential differences between Millennial-generation and older employees’ competency-based performance and engagement using both cross-sectional and agedefined cohort samples. Data were obtained from 3766 customer service employees and their managers in a cross-organizational sample. Ratings of Millennials’ overall performance was rP Fo comparable with their counterparts from previous generations. When examining differences at the competency level, Millennials outperformed older employees in learning ability and adaptability but performed lower on a larger number of competencies relating to work ethic, selfmanagement, and interpersonal skills. Our study suggests a complex interplay in the relationship ee between performance and generation, with each generation leveraging different strengths to rR achieve similar levels of overall performance. We discuss implications of our findings for coaching, training, and selecting a multi-generational workforce. w ie ev ly On 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 2 of 31 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hhup Email: hupeditor@pdri.com
  4. 4. Page 3 of 31 Generational Differences 3 A Multi-Cohort Examination of Generational Differences in Competency-based Performance and Engagement Within the context of a strong interest in actively recruiting, managing and leveraging the skills of a diverse employee workforce, organizations have displayed increasing interest in and have drawn broader implications from research into potential distinctions among employee rP Fo subgroups, and generational effects have received extensive attention in recent years. This attention is likely due to the impending retirements of a large Baby Boom generation, which in turn has created an imbalance between jobs to be filled, and sufficiently-skilled new workforce entrants to fill them. This degree of imbalance is such that growth in the labor force itself may be ee threatened in the forthcoming decades (Toossi, 2007). This excess of employee “demand” may rR have expanded the proportion of candidates from the newest generations who are considered viable for employment. Because of this, organizations may face pressure to be less selective in ev who they hire; instead, they must recognize and prepare for a new generation “as is,” including their strengths and weaknesses in terms of on-the-job performance. ie The generation currently entering the workforce, and therefore a primary focus of recent w attention, has been defined as the “Millennial” generation, with birth years between 1977 and On 2000. Similar to prior generations defined using a cohort-based approach to categorization, Millennials are classified based on the premise that the values and behaviors of individuals ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Human Performance within this cohort would be similarly shaped by defining events, most notably for this particular generation the 9/11 attacks and the emergent omnipresence of the Internet (Howe & Strauss, 2007). Although inherent conceptual and methodological risks with a generational perspective on employee categorization have been noted by numerous authors (e.g., Deal, 2007; Macky, Gardner, & Forsyth, 2008; Sullivan, 2008), it nonetheless remains a salient area of interest for URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hhup Email: hupeditor@pdri.com
  5. 5. Human Performance Generational Differences 4 organizations facing tangible challenges with staffing and retaining the workforces that will define their future productivity and growth. With organizations seeking detailed guidance on these issues, it is important for researchers to conduct targeted investigations on this topic to inform research-guided recommendations, as a counterpoint to the extensive but not peerreviewed publications, many of which are based on anecdotal and/or small-scale examples. rP Fo The popular press frequently asserts that the Millennial generation differs notably from earlier generations in terms of workplace preferences and performance. Millennial workers reportedly prefer more collaborative work settings, adapt more quickly to change, are less engaged in their work, and are more likely to change jobs frequently (e.g., Hulett, 2006). ee Other popular publications suggest Millennials prefer time on the job for socializing with friends, rR want all processes (e.g., job training) tightly integrated with current technology, and demand constant praise and recognition for their workplace contributions. The purpose of this paper is to ev empirically-investigate these common stereotypes to uncover whether they are overgeneralizations or whether they accurately reflect some observable differences in behavior ie between Millennials and the generations that came before them. w A secondary aim of this paper is to provide additional context for interpreting the data. In On addition to comparing behaviors of Millennial and older groups within a multi-year sample, we partitioned the available samples into three timeframes based on when the data were gathered. ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 4 of 31 We then used the age of Millennials in the present day to classify employees from each timeframe into equivalent age categories. Finally, we compared the magnitude of performance and engagement effects between these timeframes, in an attempt to disentangle generation effects from the conflating effects of age. Given that the concept of a “generation gap” did not arise with the Millennial generation – Deal (2007) provides quotations indicating signs of such URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hhup Email: hupeditor@pdri.com
  6. 6. Page 5 of 31 Generational Differences 5 perceived distinctions as early as 400 B.C. – a cohort-based perspective may provide insights into whether and how current effects differ from effects obtained in prior comparisons. Job Performance of Millennials Compared to earlier generations, Millennials are often viewed as more difficult to manage and retain as employees. While a moderate degree of research has been conducted rP Fo regarding the work preferences and motivations of Millennials (e.g., Rawlins, Indvik, & Johnson, 2008; Taylor, Morin, Parker, Cohn, & Wang, 2009), very little empirical research exists regarding the relative job performance of younger generations as compared to their predecessors (Macky et al., 2008). In one of the few empirical studies to investigate this issue for Generation ee X, the generation immediately preceding Millennials, Sessa, Kabacoff, Deal, and Brown (2007) rR compared multisource feedback ratings of leaders from various generations. Due to the small sample sizes available for Millennial leaders (based on the small number of individuals ev achieving a leadership role early in their career), they were not able to include this group in their comparisons. However, for Generation X leaders Sessa and her colleagues observed stronger ie usage of individualistic rather than collectivist leadership styles. Although either of these styles w may be effective in certain employment settings, this finding does suggest that Generation X On employees may differ from the preceding generations in terms of how they interact and work with others. ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Human Performance In terms of the Millennial generation specifically, but based on survey findings rather than structured performance information, jobfox (as cited by American Society for Public Administration, 2008) found that only 20% of corporate recruiters considered Millennials “generally great performers” and gave much higher ratings to those in other generational categories (e.g., 58% had highly favorable perceptions of Generation X workers). These URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hhup Email: hupeditor@pdri.com
  7. 7. Human Performance Generational Differences 6 perceptions align with many of the anecdotal remarks regarding the job performance of Millennials found in the popular press and trade journals. For example, Hulett (2006) reported that Millennials are strong multi-taskers and agile learners, drawing upon their interactions with technology from an early age. Because the formal literature on generational differences in job performance is limited, research in the area of age and job performance may also be informative. rP Fo Because Millennials are also currently the youngest generation, our hypotheses will also draw upon the more developed literature surrounding age differences in job performance, while recognizing the importance of addressing the conflating nature of age versus generation effects. Because we are unable to conclusively separate Millennials from younger employees, however, ee for our formal hypotheses we use the phrase “Millennial/Younger” to refer to this subgroup. rR One approach to partially address the issue of determining which effects are due to generation and which are due to age is to compare the current Millennials cohort (based on their ev current age range within the employee population) with similarly-aged cohorts for whom performance information was gathered at earlier points in time. Specifically, we compare the ie current cohort of Millennials (birth years of 1977 and later or on average, a maximum age of 31 w in the most recent studies available for our analysis sample) to individuals 31 years of age and On younger in datasets gathered between 2002 and 2004 (birth years of 1972 and later) and between 1997 and 1999 (birth years of 1967 and later). The limited research into differences by ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 6 of 31 generation on competency-based job performance does not allow us to hypothesize specific effects; however, we view it as a potentially informative research question regarding how “young” employees in the current 2007-2009 workforce (i.e., Millennials) compare to “young” employees in the workforces of 2002-2004 and 1997-1999. These latter workforces would include a proportion of Millennials, but they would also include members of the previous URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hhup Email: hupeditor@pdri.com
  8. 8. Page 7 of 31 Generational Differences 7 generation, Generation X. The “Older” categorization also varies within these cohorts such that in the more recent sample this aligns directly with the Generation X/Millennial transition; however, in the earlier cohorts the transition to “Older” as defined by age includes only the earlier portion of Generation X rather than that full generation. Job Performance and Age rP Fo Research into age-related differences in overall job effectiveness (e.g., McEvoy & Cascio, 1989; Ng & Feldman, 2008) has generally detected low-magnitude positive linear relationships between these variables. In the most recent large-scale investigation of these relationships, a meta-analysis conducted by Ng and Feldman (2008), the corrected correlation between age and ee supervisor-rated core task performance was estimated to be 0.03. However, these authors also rR observed substantial variability in this relationship, suggesting that different facets of job performance may be predicted to varying degrees. Through subsequent moderator analyses, they ev observed correlations ranging from -0.04 for performance in training programs to 0.28 for punctuality (reverse-coded from tardiness). This pattern of findings suggests that exploring age- ie performance relationships, as well as generation-performance relationships, at an overall level w may obscure a more varied set of linkages existing among sub-elements of job performance (Cleveland & Lim, 2007). On In the current research, we seek to expand upon the potential limitations of an exclusive ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Human Performance focus on overall performance by utilizing a competency framework to attempt further explication of the complex age-performance relationship. Competency-based approaches to defining individual characteristics linked to job success are important foundations for understanding and addressing differences among employee groups because, in comparison to more traditional taskbased approaches, they are viewed to be superior in informing training and development-oriented URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hhup Email: hupeditor@pdri.com
  9. 9. Human Performance Generational Differences 8 HR applications (Schippmann et al., 2000). Drawing upon previous research where applicable and to a lesser extent, on popular characterizations related to generational issues, we propose several hypotheses regarding job performance differences among generational categories. First, we identified Applied Learning, or assimilating and applying new job-related information in a timely manner, as a competency linked closely to fluid intelligence, which has rP Fo been shown to decrease for older adults (e.g., Horn, 1982) and to reach maximum levels for an individual in his or her early twenties (e.g., Schaie, 1996). Accordingly, we predicted that performance in this competency would be higher for Millennial/Younger employees. Hypothesis 1: Applied Learning performance will be higher for ee Millennial/Younger than for Older employees. rR Certain competencies are reflective of personality constructs which differ by age, with Adaptability being one such example. Adaptability is defined in competency terms as ev maintaining effectiveness when experiencing major changes in work responsibilities or environment, and making effective adjustments to new work conditions. We identified Openness ie to Experience as a related personality facet which has been shown to decrease for older w individuals (e.g., Roberts, Robins, Caspi, & Trzesniewski, 2003), guiding our prediction for this On competency. Hypothesis 2: Adaptability performance will be higher for Millennial/Younger than for Older employees. ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 8 of 31 Conscientiousness has been shown to increase for older individuals (e.g., Roberts et al., 2003), which may have implications for work activities drawing heavily upon this attribute. In addition, the response categories of “Work Ethic” and “Morality/Ethics/Beliefs” were among the most commonly-cited distinctions between generational categories from a recent survey URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hhup Email: hupeditor@pdri.com
  10. 10. Page 9 of 31 Generational Differences 9 conducted on the topic by the Pew Research Center (Taylor et al., 2009). In Deal’s research (2007), the value of Integrity was also identified as a top ten most important value by only 39% of “late Generation Xers” (overlapping in birth years with the current characterization of Millennials) as compared to an average of 68% for the preceding four generational categories. Based on these findings, we predicted that performance on the competencies of Work Standards rP Fo (defined as setting high standards of performance for oneself and for others and taking responsibility for work outcomes) and Integrity (defined as adhering to social, ethical, and organizational norms and to codes of acceptable conduct) would be higher for Older individuals. Hypothesis 3: Integrity performance will be higher for Older than for ee Millennial/Younger employees. rR Hypothesis 4: Work Standards performance will be higher for Older than for Millennial/Younger employees. ev Anecdotes and many of the popular press publications cite a high degree of comfort by Millennials for group-oriented activities and frequent communication with others. However, our ie prediction for the competency Collaboration, defined as working effectively and cooperatively w with others and establishing and maintaining good working relationships, is guided by the On finding of Sessa et al. (2007) that later-generation individuals were more likely to use an individual rather than a consensual interaction style, as well as by the common characterization ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Human Performance of the Millennial group as a “me” generation (e.g., Macey & Schneider, 2008). It may be the case that group interactions in a social setting, often conducted remotely using technology, may not translate into effectiveness interacting directly with others (of a more varied age range than one’s peers) for interdependent tasks in a work setting. URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hhup Email: hupeditor@pdri.com
  11. 11. Human Performance Generational Differences 10 Hypothesis 5: Collaboration performance will be higher for Older than for Millennial/Younger employees. We also investigated exploratory research questions related to several additional competencies commonly identified as important for these roles, Communication, Customer Orientation, Decision Making, Managing Work, and Initiative. For these competencies, we did rP Fo not propose a priori hypotheses due to the limited insight provided by existing research. We also explored potential differences in Overall Performance – we do agree with authors (e.g., Cleveland & Lim, 2007) suggesting that such a level of analysis can obscure more meaningful and interpretable effects at the competency level. However, we nonetheless included this analysis ee facet in order to facilitate comparisons with other research and to explore the possibility that rR competency effects may counterbalance in their contribution to overall job effectiveness. Engagement ev Macey and Schneider (2008) proposed a model of employee engagement that distinguishes three components: a psychological state, a manifestation of behaviors, and a ie disposition. The behavioral aspect is the element of engagement perhaps most closely linked to w popular press perceptions regarding Millennials. Behaviors such as putting in extra effort on the On job, seeking out opportunities to make contributions to the workplace, taking initiative, and intentions to stay with an organization are all associated with these behavioral aspects of ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 10 of 31 engagement. This view of engagement is shared by most industry approaches to engagement and is often conceptualized as a combination of satisfaction and involvement (Wefald & Downey, 2008). The popular press is replete with anecdotal examples stating that Millennials are disengaged. For example, a Business Week article (Pallavi, 2005) used terms such as spoiled, URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hhup Email: hupeditor@pdri.com
  12. 12. Page 11 of 31 Generational Differences 11 overindulged, disengaged, and self-absorbed to describe this generation. Related to these conceptions, Millennials are often perceived as job hoppers that do not expect long-term relationships with a single employer (Alsop, 2008). Alsop contends that these individuals grew up in an environment that rewarded and catered to individual interests and that they are therefore more likely to seek out environments that offer flexibility and work life balance. The argument is rP Fo made that because Millennials expect to have their needs catered to, they are not as likely to be loyal to a single organization, to accept criticism, or to take initiative (Knowledge@W.P.Carey, 2008). The consulting firm BlessingWhite (2008) conducted a global survey of over 7500 employees and reported that a greater percentage of Millennials across a wide range of ee geographic regions were disengaged as compared to their counterparts from other generations. rR These findings translate into views that Millennials are predisposed to be less engaged and are therefore more difficult to manage than their colleagues from previous generations. To ev counter this perceived effect, managers are often encouraged to adjust their leadership styles to these so called ‘unique’ aspects of Millennials’ needs (Alsop, 2008) and accordingly, ie organizations appear to be continually seeking prescriptions for dealing with this generation. w Research on the relationship between employee engagement and tenure and age has been On mixed. Following a review of the literature on employee engagement, tenure, and age, a report by The Conference Board (Gibbons, 2006) found trends indicating that employee engagement ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Human Performance was linked to length of service and that factors influencing engagement were likely to shift as employees aged. For example, they reported a frequent finding that employees early in their tenure with an organization were more likely to be engaged than those with moderate levels of tenure and that older employees were likely to be employed longer by their current employer than younger employees. Harris Interactive (2005, as cited in Gibbons, 2006) found that a larger URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hhup Email: hupeditor@pdri.com
  13. 13. Human Performance Generational Differences 12 percentage of employees over the age of 55 agreed with the statement “a great deal of my pride comes from my work” than did employees under the age of 35. Based on this collective although not entirely uniform set of prior research, we predict higher engagement levels for Older employees. Hypothesis 6: Engagement will be higher for Older than for Millennial/Younger rP Fo employees. Method Our research sample includes data gathered from customer service employees (engagement) and their managers (performance) from 19 organizations. Employees completed a ee proprietary measure of employee engagement. Collection of competency-based performance data rR followed a consistent approach involving manager rating sessions preceded by frame-ofreference and rater error training. In these sessions, supervisors evaluated employees using 4 to 6 ev behavioral statements for each of 8 to 12 competencies. These competencies were established through job analytic activities which included interviews, job observations, focus groups, ie surveys, confirmation surveys, and stakeholder reviews. Performance ratings were utilized for w research purposes only and were described to participants as such; ratings were not made On available to the client organizations and no administrative decisions were possible on the basis of the information. Within each organization, we standardized ratings such that performance ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 12 of 31 reflected an employee’s performance relative to others within their respective organizations. Our analysis sample size comprises 3766 employees with age data available; of these individuals, 1478 (39.2%) were classified as Millennial/Younger employees based on their birthdates of 1977 or later and 2288 (60.8%) were classified as Older employees based on birthdates of 1976 or earlier. Although our “Older” group in fact includes individuals from a URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hhup Email: hupeditor@pdri.com
  14. 14. Page 13 of 31 Generational Differences 13 range of preceding generations (e.g., Generation X and Baby Boomers), due to the largely exploratory nature of our study we wished to focus our analysis on the distinctions between the Millennial generations and all previous generations as a set. Our study investigates three types of research questions: first, main effects of competency-based performance by generation; second, main effects of engagement by generation; and third, changes in the magnitude of these effects rP Fo from the 1997-1999 to the 2002-2004 and to the 2007-2009 timeframe. Measures Engagement. The engagement measure used was the E3, a proprietary 17-item standardized survey developed by the consulting firm Development Dimensions International ee (DDI). This survey measures employees’ perceptions of personal meaning and motivation in rR their work, positive interpersonal support from their company and work unit, and efficiency within their work environment. ev Competency-Based Job Performance. Competencies used as the basis for employee performance ratings were drawn from the competency library of DDI. This taxonomy has been ie developed and refined for approximately 40 years based on job analyses conducted across a w range of organizations, positions, and industries. Competencies were developed to be clearly On defined, independent from other competencies, and behaviorally-observable. DDI has evaluated and observed substantial correspondence between this competency model and generalized ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Human Performance models such as those developed by the National Skill Standards Board (NSSB; Herman, Bramucci, Piala, & Litman, 2000) and the Occupational Information Network (O*NET; Peterson, Mumford, Borman, Jeanneret, & Fleishman, 1999), as well as numerous models from other consulting firms and individual organizations. For this study, we limited our group comparisons to the most frequently-observed competencies based on job analyses conducted on URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hhup Email: hupeditor@pdri.com
  15. 15. Human Performance Generational Differences 14 customer-facing positions as listed in Table 1. We also included an index of Overall Performance, which was calculated by unit-weighting and averaging all individual competencies included within each study. Analysis/Results In order to avoid excessive influence over the findings by a particular organization’s rP Fo sample, we randomly sampled within organization such that no more than 1000 individuals were included from each. Although this sampling approach reduced our analysis sample sizes, we viewed it as an appropriate procedure to potentially increase the cross-organizational generalizability of the Millennial/Younger-Older employee comparative results. ee We conducted ANCOVAs comparing competency-based performance and engagement rR between Millennial/Younger and Older-generation employees. In these comparisons, in order to reduce the potentially conflating effects of job tenure, we included this variable, measured in ev months, as a covariate in the analyses. The evaluation level for this covariate varied slightly between competencies based on sample variations, with a minimum value of 22.2 months and a Competency-based Job Performance w maximum value of 27.5 months. ie On Group-level sample sizes for these comparisons ranged between 650 (for Millennial/Younger employees on Integrity) and 1866 (for Older employees on Building ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 14 of 31 Customer Loyalty and Overall Performance). We converted F-statistics to d-values to compute standardized effect size differences for all comparisons; positive d-values indicate higher performance for Millennial/Younger employees as compared to Older employees. Results for our performance comparisons are presented in Table 1, including significance levels and effect sizes URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hhup Email: hupeditor@pdri.com
  16. 16. Page 15 of 31 Generational Differences 15 for the comparisons—all results discussed below are significant unless otherwise noted. A graphical display of the mean differences between the two groups is also presented in Figure 1. For Overall Performance, group differences were not significant and the resulting effect size was small (d = -0.045). We observed significant performance differences in the expected direction favoring Millennial/Younger employees for 2 of the competencies included in the rP Fo analyses: Applied Learning (Hypothesis 1) and Adaptability (Hypothesis 2), p < .01. In addition, for Managing Work (exploratory research question), we found a small trend favoring Millennial/Younger employees but it fell short of significance (p = .07). We observed performance differences favoring Older employees for 3 of the competencies hypothesized, ee supporting Hypotheses 3, 4, and 5 (i.e., Collaboration, Work Standards, and Integrity). In rR addition, Older employees outperformed Millennial/Younger employees on two additional competencies explored but not directly hypothesized: Customer Orientation and Initiative. ev Engagement For Engagement (Hypothesis 6), we observed significant differences between the groups, ie after controlling for job tenure, such that Older employees reported stronger levels than w Millennials/Younger workers, F = 6.28, p < 0.01, d = 0.108. Cross-Cohort Analyses On A key challenge when evaluating generational differences is to disentangle these effects ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Human Performance from effects due to age alone. In an attempt to partially separate these two types of effects and as a secondary analysis to the overall (across all validation study samples regardless of year conducted) group differences reported above, we split the sample into three portions based on the timeframe when the data were gathered, and we classified employees from each timeframe into Millennial-equivalent age categories. That is, because Millennial employees in our most recent URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hhup Email: hupeditor@pdri.com
  17. 17. Human Performance Generational Differences 16 sample timeframe (2007 to 2009) were 31 years of age or younger, we compared employees of this age group to older individuals for all three timeframes for which data were available. We viewed the trend in these differences from the 1997 to 1999 timeframe, to the 2002 to 2004 timeframe, to the 2007 to 2009 timeframe to potentially be indicative of how generational effects may diverge from age-based effects on competency-based performance. rP Fo Of the analyses conducted on competency-based differences by timeframe, we observed interpretable trends in two competencies: Collaboration and Applied Learning. For Collaboration, the trend indicated effect sizes progressively favoring Older employees: in the 1997-1999 cohort, Younger employees performed better on this competency to a very small ee degree (d = 0.036); however, Older employees performed better in the 2002-2004 cohort (d = - rR 0.111) and incrementally so in the 2007-2009 cohort (d = -0.135). For Applied Learning, conversely, effect sizes favored Younger employees to a slightly larger degree in 2002-2004 (d = ev 0.240) and 2007-2009 (d = 0.223) as compared to 1997-1999 (d = 0.179). In terms of the remaining competencies as well as for Overall Performance and engagement, effect size ie differences were either stable across the timeframe cohorts or did not indicate a consistent trend. Discussion w On The competency-level effects we observed for the Millennial generation largely parallel those expected based on age differences (e.g., in fluid intelligence and the corresponding ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 16 of 31 competency Applied Learning). However, at a broader level it is clear that although both Millennial and older employees are capable of achieving similar levels of job effectiveness, they achieve this success in varying ways; the strengths of Millennials in competencies such as Applied Learning and Adaptability appear to be counteracted by stronger performance levels of URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hhup Email: hupeditor@pdri.com
  18. 18. Page 17 of 31 Generational Differences 17 older employees in competencies such as Collaboration, Work Standards, and Customer Orientation. Competency-based Job Performance Millennial/Younger employees performed significantly better on the competency of Applied Learning, as compared to Older employees. This finding corresponds with the decline of rP Fo fluid intelligence levels in older adults (e.g., Horn, 1982) and the close relationship of Applied Learning to this form of cognitive functioning. Millennials often conduct rapid internet searches for information they subsequently apply to their immediate needs. In this way, Millennials may commonly practice some of the skills associated with Applied Learning in their non-work lives, ee and may be readily able to exercise these same behaviors in a work context. rR Millennial/Younger employees also performed better on the competency of Adaptability. Although this finding converges with the decrease with age of the personality construct ev Openness to Experience, it also contradicts some stereotypes drawn from the popular press. Managers reportedly express frequent frustration with Millennials because they ask “why” so ie often, and may question the necessity and rationale for a new policy or procedure (e.g., Buono & w Nurick, 2008). However, Millennials as a group have also experienced extraordinary changes On during their lifetimes, particularly in the areas of technology and globalization. The pervasiveness of these changes may have heightened the abilities of this generation to modify ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Human Performance their behaviors to match the situation in a work as well as a personal environment. Older employees outperformed Millennial/Younger employees in Collaboration. This is consistent with the research of Sessa and her colleagues (2007) showing that later-generation individuals were more likely to use an individualist interaction style characterized by assertively prioritizing one’s own interests over those of the group. Further, Millennials’ perceived URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hhup Email: hupeditor@pdri.com
  19. 19. Human Performance Generational Differences 18 preferences for electronic communication media such as texting and instant messaging, may not fit with company expectations or preferred teamwork approaches of older employees. Many have suggested that their dislike of in-person meetings impedes Millennials’ ability to problem solve as a group and build strong interpersonal work relationships (Alsop, 2008) as well as to increase their emotional intelligence at work (Lipkin & Perrymore, 2009). rP Fo Our findings indicate that Older employees performed better on the competency of Integrity. This is a finding shared by previous survey-based research (e.g., Deal, 2007; Taylor et al., 2009) and also a frequently cited notion in the popular press. In her book detailing the psychology of Millennials, Twenge (2006) argued that Millennials as a group care little about ee seeking others’ approval. She believes this pervasive attitude has contributed to lower adherence rR to social rules and an increase in cheating in schools. Millennials have also witnessed numerous business scandals (e.g., Enron, WorldCom) and have observed rampant disregard of employees ev when companies raided pension funds and invoked massive layoffs. These events may have influenced Millennials’ own ethical workplace behaviors and attitudes. ie Our research also found that Older employees outperformed Millennial/Younger w employees on Work Standards and Initiative. These competencies are related to work ethic, On which is a value that characterizes Baby Boomers’ parents (Alsop, 2008). Baby Boomers themselves are often noted for their work ethic though it is said to be driven by motivation for ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 18 of 31 status and titles. Another important consideration is that perceptions of one’s work standards will be colored by prevailing norms within a given job or organization. While some contend that Millennials do have strong work ethics, albeit different work ethics (e.g., Lipkin et al., 2009), characteristics traditionally associated with a strong work ethic may be at odds with Millennials’ stated preferences for setting their own work hours and working their jobs in around their lives. URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hhup Email: hupeditor@pdri.com
  20. 20. Page 19 of 31 Generational Differences 19 In terms of Initiative, it seems Millennials often exhibit some related behaviors, but Older employees may contribute more meaningful, appropriate, or pragmatic ideas and behaviors than lower-tenured Millennials. Thus, when Older employees speak up or initiate work on their own, their thoughts or work products may be viewed by managers and leaders alike as more acceptable and more valuable. rP Fo Our research indicated that Older employees outperformed Millennial/Younger employees in Customer Orientation. The first finding is consistent with the notion that Millennials comprise a “me” generation and are not particularly skilled at taking the perspective of others. Millennials as a generation have enjoyed more buying power at a younger age than did ee previous generations (Tulgan, 2009). As such, they may be more accustomed to playing the rR customer role, rather than the customer service role, and may be less able to view work situations and their own work outcomes through the viewpoint of a customer. ev In terms of the competency of Managing Work, although we did not predict this finding a priori and the difference did not achieve full statistical significance, converging empirical ie evidence does exist to support the trend of Millennial/Younger employees outperforming Older w employees. Studies have demonstrated lower levels of executive functioning (Rhodes, 2004) and On multi-tasking (Verhaeghen Steitz, Sliwinski, & Cerella, 2003) for older adults; both of these cognitive processes are related to coordinating one’s own multiple work activities effectively while avoiding or ignoring the influence of potential distractions. ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Human Performance Overall Performance levels were very similar between Millennial/Younger and Older workers, consistent from an age perspective with large-scale meta-analyses such as Ng and Feldman, (2008). This suggests that employees of both groups, Millennials/Younger and Older, may be capable of the same level of work success but may achieve this success in different ways. URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hhup Email: hupeditor@pdri.com
  21. 21. Human Performance Generational Differences 20 While there were no significant differences in Overall Performance, the observed differences in individual competencies can potentially be summarized based on the themes of the competencies. Older employees performed better as a group on interpersonal and self-discipline competencies (e.g., Collaboration, Integrity, Work Standards) while Millennial employees performed better as a group on learning and information management competencies (e.g., rP Fo Applied Learning, Adaptability, and marginally on Managing Work). Engagement Older employees reported significantly higher levels of engagement than Millennial/Younger employees. When engagement is conceptualized as a combination of ee satisfaction and involvement (Wefald et al., 2008), it may become evident why Millennial rR employees may be perceived as less engaged. Millennials have a reputation for leaving jobs once they become disenchanted with their current work situation (Lipkin et al., 2009). They are not ev likely to make sacrifices for the futuristic promise of promotions or other rewards (Tulgan, 2009). Also, they witnessed their workaholic parents getting laid off in the 1990s as the economy ie changed (e.g., Lipkin et al., 2009) so their loyalty to the organization must be earned; it is not a w given. Additionally, Millennials are known for having high demands around compensation, On flexible work schedules, perceived importance of work tasks, and constant positive performance feedback. When these attributes on the job fall short of expectations, Millennials’ subjective ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 20 of 31 level of satisfaction will decrease. This attitude may also be captured by the engagement measure used in this study, specifically the components of satisfaction and perceived managerial and organizational support. URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hhup Email: hupeditor@pdri.com
  22. 22. Page 21 of 31 Generational Differences 21 Changes in Performance Effects by Cohort We found linear changes in the magnitude of competency-based performance differences for Applied Learning and Collaboration. This suggests that Millennial-generation employees may be progressively advancing/declining as compared to their similarly-aged predecessors. Regarding Applied Learning, the increasing advantages for this competency of rP Fo Millennial-generation employees over and above what might be expected based only on age, may be explainable due to continued growth in education levels for this generation. The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97) has tracked a group of individuals with birth years ranging from 1981 to 1985, and has compared them to a carefully-matched cohort group ee with birth years ranging from 1957 to 1965 (NLSY79). The 1997 group, roughly parallel to a rR portion of the current Millennials categorization, were found to have stronger educational backgrounds in terms of their own academic achievement as well as that of their fathers and ev mothers (Altonji, Bharadwaj, & Lange, 2008). For example, the NLSY97 cohort had completed 13.17 grades by age 22 as compared to 12.61 for the NLSY79 cohort. ie Regarding performance on Collaboration, although Millennial/Younger employees w outperformed Older employees to a small degree during the first cohort we examined (1997- On 1999), Older employees surpassed them on Collaboration performance in the 2002-2004 cohort and incrementally so in the 2007-2009 cohort. One potential explanation for this finding is that ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Human Performance younger employees’ performance in this area has decreased as the availability and their usage of technology has increased. The adoption of and reliance on these communication media may explain the decline in Collaboration performance compared to older employees during the same time period. Many organizations and managers alike insist that collaboration is best accomplished during in-person meetings and phone calls, and reliance on these more impersonal URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hhup Email: hupeditor@pdri.com
  23. 23. Human Performance Generational Differences 22 media causes breakdowns in communication and limits their development of negotiation and listening skills and better interpersonal connections (Alsop, 2008). Additional longitudinal or cohort-based research will be beneficial in aligning the competency differences identified in this study, with broader workplace trends. Because the work environment and requirements themselves are changing, any differences between rP Fo generations, particularly those that are growing in magnitude, can have particularly impactful implications under certain scenarios. For example, a trend of increased interdependent and teamoriented roles may lead to challenges for the Millennial generation in capably filling these roles given their struggles with Collaboration. Conversely, roles requiring a larger degree of ee information acquisition and application than in the past may further disadvantage older workers. Limitations rR Because of our exclusive focus on customer-facing positions, further research is ev necessary to determine if our results extend to other work roles. One example of a job family potentially worthy of further investigation is a manufacturing or production role where safety is a ie primary consideration, due to previously observed relationships between age and safety w behaviors (Ng & Feldman, 2008). Jobs drawing heavily upon technical or professional On knowledge may also be useful targets for further study, to examine if increases in crystallized intelligence based on age (e.g., Salthouse, 1988) translate into higher knowledge levels for older ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 22 of 31 individuals, and if the Millennials generation remains lower in this competency despite their high and constant levels of information access. Another potential avenue of research that will increase in relevance regarding Millennial-generation employees would be an expanded focus on leaderlevel roles and leadership/management-related competencies, building upon the research conducted in this area by Sessa and colleagues (2007). URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hhup Email: hupeditor@pdri.com
  24. 24. Page 23 of 31 Generational Differences 23 Our study also focused exclusively on subjective rather than objective performance. Although age-based differences in objective performance have been similarly small as for subjective performance (Cleveland & Lim, 2007), objective performance may also be less susceptible to potential interactions between supervisor and subordinate age in influencing performance ratings. Another potential limitation of our study is our partial focus on rP Fo competencies derived from a single consulting firm’s taxonomy. Although we have attempted to emphasize core competencies that may overlap with other similar frameworks, extension of our results to alternative competency frameworks will be important for gauging the generalizability of our conclusions. ee In terms of our cohort-based approach to a portion of our research questions, we did rR attempt to use this methodology to gain insights into generational and age trends over time. However, we recognize the limitations in the data that were available to us in terms of cohorts ev extending only 10 years into the past; certainly being able to extend this cohort approach to span an entire generation (that is, 20 years or more) would have been additionally informative. Further ie research attempting to disentangle age and generation effects will be warranted, perhaps with a w specific focus on competencies such as Customer Orientation, Initiative, and Integrity where we On detected generational differences but no consistent trends from a cohort viewpoint. Practical Implications ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Human Performance With minimal overall performance differences between younger and older groups, it is likely worthwhile to invest in understanding and targeting performance differences at the competency-level and providing structure (e.g., coaching, training) to improve employee performance in these areas. Given the strain that may result based on Millennials’ approach to their work differing from the way older workers conduct their work activities, it may be URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hhup Email: hupeditor@pdri.com
  25. 25. Human Performance Generational Differences 24 worthwhile to leverage both Millennials’ and older workers’ preferences and strengths to achieve overall improved job performance for an organization’s entire workforce. Although we do not advocate training programs accessible by only one generational group but not by others, development courses including representatives from all generations and focusing on competencies exhibiting larger between-generation differences (e.g., Applied Learning, rP Fo Collaboration, Adaptability, Work Standards) may facilitate collective learning, understanding, and reconciliation of approaches potentially differing between the generations. In addition, our findings suggest that each generation uses their different profiles of strengths to compensate for other areas of weakness and reinforces holistic models of selection that evaluate performance ee across multiple competencies. With Millennials’ successors already being born (e.g., the rR Homeland Generation; Howe & Strauss, 2007), investigation and clarity regarding the implications of a strong Millennial employee presence may be an important precursor to ev additional changes expected when their sons and daughters join them in the workforce. w ie ly On 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 24 of 31 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hhup Email: hupeditor@pdri.com
  26. 26. Page 25 of 31 Generational Differences 25 References Alsop, R. (2008). The Trophy Kids Grow Up: How the Millennial Generation is Shaking Up the Workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. American Society for Public Administration (November, 2008). Poll finds Millennials rated poorly by corporate recruiters. PA Times, November, 22. rP Fo Altonji, J. G., Bharadwaj, P., & Lange, F. (2008, May). Changes in the characteristics of American youth: Implications for adult outcomes. Paper presented at the NLSY97 Tenth Anniversary Conference, Washington, DC. BlessingWhite (2008). The State of Employee Engagement. BlessingWhite, Press Release. ee Retrieved July 9, 2009 from rR http://www.blessingwhite.com/docDescription.asp?id=254&pid=6&sid=1 Buono, A. F., & Nurick, A. J. (2008). Reaching your next generation of employees. Federal Ethics Report, 15, 2-4. ev Cleveland, J. N., & Lim, A. S. (2007). Employee age and performance in organizations. In K. ie Shultz & G. Adams (Eds.). Aging and work in the 21st century. (pp. 109-137). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. w On Deal, J. (2006). Retiring the Generation Gap: How Employees Young and Old Can Find Common Ground. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Human Performance Gibbons, J. (2006). Employee Engagement: A review of current research and its implications. The Conference Board. Ottawa ON Canada. Herman, A. M., Bramucci, R. L., Piala, G. F., & Litman, R. J. (2000). Built to Work: A Common Framework for Skill Standards. National Skill Standards Board: Washington, DC. URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hhup Email: hupeditor@pdri.com
  27. 27. Human Performance Generational Differences 26 Horn, J. L. (1982). The aging of human abilities. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of developmental psychology: Research and theory (pp. 847-870). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2007). The next 20 years: How customer and workforce attitudes will evolve. Harvard Business Review, July/Aug, 41-52. rP Fo Hulett, K. J. (2006). They are here to replace us: Recruiting and retaining Millennials. Journal of Financial Planning, Nov/Dec, 17. Knowledge@W.P.Carey (2008). Millennials in the workplace: R U Ready? Retrieved July 9, 2009, from http://knowledge.wpcarey.asu.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1580 ee Lansky, D. (2008). Money and meaning: Planning for the Next Generation. Journal of Practical rR Estate Planning, Feb/Mar, 5-6/ Lipkin, N. A., & Perrymore, A. J. (2009). Y in the Workplace: Managing the “Me First” ev Generation. Franklin Lakes, NJ: Career Press. Macey, W. H. & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and ie Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 3-30. w Macky, K., Gardner, D., & Forsyth, S. (2008). Generational differences at work: Introduction On and overview. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 857-861. McEvoy, G.M., & Cascio, W.F. (1989). Cumulative evidence of the relationship between ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 26 of 31 employee age and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 11-17. Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2008). The relationship of age to ten dimensions of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 392-423. URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hhup Email: hupeditor@pdri.com
  28. 28. Page 27 of 31 Generational Differences 27 Pallavi, G. (2005). Welcome to the Gen Y workplace: Employers listen up: Raised in comfort and with the Internet, this generation expects work to have deeper personal meaning. Business Week Online, May 4. Peterson, N., Mumford, M., Borman, W., Jeanneret, P., & Fleishman, E. (1999). An occupational information system for the 21st century: The development of O*NET. Washington, DC: rP Fo American Psychological Association. Rawlins, C., Indvik, J., & Johnson, P. R. (2008). Just wishing and hoping? What the Millennial cohort absolutely, positively must have at work. Proceedings of the Academy of Organizational Culture, Communications, and Conflict, 13, 65-69. ee Rhodes, M. G. (2004). Age-related differences in performance on the Wisconsin Card-Sorting rR Test: A meta-analytic review. Psychology and Aging, 19, 482-494. Roberts, B. W., Robins, R. W., Caspi, A., Trzesniewski. K. (2003). Personality trait development ev in adulthood. In J. Mortimer & M. Shanahan (Ed.). Handbook of the Life Course (pp. 579-598). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic. ie Salthouse, T. A. (1988). Initiating the formation of theories of cognitive aging. Psychology and Aging, 3, 3-16. w On Schaie, K. W. (1996). Intellectual development in adulthood: The Seattle longitudinal study. New York: Cambridge University Press. ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Human Performance Schippmann, J. S., Ash, R. A., Battista, M., Carr, L., Eyde, L. D., Hesketh, B., Kehoe, L., Pearlman, K., Prien, E. P., & Sanchez, J. (2000) The practice of competency modeling. Personnel Psychology, 53, 703-740. Sessa, V. I., Kabacoff, R. I., Deal, J., & Brown, H. (2007). Generational differences in leader values and leadership behaviors. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 10, 47-74. URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hhup Email: hupeditor@pdri.com
  29. 29. Human Performance Generational Differences 28 Sullivan, J. (2008). A new breed of ageism. Workforce Management, 87 (16), 50. Taylor, P., Morin, R., Parker, K., Cohn, D., & Wang, W. (2009). Growing Old in America: Expectations vs. Reality. Retrieved June 29, 2009, from http://pewsocialtrends.org/assets/pdf/Getting-Old-in-America.pdf. Toossi, M. (2007). Labor force projections to 2016: More workers in their golden years. Monthly rP Fo Labor Review, 130, 33-52. Tulgan, B. (2009). Not Everyone Gets a Trophy: How to Manage Generation Y. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Twenge, J. M. (2006). Generation Me: Why Today’s Young Americans are More Confident, ee Assertive, Entitled – and More Miserable than Ever Before. New York: Free Press. rR Verhaeghen, P., Steitz, D. W., Sliwinski, M. J., & Cerella, J. (2003). Aging and dual-task performance: A meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging, 18, 443-460. ev Wefald, A. J. and Downey, R. G. (2009). Job engagement in organizations: Fad, fashion, or foderol? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 141-145. w ie ly On 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 28 of 31 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hhup Email: hupeditor@pdri.com
  30. 30. Page 29 of 31 Generational Differences 29 Table 1 Job Performance Differences: Millennial/Younger as Compared to Older Employees Millennials/ Performance Sig. Older F Younger Competency d Level rP Fo Mean1 N Mean1 N Overall Performance -0.007 1279 0.032 1866 1.604 0.205 -0.045 Communication 0.028 1230 0.011 1680 0.214 0.644 0.017 Collaboration -0.028 1164 0.057 1598 4.703 0.030 -0.083 -0.038 1277 0.063 1866 7.450 0.006 -0.097 Customer Orientation 0.001 1204 0.016 1609 0.168 0.682 -0.015 Applied Learning 0.119 733 -0.048 1253 12.353 0.000 0.158 Adaptability 0.113 744 -0.053 1013 11.370 0.001 0.161 Managing Work 0.066 670 -0.023 3.349 0.067 0.087 Work Standards -0.028 1123 ie 1088 0.053 1548 4.095 0.043 -0.078 Integrity -0.079 650 0.078 991 9.346 0.002 -0.151 Initiative -0.047 962 0.069 1027 0.012 -0.112 On 1 w Decision Making ev rR ee 6.276 Values represent marginal means after evaluation of job tenure as a covariate. ly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Human Performance URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hhup Email: hupeditor@pdri.com
  31. 31. Human Performance Generational Differences 30 Figure Caption Figure 1. Millennial/Younger and Older Group Means by Competency and Overall Performance w ie ev rR ee rP Fo ly On 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 30 of 31 URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hhup Email: hupeditor@pdri.com
  32. 32. Page 31 of 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 Human Performance Generational Differences 31 Group Means by Competency and Overall Performance Overall Performance 0.20 Fo Initiative** Integrity** Communication 0.15 rP 0.10 0.05 ee Collaboration* 0.00 rR -0.05 -0.10 -0.15 Work Standards* ev iew Managing Work+ Customer Orientation** On Decision Making Adaptability** Applied Learning** ly ** p < .01; * p < .05; + p < .10 Millennials/Younger Employees Older Employees URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hhup Email: hupeditor@pdri.com

×