Generational Cohorts and Managerial Motivation

Managerial Motivation of Generational Cohorts

Table of Contents

Literature Review 3

The Strauss and Howe generational theory 3

Motivational differences of different generational cohorts 4

Workforce motivation theories 5

Performance management strategies in the workplace 9

Job characteristics for different generational cohorts 10

Generational differences in work values 12

Relationship between the topic (Managerial Motivation of Generational Cohorts) and literature theory 15

References 16

Bibliography 18

Literature Review

The Strauss and Howe generational theory

Commended by Newt Gingrich, ex-house speaker, Al Gore, ex-Vice President of the United States, and an assortment of other national leaders, Howe and Strauss’s work titled ‘Generations’ (1991) has received acclaim as a splendid, though slightly alarming, review of the direction the nation is headed towards. The authors suggest that the country’s history may be considered in the form of a string of generational profiles, commencing from the year 1584 and including every single era until the present-day children. The two boldly theorize that all generations may be regarded as belonging to any one out of four kinds which are sequentially repeated in a set pattern. Their vision enables one to chart a recurrent cycle within the nation’s history – one characterized by secular challenges and religious revivals – from the colonial age till the 21st century. The book is an uplifting historical account as well as an exciting insightful leap which reorders history books, in addition to people’s expectations with regard to the current century.

The aforementioned book covers what came to be known as the ‘Strauss–Howe generational theory’, which delineates a theorized repetitive generational cycle within the history of the nation. The theorists established the basis for their hypothesis within their book which presents US history in the form of a succession of generational profiles dating back to the year 1584. A newer work titled ‘The Fourth Turning’ (1997) expands the generational theory paying attention to the nation’s traditional fourfold generational kind cycle and repetitive mood periods. Since then, the theorists have utilized various publications for expanding further on their idea.

Howe and Strauss's (1991) efforts constitute a combination of prediction and actual historical facts. They offered historical details on prior and current generations in addition to making several predictions a large number of which pertained to the Millennials (who, at the time of commencement of the authors’ efforts, were little children); consequently, the authors lacked adequate historical data concerning this generation. The theorists’ first work titled Generations (1991) explains American history as being a progression of generational profiles of Anglo-Americans between 1584 and the current period. A hypothesized repetitive generational cycle within the history of the nation has been outlined. They hypothesize a trend of four repetitive stages, generational forms and a repetitive cycle of secular challenges and religious revivals, from the colonial age till the 21st century.

According to the authors, the term ‘social generation’ may be defined as the sum total of all individuals born across approximately two decades or across the duration of a single stage of life out of 4 stages childhood, youth, midlife, and later life. They have identified generations (between the year of birth and the last) by seeking cohorts of this duration which have the following conditions in common: Firstly, people belonging to a generation have a common age location within history: that is, they experience important social developments/movements and historical occurrences when going through the same stage of life. According to this perspective, individuals belonging to a given generation are permanently molded by the age they are in during their childhood and youth, making them share particular behaviors and views. Cognizant of these shared characteristics and life experiences, individuals belonging to a given generation would display a feeling of perceived belongingness with their generation as well (Strauss & Howe, 1991).

Howe and Strauss claim that their description of ‘generations’ is grounded in the efforts of a number of social theorists and authors, including Ibn Khaldun, Polybius and other earliest authors and contemporary social theorists like José Ortega y Gasset, John Stuart Mill, Karl Mannheim, François Mentré, Émile Littré, and Auguste Comte.

Given the above theory, one generic strategy to motivate workforce across generations could be to celebrate their secular and/or religious values and build company values and performance-packages around them. In short, individual religious and secular values can be used to motivate the all generational cohorts. For instance, religious festivities can be celebrated by announcing company holidays etc. In a corporate setting, the managers can further design motivational packages that are based around historical events that were influential for the generational cohorts and celebrate history in the form of themed office parties. This can allow one generation to understand the perspectives of a social event that matters to a different generation instigating a certain level of respect and understanding between the two. Similar approaches can be used for social events especially when dealing with generation X and the millennials. These two generations while being closely linked and with the least age gap can have very different values for different social events. So using a strategy that allows different social events and opinions to be openly discussed can form comrade and understanding across the generations. Care should be taken though that this is done in a positive framework otherwise it could create further differences and a larger gap between the two in a workplace.

Motivational differences of different generational cohorts

Applying prior studies dealing with inter-generational gaps, Katarzyna (2014) aimed at examining whether or not distinctions in motivational elements were, in fact, extant across different generations within Irish organizations. By employing facts assimilated via a Motivational Factors Questionnaire to serve as motivation measures, the researcher scrutinized cross-sectional gaps among three clusters of the US workforce from Irish descent: Baby Boomers, Gen X and Gen Y (Katarzyna, 2014). The author’s findings do not absolutely support the generational stereotypes exhibited by popular media and works on the management discipline. This examination revealed the existence of a few deep-seated differences between numerous generational drivers. But age may account for these differences instead of generation, on the whole. Despite highly statistically significant distinctions being apparent, they may practically not present such challenges in management strategy on the whole (Katarzyna, 2014). Moreover, a review of existing works published on the topic reveals a few incongruities, demonstrating that current studies, in certain instances, do not display identical outcomes.

For acquiring improved insights into the determinants and profiles motivating Gen Y, Gen X and Baby Boomers, the author examined the 3 generations against five inspirational elements, namely, idle time, compensation, increased responsibility, ability to advance, and work atmosphere. Differences discovered, though statistically significant, do not appreciably affect the organization; this is perhaps owing to the many stages of life exhibited by an age group. But this doesn’t eliminate the truth that different age groups possess different thinking owing to the distinct climate they were raised in and the diversity of situations they experienced within their lives (Katarzyna, 2014). This may imply that while they are dissimilar as individuals, they are rather identical within the workplace setting. Current analysis is marked by several limitations, with additional studies recommended within the field. Katarzyna (2014) acknowledges that companies must cultivate an atmosphere of attentiveness and respect for creating a bridge that links every age group towards developing and maintaining an industrious workforce.

Tan, Rajah and Wan (2014) discuss the mediator of corporate justice between generational diversification and motivation. But as a majority of empirical proofs and literature support the variation for generational preferences with regard to motivation and additionally support package tailoring for better fitting in both generations, awareness is needed of the fact that corporate justice might continue impacting the end result. Improved grasps of motivation models and generational problems might still not suffice when it comes to improving personnel productivity since motivation packages received out of or for their contributions traverse societal interactions in which they are compared for equity. The conclusion arrived at by the scholars was: motivation packages’ favorability typically decides subsequent performance.

Wong, Lang, Coulon, and Gardiner (2008) performed a study aimed at gauging whether motivational factor and personality gaps are evident across Gen Y, Gen X and Baby Boomers in the workforce. The Motivation and Occupational Personality Questionnaires were employed for studying cross-sectional motivational and personality factor-related disparities over three generations. Study findings did not support generational stereotypes widely cited by media and management related literature. In particular, not many meaningful distinctions were evident among the three studied generations. Additionally, despite differences being noted, they were associated more with age as compared to generation. A major limitation of Wong and colleagues’ (2008) study was their utilization of cross?sectional information. For an additional examination of the problem, undertaking a longitudinal research for evaluating motivational drivers and personality preferences of diverse generations in which respondents share a common career stage or age group would prove interesting. The study’s practical consequences included its highlighting of the significance of dealing with people by paying attention to personal differences instead of being dependent on generation-based stereotypes; this might fail to be as predominant as indicated by available literature (Wong et al., 2008). Human resource personnel and management might be interested in the absence of generational dissimilarities, against the claims of popular literature on the management discipline.

Workforce motivation theories

Palliam and Ankli’s (2012) efforts reveal SDT (self-determination model/theory) to be successful in motivating companies’ workforce; SDT is recommended as an inclusive motivational theory. Thus, motivation takes on another dimension, making it essential to take into account problems linked to controlled motivation, independent motivation, and the concept of motivation as being a performance determinant. The authors attempted to tackle the problem by first identifying fundamental assumptions concerning motivation, including: individuals possess the ability to undertake responsible action, wish to achieve success at play and work, and naturally aspire to learn and understand things. Further, they progress towards dealing with numerous key facets linked to SDT, including cognitive, psycho-motor and affective development. They conclude by taking into consideration self-perception, individual emotional/psychological requirements, culture, dynamism, wishes and aims, and social environmental effects as major issues guiding individuals’ self-actualization capability. Study findings exhibit SDT's applicability to corporate behavior related discussions. They indicate extrinsic motivation’s adverse impacts on intrinsic motivation. Job satisfaction is attained when personality is employed as a contributor to motivation, for satisfying a mutually meaningful goal. A person is most creative and inventive when inspired chiefly due to personal interest, internal satisfaction, and task-related challenges rather than incentives or external pressure.

Palliam and Ankli’s (2012) work has the practical consequence that HR workers and management must take into consideration issues linked to controlled motivation, independent motivation, and the concept of motivation as being a performance determinant. Diverse play-work-connected attitudinal linkages require diverse kinds of motivation. If the two become homogeneous, HR management’s defining contribution to motivation requires reexamination (especially SDT). The authors contribute to motivation-based scholarly literature slightly differently by deeming independence, relatedness and proficiency in SDT to be vital to psychological development, health and optimal working in all disciplines. The researchers reveal that extrinsic rewards mostly undermine intrinsic motivation.

Oudejans’ (2007) master’s thesis revealed a negative correlation between extrinsic and intrinsic motivations. Furthermore, the former is associated negatively with job satisfaction whereas the latter displays a positive association (Oudejans, 2007). For instance, call center workers exhibit greater extrinsic motivation and lesser intrinsic motivation as compared to nursing staff. In addition, they exhibit lower satisfaction levels as compared to nursing staff. With regard to the impacts of one group on the link of job satisfaction with extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, the author revealed that people holding call center jobs more strongly influence the link of job satisfaction with both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. But job satisfaction’s relationship with extrinsic motivation proved not to be significant. Lastly, the scholar discovered that nearly every theory was associated with, at least, extrinsic or intrinsic motivation. Equity theory has a positive link with extrinsic motivation. It was concluded that the expectancy theory has a positive link to intrinsic as well as extrinsic motivation, thereby being more applicable to workers in call centers.

Earlier, Walker and Smithers (2000) refer to studies indicating that personnel motivation in every industry is impacted by work culture or climate. Their construction site-based study aimed at investigating impacts of workplace atmosphere on demotivation or motivation of construction workforce. Information gathered supported the theory that construction site atmosphere indeed impacts employees’ demotivation levels. The scholars discovered numerous variables (e.g., lengthy work hours, an aggressive leadership approach, chaos and non-recognition of efforts) related appreciably to this outcome. The outcomes offer a useful foundation to indicate the construction sector’s ability to cultivate a more appealing workplace atmosphere for personnel.

Martinus and Ramadanty (2012) assert that motivation essentially guides all human tasks. It is a force which propels workers towards accomplishing corporate objectives. Currently, corporate communication development saw communication as being among the most salient and prominent corporate activities capable of motivating personnel. The authors aimed at revealing how personnel motivation is influenced by organizational communication. The research problem identified was the link of personnel motivation and communication facets including interpersonal communication, nonverbal communication, communication climate and leadership. A descriptive qualitative technique was utilized with data acquisition conducted via literature analysis. Authors discovered that interpersonal communication, leadership, communication climate and nonverbal communication contribute greatly to cultivating personnel motivation (Ramadanty & Martinus, 2012). The latter contributes somewhat more profoundly to shaping positive personnel motivation. Contributing elements include facial expression, eye contact and body language. The authors are of the view that leaders’ interpersonal communication quality is evaluated on the basis of degree of satisfaction with information shared between the workforce and managers. Style of management, honesty and sincerity when it comes to downward communication (as information managers communicate to subordinates) is marked by smooth superior-subordinate interaction.

According to Wesley (2013), psychologists, behavioral scientists, leadership theorists, and sociologists have concentrated on analyzing human motivation, generally, and workforce motivation, specifically, for over a 100 years. Insights into determinants of workforce motivation prove crucial to managers with an eye on the organizational bottom line as well as, more significantly, to national security when it comes to international marketplace competition (Wesley, 2013).

The author’s mixed-methods research (via direct observation, survey and interviewing) explored staff motivation within a production firm located in Nebraska. A rationalist standpoint informs the author’s convergent parallel study design. Personnel motivation factors were scrutinized by resorting to grounded theory technique, together with information collected through quantitative approaches for attaining a better grasp of the phenomenon from personnel’s viewpoint. Quantitative survey was utilized, devised on the basis of Herzberg's 2-Factor motivational model (Herzberg, 1959). Congruence or its absence among motivating factors determined at the company (as well as Herzberg’s identified factors) are studied by adopting a qualitative interpretive strategy and integrating quantitative and qualitative information via matrix integration and discussion. Research findings inform scholars and managers, besides facilitating the development of a novel personnel training syllabus which includes individual employee motivation facets. Determining individual employee motivators will lead to greater collective societal advantages, social and private business success, and place America in a favorable competitive position within the international marketplace (Wesley, 2013).

Earlier, behavioral scientist, Herzberg (1959), put forward his motivator-hygiene (or two-factor) model which claims that certain job factors lead to satisfaction, while others prevent dissatisfaction. The theorist asserts that “No satisfaction” and “No Dissatisfaction” represent the opposites of “Satisfaction” and “Dissatisfaction”, respectively. The above viewpoint has been utilized by the author for classifying job factors under two groups.

Herzberg’s hygiene factors constitute job factors central to workplace motivation. While they fail to maintain long-term satisfaction, their absence at a workplace will result in dissatisfaction. Thus, hygiene factors (or maintenance factors or ‘dissatisfiers’) may be defined as extrinsic elements whose reasonable existence within a workplace sufficiently pacifies workers to ensure they do not end up being dissatisfied (Herzberg, 1959). They describe workplace conditions or atmosphere. Hygiene factors signify physiological requirements of individuals, such as wages, which must be justifiable, appropriate and on par with the industry wage structure. Other hygiene factors are: admin and corporate policies: Policies ought not to be overly inflexible. Transparency and fairness ought to be maintained (Herzberg, 1959). Policies must incorporate holidays, breaks, dress code, flexi-work, and so forth; Physical workplace conditions: A hygienic, secure and clean work setting ought to be provided to employees; Fringe benefits: Personnel expect and are entitled to healthcare insurance, personnel help programs, familial benefits and so forth. Properly maintained and up-to-date work equipment ought to be at their disposal. Status – Personnel expect a familiar, well-retained status as a member of the company. Interpersonal relations – Workforce members ought to maintain appropriate, cordial dealings with colleagues, managers and juniors (Herzberg, 1959). No issues of discord, harassment, etc. ought to crop up. Job Security – A firm’s workforce is entitled to job security guaranteed by the company.

Motivational factors- Herzberg (1959) holds that hygiene factors aren’t motivators; motivators (or satisfiers) are those integral factors that give rise to positive satisfaction. They drive personnel to deliver superior performance. They are intrinsic factors that people find rewarding. One may consider them to be representative of a person’s psychological needs which provide added advantage. Motivators, as identified by the theorist, are as follows: Recognition – a worker naturally expects praise and recognition for his/her achievements within the workplace. Sense of accomplishment – A worker needs to possess a sense of accomplishment (Herzberg, 1959), which will be dependent on his/her job. Every task carried out is linked to some ‘fruit’ or positive outcome that leads to the accomplishment of a set organizational goal or objective. Opportunities for promotion and growth – A company must provide its personnel avenues for development for spurring them to give their best. Responsibility – Holding responsibility for one’s duties is essential. Personnel need to be given ownership of their jobs by the management. This involves minimizing control though retaining accountability. Job Meaningfulness – One’s job ought to be adequately interesting, thought-provoking, and meaningful for ensuring good performance and appropriate motivation (Herzberg, 1959).

However, Herzberg’s (1959) theory is marked by its fair share of shortcomings: Firstly, it fails to take into account situational variables. The theorist hypothesized a link between productivity and satisfaction; however, his research only concentrated on the latter, neglecting the former. Further, the theory is not very reliable. Raters are required to conduct analysis and their findings may prove faulty if their analysis of identical responses is carried out differently. Thirdly, the author failed to employ an inclusive satisfaction measure. Consequently, his theory has an element of bias, owing to the fact that it is grounded in natural personnel reactions upon questioning them on their sources of workplace dissatisfaction and satisfaction. Dissatisfaction is ascribed to shortfalls in relations with colleagues, pay structure, corporate policy and other external factors. Additionally, personnel consider themselves the source for workplace satisfaction. Lastly, the theorist has overlooked blue-collar employees. In spite of the above limitations, the theory is widely accepted.

According to the 2-Factor theory, management needs to underscore assurance of hygiene factors’ appropriateness for preventing personnel dissatisfaction (Herzberg, 1959). Further, management needs to ensure interesting and gratifying work is allotted to staff members for inspiring them to give their best. The theory underlines job-enrichment as a means to motivate personnel. Any job ought to be able to maximize utilization of an individual’s abilities and talents. Paying attention to motivational factors may bring about work-quality improvements.

Strategies used in Performance Management

I Lebas (1995) points out that performance management points out the measures for performance and the context in which they are conducted. Performance is the potential for implementation of actions meant to achieve targets and objectives (Lebas, 1995). The study by the mentioned author found that performance is a management system construct. Performance management comes before its measurement and accords it a meaning.

In the views of authors Walter, Patek, and Lesch (2012), before work motivation, a needs assessment is critical. Such an assessment helps in understanding just how wide the problem is. It also helps in understanding the socioeconomic dynamics that may shape the problem and its possible solutions. Once the problem has been identified, focus on a goal shared by both management and staff. Make sure that the goal is a realistic one. It should be used to clarify issues and correct any preexisting misconceptions.

Kowalik (2011) highlights procedures guidelines and systems to manage and improve the performance of employees at the optimal level that the company expects. The system is intended to maximize performance at work, profitability, growth, and efficiency. The system will point out the measure of output for each as desired by the management in its objective criteria that have been set up. Using the primary performance indicators, performance management is used as the yardstick for employee performance evaluation.

According to Rischer and Management (2003), performance appraisal has moved to performance management in most organizations. However, it is notable that the primary model has not changed much for 40 years now. The Rischer and Management (2003) article examines the effects of the new paradigm and the focus on better and higher performance. The article highlights some changes that would be propelling the new way. The earlier appraisal model was evolved for a different generation and era. The model examined the employee at the individual level. It did not consider the work environment or relationships at work. The central expectation was only for the employee to meet the expectations of performance set by the organization. Such dimensions as cooperation and dependability were hallmarks of the management philosophy of the time. However, in the new paradigm, there is a focus on the need to overhaul the traditional performance. There is a call to shift from the earlier expectation of merely meeting the expectations, to other aspects that contribute to the achievement of goals in the context. There is a need to revise the role of the manager in establishing a supportive culture.

Job characteristics for different generational cohorts

The aim of the research conducted by Hernus and Poloski (2014) is to reveal the nature of characteristics of work that relate to varying generational groups. Significant variations have been noted in four social job characteristics and tasks across the generational groups (Generation X, Generation Y, and Baby-boomers)

The above empirical research was done using a field study constituting workers from large Croatian organizations. A cross-occupational and cross-sectional research design was used. There were 512 workers in total (made up of 373 professionals and 139 managers), involved in the research. Differential and descriptive methods of statistics were applied to compare the design of work spanning the generations (Hernaus & Pološki, 2014).

The research outcome shows that the traits are not represented equally within the various generational groups. Although task job characteristics do not depend on generations, social characteristics at work to a certain level are different in the various generational cohorts. High task identity, high task variety and a mixture of both, moderately, received interdependence and significance of tasks are noted as common characteristics of work of knowledge employees in all generational cohorts. Nevertheless, the jobs of the X Generation, Baby boomers, and Generation Y are idiosyncratic for the autonomy of work, an interdependence that has been initiated, interpersonal interactions and teamwork. Moreover, including the type of work as a control variable showed interacting with others differs only among professional generations (Hernaus & Pološki, 2014).

The research by Hernaus and Poloski (2014) is the first one that examines differences and similarities between generations via job characteristics. The researchers took a special interest in knowledge workers in an area that is not sufficiently researched yet. Thus, the research turned out to be a unique one, and bears practical significance.

Both media and popular press have suggested that there exist differences between the various generational cohorts, i.e. Babyboomers, Generation X, and Y. It has been pointed out that it is essential for organizations to deal with these cohorts using different approaches. However, according to Murray, Toulson, and Legg (2011), there is no concrete evidence to support these claims. This study seeks to establish whether the claims about generational cohorts are factual, by applying linear discriminant and qualitative analysis. The study used 19 participants to complete a questionnaire of 69 items. The questions were developed from an independent 64-repertory grid interviews sample wherein those interviewed described their perfect job. There were more similarities compared to differences found in this study. Out of the 69 constructs provided, only 8 presented notable discrimination levels across the generational groups (Murray, Toulson & Legg, 2011). These results, therefore, are different from the common depictions by popular media and challenge them.

Many popular press sources have indicated that the values held by Generation Y are fundamentally different from those of earlier generations (Shea & San Jose? State University, 2012). According to studies by Shea and San Jose State University (2012), a lot of the articles claim that Generation Y members were more preoccupied with rewards, status, and recognition. However, such claims were seldom supported by scientific evidence. The study was aimed at adding to the scientific knowledge and research on the differences between generational cohorts in the workplace. It sought to investigate both extrinsic and intrinsic motivations between Baby-boomers, Gen. X, and Y.

Work Preference Inventory was used to survey 370 people. The results indicated that indeed workers born in Gen. Y were more inclined to extrinsic factors at work such as recognition and remuneration than Gen. X and Baby-boomers (Shea & San Jose? State University, 2012). Additionally, the cohort showed tendencies of being less intrinsically motivated as compared to earlier generational groups. The Shea and San Jose State University (2012), also show that the three groups tended to be equally motivated by work that is enjoyable. The results, further point to the lack of research in the variations in work differences between these generations. The findings have a practical import on Gen. Y labor force. There is renewed interest in generational diversity from the beginning of the 21st C. HRM officials, media commentators, and consultants are bent on fronting the thought that the modern workforce has segments of individuals that are remarkably different in their value systems, preferences and attitudes; based on when one was born (Parry, 2014). Parry (2014) postulates that it would make sense to believe that human resource practitioners have embraced the idea of generations as a way of explaining the differences in the behavior and attitudes held by employees as a way of developing different recognition and reward systems at the workplace.

Consequently, scholars have increasingly researched and published on the topic of generational differences at the workplace. Parry (2014) opines that such research is meant to unearth the generational differences in the workplace. However, the idea of how the concept of generational differences at the workplace is conceptualized and practiced in reality has not been scrutinized and reconsidered by the academics. The preceding is surprising, according to Parry (2014) because it would appear essential to examine and evaluate the approach, if the decisions by HRM are to use assumptions relating to the traits of generational differences. Parry addresses such a need in his book by combining work from a host of scholars whose studies have focused on introducing an alternative perspective to the new interest area. This text does not seek to dismiss any past research on generational differences. It points out the need for more research and new thoughts about the concept to make sure that the concept of generational differences at the places of work can be understood better.

A cross-sectional study conducted by Jurkiewicz and Brown (1998) shows the differences and similarities between three age groups in public service jobs- Gen. X, Matures, and Baby-boomers on 15 factors of motivation. Although there are significant differences observed between the generations in studies involving employees in the private sector, the employees in the public service show identical characteristics about age (Jurkiewicz & Brown, 1998). The studies show that the only differences identified can be associated with career and life stages, and not with sociological influences that are specific to generational groups. The effects of motivation, retention, recruiting, training and practices in human resource management are also highlighted.

Parry and Urwin (2011) provide a critical assessment of the basis and the empirical proof for the practitioner thought, that there are differences in generational work preferences and values. According to the authors, the “generations” concept is strongly based on theories of sociology, but the empirical evidence from the academic sources for the differences between the generational cohorts is mixed, at best. A lot of studies cannot pinpoint the predicted differences. The ones that find them usually fall short in distinguishing between age and generation as possible causes of the differences observed. Moreover, the literature is marred by limitations in methodology by using cross-sectional research study designs, confusion on the appropriate definition of a generation vis-a-vis cohort, and failure to consider the differences in a gender, ethnicity and national context (Parry Urwin, 2011).

According to Parry and Urwin (2011), owing to the number of problems found in the evidence provided for generational differences in work preferences and values at the place of work, the value of the generations notion remains blurry to practitioners; and it may be suggested, therefore, that the idea should be overlooked. It may be irrelevant to practitioners whether the generational differences represent actual effects at the place of work, so long as one can show that such differences exist. This is not the case, presently though. There is a need for more research to separate groups and generational effects from the ones caused by period or age (Parry & Urwin, 2011). The thought that differences between employees of different generations and groups exhibit varying preferences and values on the basis of age and other reasons is still a useful managerial idea. Managers need a convincing case of generation, as a distinguishing factor, to spur them into action, though.

There have been lots of studies related to work values. However, few of them focus specifically on generational differences in the hospitality industry. Chen and Choi (2008) seek to explore the design of the work values in hospitality management and the supposed differences among managers and supervisors belonging to three generations in the hospitality segment. 398 managers from different organizations in the USA were surveyed. 15 work values were picked, and their hierarchical traits pointed out. A working value with four dimensions was noted among the workforce in the hospitality industry. Generational differences in people’s values at work and the accompanying preferences were found.

Chen and Choi (2008) are restricted to a managerial workforce in the hospitality industry in a specific tourist destination in the US. Implications of practical nature were drawn for the sector to hire and retain the managerial work team by applying the strategies that were intended to meet the needs, values, and preferences perceived by three generational groups of the workforce in management. Three contributions suffice, i.e. uncovering a range of priorities involving three work management generations, revelations of the underlying dimensions of work values structure that is a representation of then unique values that the hospitality workforce management perceives, and discovering the generational differences in work values in two out of the four dimensions, i.e. work environment and personal growth; and the preference changes between the generations (Chen & Choi, 2008). The findings play a role in the justification for varying recruitment and strategies for retention across the hospitality industry sectors; based on changing generational values and preferences.

In another study, Rani Bouzdine and Samuel (2016) did a study that focused on providing an insight into the work value differences and personal organization fit of Gen X, Y, and Babyboomers in India. The differences were examined by applying MANOVA. Notable work value differences were noted between Generation Y and earlier generations. The differences are important constituents in designing organization systems and structures that are ideal for younger staff (Rani, Bouzdine & Samuel, 2016).

According to Chen and Lian (2015), after observing the generational differences in the values of Chinese employees by applying the work values scale of the Chinese, and involving 1015 employees from across the generations, found that the millennial generation (labeled n512) was more interested in extrinsic and intrinsic rewards compared to the Cultural Revolution Generation or the Transitional Generation. It was also observed that the Cultural Revolution generation placed more influence on values of work than age. Chen and Lian (2015) opine that the findings signal to the need for change in human resource management styles in organizations in China.

Cennamo and Gardner (2013) investigated three generational cohorts that are presently in the workforce, i.e., Baby-boomers, Generation Y and Gen X. They studied their work values, organizational commitment, job satisfaction and the intention to leave. The study by the two authors was also aimed at establishing generational differences in the organizational values fit at a personal level. 504 employees from Auckland, representing industries across the spectrum filled a questionnaire online. Gen X, which constituted 57% was described as people born between 1962 and 1979, Gen. Y (17%) born between 1980 and 2000 and Baby-boomers (23%) born between 1946 and 1961. The rest were born between 1925 and 1945.