1-

RESEARCH PAPERS

20

INTRODUCTION

Building effective multi-generational work teams is a

crucial task for organizational leaders that look for

efficiency and embrace the diversity existing in the

workplace. Understanding the similarities and differences

of the generation’s work values is the first step towards

organizational success. The lack of that knowledge could

inhibit the productive function of work teams, which would

be detrimental to an organization. A qualitative,

descriptive case study methodology was conducted to

h e l p u n d e r s t a n d t h e w o r k v a l u e s o f t h r e e

generations—Baby Boomer, Generation X, and

Generation Y or Millennial. An interpretation of the

collected data resulted in a synthesis of generational work

values that determined how they differ and how much

that impacts success in multi-generational teams. The

findings of the study identified three core themes -

dedication, responsibility, and teamwork - to understand

the similarities and differences among the three

generations. In addition, the study produced outcomes

that can help managers or leaders to develop effective

work teams by considering the strengths and weaknesses

of each generation. It also found ways to alleviate any

potential disconnect between organizational leaders

and employees during the development of multi-

generational work teams.

1. The Research Study

A qualitative, descriptive case study was conducted

including a population of 23 employees of one

homebuilding organization located on the outskirts of

Houston, Texas to illustrate the similarities and differences

in the work values of the participants. The impact of those

differences and similarities has helped understand the

work values of three generations, the Baby Boomer, the

Generation X, and the Generation Y/Millennials, and the

impact on multi-generational work teams. The knowledge

gained from the study could be used to promote the

development of effective multi-generational work teams.

There have been several studies from different angles

relating to generational differences that range from

workplace behavior that pertain to job mobility, the

compliance with work rules and policies as well as the

willingness to work overtime; why multigenerational

workplaces are important; designing a workplace for

different generations; and, the actual differences versus

the perceived differences of each generation (Brecton,

* Research Affiliate, Center for Workplace Diversity Research, School of Advanced Studies, University of Phoenix, USA. ** University Research Chair, Center for Workplace Diversity Research, School of Advanced Studies, University of Phoenix, USA.

ABSTRACT

st Companies and organizations that want to become or remain successful in the 21 century face a constant challenge of

dealing with the great diversity existing in the world. That diversity presents itself in many dimensions such as gender, race

and ethnicity, sexual orientation, culture, thinking, among many others. The diversity found in the workforce of most

companies and organizations, including different generational cohorts of workers (Baby Boomers, Generation X, and

Generation Y or Millennials) represent a great challenge to them, and a better understanding of that can lead to better

outcomes. Facing diversity instead of avoiding it, is the beacon for a path towards success. This paper will discuss the

impact of different generations in the workforce and how understanding and embracing different work values can lead

to build effective and efficient multi-generational teams.

Keywords: Workplace Diversity, Generational Cohorts, Work Values, Team Building.

DEB S. LAWTON *

By

CARLOS TASSO E. DE AQUINO **

DIVERSITY IN THE WORKPLACE AND THE IMPACT OF WORK VALUES ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MULTI-GENERATIONAL TEAMS

i-manager’s Journal o Management, n l lVol. 10 No. 3 December 2015 - February 2016

RESEARCH PAPERS

21

Walker, and Jones-Farmer, 2014; Lester, Standifer, Schultz,

and Windsor, 2012, Swan, 2012; and Tomislav, 2014).

According to Amayah and Gedro (2014), although there

are many stereotypes about generational characteristics,

the research that formally consolidates the topic across

an array of studies is limited, so the idea was to conduct a

study that would inform through a comprehensive set of

considerations for policies, practices, and training and

development. However, in this case, providing a synthesis

and generalization of generational work value similarities

and differences was necessary for a qualitative,

descriptive case study to help with the interpretation of the

verbal statements to answer the questions:

·How are the work values of the Baby Boomer,

Generation X, and Generation Y/Millennial employee

similar or different?;

·Why do generational differences in work values affect

multi-generational work teams? How do generational

work value similarities or differences influence

employees that belong to a particular generation

within the work team?;

·Why do managers or leaders need to understand the

impact generational work value similarities or

differences of a particular generation, may have on

the work environment when developing work teams?

The study entailed a discussion of the findings based on

the pilot study participants (3), and the 20 case study

participants to reflect on whether generational similarities

or differences impact the work team or a manager's or

leader's ability to develop effective work teams.

The findings of the study are representative of several

factors that contribute to the understanding of

generational work values. The scope of the study was

p e r t i n e n t b e c a u s e a d e s c r i p t i v e, c a s e s t u d y

methodology guided the exploration of the work values of

the Baby Boomer, Generation X, and Generation

Y/Millennial participants.

2. Generational Work Values and the Three Themes

The research was divided into two parts: a pilot phase, with

three participants, and the case study phase, including

20 new participants. The pilot study was conducted to test

the feasibility of the interview questions posed to

participants, which included one Baby Boomer, one

Generation X, and one Generation Y/Millennial. While

themes emerged, the interpretations of those themes

were not considered during the analysis of the descriptive

study. As part of the feasibility study, an alteration of the

construction of the interview questions was needed to

provide clarity for the study. The pilot study that was

conducted offered a means to triangulate the data.

In the case study phase, the responses from the twenty

participants identified three themes, two of which were

major themes that emerged from the coded transcripts,

to provide an understanding of generational work values.

The themes that emerged were dedication, responsibility,

and teamwork. Incorporating the nuances of the coded

themes showed, how multi-generational work teams can

become more responsive to the organization based on

the diversity of the participants.

2.1 Theme One: Dedication

The dedication of the employees in each generation to

the work team showed a commitment to all facets of the

project. This was validated when the coding showed that

dedication emerged as a theme, with the majority of the

participants implying that a job needs to be done. Some

participants felt a lack of dedication could substantially

impact teamwork. The participants reported that, if there

was a lack of dedication, work processes would slow down

and the teamwork effectiveness would eventually

disappear.

An analysis of the data collected from each generational

cohort showed that, participants from multiple

generations believed, either the job gets done no matter

what or, there is a high level of dedication for the job that

needs to get done. Yeaton (2008) reported that, the

Generation Y/Millennial employee has good morality and

is civic-minded, which gives this group a strong sense of

dedication to the team and the organization. In

comparison, the technological savvy of the Generation X

employee, and the demand for a balance between life

and work, gives employees from that specific cohort, less

motivation for dedication to the job when compared to

li-manager’s Journal o Management, Vol. No. 3 ln 10 December 2015 - February 2016

22

RESEARCH PAPERS

the other two generations included in this study (Johnson,

Rogers, 2006). For the Baby Boomer employees,

dedication means a commitment and determination to

complete a project of any length (Richardson, 2008).

The study concluded that the dedication level differed

from one generation to another and it is directly related to

how employees approach a task. For instance, Baby

Boomer employees are strictly focused on getting the task

done. Generation X employees understand that tasks

need to get completed, but also include an analysis

process to figure out how to accomplish the task. The

Generation Y/Millennial employees visualized what needs

to be done, and then proceed to find shortcuts to

accomplish the task without thinking through the various

possibilities.

2.2 Theme Two: Responsibility

Responsibility showed conscientiousness by the

participant about the project. A mixture of beliefs from

each generation pertaining to the impact of work values

on the work team was part of what was gleaned from this

theme. The responsibility of an employee towards the work

environment was demonstrated by a willingness to

contribute to the organization. Responsibility was linked to

the commitment, cooperation, and dedication an

employee had towards the work team and the mission of

the organization. The data related to this core theme

corroborated the results of Dumbrava, Gavreleta, and

Lupulescu (2009), finding that the rules are based on

values and principles, including the responsibility that

helped make the organization function and move toward

a common goal.

The participants interviewed believed, responsibility and

dedication are important work values when developing

multi-generational work teams and that the level of

responsibility each generation contributed to the work

environment was very important. More importantly, the

participants thought that, a difference of responsibility

levels existed from one generation to another, which

could result in conflicts that impact negatively the team

work and, therefore, the organization. Dumbrava et al.

(2009) also implied, when there is a lack of responsibility,

the organization loses the “… invisible control …,” and the

behavior becomes unacceptable (p. 87).

Responsibility was an important component of every

generation's work values, but the definition of responsibility

might be different for each generational cohort. For an

instance, Baby Boomer employees thought, the

Generation Y/Millennial employees know more than the

other generations and think less about the team due to an

unfavorable work ethic. On the other hand, the

Generation Y/Millennial employees perceived the

opposite. Generation Y/Millennial employee felt the need

to respond quickly, had a lot of good ideas, and could

bring a fresh, new perspective to the team. The gap

between the work value perceptions of these two groups

clearly indicated the responses pertaining to responsibility

differ. The perceptions shared by Generation X

participants showed that, Baby Boomers would be a good

source of information. The Generation X participants

believed their responsibility is to get the job done and are

focused on job priorities. Robinson (2009) believed,

responsibility was part of the nature that makes up a

person's value system through three interconnected

modes: (a) imputability, that guides the actions of a

person, (b) accountability, by making a person answer to

someone, and (c) the liability that a person answer for

something or someone (p. 11). The underlying thought

process, if truly a basis for human value systems, could be

the identifying key that motivates each generation in the

work environment.

2.3 Theme Three: Teamwork

Along with dedication and responsibility, teamwork

becomes more effective due to the commitment of

every member of the work team. However, when

teamwork is not present, the attributing factor could very

well be a lack of dedication and responsibility. Managers

and leaders compensated for the lack of dedication and

responsibility by evaluating the strengths and weaknesses

of each employee to ensure cohesion in the work team,

and, as a result, develop a work team that has a high level

of dedication and responsibility to ensure a productive

work team.

i-manager’s Journal o Management, n l lVol. 10 No. 3 December 2015 - February 2016

23

RESEARCH PAPERS

The study corroborated the findings of Bourgeois (2006)

who identified in general that, employees want to be

valued. The employees want to be recognized for the

work values that are brought into the work place.

Managers and leaders should acknowledge the work

values of multiple generations by integrating the work

values of different generations into the work team, thus

making each employee belonging to different

generations feel as though each are assets to the

organization. The role each generation plays within the

work environment is crucial to maintain multi-

generational teams, and an understanding of the

similarities and differences in generational work values is

crucial to the success of any work team in any

organization.

To understand the similarities and differences among

generational work values as recognition of the basis for

the work values, lead to the ideologies of each

generation. The knowledge, Baby Boomers have due to

life experiences, impacts each generation and the

stability of the organization (Patota et al., 2007). The fact

remains that, each generation has specific ideologies

within the generational makeup. Another thought

pertaining to the basis of work values was that, the

ideologies culminated from the life experiences become

more noticeable when taken into consideration and

understood by other generations.

Cennamo and Gardner (2008) suggested that, the Baby

Boomer employee relied on the traditional work values of

hard work and dedication, whereas the Generation

Y/Millennial employees placed a high importance on

work-life balance. The knowledge that one generation

can give and the other can receive is equally important to

both generations. The key to all strategic decisions and

successful interactions among work teams relied on

dedication and teamwork. Although the Generation

Y/Millennial employee is known to think more creatively,

the freedom to maintain creativity does not come without

the need to prove that capability (Schwarz, 2008).

The interview responses emphasized the value placed on

teamwork for the work team environment to be

successful. For instance, the Baby Boomer generation

believed teamwork was an important consideration when

deciding to develop multi-generational work teams. The

generations that participated in the study felt inadequate,

when there was a need to understand what motivates the

Baby Boomers because the Baby Boomers are beginning

to retire. The Generation X and Generation Y/Millennial

generations recognized that, not being prepared enough

to continue the momentum, the Baby Boomer

employees have created, could be detrimental. The

younger generations realized, there was much to

contribute to the way, the Baby Boomer employees have

constructed the work place. For instance, many of the

employees belonging to the younger generations felt the

need to move away from manual processes and into an

electronic age that would streamline those processes

and provide more efficiency.

When building work teams, the work values of different

generations must be integrated. Each generation was

optimistic, ambitious, and had a belief that teamwork was

the key to overcome diversity (Patterson, 2005). One

generation may have strengths that complement the

weaknesses of another generation. There was a broad

diversity in generational thought processes. Payment

(2008) agreed that, Generation X employees do not like

people to get involved and can make progress by working

alone. According to Swan (2012), a multigenerational

workforce brings a diverse set of skills complementing the

attributes that help strengthen the effectiveness and

capability of the organization.

The consensus among employees from the three

generations was that, the integration of different work

values offers a positive atmosphere of diversity when

introduced into the work team. Big ideas, more diverse

brainstorming, balance, and added value are some of

the perceptions that were uncovered from a cross-

section of generational participants. Mostly all employees

agreed that, the Generation Y/Millennial employee had

the most ideological demeanor than employees

belonging to the other two generations. Baby Boomers

and Generation X participants felt that, the idealistic views

of the Generation Y/Millennial participants contributed

freshness and an ability to revive the old, mundane ideals

li-manager’s Journal o Management, Vol. No. 3 ln 10 December 2015 - February 2016

24

RESEARCH PAPERS

of the older generations. At particular stages in an

individual's life experience, sharing knowledge may be

easier because of a genuine interest in the development

of future generations (Brun de Pontet, Wrosch, and Gagne,

2007). Future generations become more receptive

toward accepting of the advice from older generations

as the life stages progress.

Bringing ideas into a work team can be good or bad

because of the diversity of the generations that

participate on the work team. Leveraging the strengths

against the weaknesses, and the realization that

members of different generations have unique qualities

such as creativity, will positively contribute to the work

team (Di Meglio et al., 2005; Vanden Bergh, and Stuhlfaut,

2006; Weston, 2001). Generation X employees have the

work value diversity of the Baby Boomer employee and

the freshness of the Generation Y/Millennial employee,

which may allow each generation to understand the

other generations to make work teams more effective.

3. Research Findings

New processes may be frustrating for Generation X

employees because of the ideology gained by being

raised by Baby Boomer parents and by feeling the

satisfaction of understanding the technological methods

created by the youngest Baby Boomers (Blythe et al.,

2008). Generation Y/Millennial participants had a different

set of experiences. Generation Y/Millennial employees

grew up technologically advanced and tends to

become impatient with manual processes (Lower, 2008).

However, due to the generational life experiences,

personal values also differ, causing a lack of loyalty

opening the door to instigate a decision to terminate

employment (Brecton, Walker, and Jones-Farmer, 2014).

The stereotypes that surround the Baby Boomer,

Generation X and Generation Y/Millennial employees

suggest, there are differences relating to the workforce

and, as a result, the assumption is that, the Baby Boomers

will have fewer job mobility behaviors than the Generation

X and GenerationY/Millennial employee (Brecton, Walker,

and Jones-Farmer, 2014). Therefore, especially if the

decision to terminate employment becomes a non-issue

to the Generation Y/Millennial employee, the experience

level of this generation would allow creativity to be

introduced into the work environment, and would

become the team design that the other generations

envision. The influence and experience of members of all

generations contribute to each person's own set of beliefs

and values, or what is expected of others (Crumpacker

and Crumpacker, 2007).

The experiences of multiple generations become an

asset for the work teams within an organization, rather than

an unknown mixture of talents. Several methods can be

used to provide focus on the abilities of each generation.

The methods used should enhance the work environment,

provide a road map for competence building by setting

goals, and encourage communication to help develop

efficient work teams (Boguslauskas and Kvedaraviciene,

2009). Identifying ways an organization could use

different approaches to develop multi-generational work

teams would be beneficial for the organization. The

following approaches would help the managers or

leaders and employees gain an understanding of

generational work habits:

·Personality assessments geared to identify

generational nuances allow organizational leaders to

gain a deeper understanding of the work values of

each generation;

·Team building exercises to help members of each

generation realize the strengths and weakness of

each participant; and

·Take ownership of projects on a rotating basis to

s t r e n g t h e n l e a d e r s h i p a b i l i t i e s a m o n g a l l

the generational cohorts.

Those approaches would alleviate any potential stress or

disconnect between generations due to misunderstandings

about how each the generation works in a team setting.

The groups inter viewed provided the necessar y

information to develop an understanding of generational

work value similarities and differences that may aid in the

development of multi-generational work teams

(Neuman, 2003).

To recognize patterns in the work values, the analyses

included in this research study used personal, social,

i-manager’s Journal o Management, n l lVol. 10 No. 3 December 2015 - February 2016

25

RESEARCH PAPERS

organizational and cultural components to underscore

how similarities or differences in generational work values

apply to the organization (White, 2005). In fact, Li and

Nimon (2008) believed, the recognition of generational

work value similarities or differences play a particular role

in the development of new procedures to help improve

organizational performance. By ignoring any similarities or

differences in work values among the employees of

different generations, a one-size-fits-all procedural

approach could result, which does not satisfy the criteria

needed for creating the diversity found in multi-

generational work teams (Li and Nimon, 2008). Work

culture can play a role that is an actual difference from

one generation to another and that is the view of formal

authority, the association with leadership, and the

appropriate way to conduct work tasks (Lester, Standifer,

Schultz, and Windsor, 2012). Moreover, Hallberg and

Schaufeli (2006) posit an engagement with the job was

distinguishable from an involvement and commitment to

the job, emphasizing that each member of a work team

must feel valued and understood, regardless of the

generational category. The work preferences include

distinctive job characteristics and any potential match or

mismatch in generational preferences and the expected

job performance could have a positive or negative

outcome across generational cohorts, emphasizing the

importance of understanding generational differences

(Tomislav, 2014).

The findings of this research study are clear revelations for

the leaders or managers of the organizations, because

without an understanding of the diversity of work values,

organizations could be at risk of dysfunction within a work

team environment (Renn, 2008). Nixon (2008) believed,

there are advantages for employers to assist employees

when attempting to resolve tensions between different

generations, and this can be accomplished in an open

atmosphere that does not diminish respect. In addition,

the importance of developing strategies for resolving

conflict should bring into focus the realization that each

generation can be perceived differently, so the process

should be as transparent as possible to avoid further

conflict (Nixon, 2008; Cooper, 2005; Grover, 2005).

According to Behrens (2009), most individuals within the

workplaces, do not identify with generational similarities or

differences due to the traditional work models and

existing training programs.

The factors, and consideration of the themes that

emerged, could help an organization understand the

importance of multi-generational work value traits and

aid in the development of more cohesive multi-

generational work teams (Gleeson, 2007). Kearney et al.

(2009) stated that, since the organizations rely on team

function within the work environment, gaining the

knowledge of the “… different dimensions of diversity …,”

and the levels of personality, makes it easier to develop a

good team structure (p. 581). Austin, Kelecevic, Goble,

and Mekechuk (2009) echoed the sentiment of the

finding that, the process of developing teams begins

through communication that clarifies the similarities or

differences in the level of work experience and the

perceptions of work values of each generation.

Conclusion

This research study indicated that, the possibility of

developing successful multi-generational work teams

does exist. There were more similarities than differences in

the way each generation viewed the work values of other

generations. Each generation had a desire to

accomplish the tasks presented in the work environment,

whether in a team setting or not. The development of

multi-generational work teams continue to be a work in

progress for many organizations as similarities or

differences in the work values among generations

become more familiar, and less complex, and as “…

members interact over time, and evolve and adapt as

situational demands unfold …” (Kozlowski and Ilgen,

2006, p. 78). As employees' perceptions evolve, the

understanding of these similarities and differences can

help organizations recognize what needs to be in place to

begin developing multi-generational work teams

(Guastello, 2007).

The study used a method to help provide an

understanding of generational diversity through the

categories that emerged from the data that was

li-manager’s Journal o Management, Vol. No. 3 ln 10 December 2015 - February 2016

26

RESEARCH PAPERS

collected from each participant. An understanding of the

diversity ensured that, the patterns were not a view of the

participants' two-dimensional reality (Scott and Howell,

2008). The two-dimensional reality pertains to a constant

comparison of patterns, which describe the participants'

reality. If the participant looks beyond those two-

dimensional realities, and delves into more complex

multi-dimensional constructivist ecology, the patterns

would show the participant's character in a group setting

(Scott and Howell, 2008).

Analysis of data also showed that, each generation was

not aware of the thoughts, feelings, and work values of the

other generations. The coded themes that emerged,

validated the fact that each generation had personal

perceptions, but none of the participants had explored

the possibility of similarities or differences in work values

among generations, or how the similarities or differences

in work values could have an influence on the work team.

If communication among generations was enhanced,

members of each generation may come to understand

that, there are many similarities in the perception of work

values among generations. This insight would have a

definite impact on how managers or leaders can begin to

understand how multi-generational work teams would

interact.

References

[1]. Amayah, A.T., & Gedro, J. (2014). “Understanding

generational diversity: Strategic human resource

management and development across the generational

“divide””. New Horizons in Adult Education & Human

Resource Development. Vol.26(2), pp.36-48. Wiley

Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company.

[2]. Austin, W., Kelecevic, J., Goble, E., & Mekechuk, J.

(2009). “An overview of moral distress and the Pediatric

Intensive Care Team”. Nursing Ethics, Vol.16(1), pp.57-68.

[3]. Behrens, W. (2009). “Managing millennials”.

Marketing Health Services, Vol.77(2), pp.56-59.

[4]. Blythe, J., Baumann, A., Zeytinoglu, I. U., Denton, M.,

Akhtar-Danesh, N., Davies, S. et al., (2008). “Nursing

generations in the contemporary workplace”. Public

Personnel Management, Vol.37(2), pp.137-159.

[5]. Boguslakanskas, V., & Kvedaraviciene, G. (2009).

“Difficulties in identifying company's core competencies

and core processes”. Engineering Economics, Vol.62(2),

pp.75-81.

[6]. Bourgeois, T. (2006). “The challenge of changing

values, beliefs, and expectations”. Leader to Leader,

Vol.(42), pp.7-10.

[7]. Brecton, J.B., Walker, H.J., & Jones-Farmer, A. (2014).

“Generational differences in workplace behavior ”.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol.44, pp.175-189.

[8]. Brun de Pontet, S., Wrosch, C., & Gagne, M. (2007).

“An exploration of the generational differences in levels of

control held among family businesses approaching

succession”. Family Business Review, Vol.20(4), pp.337-

354.

[9]. Cennamo, L., & Gardner, D. (2008). “Generational

differences in work values, outcomes and person-

organisation values fit ”. Journal of Managerial

Psychology, Vol.23(8), pp.891-906.

[10]. Cooper, C. (2005). “Talking about a generation”.

Charter, Vol.76(3), pp.42-47.

[11]. Crumpacker, M. & Crumpacker, J. D. (2007).

“Succession planning and generational stereotypes:

Should HR consider age-based values and attitudes a

relevant factor or a passing fad?”. Public Personnel

Management, Vol.36(4), pp.349-369.

[12]. Di Meglio, K., Padula, C., Piatek, C., Korber, S.,

Barrett, A., Ducharme, M., et al., (2005). “Group cohesion

and nurse satisfaction”. Journal of Nursing Administration,

Vol.35(3), pp.110-120.

[13]. Dumbrava, P., Gavreletea, M., & Lupulescu, G.

(2009). “Reliance vs. financial crisis”. Review of Business

Research, Vol.9(4), pp.84-90.

[14]. Gleeson, P. B. (2007). “Understanding generational

c o m p e t e n c e r e l a t e d t o p r o f e s s i o n a l i s m :

Misunderstandings that lead to a perception of

unprofessional behavior ”. Journal of Physical Therapy

Education, Vol.21(3), pp.23-28.

[15]. Grover, S. M. (2005). “ Shaping effective

communication skills and therapeutic relationships at

i-manager’s Journal o Management, n l lVol. 10 No. 3 December 2015 - February 2016

27

RESEARCH PAPERS

work: the foundation of collaboration”. AAOHN Journal,

Vol.53(4), pp.177-187.

[16]. Guastello, S. J. (2007). “How leaders really emerge”.

American Psychologist, Vol.62(6), pp.606-607.

[17]. Hallberg, U., & Schaufeli, W. (2006). “Same same'

but different: Can work engagement be discriminated

from job involvement and organizational commitment?”.

European Psychologist, Vol.11(2), pp.119-127.

[18]. Johnson, M. J., & Rogers, S. (2006). “Development of

the purposeful action medication questionnaire”.

Western Journal of Nursing Research, Vol.28(3), pp.335-

351.

[19]. Kearney, E., Gebert, D., & Voelpel, S.C. (2009).

“When and how diversity benefits teams: The importance

of team members' need for cognition”. Academy of

Management Journal, Vol.52(3), pp.581-598.

[20]. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). “Enhancing

the effectiveness of work groups and teams”.

Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Vol.7, pp.77-

124.

[21]. Lester, S.W., Standifer, R.L., Schultz, N.J., & Windsor,

J.M. (2012). “Actual versus perceived generational

differences at work: An empirical examination”. Journal of

Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol.19(3), pp.341-

354.

[22]. Li, J., & Nimon, K. (2008). “The importance of

recognizing generational differences in HRD policy and

practices: A study of workers in Qinhuangdao, China”.

Human Resource Development International, Vol.11(2),

pp.167-182.

[23]. Lower, J. (2008). “Brace yourself here comes

generation Y”. Critical Care Nurse, Vol.28(5), pp.80-84.

[24]. Neuman, W. L. (2003). Social Research Methods: th

Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (5 ed.). Allyn

and Beacon: Pearson Education, Inc.

[25]. Nixon, P. (2008). “Responding to diversity in the

publicly funded domiciliary aged care workforce”. The

International Journal of Diversity in Organisations,

Communities and Nations, Vol.8(3), pp.85-92.

[26]. Patota, N., Schwartz, D., & Schwartz, T. (2007).

“Leveraging generational differences for productivity

gains”. Journal of American Academy of Business,

Vol.11(2), pp.1-10.

[27]. Patterson, C. (2005). “Generational diversity:

Implications for consultation and teamwork”. Paper

presented at the meeting of the Council of Directors of

School Psychology Programs on generational differences,

Deerfield Beach, FL.

[28]. Payment, M. (2008). “Who cares about gen X-ers:

(Short answer: we do.)”. Career Planning and Adult

Development Journal, Vol.24(3), pp.41-46.

[29]. Renn, M. T. (2008). “Debunking generational

differences”. Leadership in Action, Vol.28(1), pp.23-24.

[30]. Richardson, D. (2008). “Managing for today (and

tomorrow)”. Radiologic Technology, Vol.80(2), pp.149-

150.

[31]. Robinson, S. (2009). “The nature of responsibility in a

professional setting”. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol.88(1),

pp.11-19.

[32]. Schwarz, T. (2008). “Generation Y Responds: Respect

Differences, Admit Similarities, Says Gen Y Nurse”. Critical

Care Nurse, Vol.28(5), pp.83-84.

[33]. Scott, K. W., & Howell, D. (2008). “Clarifying analysis

and interpretation in descriptive, case study: Using a

conditional relationship guide and reflective coding

m a t r i x ” . I n t e r n a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e f o r Q u a l i t a t i v e

Methodology (IIQM), Vol.7(2), pp.1-15.

[34]. Swan, J. (2012). “Why are multi generational

workplaces important, and what benefits can they

bring?”. Quality in Ageing and Older Adults, Vol.13(4),

pp.270-274.

[35]. Tomislav Hernaus Nina Poloski Vokic (2014). “Work

design for different generational cohorts”. Journal of

Organizational Change Management, Vol.27(4),

pp.615-641.

[36]. Vanden Bergh, B., & Stuhlfaut, M. (2006). “Is

advertising creativity primarily an individual or a social

process?”. Mass Communication & Society, Vol.9(4),

pp.373-397.

[37]. Weston, M. (2001). “Coaching generations in the

li-manager’s Journal o Management, Vol. No. 3 ln 10 December 2015 - February 2016

28

RESEARCH PAPERS

workplace”. Nursing Administration Quarterly, Vol.25(2),

pp.11-21.

[38]. White, C. (2005). “The relationship between cultural

values and individual work values in the hospitality

industry ”. International Journal of Tourism Research,

Vol.7(4/5), pp.221-229.

[39]. Yeaton, K. (2008). “Recruiting and managing the

'why?' generation: gen Y”. The CPA Journal, Vol.78(4),

pp.68-72.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Deb Lawton, DM is a Research Affiliate at Center for Workplace Diversity Research, School of Advanced Studies, University of Phoenix, USA. She has been a faculty member with the University of Phoenix – Houston Campus since 2011. She is also a graduate of the University of Phoenix earning her doctorate in management with a focus on organizational leadership. She facilitates graduate management courses. Her interest in research attempts to provide a better understanding of current management concerns to better the workforce.

Dr. Carlos Aquino is currently the University Research Chair of the Center for Workplace Diversity Research at the School of Advanced Studies (University of Phoenix) in which, he has been a key contributor and leader for research and the communications with faculty and students regarding scholarship opportunities and activities related to all dimensions of Diversity in the Workplace. He is an accomplished professor and senior executive combining a PhD and two Post-Docs with over 15+ years of experience in practice, and contributing to scholarship in Business, Education, IT and Engineering. Along his career, Dr. Aquino accumulated achievements and recognition as Provost, Dean of Business, Dean of Accreditation, in institutions in the USA and abroad, with student and faculty bodies that encompassed a clear diversity of cultures.

i-manager’s Journal o Management, n l lVol. 10 No. 3 December 2015 - February 2016

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.