Running head MANAGING A DIVERSE WORKFORCE1MANAGING A DIVERSE.docx

Running head: MANAGING A DIVERSE WORKFORCE 1
MANAGING A DIVERSE WORKFORCE 6
Managing a diverse workforce
Name
Institutional affiliation
What does it mean to be an effective manager in a diverse
workforce?
According to Chip Conley, the workforce diversity is
characterized of gender, ethnicity and age; which needs a much
keener attention. He points out that an effective manager should
realize that age diversity makes a company stronger and that
different generations within a workplace should focus on

mentoring one another at work. He emphasizes on the need to
allow openness with one another so that wisdom; knowledge,
experience and skills from the young to the old and vice versa.
According to Chip Conley, the current 60s is the new 40s and
that the current 30s is the new 50s; a key note to take on how
effective relationship in a workplace could enrichen a company
with greater shared wisdom and skills. Every manager need to
relate such knowledge in ensuring effective making of modern
elders from the millennials.
According to Chip, an effective manager should establish a
learning environment for the boomers and the millennials. Each
generation should see the other as assets from which they can
derive wisdom. Moreover, Chip calls for both the millennials
and the boomers to fix their ego, perhaps so that they can
enhance their relationship and get to learn from one another. He
calls for the need of the managers to enhance a growth mindset
in a workplace and the need for the employees to be curious of
getting to know what the other generation can offer, and trying
to oneself. Chip states that “Curiosity is the elixir for life”
Working on the psychological empowerment of specifics groups
and ensuring mental flexibility is very important for various
generations to work coherently effectively. Additionally, a
manager in charge of a diverse workforce should ensure that the
differences existing between the BB and X generations, and the
Y and Z generations should be harmonized so that they do not
tamper with the achievement of the organizations set goals and
objectives (Toro, Labrador-Fernández & De Nicolas, 2019).
Maintaining a positive working environment helps in enhancing
the performance of a diverse workforce. Looking at the small
business managers, workforce diversity can be well managed if
the owner’s manager supports the existing generational
interconnections and the variations as a result of the general
difference defining these groups by valuing their differences
and the similarities. An effective manager is therefore required
to cause a diversity openness among the workforce. Such ensure
the performance at all levels, i.e. both the organizational and

individual. A manager should, therefore, have the ability to
effectively enforce the eradication of the internal
communication barriers existing as a result generational, racial,
gender, ethnic, age, personality tenure, cognitive style,
education among other dissimilarities features amongst
individuals within the same workforce (Patrick & Kumar, 2012).
Improving corporate culture by unleashing creativity and
performance. A higher level diversity strategy requires the
workforce manager to be able tap the cultural, communicative
and creative skills of the employees. They should be able to
apply such diverse skills in improving the products of an
organization, customer experiences, and of most important
enhance the policies of an organization to accommodate every
group's skills to broaden the performance perspective.
Monitoring the differences in a group require the manager to be
patient and observant since the members will only perform after
they get to understand their different perspective and develop a
transactive memory. (Fassin, Van Rossem & Buelens, 2011).
Improving relationship with clients will help when building a
multigenerational team. This is very crucial for an
organizational manager to enhance diverse workforce efficiency
and make the employees embrace workplace diversity. First of
all, the manager needs to take note of all the differences and
similarities that exist among employees. He/she as well should
note their impact on the success of an organization. This is
because working with such teams blindly could inhibit teams’
productivity and lead to the failure of the organization.
Understanding the values of every generation in a work force
and the extent of could impact on the performance.
Allowing new employees to work in an area where they can
expect to advance is very important. The differences and
similarities could either be strengths or weaknesses of a
particular generation. Such a factor needed to be considered by
a manager to analyze hoe effective the workforce could be and
the possible performance hindrances. Understanding
generation’s work values promote deciding and developing of

an effective multigenerational workforce. For instance, a
competent manager incorporating the generation Z in a
workforce will require a clear understanding of their
inexperience, but also their unique features resulting from such
ignorance. Understanding how they interact with the technology
and their distinct behaviour is fundamental for better integration
into a workforce and create an interactive environment for
them. Else, complaints will divert the employees focus on
performance and growth driven solutions to focus on these
particular groups characteristics (Schroth, 2019).
Increasing employee morale, productivity, and retention is
very key in a diverse workforce. The manager needs to consider
the advantages of Generation Z over their inexperience
weaknesses (Schroth, 2019). Based on the current population,
this is the most racially and ethnically diverse group. They have
a better wellbeing economic wise and highly educated.
However, being a younger generation, they are prone to anxiety
and depression. Understand such will help the manager to
decide on an approach that boosts their commitment levels and
their performance turnover (Lawton & Carlos Tasso, 2016).
Considering the workforce diversity concerning the existing
similarities and difference will help in decreasing employee
complaints and litigation. A culture that embraces teamwork is
created, and the employees can coherently work and respecting
the values of one another. With such, issues such as picking
blames, stereotyping, ethnocentrism, discrimination and
backlashing and harassment will be eradicated hence creating a
positive and growth-focused environment (Patrick & Kumar,
2012).

References
Fassin, Y., Van Rossem, A., & Buelens, M. (2011). Small-
business owner-managers’ perceptions of business ethics and
CSR-related concepts. Journal of Business ethics, 98(3), 425-
453.
https://www.ted.com/talks/chip_conley_what_baby_boomers_ca
n_learn_from_millennials_at_work_and_vice_versa
Lawton, D. S., & Carlos Tasso, E. D. A. (2016). Diversity in the
workplace and the impact of work values on the effectiveness of
multi-generational teams. I-Manager's Journal on Management,
10 (3), 20-28.
Patrick, H. A., & Kumar, V. R. (2012). Managing workplace
diversity: Issues and challenges. Sage Open, 2(2),
2158244012444615.
Schroth, H. (2019). Are You Ready for Gen Z in the
Workplace?. California Management Review, 61(3), 5-18.
Toro, S. D., Labrador-Fernández, J., & De Nicolas, V. L.
(2019). Generational Diversity in the Workplace: Psychological
Empowerment and Flexibility in Spanish Companies. Frontiers
in psychology, 10, 1953.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 August 2019 |
Volume 10 | Article 1953
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 23 August 2019
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01953
Edited by:
Melinde Coetzee,
University of South Africa, South Africa
Reviewed by:
Kgope P. Moalusi,
University of South Africa, South Africa
Mark Bussin,
University of Johannesburg,
South Africa
Nasima Mohamed Hoosen Carrim,
University of Pretoria, South Africa
*Correspondence:
Víctor L. De Nicolás
[email protected]
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Organizational Psychology,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Psychology

Received: 29 April 2019
Accepted: 08 August 2019
Published: 23 August 2019
Citation:
Sobrino-De Toro I,
Labrador-Fernández J and
De Nicolás VL (2019) Generational
Diversity in the Workplace:
Psychological Empowerment and
Flexibility in Spanish Companies.
Front. Psychol. 10:1953.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01953
Generational Diversity in the
Workplace: Psychological
Empowerment and Flexibility in
Spanish Companies
Ignacio Sobrino-De Toro1, Jesús Labrador-Fernández2 and
Víctor L. De Nicolás1*
1 Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, ICADE,
Universidad Pontificia Comillas, Madrid, Spain, 2 Facultad de
Ciencias Humanas y Sociales, CHS, Universidad Pontificia
Comillas, Madrid, Spain
Intergenerational diversity is a universal fact in sustainability
and today’s work environment.
Current studies seek to find differences that exist between these
generational groups that
coexist, cooperate, and sometimes compete in business
organizations. Sixteen focus

groups have taken place, four for each generation to find the
differences that may exist
depending on that group membership. Specifically, the
psychological empowerment and
psychological flexibility variables have been analyzed, which
have already shown their
relevance to improve performance. Results show differences
between the older generations
(BB and Gen X) and the younger ones (Gen Y and Gen Z).
Keywords: psychological flexibility, psychological
empowerment, generation, millennial, diversity
INTRODUCTION
The development of the Internet and data analysis (Geczy et
al., 2014), the abundance of
information (Southwell, 2005), the globalization (Mark, 1996),
the growing interest in diversity
(Guajardo, 2014), the increased consumer power (Kucuk, 2008),
or what is known as the
sharing economy (Belk, 2018), all represent deep changes which
are affecting people and
organizations to a great extent. This environment is now defined
as VUCA (Whiteman, 1998),
an acronym of Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, and
Ambiguity.
Companies are responding to this new environment in very
different ways. One of the
most common is the intensification of work, which is
understood both as the hours worked
as well as the intensity of the work. This intensification is
reaching the acceptable limits
(Brown, 2012) and at the same time has resulted in pressure on
employees moving from

peaks and troughs to becoming something continuous. This has
associated implications both
for people and companies (Dawson et al., 2001).
At the same time, employees’ commitment levels are at very
low levels. As a result, only
13% of employees say that they are committed to their company
(Gallup, 2013). This requires
greater attention if we remember the direct link between
commitment and performance, a
link which has been widely demonstrated (Harter et al., 2002).
The Human Resources function therefore has many aspects to
manage which were not
present in past decades. In a survey from 2013 carried out
among 1,300 Human Resources
professionals, 70% said they could not deal with complexity,
with 60% saying they had serious
doubts about their organization’s ability to deal with this
increasing complexity (Lumesse, 2013).
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology
www.frontiersin.org
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology#articles
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2019.0
1953&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2019-08-23
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology#editorial-board
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology#editorial-board
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01953
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
mailto:[email protected]
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01953/f
ull

ull
ull
ull
https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/775377/overview
https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/729196/overview
Sobrino-De Toro et al. Generational Diversity in the Workplace
Given that the ability to adapt is essential in order to achieve
good results (Heugens and Lander, 2009; Reeves and Deimler,
2011), people management in organizations needs to adopt new
tools and/or review existing ones in order to continue adding
value to organizations according to this new VUCA
environment.
In modern organizations, we may find employees of four
different
generations. Generational diversity is essential to face the
volatility
and uncertainty but at the same time it may increase complexity
regarding people management (Amayah and Gedro, 2014). A
better understanding of this generational diversity will help to
orientate politics and human resources practices.
Within this review of existing tools, we have identified two
which have a significant impact with regard to performance
and helping people to adapt to their professional environment:
psychological empowerment and psychological flexibility. Up
to date, there are no studies that analyze these concepts with
the generational aspect of the employees. This study seeks to
strengthen our understanding of these topics while identifying

possible differences by analyzing them from a generational
perspective, knowing that the diversity of human capital is
present in modern organizations (Shen et al., 2009; Page, 2010).
Generation, an Ambiguous Concept
Generational differences in the workplace as a research and
intervention topic have recently grown significantly in
popularity
(Joshi et al., 2011; Lyons et al., 2015; Campbell et al., 2017).
The number of widely circulated articles, media reports, and
blogs has grown even more significantly too. At the same time,
in the management world, there are numerous human resources
consulting initiatives which consider intergenerational diversity
and intervention policies are being created based on these.
Karl Mannheim, a pioneer in the conceptualization of the
term generation, proposed that a generation, any generation,
is determined by participation in the same events. These events
are the source of vital contents that are fixed in the consciences
of people as the “natural” way in which the world exists. As
a result, a natural image of the world is formed which guides
others, is the base from which subsequent events are
understood;
it is the code for interpreting everything that happens. For
Mannheim (1993), the process is very determinant because it
happens in the first stage of life. The active participation in
the social currents that constitute and give meaning to the
historical moment creates the generational bond. This is how
one generation creates a new historical situation (Mannheim,
1993; Edmunds and Turner, 2005).
Growing in a group does not only involve making assessments
based on these interpretation principles which the group are
characterized by, it also involves capturing certain aspects,
those nuances, and meanings of certain concepts in which
reality is present within the group (France and Roberts, 2015).

The individuals are linked through a generational connection,
only to the extent that they participate in social events which
represent and give meaning to the respective historical moment,
and to the extent that they take part (both actively and
passively) in new interactions which make up the new situation
(Mannheim, 1993; Pilcher, 1994).
To define and identify this great complexity with the date
of birth is a great simplification (Dimock, 2019). This
limitation
does not prevent the occurrence of many and very diverse
investigations in which the date of birth has been used as a
key criterion of differentiation (Kowske et al., 2010; Andert,
2011; Suomäki et al., 2019).
It is easy to think that, if someone has grown up and
developed in a different world to someone else in history,
they might have different ways of thinking, even if they are
from the same place. In the academic and empirical studies
environment, there is some controversy surrounding the
suitability of the “generation” concept, its explanatory
characteristic, and its reliability and applicability. The
fundamental
reproaches to these studies relate to the explanatory weakness
of the generation concept (Giancola, 2006; Ng and Feldman,
2010; Constanza et al., 2012; Constanza and Finkelstein, 2015).
Similarly, and equally as important, is the intrinsic link between
the generation concept and other variables such as age,
historical
period, and cohort when it comes to belonging to a group
(Campbell and Twenge, 2014; Segers et al., 2014), which
according to these criticisms make this an ambiguous concept.
On the other hand, it is recognized as an area of research
which lacks maturity and empirical contrast, although it is
growing and slowly consolidating (Lyons and Kuron, 2014).

There are studies that talk about differences in generations,
for example, Twenge and Campbell (2008), show how
generation
Y (Gen Y) has higher levels of self-esteem, anxiety, and
narcissism. On the other hand, other studies show that there
are practically no differences between generations (Hart et al.,
2003), Korn (2010) concludes that at the organizational level
the differences between generations are not very significant
(Korn, 2010).
It is important to mention that one of the areas where this
increase is most evident is in the study of how the differences
in generational identity have consequences in the workplace.
From the initial studies focused on the concept of generational
identity itself (Dencker et al., 2008; Joshi et al., 2010), there
has been a slow but steady increase and deepening in the
consequences of values at work, motivation, and other variables
relating to workplace performance (Twenge et al., 2010;
Sakdiyakorn and Wattanacharoensil, 2017).
Until very recently, bureaucratic organizations had a holistic
culture in which habits and ways of working were created
and determined, and these concealed diversity as well as the
novelty of new agents or employees (Lok and Crawford, 2004).
These days, although these socialization phenomena are still
present in company culture, they are no longer so prevalent;
autonomy and self-expression are considered essential for
workers’ knowledge (Robbins and Judge, 2009).
Employees’ Psychological Empowerment
The concept of empowerment (applied in companies), started
to become relevant when Conger and Kanungo (1988) identified
it as a key component for organizational management and
effectiveness, defining it as “a motivational construct aimed at
enablement rather than delegation”. Kanter (1993) considered

empowerment as the mobilization of resources, information,
www.frontiersin.org
and support to get things done, incorporating the concept of
reporting lines, both formal and informal.
There are two different interpretations of empowerment in
the literature, the first of which is known as structural, based
on resources and the organization’s ability to act with regard
to its workers (MacDuffie, 1995; Wright et al., 2003; Gibson
et al., 2007). The second interpretation of empowerment is
linked to intrinsic motivation as well as employees’ reaction
to resources, information, and support which are made available
(Spreitzer, 1995). This interpretation is more closely linked to
the beliefs of the employees themselves (Harrim and Alkshali,
2008), and is known as psychological empowerment.
Thomas and Velthouse (1990) defined psychological
empowerment as being formed of four aspects: meaningfulness,
competence, choice, and impact. Based on this theoretical
model, Spreitzer (1995) created a measurement scale,
substituting “meaningfulness” with “meaning” and “choice”
with “self-determination” (Liden et al., 2000). Spreitzer’s
(1995)
model provides psychological empowerment with a motivational
dimension; that is, people who are empowered should
demonstrate an active attitude toward work, incorporating

their own beliefs to their role within the organization
(Fernández et al., 2015).
These four factors can be seen as a description of the
relationship between the employee and their work. Therefore,
competence considers the relationship between the person
and the tasks they carry out; meaning describes the link
between the employee’s objectives and goals with those of
the organization. Self-determination describes the freedom
with which the employee carries out tasks and the relationship
with the organization’s rules. Finally, impact reflects the
perception that the employee has with regard to the results
of their performance.
In recent decades, psychological empowerment has been
widely used in studies on workplace characteristics (Aryee
and Chen, 2006; Chen et al., 2007); a strong link between
intrinsic motivation and creativity (Zhang and Bartol, 2010),
supervision and leadership styles (Kim and Kim, 2013) was
identified. Relationships between this variable and results in
the workplace have also been identified, with negative impacts
on employee turnover being identified (Kim and Fernandez,
2017) and positive impacts between empowerment and
workplace satisfaction (Koberg et al., 1999; Liden et al., 2000;
Carless, 2004; Aryee and Chen, 2006), with the level of
commitment and improvement in the company’s performance
(Sahoo et al., 2010; Yao et al., 2013).
Although psychological empowerment has been widely
investigated, there are no studies that relate it with the
generations which would help to better orientate HR policies
and practices.
Psychological Flexibility
Psychological flexibility is the objective of clinical intervention
known as Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT). As

a result, it is the final outcome of a process in which a number
of psychological variables (and their evolution) are taken
into account.
ACT is a therapy based on Relational Frame Theory, which
facilitates a change in behavior based on the way that people
establish relationships between words and events (Hayes et al.,
2001). As well as cognitive and behavioral aspects, ACT also
introduces a more transcendent component with elements such
as values. Its objective is to introduce greater flexibility in
terms of cognition, helping the person to confront situations
from a different perspective, allowing the person to establish
a new Relational Frame (Relational Frame Theory), and as a
result, new behavior (Hayes, 2004).
ACT is present across different types of intervention among
which the following can be highlighted: practicing mindfulness,
the use of metaphors, personal experience processes, learning
linked to the definition and achievement of goals and
objectives,
identification of values, etc. (Hayes et al., 2006).
ACT has been shown to be hugely effective in helping people
tackle complex situations such as anxiety, stress, depression,
psychosis, addictions, acute pain, etc., and has also proven
highly effective in reducing and transforming negative thoughts
(Zettle and Hayes, 1986; Bach and Hayes, 2002; Ruiz, 2010,
2012; Jansen et al., 2017). In summary, ACT is a collection
of tools which are proven to be effective in helping people
change their thoughts and behavior, even with complex
problems.
This therapeutic approach is based on a series of components
which are essential for understanding and achieving
psychological
flexibility. According to Hayes (2004), who created this

approach,
there are six: contact with the present moment, values,
committed
action, self as context, defusion, and acceptance (Hayes et al.,
2006). These six elements revolve around two poles: awareness
and acceptance, and commitment and adopting new behavior
(Hayes et al., 2006). The six elements mentioned are presented
in a hexagon known as the “hexaflex” (Hayes et al., 2006),
as shown in Figure 1.
The aim of ACT is to help individuals to be in touch with,
embrace, and evaluate their current circumstances in order to
act in a better way in various situations (Bond et al., 2006).
This means being psychologically flexible. We understand
psychological flexibility as the ability to connect with the
present
moment, with an attitude that embraces whatever is happening
in the moment, and as a result of this acceptance, acting with
awareness and consistently based on the person’s own values
(Hayes et al., 2004a,b). It is very closely linked to feeling like
a protagonist rather than a victim, as well as the ability to
choose and keep up the pace to achieve the end result, despite
any difficulties that may be encountered on the way.
One of the areas in which human beings confront situations
where their psychological flexibility is put into practice is the
workplace. There have been many empirical studies that have
explored psychological flexibility in the workplace, more
specifically with regard to health in the workplace (Flaxman
and Bond, 2010; Lloyd et al., 2013).
Multiple longitudinal studies have shown that there is a
correlation between higher levels of psychological flexibility,
and work related results, including better productivity,
improved
mental health, and increased ability to learn new skills at

work (Bond and Bunce, 2003; Bond and Flaxman, 2006; Bond
et al., 2016). It has also been found that people with higher
www.frontiersin.org
levels of psychological flexibility make better use of the
resources
available to them in the work environment. Bond et al. (2008)
demonstrate that the highest levels of psychological flexibility
improved the positive impact of a job role redesign. Although
all these investigations indicate that psychological flexibility
may help organizations to help people to adapt to new changes,
there is no information about the differences in psychological
flexibility trough generations. This knowledge would help to
be more effective in HR actions and facilitate company’s
adaption
to environment challenges.
Objective of the Research
The investigation tries to increase the current knowledge of
the generational diversity within the professional environment
to help Human Resources areas to orientate their practices.
In a more specific sense, this research is to try to better
understand two variables which have an important impact on
helping workers to adapt to an ever-changing environment.
Therefore, we will analyze these based on a third component:
generational diversity. This research aims to answer the
question

of whether there are differences in the aforementioned discourse
depending on the generational group, in relation to their
psychological empowerment and psychological flexibility at
work.
Our initial hypothesis is that there may be differences
in both psychological variables due to being from a different
generation. Those generations with more experience and
more opportunities to reflect on their experiences show
greater levels of flexibility, and those groups with more
professional experience and a greater sense of their role in
the company also show clear differences with regard to
psychological empowerment.
METHODOLOGY
This is a qualitative study based on focus groups. These focus
groups have been conducted by a model and a method with
the aim of discussing and concluding the objectives of
the research.
Focus Groups
All participants were volunteers. They were selected by their
managers and HR Directors looking for diversity in educational
level, years in the company, sex, and hierarchical level. In
total, 16 focus groups took place, four for each age group
that was being studied; 156 workers participated in this stage
of the research, of which 88 were male and 68 were female.
The research team is incredibly grateful to the companies
who provided these employees: Baxter, BBVA, Enagás,
Ferrovial,
Gas Natural Fenosa, Heineken, Mapfre, Meta4, Orange,
Sabadell,
Sandoz, Santander, Pascual Hermanos, REPSOL, and Universia.
These companies are leaders in their sectors, and represents

baking, energy, construction, consumer goods, and pharma
industries. All the groups were recorded, and these recordings
were transcribed in order to analyze the discussion. As a result
of these groups, a “content base” was created to hold all the
information collected during the discussions.
Throughout the process, ethical standards were respected
according to the Helsinki Declaration (World Medical
Association,
2001). All participants gave their written informed consent to
be recorded and to use the information extracted from the
groups. There was complete transparency with the participants.
As previously said, the concept of generation includes
historical, social, and psychological variables. It is a concept
FIGURE 1 | Prepared by the authors based on Hayes et al.
(2006), p. 25.
www.frontiersin.org
with multiple faces and related to each other with great
complexity, setting the limits of that complexity between two
birth dates is a simplification.
The generational dimension which this intergenerational
study hoped to provide presented various challenges due to
the various grouping options and the lack of clear consensus

defining each generation. Based on the meta-analysis by
Constanza
et al. (2012), the team decided to define the following four
groups, according to their year of birth: Baby Boomer – BB
(1955–1969), Generation X – Gen X (1970–1981), Generation
Y or Millennials (1982–1992), and lastly Generation Z – Gen
Z, those born after 19931.
Their availability to attend the group meetings was also
taken into account. This simplified and arbitrary way of
defining
a generation has been widely criticized (Constanza et al., 2012;
Constanza and Finkelstein, 2015), and the need to carry out
a deeper analysis on the variables involved in the generation
concept has been emphasized, so more than just the date of
birth is considered (Lyons and Kuron, 2014; Wang and Peng,
2015). Lyons and Schweitzer (2017) adopt a more
comprehensive
approach, based on the phenomena of social categorization
and identity (Lyons et al., 2015).
In all the focus groups in which people had been categorized
as members of a generation, there was discussion among the
group in terms of their awareness of belonging to that group
and how that categorization fits with their own perceptions.
The aim of this article is not to review the components of
social categorization, but we should highlight that only two
of the participants across all the groups were uncomfortable
with this categorization and identified themselves as belonging
to a different category. The rest were satisfied with the
proposed
examples, which is much higher than in previous studies
(Roberto and Biggan, 2014; Lyons and Schweitzer, 2017).
The four groups from the BB generation took place between
March 2016 and January 2017, with a total of 36 people taking

part, of which 22 were women and 14 were men. The groups
were made up of five, nine, 11, and 11 people. The four Gen
X groups took place between February 2016 and September
2016. In total, 41 people took part, of which 19 were women
and 22 were men. The groups were made up of 15, seven,
eight, and 11 people in each. The four Gen Y groups took
place between March 2016 and May 2016 with 43 people taking
part. There were 22 women and 21 men, and each group was
made up of 12, 11, seven, and 13 people. Gen Z was studied
between May 2016 and March 2017, with a total of 36 people
taking part (25 women and 11 men). Four groups took place
with six, eight, 10, and 11 people.
All the participants were current employees or interns. Interns
were included because of the young age of the last generation
represented (younger than 23 years old), of the companies
that provided samples the number of under 23 s was negligible.
Interns were included and, although they do not have permanent
employment with the company, it is the only opportunity to
see how members of this youngest generation are adapting to
1 In this article generations are named as BB, Gen X, Gen Y,
and Gen Z.
the workplace. In addition, interns represent many of the other
employees’ discourses. It is common for these interns to
be recognized as the main source of young talent and a “breath
of fresh air” in the company.
It is also necessary to mention that from this generation
there has also been access to young people who are “enjoying”
a graduate program, something which demonstrates exceptional
initiative, preparation and ability. In either case, the
representatives
of Gen Z which we have had access to (interns, employees, or
graduates), are not the typical example of this generation; rather

they are at the cutting edge.
Model and Method
Both psychological empowerment and psychological flexibility
have been studied quantitatively using scales. The
Psychological
Empowerment scale, known as the “Psychological
Empowerment
Instrument” was created by Spreitzer (1995), and consists of
12 items divided into four factors, with each of these made
up of three items. The original scale for measuring
psychological
flexibility was created by Hayes et al. (2004a,b) and consists
of seven items. Subsequently, Bond et al. (2011) created the
AAQ – II. Finally, Bond et al. (2013) created the WAAQ
adaptation of the scale in a professional context.
However, this study does not aim to measure but rather
better understand the generational component of each concept
relating to current employees who are experiencing the
pressures
of a job market full of uncertainty and volatility. We were
interested to understand perceptions of key aspects in their
environment, both of themselves and of the possibilities within
the world of work.
The focus groups were between one hour and an hour and
a half long. They were led by the research team and were
always organized around three key factors, which we could say
are existential.
Figure 2 shows the general framework which all the focus
groups were based on. The questions are illustrative; the aim
was for the discussion in the group to flow naturally, while
facilitating spontaneous access to the topics based on an open
and trusting environment. All the groups did start with the

same question: “How do you see the world in which you live
in?” The moderator was responsible for facilitating the
discussion,
encouraging members to speak, asking overly talkative members
to let others speak and encouraging all members to participate.
In addition, the moderator was responsible for taking notes
that may led to emerging questions. In this case, the moderator
also presented to the participants of the focus group the
questions that are shown in Figure 2, only when it was
necessary.
In many cases, the group itself was generating the discourse
(Onwuegbuzie et al., 2009).
The objective is to be able to analyze the consistency of
the discourse, as well as identify elements of psychological
empowerment and flexibility, based on the detailed discussion
on the realities faced in the workplace, avoiding the more
typical questions on empowerment and flexibility so as not
to steer the participants and skew the results.
www.frontiersin.org
The analysis of the employees’ discussion content started
with the creation of an initial matrix which uses all the
concepts such as empowerment (meaning, competence, impact,
and self-determination), as well as psychological flexibility
(connection with the present, expressed values, committed
actions, cognitive defusion, acceptance, self as context),

separating self-attributions from external ones. This first
classification filter was organized both by individual or
personal
self-attributions as well as groups or generations, and the same
for the external attributions.
The research team adopted a form of discourse analysis
inspired by Wetherell and Potter (1988) and Klevan et al.
(2018). Although presented as a step-by-step description,
a strict sequence has not been followed. The identification
of possible discourses in the text and how they are featured
are better understood as constructs resulting from the
back-and-forth movements between the steps, which were
as follows:
(1) Read the text repeatedly to become familiar with the data.
(2) Coding of the sections in the material, focusing on the
content of possible discourses and how they were expressed.
(3) organize the coded material into clusters according to the
content and the way in which it was expressed.
(4) Organize the content clusters in possible discourses and
finally.
(5) Question possible discourses in relation to each focus group
with all the data as a whole, looking for possible patterns
in terms of variations and consistency.
Following this, the data were summarized (separating units,
grouping, and classifying elements), arranged, and transformed.
Based on this initial transformation of the text corpus, an
analysis was carried out in various stages of recurrent open
coding for each category, in a continuous coding and
categorization
process in order to facilitate comprehensive analysis of the

recurrent elements, the responses are organized and grouped
into emergent categories.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The study carried out among these 16 focus groups brings
into question the existence of significant differences between
the four generations. The discussions gain differential
consistency
by being separated into two groups. During the analysis of
the texts, it has been demonstrated that separation among
youngsters, with little work experience (born after 1982, Gen
Y and Gen Z) and older people, with greater experience and
who have been working longer (born before 1982, BB and
Gen X) generates greater and clearer variability between
groups.
Based on the data collected, it seems that differences are
potentially related to the amount of personal and professional
experiences that older people accumulate.
It is evident that in these two groups, the most extreme
generations (older people about to retire – BB and young interns
still in education – Gen Z) have a certain ability to
be differentiated,
and in some cases, it is possible to see some differences,
although
FIGURE 2 | Prepared by the authors. Examples of the questions
asked to the employees in the focus groups.
www.frontiersin.org

very specific between the four generations. In either case, it is
necessary to highlight that a single characteristic has not been
identified that is unique to each generation, and as with many
other differential aspects, the variability within the group is
greater than the variability between groups.
It is obvious that due to the simple fact of making this
social categorization and activating it in terms of creating the
focus groups (four in each of the generations), there is almost
instantly homogenization with the group and differentiation
between groups.
In addition, most groups manifested that the focus groups
had contributed to increase their awareness of themselves as
members of a specific generation and their capacity to influence
in their jobs (psychological empowerment) and in their lives
(psychological flexibility).
Psychological Empowerment
All the groups, regardless of their age or experience, have a
good perception of themselves in terms of the relation between
their competences and the work they carry out. In general,
they see themselves as having the power and ability to instigate
effective change in the world they have chosen, especially with
regard to the meaning they give to their career path and the
perception of their own competences. In both dimensions
(competence and meaning), the discussions are truly positive.
It is important to mention that there is also a more negative
discussion with regard to the lack of control and lack of
awareness for the meaning of life, but it is a minority and
not exclusive to any of the generational groups.

The meaning of life and work for older people (BB and
Gen X) is based on their sense of responsability for what is
going on in the world, as well as on what is going on in
their workplace and home. They are people who feel and
express the weight of responsibility over others, whether they
are colleagues or children. In some instances, during the
discussions, a sense of urgency is even detected with regard
to the opportunity of improving things. They live and feel
with free reign and they are the ones who have this meaning
of life.
The youngest group (Gen Y and Gen Z) is very different.
An idea that has been expressed frequently in the groups is
that they have been charged with being the leaders of change.
The purpose of their work is to change things, transform, and
make all these bureaucratic, administrative and hierarchical
processes more effective as they are making decision-making
too slow. The objective of their work is to transform it, not
only to improve it but also to make it fun and motivating.
Gen Y and Gen Z clearly identify as having less impact
and being less capable of self-determination. This frequently
manifests itself as a complaint, highlighting the obstacles they
face in terms of empowerment, and also showing the
contradictory nature of the “official discourse” on the
importance
of young talent, who also continuously face endless challenges
emanating from a hierarchy they consider to be obsolete and
out of place. In other cases, they do this by accepting they
have less experience and therefore realize there is a need to
have challenges and leaders who help them to improve their
skills and power.
The approach that BB and Gen X take in terms of their

impact and self-determination is much more active and
satisfactory. They use more tools, skills, and capabilities, which
helps to put them in a position of responsibility. In this sense,
among these older people (who have a greater sense of
perspective), it is more common for them to reflect on the
relevance of their contributions and the ultimate impact they
have had.
Psychological Flexibility
Multiple references to psychological flexibility variables have
been found, although there is no clear differentiating discourse
in an age group. It should be mentioned that by merely
participating in the focus groups, this put our participants in
a position where they “objectified their subjectivity” through
the contrast in dialogue. This is an exercise (albeit one-off
and planned), which Hayes et al. (2006) call “self as context.”.
There were many diverse individual contributions, although
no generational differences were found.
It was clear that, among all the generations, people were
becoming aware of the job market conditions in Spain, although
the way in which they approach this was as diverse as the
people who made up the groups themselves.
The level of psychological flexibility among the participants
across all generations can be improved. In all the groups,
there is a lack of awareness in terms of being able to manage
private events, a task which is difficult for everyone in this
volatile and complex environment, something which all of the
generations complain about. All the generations (including the
youngest Gen Y and Gen Z) admit that they find the current
uncertainty very challenging.
The biggest difference between the discussions took place
again between BB and Gen X and Gen Y and Gen Z (younger
people). BB and Gen X feel the need of taking charge of their

lives, while for Gen Y and Gen Z, most of the discussion
related to them being victims of a situation and a reality
which moves them from one place to another and determines
their current status.
The youngest generation, known as Gen Z, are the ones
who most describe a situation linked to a crisis which defines
them. This vital crisis or economic depression situation governs
them and affects them even if they know they are very
well prepared.
It was also seen among these youngsters (Gen Z) that they
have had great success entering the job market, they are very
critical and negative in terms of the learning and work
environment they are experiencing, in which only their ability
to innovate and distance themselves from situations will lead
to success. This discourse on innovation and the autonomous
search for resources was raised by a minority, and
we understand
that it has appeared as a result of having access to a sample
of people who, by their special characteristics, have stood out
and integrated into the job market successfully early on. Many
of them even mentioned friends and family who had not as
www.frontiersin.org
much “luck.” The general sentiment is that of complaint and
regret, without delving any deeper.

Another difference which is evident, and which differentiates
the two younger generations, is that in Gen Z there is a
greater hunger for success and achievement, as well as more
initiatives for developing alternative plans. They have seen how
their older brothers and uncles, who despite having university
degrees, have not been able to enter the job market, and as
a result, they have always considered university to
be insufficient
and have sought complementary training.
In terms of accepting and confronting events faced by both
young (Gen Y and Gen Z) and old (BB and Gen X), we can
see differences which are clearly linked to people’s baggage
and past experience. In general, there is a greater sense of
accepting and confronting private events among people from
BB and Gen X, without a doubt it is this experience which
has taught them that it is better to take these on and confront
them rather than avoid them. Gen Y and Gen Z see themselves
as having more tools for avoiding these, and they even consider
avoidance as being easier and more convenient due to the
opportunities provided by new technology and networks. Due
to the functional ubiquity of mobile devices, these youngsters
have the option to never close down a line of action; they
are involved in everything without giving up on anything,
which seems like a way of avoiding confrontation. They
complain
that they do not have enough time or opportunities to deal
with events in a reflective and profound manner.
It is important to understand that the young population
(Gen Y and Gen Z) is entering the job market or has only
recently entered. Furthermore, it is an extremely unstable and
volatile market; the conditions are unfavorable for having an
adequate self-perception within the context or associated
defusion.

They feel change and uncertainty.
There is also a difference again between BB and Gen X
and Gen Y and Gen Z when it comes to articulating a coherent
support between values and actions, something which is much
more prevalent among older people (BB and Gen X), it seems
that it is necessary to have a history of experiences which
provide opportunities to reflect on the coherence and
consistency
between value and action. These experiences and learnings
are evident among the older participants during the discussions
and they are linked to values such as loyalty, commitment,
and doing things properly.
CONCLUSION
Generational differences in the workplace have become a widely
discussed topic in multiple publications in recent years, and
there have also been countless experiences in human resources
departments. It is also true that there is an open discussion
on the suitability of this segmentation by generation (Constanza
et al., 2012; Lyons and Kuron, 2014). There are doubts as to
whether this segmentation is explanatory or a significant
enough
source of behavioral diversity. It is not easy to distinguish the
generational effects with the effects produced by age, maturity,
and experience (Twenge, 2000; Macky et al., 2008).
In this study, we have stated that it is these developmental
elements which form the basis of the different discourses which
have been expressed.
No differences have been found between the four proposed
age groups, although clear differences have been found in the
discussions with regard to psychological empowerment and
psychological flexibility among employees born before 1982

(who as a result have more work and life experiences as is
the case of BB and Gen X) and younger people who have
few years of professional experience (Gen Y and Gen Z).
In terms of empowerment, both groups showed a positive
self-image, although their empowerment was qualitatively
different. Therefore, the role of their work within the wider
population is determined by their responsibility for others and
their work, and this responsibility has a sense of urgency.
Among the younger population, work is important for achieving
transformation and a different future.
Gen Y and Gen Z from our sample complain about the
lack of self-determination as they consider themselves to
be constrained by older people’s authority and the rules of
bureaucratic structures, which they criticize heavily.
The differences in psychological flexibility are visible between
older people (BB and Gen X) and younger people (Gen Y
and Gen Z) who avoid confrontation, especially when it comes
to interpersonal conflicts and giving up or not finding
alternatives
during decision-making. Therefore, youngsters have a greater
ability for cognitive fusion between their thoughts and the
reality in which they live, and they often feel like the victims.
Generational replacement is not a trivial topic in societies
and organizations. Knowledge transfer is essential in order to
secure and grow companies, and these should ensure that it
takes place.
The focus groups carried out in this study have not shown
clear differences between the four proposed generations,
although
there are many common themes as they all share the same
cultural, economic and organizational situation. There have

been more significant similarities and agreements than there
have been differences. In many cases, these differences are a
result of stereotypes which are more or less appropriate which
have left a mark on society, and which tend to stereotype; as
soon as the discussions became a bit longer and deeper, the
differences once again become evident. There is, as has always
been the case, a tension between the groups and people with
experience (BB and Gen X) and those who want to get
experience
quickly (Gen Y and Gen Z). These two groups (young people
and old people) have always existed and, although there are
clear differences between them, the knowledge transfer between
them remains as present as always, with the exception that
in these “millennial times” this transfer is especially difficult
and pressing.
The understanding of all these differences, based on age,
may help companies to better use the psychological
empowerment
and psychological flexibility initiatives in order to facilitate
the adaptation to the current VUCA environment. This
understanding will be able to illuminate future strategic actions
for Human Resources departments when facing the generational
diversity challenges.
www.frontiersin.org
DATA AVAILABILITY

All datasets generated for this study are included in the
manuscript and/or the supplementary files.
ETHICS STATEMENT
Ethical review process is not required as per the Spanish Law
of Biomedical research 14/2007, July 3 since this is not a
biomedical and clinic research. This study does not develop
any clinical trials and does not involve patients; therefore, no
written informed consents of the patients are required. This
study is a qualitative research based on interviews and focus
groups. The participants in these groups were informed
according
to the Spanish Law 5/1992, and all the information recorded
in these groups was treated by anonymous form according to
the previous referred law applicable to Spanish Universities.
This study does not involve animal subjects.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
IS-D contributed to idea, redaction, and interviews. JL-F
contributed
to redaction, assessment, and conclusion. VD contributed to
review, recommendations, and bibliography information.
FUNDING
This study has been founded by Comillas Pontifical University.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are grateful to the focus groups for their encouragement
of this study. Our thanks also go to experts in psychology
for giving us the opportunity of working with them. Finally,
we would like to thank the academic people for their

contribution
to this study.
REFERENCES
Amayah, A. T., and Gedro, J. (2014). Understanding
generational diversity:
strategic human resource management and development across
the generational
“divide”. New Horiz. Adult Edu. Hum. Resour. Dev. 26, 36–48.
doi: 10.1002/
nha3.20061
Andert, D. (2011). Alternating leadership as a proactive
organizational intervention:
addressing the needs of the baby boomers, generation Xers and
Millennials.
J. Leadersh. Account. Ethics 8, 67–83.
Aryee, S., and Chen, Z. X. (2006). Leader–member exchange in
a Chinese
context: antecedents, the mediating role of psychological
empowerment and
outcomes. J. Bus. Res. 59, 793–801. doi:
10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.03.003
Bach, P., and Hayes, S. C. (2002). The use of Acceptance and
Commitment Therapy
to prevent the rehospitalization of psychotic patients: a
randomized controlled
trial. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 70, 1129–1139. doi:
10.1037/0022-006X.70.5.1129
Belk, R. (2018). “Foreword: the sharing economy” in The rise
of the sharing

economy: Exploring the challenges and opportunities of
collaborative consumption.
eds. P. A. Albinsson and B. Y. Perera (Santa Barbara, CA:
Praeger), 9–12.
Bond, F. W., and Bunce, D. (2003). The role of acceptance and
job control in
mental health, job satisfaction, and work performance. J. Appl.
Psychol. 88,
1057–1067. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.1057
Bond, F. W., and Flaxman, P. E. (2006). The ability of
psychological flexibility
and job control to predict learning, job performance, and mental
health.
J. Organ. Behav. Manag. 26, 113–130. doi:
10.1300/J075v26n01_05
Bond, F. W., Flaxman, P. E., and Bunce, D. (2008). The
influence of psychological
flexibility on work redesign: mediated moderation of a work
reorganization
intervention. J. Appl. Psychol. 93, 645–654. doi: 10.1037/0021-
9010.93.3.645
Bond, F. W., Hayes, S. C., Baer, R. A., Carpenter, K. M.,
Guenole, N., Orcutt, H. K.,
et al. (2011). Preliminary psychometric properties of the
Acceptance and
Action Questionnaire-II: a revised measure of psychological
inflexibility
and experiential avoidance. Behav. Ther. 42, 676–688. doi:
10.1016/j.
beth.2011.03.007
Bond, F. W., Hayes, S. C., and Barnes-Homes, D. (2006).

Psychological flexibility,
ACT, and organizational behavior. J. Organ. Behav. Manag. 26,
25–54. doi:
10.1300/J075v26n01_02
Bond, F. W., Lloyd, J., Flaxman, P. E., and Archer, R. (2016).
“Psychological
flexibility and ACT at work” in The Wiley handbook of
contextual behavioral
science. eds. R. D. Zettle, S. C. Hayes, D. Barnes-Holmes, and
A. Biglan
(Malden, MA, USA: Wiley), 459–482.
Bond, F. W., Lloyd, J., and Guenole, N. (2013). The work-
related acceptance
and action questionnaire: initial psychometric findings and their
implications
for measuring psychological flexibility in specific contexts. J.
Occup. Organ.
Psychol. 86, 331–347. doi: 10.1111/joop.12001
Brown, M. (2012). Responses to work intensification: does
generation matter?
Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 23, 3578–3595. doi:
10.1080/09585192.2011.654348
Campbell, S. M., and Twenge, J. M. (2014). “Is it kids today or
just the fact
that they’re kids?” in Generational diversity at work: New
research perspectives.
ed. E. Parry (New York: Routledge), 69–80.
Campbell, S. M., Twenge, J. M., and Campbell, W. K. (2017).
Fuzzy but useful
constructs: making sense of the differences between
generations. Work Aging

Retir. 3, 130–139. doi: 10.1093/workar/wax001
Carless, S. A. (2004). Does psychological empowerment
mediate the relationship
between psychological climate and job satisfaction. J. Bus.
Psychol. 18,
405–425. doi: 10.1023/B:JOBU.0000028444.77080.c5
Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D., and Rosen, B.
(2007). A multilevel
study of leadership, empowerment, and performance in teams. J.
Appl.
Psychol. 92, 331–346. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.331
Conger, J. A., and Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment
process: integrating
theory and practice. Acad. Manag. Rev. 13, 471–482. doi:
10.5465/
amr.1988.4306983
Constanza, D. P., Badger, J. M., Fraser, R. L., Severt, J. B., and
Gade, P. A.
(2012). Generational differences in work-related attitudes: a
meta-analysis.
J. Bus. Psychol. 27, 375–394. doi: 10.1007/s10869-012-9259-4
Constanza, D. P., and Finkelstein, L. M. (2015). Generationally
based differences
in the workplace: is there a there there? Ind. Organ. Psychol. 8,
308–323.
doi: 10.1017/iop.2015.15
Dawson, D., McCulloch, K., and Baker, A. (2001). Extended
working hours in
Australia: Counting the costs. (Adelaide: Centre for Sleep
Research).

Dencker, J. C., Joshi, A., and Martocchio, J. J. (2008). Towards
a theoretical
framework linking generational memories to workplace attitudes
and behaviors.
Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 18, 180–187. doi:
10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.07.007
Dimock, M. (2019). Defining generations: Where Millennials
end and Generation
Z begins. Pew Research Center 17. Available at:
https://www.pewresearch.
org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-
z-begins/
Edmunds, J., and Turner, B. S. (2005). Global generations:
social change in the
twentieth century. Br. J. Sociol. 56, 559–577. doi:
10.1111/j.1468-4446.2005.00083.x
Fernández, M. J., Vidueira, P., Diaz, J. M., and De Nicolas, V.
L. (2015).
Empowerment evaluation in Spain: the critical friend role in
working with
rural communities. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 191, 984–989.
doi: 10.1016/j.
sbspro.2015.04.483
Flaxman, P. E., and Bond, F. W. (2010). Worksite stress
management training:
moderated effects and clinical significance. J. Occup. Health
Psychol. 15,
347–358. doi: 10.1037/a0020522
France, A., and Roberts, S. (2015). The problem of social
generations: a critique

of the new emerging orthodoxy in youth studies. J. Youth Stud.
18, 215–230.
doi: 10.1080/13676261.2014.944122
www.frontiersin.org
https://doi.org/10.1002/nha3.20061
https://doi.org/10.1002/nha3.20061
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.03.003
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.70.5.1129
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.1057
https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v26n01_05
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.645
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2011.03.007
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2011.03.007
https://doi.org/10.1300/J075v26n01_02
https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12001
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.654348
https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/wax001
https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOBU.0000028444.77080.c5
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.331
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1988.4306983
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1988.4306983
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-012-9259-4
https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.15
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.07.007
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-
millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-
millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-4446.2005.00083.x
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.483
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.483
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020522
https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2014.944122

Gallup (2013). State of the global workplace: Employment
engagement insights
for business leaders worldwide. (Berlin: Gallup).
Geczy, P., Isumi, N., and Hasida, K. (2014). Analytics-based
management of
information systems. Rev. Bus. Finance Stud. 5, 55–66.
Giancola, F. (2006). The generation gap: more myth than
reality. People Strategy
29, 32–37.
Gibson, C., Porath, C. L., Benson, G., and Lawler, E. E. III
(2007). What
results when firms implement practices: the differential
relationship between
specific firm practices, firm financial performance, customer
service, and
quality. J. Appl. Psychol. 92, 1467–1480. doi: 10.1037/0021-
9010.92.6.1467
Guajardo, S. A. (2014). Workforce diversity: assessing the
impact of minority
integration on intra-workgroup interaction. Int. J. Police Sci.
Manag. 16,
205–220. doi: 10.1350/ijps.2014.16.3.340
Harrim, H. M., and Alkshali, S. J. (2008). Employees’
empowerment and its

effect on team effectiveness: field study on Jordanian
construction firms.
Jordan J. Bus. Admin. 4, 107–121.
Hart, P. M., Schembri, C., Bell, C. A., and Armstrong, K.
(2003). “Leadership,
climate, work attitudes and commitment: is generation X really
that different?”
in Academy of management meeting. eds. D. N. Rousseau and
A. Rivero-
Dabos (Seattle, Washington: Academy of management).
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., and Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-
unit-level
relationship between employee satisfaction, employee
engagement, and
business outcomes: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 87, 268–
279. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268
Hayes, S. C. (2004). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy,
relational frame
theory, and the third wave of behavioral and cognitive
therapies. Behav. Ther.
35, 639–665. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7894(04)80013-3
Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., and Roche, B. (2001).
Relational frame theory:
A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition.
(New York: Kluwer).
Hayes, S. C., Luoma, J. B., Bond, F. W., Masuda, A., and Lillis,
J. (2006).
Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: model, processes and
outcomes.
Behav. Res. Ther. 44, 1–25. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2005.06.006

Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., Bunting, K., Twohig, M., and
Wilson, K. G.
(2004a). “What is acceptance and commitment therapy?” in A
practical guide
to Acceptance and Commitment Therapy. eds. S. C. Hayes and
K. D. Strosahl
(New York: Springer-Verlag), 3–29.
Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., Wilson, K. G., Bassett, R. T.,
Pastorally, J., Toarmino,
D., et al. (2004b). Measuring experiential avoidance: a
preliminary test of
a working model. Psychol. Rec. 54, 553–578.
Heugens, P. P., and Lander, M. W. (2009). Structure! Agency!
(and other
quarrels): a meta-analysis of institutional theories of
organization.
Acad. Manag. J. 52, 61–85. doi: 10.5465/amj.2009.36461835
Jansen, J. E., Haahr, U. H., Lyse, H. G., Pedersen, M. B.,
Trauelsen, A. M.,
and Simonsen, E. (2017). Psychological flexibility as a buffer
against caregiver
distress in families with psychosis. Front. Psychol. 8:1625. doi:
10.3389/
fpsyg.2017.01625
Joshi, A., Dencker, J. C., and Franz, G. (2011). Generations in
organizations.
Res. Organ. Behav. 31, 177–205. doi:
10.1016/j.riob.2011.10.002
Joshi, A., Dencker, J. C., Franz, G., and Martocchio, J. J.
(2010). Unpacking

generational identities in organizations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 35,
392–414. doi:
10.5465/amr.35.3.zok392
Kanter, R. M. (1993). Men and women of the corporation. (New
York: Basic Books).
Kim, S. Y., and Fernandez, S. (2017). Employee empowerment
and turnover
intention in the US federal bureaucracy. Am. Rev. Public Adm.
47, 4–22.
doi: 10.1177/0275074015583712
Kim, T. Y., and Kim, M. (2013). Leaders’ moral competence
and employee
outcomes: the effects of psychological empowerment and
person–supervisor
fit. J. Bus. Ethics 112, 155–166. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1238-
1
Klevan, T., Karlsson, B., Ness, O., Grant, A., and Ruud, T.
(2018). Between a
rock and a softer place—a discourse analysis of helping cultures
in crisis
resolution teams. Qual. Soc. Work. 17, 252–267. doi:
10.1177/1473325016668962
Koberg, C. S., Boss, W., Senjem, J. C., and Goodman, E. A.
(1999). Antecedents
and outcomes of empowerment: empirical evidence from the
health care
industry. Group Org. Manag. 34, 71–91. doi:
10.1177/1059601199241005
Korn, K. J. M. (2010). A second look at generational
differences in the workforce:

implications for HR and talent management. People Strategy 33,
50–58.
Kowske, B. J., Rasch, R., and Wiley, J. (2010). Millennials’
(lack of ) attitude
problem: an empirical examination of generational effects on
work attitudes.
J. Bus. Psychol. 25, 265–279. doi: 10.1007/s10869-010-9171-8
Kucuk, S. U. (2008). Consumer exit, voice and “power” on the
Internet.
J. Res. Consumers 15, 1–13.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., and Sparrowe, R. T. (2000). An
examination of the
mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations
between the
job, interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes. J. Appl.
Psychol. 85,
407–416. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.407
Lloyd, J., Bond, F. W., and Flaxman, P. E. (2013). The value of
psychological
flexibility: examining psychological mechanisms underpinning
a cognitive
behavioral therapy intervention for burnout. Work Stress 27,
181–199. doi:
10.1080/02678373.2013.782157
Lok, P., and Crawford, J. (2004). The effect of organizational
culture and leadership
style on job satisfaction and organizational commitment: a
cross-national
comparison. J. Manag. Dev. 23, 321–338. doi:
10.1108/02621710410529785

Lumesse, S. A. (2013). The impact of complexity. A Global
Research Study
from Lumesse. Available at: https://www.lumesse.com/
(Accessed June 2015).
Lyons, S., and Kuron, L. (2014). Generational differences in the
workplace: a
review of the evidence and directions for future research. J.
Organ. Behav.
35, S139–S157. doi: 10.1002/job.1913
Lyons, S. T., and Schweitzer, L. (2017). A qualitative
exploration of generational
identity: making sense of young and old in the context of
today’s workplace.
Work Aging Retire. 3, 209–224. doi: 10.1093/workar/waw024
Lyons, S., Urick, M., Kuron, L., and Schweitzer, L. (2015).
Generational differences
in the workplace: there is complexity beyond the stereotypes.
Ind. Organ.
Psychol. 8, 346–356. doi: 10.1017/iop.2015.48
MacDuffie, J. P. (1995). Human resource bundles and
manufacturing performance:
organizational logic and flexible production systems in the
world auto
industry. Ind. Labor Relat. Rev. 48, 197–221. doi:
10.1177/001979399504800201
Macky, K., Gadner, D., and Forsyth, S. (2008). Generational
differences at
work: introduction and overview. J. Manag. Psychol. 21, 857–
861. doi:
10.1108/02683940810904358

Mannheim, K. (1993). El problema de las generaciones. Rev.
Esp. Invest. Sociol.
62, 193–242.
Mark, B. (1996). Organizational culture. Annu. Rev. Nurs. Res.
14, 145–163.
doi: 10.1891/0739-6686.14.1.145
Ng, T. W., and Feldman, D. C. (2010). The relationships of age
with job attitudes:
a meta-analysis. Pers. Psychol. 63, 677–718. doi:
10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01184.x
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Dickinson, W. B., Leech, N. L., and Zoran,
A. G. (2009).
A qualitative framework for collecting and analyzing data in
focus group
research. Int. J. Qual. Methods 8, 1–21. doi:
10.1177/160940690900800301
Page, S. E. (2010). Diversity and complexity. (Princeton:
Princeton University Press).
Pilcher, J. (1994). Mannheim’s sociology of generations: an
undervalued legacy.
Br. J. Sociol. 45, 481–495. doi: 10.2307/591659
Reeves, M., and Deimler, M. (2011). Adaptability: the new
competitive advantage.
Harv. Bus. Rev. 89, 135–141. doi: 10.1002/9781119204084.ch2
Robbins, S. P., and Judge, T. A. (2009). Essentials of
organizational behavior.
(San Diego: Pearson Education).
Roberto, K. J., and Biggan, J. R. (2014). “Keen, groovy,
wicked, or phat, it is

all cool: generational stereotyping and social identity” in
Generational diversity
at work: New research perspectives. ed. E. Parry (New York,
NY, USA:
Routledge), 129–147.
Ruiz, F. J. (2010). A review of Acceptance and Commitment
Therapy (ACT)
empirical evidence: correlational, experimental
psychopathology, component
and outcome studies. Int. J. Psychol. Psychol. Ther. 10, 125–
162.
Ruiz, F. J. (2012). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy versus
traditional
cognitive behavioral therapy: a systematic review and meta-
analysis of current
empirical evidence. Int. J. Psychol. Psychol. Ther. 12, 333–358.
Sahoo, C. K., Behera, N., and Tripathy, S. K. (2010). Employee
empowerment
and individual commitment: an analysis from integrative review
of research.
Employ. Relat. Rec. 10, 40–56.
Sakdiyakorn, M., and Wattanacharoensil, W. (2017).
Generational diversity in the
workplace: a systematic review in the hospitality context.
Cornell Hosp. Q.
59, 135–159. doi: 10.1177/1938965517730312
Segers, J., Inceoglu, I., and Finkelstein, L. (2014). “The age
cube of work”
in Generational diversity at work: New research perspectives.
ed. E. Parry

(New York, NY, USA: Routledge), 11–36.
Shen, J., Chanda, A., D’netto, B., and Monga, M. (2009).
Managing diversity
through human resource management: an international
perspective and
conceptual framework. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 20, 235–
251. doi:
10.1080/09585190802670516
www.frontiersin.org
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1467
https://doi.org/10.1350/ijps.2014.16.3.340
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(04)80013-3
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2005.06.006
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.36461835
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2011.10.002
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.35.3.zok392
https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074015583712
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1238-1
https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325016668962
https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601199241005
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9171-8
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.407
https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2013.782157
https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710410529785
https://www.lumesse.com/
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1913
https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/waw024
https://doi.org/10.1177/001979399504800201

https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940810904358
https://doi.org/10.1891/0739-6686.14.1.145
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01184.x
https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800301
https://doi.org/10.2307/591659
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119204084.ch2
https://doi.org/10.1177/1938965517730312
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190802670516
Southwell, B. G. (2005). Information overload? Advertisement
editing and
memory hindrance. Atl. J. Comm. 13, 26–40. doi:
10.1207/s15456889ajc1301_2
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the
workplace: dimensions,
measurement, and validation. Acad. Manag. J. 38, 1442–1465.
doi: 10.2307/256865
Suomäki, A., Kianto, A., and Vanhala, M. (2019). Work
engagement across
different generations in Finland: a qualitative study of Boomers,
Yers and
Xers. Knowl. Process. Manag. 26, 140–151. doi:
10.1002/kpm.1604
Thomas, K. W., and Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive
elements of empowerment:
an “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Acad.
Manag. Rev. 15,

666–681. doi: 10.2307/258687
Twenge, J. M. (2000). The age of anxiety? Birth cohort change
in anxiety and
neuroticism, 1952-1993. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 79, 1007–1021.
doi: 10.1037/
0022-3514.79.6.1007
Twenge, J. M., and Campbell, S. M. (2008). Generational
differences in psychological
traits and their impact on the workplace. J. Manag. Psychol. 23,
862–877.
doi: 10.1108/02683940810904367
Twenge, J. M., Campbell, S. M., Hoffman, B. J., and Lance, C.
E. (2010).
Generational differences in work values: leisure and extrinsic
values increasing,
social and intrinsic values decreasing. J. Manag. 36, 1117–1142.
doi:
10.1177/0149206309352246
Wang, Y., and Peng, Y. (2015). An alternative approach to
understanding generational
differences. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 8, 390–395. doi:
10.1017/iop.2015.56
Wetherell, M., and Potter, J. (1988). “Discourse analysis and
the identification of
interpretative repertoires” in Analysing everyday explanation: A
casebook of
methods. ed. C. Antaki (Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage
Publications), 168–183.
Whiteman, W. E. (1998). Training and educating army officers
for the 21st

century: Implications for the United States Military Academy.
(Fort Belvoir,
VA: Defense Technical Information Center).
World Medical Association (2001). World Medical Association
Declaration of
Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving
human subjects.
Bull. World Health Organ. 79, 373–374.
Wright, P. M., Gardner, T. M., and Moynihan, L. M. (2003).
The impact of HR
practices on the performance of business units. Hum. Resour.
Manag. J. 13,
21–36. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-8583.2003.tb00096.x
Yao, Q., Chen, R., and Cai, G. (2013). How internal marketing
can cultivate
psychological empowerment and enhance employee
performance. Soc. Behav.
Personal. Int. J. 41, 529–537. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2013.41.4.529
Zettle, R. D., and Hayes, S. C. (1986). Dysfunctional control by
client verbal
behavior: the context of reason-giving. Anal. Verbal Behav. 4,
30–38. doi:
10.1007/BF03392813
Zhang, X., and Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering
leadership and
employee creativity: the influence of psychological
empowerment, intrinsic
motivation, and creative process engagement. Acad. Manag. J.
53, 107–128.
doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.48037118

Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the
research was conducted
in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that
could be construed
as a potential conflict of interest.
Copyright © 2019 Sobrino-De Toro, Labrador-Fernández and
De Nicolás. This is
an open-access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution
License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other
forums is permitted,
provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are
credited and that
the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance
with accepted academic
practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which
does not comply
with these terms.
www.frontiersin.org
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15456889ajc1301_2
https://doi.org/10.2307/256865
https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1604
https://doi.org/10.2307/258687
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.1007
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.1007
https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940810904367
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309352246
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2003.tb00096.x
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2013.41.4.529
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392813
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.48037118

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Generational
Diversity in the Workplace: Psychological Empowerment and
Flexibility in Spanish CompaniesIntroductionGeneration, an
Ambiguous ConceptEmployees’ Psychological
EmpowermentPsychological FlexibilityObjective of the
ResearchMethodologyFocus GroupsModel and MethodResults
and DiscussionPsychological EmpowermentPsychological
FlexibilityConclusionData AvailabilityEthics StatementAuthor
ContributionsReferences
Small-Business Owner-Managers’
Perceptions of Business Ethics
and CSR-Related Concepts
Yves Fassin
Annick Van Rossem
Marc Buelens
ABSTRACT. Recent academic articles point to an
increased vagueness and overlap in concepts related to
business ethics and corporate responsibility. Further, the
perception of these notions can differ in the small-
business world from the original academic definitions.
This article focuses on the cognition of small-business

owner-managers. Given the impact of small-business
owner–managers on their ventures, corporate responsi-
bility and ethical issues can take a different route in
SMEs. The small-business owner–manager is able to
shape the corporate culture and to enact values other
than profit. Adopting a cognitive perspective, we have
identified how the small-business owner–manager
makes sense of notions linked to corporate social
responsibility (CSR) and business ethics. The concept
of sensemaking has recently been applied to CSR (Basu
and Pallazzo, 2008; Cramer et al., 2006). Applying a
cognitive perspective to small-business owners may help
in explaining specific phenomena found within small-
business ownership. For this research, the Repertory
Grid Technique (RGT) is used, a method that has not
previously been widely applied in the business and
society field.
Our findings to an extent invalidate the confusion in

terminology found in the academic literature. Small-
business owner–managers, pragmatically and rather
clearly, differentiate among the various concepts related
to corporate responsibility and business ethics but, at
the same time, they recognise the interrelationships and
interdependencies of these concepts. These findings
contribute to a better understanding of how
small-business owners think and integrate corporate
responsibility and ethical issues into their decision-
making.
KEY WORDS: business ethics, corporate social respon-
sibility, corporate governance, small business, SME, family
business, entrepreneur, cognition, sensemaking, percep-
tion, Repertory Grid Technique
Introduction
Business ethics and corporate responsibility have been
increasingly considered by both academics and prac-
titioners in recent decades (Carroll and Buchholtz,

2006; Epstein, 1987; Schwartz and Carroll, 2008;
Vogel, 1991). The majority of academic research on
management have focused on large corporations,
including that in the domains of corporate social
responsibility (CSR) and business ethics. The issue of
corporate responsibility and ethics in small and
medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) has received only
limited attention in the literature (Gallo, 2004;
Murillo and Lozano, 2006; Spence, 1999).
Over a hundred concepts have been proposed on
how ethical issues in business should be defined
(Egels, 2005; van Marrewijk, 2003). This explosion of
concepts and definitions has increased vagueness and
ambiguity (van Marrewijk, 2003). The object of this
analysis is to explore the distinctiveness and clarity in
the perceptions of small-business owner-managers of
the concepts in this important field by studying the
knowledge structures, or mental models, that small-

business owners have developed to process informa-
tion. This provides a better understanding of how
these small-business owners think and make strategic
choices. The strong economic orientation of most
strategy research has led many studies to equate
entrepreneurial motivation with a desire for profit
(Mitchell et al., 2004). A clearer understanding of
how small-business owners interpret CSR and busi-
ness ethics might show that motivations other than
profit maximisation influence their decision making
(Klein and Kellermanns, 2008).
This article proceeds as follows. The first section
highlights the confusion surrounding the various
Journal of Business Ethics (2011) 98:425–453 � Springer 2010
DOI 10.1007/s10551-010-0586-y
concepts related to business ethics and CSR, and to the
lack of consistency in the use of these concepts. The
second section elaborates on the theme of cognition,

sensemaking and construing. Next, in the third sec-
tion, we formulate our research question and explain
the objective of this exploratory study, i.e. to under-
stand small-business owners’ cognition of CSR and
related topics through a combination of qualitative and
quantitative approaches. The fourth section outlines
the methodological issues, the research design and our
sampling. The empirical results are summarised in the
following (fifth) section. In the sixth section, the results
of our research are discussed and illustrated with
comments from small-business owner-managers. The
limitations and perspectives for further research pre-
cede concluding remarks in the final section.
Concepts related to business ethics
and corporate responsibility
The intermingled use of various CSR and business-
ethics-related concepts in numerous academic arti-
cles, in corporate communication and in the media has

lead to a certain confusion between those concepts.
Conceptual confusion in academic literature
A number of recent articles in the business and society
literature have drawn attention to the lack of consis-
tency and coherence, while retaining certain similar-
ities, in the definitions and use of concepts related to
business ethics and social responsibility such as stake-
holder theory, CSR, corporate citizenship, corporate
social performance, sustainable development and
business ethics. ‘Management literature treats these
concepts in one way and business ethics literature in
another way’ (Fisher, 2004, p. 391). With unclear
semantics and specialist terminology, concepts are
continuously mixed up in terms of context, content
and perspectives (Attarça and Jacquot, 2005; Epstein,
1987; Fisher, 2004; Wheeler et al., 2003). Further,
marketing labels dreamed up by consultants and new
concepts launched by academics amplify the confu-

sion in a competition to establish a dominant concept
(De Bakker et al., 2005).
In particular, two concepts, CSR and business
ethics, manifestly overlap and tend to be used almost
interchangeably in academic literature (Cacioppe
et al., 2008; Epstein, 1987; Ferrell, 2004; Joyner and
Payne, 2002; Vogel, 1991). Further, sustainability
and CSR seem to have converged in recent years
such that they are now very similar concepts (Staurer
et al., 2005; Waddock, 2004). The interrelationship
between these concepts is also illustrated by the
central role given to ethics in CSR and in the
stakeholder concept (Garriga and Melé, 2004;
Donaldson and Preston, 1995).
Alongside these major concepts, related broad
concepts such as the triple bottom-line, corporate
governance and accountability have emerged, while
many fragmented and more specific notions such as

safety, product liability, human rights, codes or
charters, and philanthropy have developed as sub-
domains (Carroll and Buchholtz, 2006; Crane and
Matten, 2004). Philanthropy was included as a fourth
stage in Carroll’s pyramid of CSR, after economic,
legal and ethical responsibilities (Carroll, 1991; Crane
and Matten, 2004; Porter and Kramer, 2006). Con-
versely, in the European Commission vision (Afuah,
2001), philanthropy was explicitly excluded from
CSR (Luetkenhorst, 2004), with the real objective of
CSR being also seen as sustainable development
(Eberhard-Harribey, 2006).
A comparison of a selection of articles by
authoritative scholars in Appendix A leads to the
conclusion that there is much confusion in this area
with vagueness and ambiguity attached to the
concepts. Similarly, leading handbooks on business
ethics incorporate various concepts, although the

label of stakeholder is a common thread. In addi-
tion to the above mentioned concepts, this study is
the first to also integrate corporate governance into
the analysis (Fassin and Van Rossem, 2009). Al-
though CSR and corporate governance have
developed along separate lines, some complemen-
tarities and an increasing overlap have been ob-
served (Aguilera et al., 2006; Beltratti, 2005; Morris
et al., 2002; Van den Berghe and Louche, 2005).
Other authors have depicted the interrelationships
and interdependencies among business ethics, cor-
porate governance and sustainability (Potts and
Maluszewski, 2004; Wieland, 2001). The list of
articles in Appendix A includes, in the middle
column, notes on the major and any additional
concepts considered in these articles. This list
highlights a number of common concerns expressed
426 Yves Fassin et al.

by authors. They raise a number of theoretical is-
sues around the concepts, and these articles clearly
express concerns about the lack of clarity in ter-
minology, vagueness in conceptualisation and
ambiguity in their interpretation (see also compar-
ative studies of De Bakker et al., 2005; Schwartz
and Carroll, 2008; Valor, 2005). The theoretical
issues involve differentiation issues such as overlaps
and similarities, matters of hierarchical positioning,
relationships and cross-connections, and placement
in existing frameworks. These issues can be viewed
as typical of competition among different streams of
research, with issues related to integration, con-
vergence or divergence, juxtaposition and com-
plementarity (De Bakker et al., 2005).
Conceptual confusion in corporate communications
and in the media

The confusion between concepts related to CSR and
business ethics increased when the academic literature
spread into daily business life and the press (for
example De Wilde, 2007; Verbeke, 2007). Many
CSR and business-related concepts have evolved in
parallel universes of companies and academia –
sometimes overlapping, sometimes not (Waddock,
2004) – because the vast amount of CSR literature
offered little practical guidance to corporate execu-
tives (Porter and Kramer, 2006). References to CSR,
sustainable development and corporate governance in
a corporation’s mission and value statements became
increasingly muddled. The numerous press articles on
the introduction of the various codes of conduct for
corporate governance (for example, Cadbury in the
United Kingdom (UK-Government, 2002), Tab-
aksblat in the Netherlands (Rijksoverheid, 2003) and
Lippens in Belgium (Commissie-Corporate-Govern-

ance, 2009) engendered, explicitly or implicitly, a
liaison between ethics and corporate governance
(Gasorek, 2003). Brochures and websites produced
by large companies increasingly referred to these
notions, with wide variations in the use of the ter-
minology (Schlegelmilch and Pollach, 2005).
Further, different ways of disseminating the con-
cepts related to business ethics and CSR added to the
inconsistency and confusion. Apart from the aca-
demic press, many other channels diffuse ideas to the
industrial and business world. For example, consul-
tants and professional organisations use their own
channels to disseminate such concepts (Fincham,
1995; Fineman, 2001; Scarbrough, 2003). They often
promote ‘new’ concepts and programmes as varia-
tions upon the same theme, but with a fashionable
new name (Berglund and Werr, 2000; Gill and
Whittle, 1992; Huczynski, 1993; Scarbrough, 2003).

In addition, the general media also transmit these
concepts, increasingly so since their regained interest
in business and entrepreneurship after the series of
scandals at the end of the twentieth century (Buelens,
2002; Elliott and Schroth, 2002; Fassin, 2005). Each
channel puts its own spin and emphasis on the con-
cepts concerned (Abrahamson, 1996; Abrahamson
and Fairchild, 2001). Moreover, just as in the fields of
product development and innovation, the dissemi-
nation of concepts does not always occur at the same
pace (Hansen et al., 2004; Schlegelmilch and Pollach,
2005).
Sensemaking, construing and mapping
methods
Over the years, various researchers such as Simon
(1947) and Weick (1995) have advocated adopt-
ing cognitive perspectives in management studies
alongside economic viewpoints. The cognitive per-

spective focuses on studying mental processes and
determining the role that they play in affecting
emotions and behaviour (Swan, 1997). The cognitive
perspective emphasises that information processing
capabilities are limited (Fiske and Taylor, 1991) and
vary from one person or organisation to another
(Starbuck et al., 1978; Sutcliffe, 1994). In addition,
information is not always sufficiently rich or varied, so
that interpretation involves elaboration (Porac and
Thomas, 1990; Reger and Huff, 1993). Termed dif-
ferently, instead of attempting to grasp everything,
people construe ‘mental representations’, often re-
ferred to as knowledge structures which are simplified
mental images of the world. These images then are
imposed upon the world and used to help process
information, to ‘make sense’ and ultimately to make
decisions (Kiesler and Sproull, 1982; Walsh, 1994).
Sensemaking is an activity where cognitive structures

and structuring devices are used to perceive situations
and to interpret their perceptions (Sackmann, 1992)
to make sense of an ambiguous situation (Higgins
427Small-Business Owner-Managers’ Perceptions of Business
Ethics and CSR-Related Concepts
et al., 1977). Mental representations then guide
cognition and actions related to choices (Daft and
Weick, 1984; Stubbart, 1989). It has been argued that
managers generally shape their environment through
‘enactment’ – by constructing interpretations and
then acting as if such interpretations are the reality
(Bandura, 1986; Corbett and Hmieleski, 2007; Daft
and Weick, 1984; Porac et al., 1989). Herein also lies
what is called the ‘thinking–doing’ step. According to
several authors organisational sensemaking proceeds
from the scanning of information sources, through
interpretation of data, to action (Daft and Weick,

1984; Forbes, 1999; Weick, 1995). Sensemaking and
enactment are often referred to as a constructive
perspective on knowledge (Spender, 1996).
Such a cognitive perspective has been applied in
many strategic management studies, especially those
focusing on the upper echelons of larger companies
(Barr, 1998; Calori et al., 1992; Isabella and Waddock,
1994), and more recently also when considering
small-businesses and entrepreneurship (Corbett and
Hmieleski, 2007; Krueger, 2007; Mitchell et al.,
2004, 2007; Morris et al., 2002). Adopting a cognitive
perspective on small-business owners may well help in
explaining specific phenomena within small-business
ownership (Carland et al., 1984). Small-business
owners live within different contexts and environ-
ments, and think differently, from managers (Baron,
1998). The essential distinguishing factor between
small-business owners and entrepreneurs. on the one

hand, and managers, on the other, is in the bearing of
risk. The business is generally the primary source of
income for small-business owner-managers and will
consume the majority of their time and resources
(Carland et al., 1984). Another difference between
small and large companies is the extent of their re-
sources. A small-business venture has been defined as
any business that is independently owned and oper-
ated, and that is not dominant in its field (Carland
et al., 1984) or in which the firm’s optimum size is
generally small (d’Amboise and Muldowney, 1988).
Moreover, one should not forget that, by their very
nature, SMEs do not form a homogeneous entity
(Beaver, 2002). Hence, cognition research has the
potential to shed new light on many aspects of how
topics related to CSR and business ethics are per-
ceived by small-business owner-managers.
Related to this cognitive approach is the issue of

how to disclose people’s knowledge structures (Eden,
1992). Often graphical mental maps and related
mapping methods are used (Eden, 1992). A graphical
mental map can be defined as a graphical represen-
tation that provides a frame of reference for what is
known and what is believed (Fiol and Huff, 1992). In
line with Korzybski’s (1933) premise – the map is not
the territory,– it must be noted that what we term as
knowledge structures is not the same as graphical
representations of these knowledge structures: ‘it is
not obvious or empirically proven that managers
actually have cognitive maps in their heads or else-
where’ (Stubbart and Ramaprasad, 1990, p. 216).
Cognitive mapping methods can never claim to
completely represent human cognition and thinking
(Eden, 1992). That is of course why different map-
ping methods have been developed (Eden and
Spender, 1998), each capturing a different dimension

of the ‘territory’. Huff (1990) suggested five families
of cognitive maps, based on the purpose of the
mapping, their interpretive input from the researcher
and the parts of the knowledge structures captured.
Mapping methods are nested on two dimensions:
methodological issues and the research context
(Jenkins, 1998).
Given this argument, this article focuses on a
cognitive study to determine how small-business
owner-managers make sense of concepts related to
CSR and business ethics. The article emphasises the
content of the knowledge structures of small-business
owners as individuals. The content of a knowledge
structure plays an important role if one accepts that an
individual’s beliefs influence their intentions (Ajzen,
1991) and actions (Mitchell et al., 2007).
Research question
If, as has been indicated above, academic researchers

are not able to clearly distinguish between CSR and
related concepts, then how can one expect the
business community to understand the meanings and
differential characteristics of these concepts? This
question is all the more pertinent since these notions,
once they are conveyed by non-specialists such as
general business authors and journalists, lead to
greater vagueness, ambiguity and confusion (Abra-
hamson and Fairchild, 2001; Meyer, 1996).
The CSR and related concepts were initially
introduced into larger companies, albeit not without
428 Yves Fassin et al.
some difficulties. Nowadays, various initiatives at
European, national and regional levels are tending to
introduce and disseminate these notions to smaller
organisations, including SMEs.
1
However, if large

companies experience difficulties in understanding
and adopting these concepts, how can we expect
SME owner-managers to distinguish the precise
impact of the various concepts? On the other hand,
is it possible that, despite the academic confusion,
there is some degree of sensemaking and pragmatism
amongst small-business owners (Weick, 1995)?
As noted in the ‘‘Introduction’’ section, corporate
responsibility and ethics in SMEs has only recently
received limited attention in the literature. The
majority of empirical studies on CSR and ethics
have focused on large companies (Spence, 1999;
Vyakarnam et al., 1997). The limited number of
studies concerning SMEs have compared the atti-
tudes of managers in large companies to those of
small-business owners (Longenecker et al., 1989).
More recently, some scholars have investigated
ethics in innovative entrepreneurial ventures (Bucar

et al., 2003; Hannafey, 2003). However, few studies
investigate how small-business owner–managers
make sense of concepts surrounding CSR and ethics.
While number of studies on the attitude of small-
business owner–managers have been undertaken
(Quinn, 1997), cognitive studies on the CSR per-
ceptions of small-business leaders are comparatively
rare (Boal and Newman, 1985). More recently, the
concept of sensemaking has been applied to CSR
(Basu and Pallazzo, 2008; Cramer et al., 2006).
Corporate responsibility and ethical issues have a
different width in SMEs. Most ventures have only
one or a few key managers (mostly the owners) at
their core, and relatively few hierarchical levels. Thus,
their beliefs and decision-making processes are likely
to be more concentrated than those in large organi-
sations. Fewer hierarchical levels permit closer con-
tact with all personnel. The effects of managerial

cognition are thus likely to be more direct in venture
settings than in larger, more established organisations
(Forbes, 1999) and the impact of small-business
owner-managers on their organisation is extremely
influential, and maybe even more important than in
large organisations (Bucar and Hisrich, 2001). Often,
as the sole or a major decision-maker, the small-
business owner-manager has the possibility to shape
the corporate culture and to enact values other than
profit (Klein and Kellermanns, 2008; Nicholson,
2008). As such, understanding how small-business
owners interpret and enact business ethics and
CSR-related concepts may shed light on how these
concepts will eventually be implemented (Murillo
and Lozano, 2006; Perrini et al., 2007). While exec-
utives in larger corporations may experience pressures
to realise short-term results, the owner of a small
family business, with a perspective on continuity, may

adopt a longer-term approach (Hoffman et al., 2006).
Nevertheless, the risks faced by an owner in terms of
personal financial investment, job security and status
may lead to different psychological pressures, where
conflicts of interest cannot be excluded.
The aim of this study, then, is to uncover how
small-business owners understand the notions of
corporate responsibility, business ethics and related
concepts. Particularly, the aim of this research is to
reveal whether small-business owners see business
ethics and CSR as interchangeable concepts, and
whether in their mind CSR and sustainability cover
similar issues. In addition, the analysis will verify
how small-business owners position philanthropy in
relation to CSR and business ethics related concepts.
Methodology
Repertory Grid Technique
As explained above, a cognitive and constructivist

Running head MANAGING A DIVERSE WORKFORCE1MANAGING A DIVERSE.docx

Running head MANAGING A DIVERSE WORKFORCE1MANAGING A DIVERSE.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Running head MANAGING A DIVERSE WORKFORCE1MANAGING A DIVERSE.docx

Similar to Running head MANAGING A DIVERSE WORKFORCE1MANAGING A DIVERSE.docx (20)

More from jeanettehully

More from jeanettehully (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Running head MANAGING A DIVERSE WORKFORCE1MANAGING A DIVERSE.docx