See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/264580977

Generational differences in workplace behavior

Article  in  Journal of Applied Social Psychology · February 2014

DOI: 10.1111/jasp.12208

CITATIONS READS

71 9,469

3 authors, including:

J. Bret Becton L.A. Jones-Farmer

University of Louisiana at Lafayette Miami University
29 PUBLICATIONS   276 CITATIONS    64 PUBLICATIONS   2,071 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Journal article View project

All content following this page was uploaded by J. Bret Becton on 12 April 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

bs_bs_banner

Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2014, 44, pp. 175–189

Generational differences in workplace behavior

John Bret Becton1, Harvell Jack Walker2, Allison Jones-Farmer2
1
Department of Management and Marketing, College of Business, University of Southern Mississippi
2
Department of Management, College of Business, Auburn University

Correspondence concerning this article should Abstract

be addressed to John Bret Becton, University of
Southern Mississippi, Department of
Management and International Business, 118
College Dr. #5077, Hattiesburg, MS 39406,
USA. E-mail: bret.becton@usm.edu
doi: 10.1111/jasp.12208
Popular stereotypes suggest that generational differences among workers present
challenges for workplace managers. However, existing empirical research provides
mixed evidence for generational differences in important values and attitudes. The
current study extends generational effects research by examining differences in
actual workplace behaviors. Drawing from commonly held generational stereo-
types, the authors hypothesized that Baby Boomers would exhibit (Hypothesis 1)
fewer job mobility behaviors and (Hypothesis 2) more instances of compliance-
related behaviors in comparison with both GenXers and Millennials, while
(Hypothesis 3) GenXers would be less likely to work overtime in comparison with
Baby Boomers and Millennials. A sample of 8,040 applicants at two organizations
was used to test these predictions. Results provided support for Hypothesis 1 and
Hypothesis 3 and partial support for Hypothesis 2, but the effect sizes for these rela-
tionships were small. It appears the effects of generational membership on work-
place behavior are not as strong as suggested by commonly held stereotypes.
Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

Generational differences in
workplace behavior
As the average age of the U.S. workforce continues to increase,
much attention has focused on the fact that the workforce is
largely comprised of three generations (i.e., Baby Boomers,
Generation X, and Millennials; Eisner, 2005). The popular
press frequently stresses the need for organizations to recruit,
reward, and manage these employees differently because of
generational differences in attitudes, values, and desires
(Jurkiewicz & Brown, 1998; Kupperschmidt, 2000; Macky,
Gardner, & Forsyth, 2008). Many have suggested that
failure to recognize these differences can lead to negative
organizational outcomes such as intergenerational workplace
conflict, misunderstanding and miscommunication, poor
working relationships, reduced employee productivity,
poor employee well-being, lower innovation, and fewer
organizational citizenship behaviors (Adams, 2000;
Bradford, 1993; Dittman, 2005; Fyock, 1990; Jurkiewicz,
2000; Kupperschmidt, 2000; Smola & Sutton, 2002;
Westerman & Yamamura, 2007; Yu & Miller, 2003). As a
result, human resource (HR) management specialists, man-
agers, and researchers have expressed interest in identifying
ways to manage and work with people from different genera-
tions (Cennamo & Gardner, 2008).
Considering the extent to which generational stereotypes
are commonly accepted, it is surprising that empirical evi-
dence of generational differences is relatively sparse (Twenge,
Campbell, Hoffman, & Lance, 2010), and the research that
exists is somewhat contradictory. One stream of research sup-
ports the general stereotypes concerning generational differ-
ences in work values (Cennamo & Gardner, 2008; Smola &
Sutton, 2002), personal values (Egri & Ralston, 2004; Lyons,
Duxbury, & Higgins, 2007), leadership behaviors (Sessa,
Kabacoff, Deal, & Brown, 2007), psychological/personality
traits (Twenge & Campbell, 2008), turnover intentions, and
organizational commitment (D’Amato & Herzfeldt, 2008; for
a complete review of evidence for generational differences,
see Twenge, 2010). Another stream of research has found few,
if any, generational differences in a variety of employee char-
acteristics such as personality and motivation (cf. Hart,
Schembri, Bell, & Armstrong, 2003; Jurkiewicz, 2000; Levy,
Carroll, Francoeur, & Logue, 2005; Wong, Gardiner, Lang, &
Coulon, 2008). More recently, Trzesniewski and Donnellan
(2010) found little evidence of generational differences in a
variety of traits, attitudes, and behaviors including egotism,

© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2014, 44, pp. 175–189
176
self-enhancement, individualism, self-esteem, locus of
control, hopelessness, happiness, life satisfaction, loneliness,
antisocial behavior, time spent working or watching televi-
sion, political activity, the importance of religion, and the
importance of social status.
Considering these inconsistent findings, there exists a great
deal of controversy about whether or not generational differ-
ences exist at all (cf. Arnett, 2010; Roberts, Edmonds, &
Grijalva, 2010; Terracciano, 2010), with some suggesting that
perceived generational differences are a product of popular
culture versus social science (Giancola, 2006). Scholars have
also noted that observed generational differences may be
explained, at least in part, by age, life stage, or career stage
effects instead of generation (Arnett, 2010; Carlson & Gjerde,
2009; Foster, Campbell, & Twenge, 2003; Kohut, 1971; Parry
& Urwin, 2011). According to this view, human development
is punctuated by different life stages that involve unique cog-
nitive, emotional, and behavioral experiences (cf. Levinson,
1980), and differences in attitudes or values that are often
attributed to generations may be explained by the nature of
jobs held by older workers or their current life cycle. Studies
that examine and test generational differences are valuable
because generational studies have important applied and
theoretical implications (Trzesniewski & Donnellan, 2010).
Accordingly, accepting common generational stereotypes
without empirical support can have potentially adverse
effects on both research and practice. As a result, more gen-
erational research is needed.
In this study, we provide further insight into generational
effects in the workplace and make a contribution by investi-
gating possible generational differences in workplace behav-
iors versus values, attitudes, or personality. Specifically, we
draw from generational cohort theory (Mannheim, 1952)
and common generational stereotypes regarding attitudes
and values to examine if generational membership explains
differences in several important workplace behaviors (i.e., job
mobility, disciplinary action, and willingness to work over-
time). The mixed support for generational differences in
values, beliefs, etc. reviewed above suggests efforts intended
to promote effective management of workers from different
generations may not be necessary. However, we argue that it is
important to examine possible generational differences in
workplace behaviors before arriving at such a conclusion.
We also make a contribution in our analytic approach. One
critical issue in most generational differences studies is the
age–generation confound. In an attempt to address this issue,
some researchers have suggested segmenting generations into
“cusp” and “core” cohort groups (Egri & Ralston, 2004)
whereby individuals born within the last 5 years of a genera-
tion are considered part of the “cusp” group while those born
within the remainder of the generation’s birth years are con-
sidered part of the“core”group. While this approach provides
important insight because it allows researchers to determine if
© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Generational differences in behavior
there are any significant differences in the values/behaviors of
the “cusp” and “core” groups of each generation, it also has
several limitations. For example, there is no theoretical ration-
ale for choosing 5 years to identify the cusp/core group. Addi-
tionally, this approach fails to consider that those born in the
earlier years of a generation might also be different from those
in the middle or the end of a generation. To address these limi-
tations,we include a measure of individuals’“relative age”(i.e.,
the difference in each individual’s age from the mean age of
his/her generation) in each of our analyses. This allows differ-
ent weighting to be given to those who are far away from the
core as defined by the mean of each generation.In other words,
someone with a large, positive relative age or large, negative
relative age is at the cusp of two generations. While we are
unable to completely rule out age, life stage, or career stage
effects with this approach, it does provide unique insight into
the effects of age increases within each generation.
Generational cohort theory
The concept of generations and their effects have long been
discussed by researchers in anthropology, sociology, and
social psychology (Hung, Gu, & Yim, 2007). A generation,
often called a cohort, consists of people of similar age in a
similar location who experienced similar social, historical,
and life events (Kupperschmidt, 2000; Mannheim, 1972).
These shared experiences (e.g., industrialization, fundamen-
tal changes, cataclysmic events, and tragedies) differentiate
one generation from another (Jurkiewicz & Brown, 1998)
because they have a profound effect on the attitudes, values,
beliefs, and expectations of generational groups (Abramson
& Inglehart, 1995; Inglehart, 1977, 1990; Inglehart & Norris,
2003). Rogler (2002) proposed that the formation of a gener-
ation’s collective identity occurs in the following ways. First,
significant events such as disasters, wars, or revolutions chal-
lenge the existing social order and lay the foundation for the
emergence of a new generation. Second, these events have a
stronger effect on the “coming-of-age” group than on other
age groups coexisting during the same period of time because
people tend to form value systems during the preadult years
whereas the values of older generations are already solidified
(McCrae et al., 2002). Third, this shared set of values and
goals is supported by peers in the same generation and per-
sists throughout adulthood (Kupperschmidt, 2000; Macky
et al., 2008). In summary, commonly experienced life events
have a stronger, more enduring effect on the “coming-of-age”
cohort group than on other cohort groups who also experi-
enced the same events.
Current generations in the workplace
Researchers generally agree that three generations currently
dominate the workforce (i.e., Baby Boomers, Generation X,
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2014, 44, pp. 175–189
Becton et al.
and Millennials), although the labels and periods of years
those labels encompass vary (Lyons et al., 2007; Sessa et al.,
2007). Because no exact age range for each cohort exists, com-
paring results of empirical studies of generational differences
is difficult. In the passages that follow, we summarize the
popular stereotypes related to values and beliefs often associ-
ated with Baby Boomers (born between 1945 and 1964), Gen-
eration X (born between 1965 and 1979), and Millennials
(born in 1980 or later). However, before doing so, we
make several notes regarding our summary. First, empirical
support for the associated values and beliefs for each genera-
tion is lacking and we present them primarily as stereotypes.
Second, we note that there is little to no evidence that links
important events experienced by generational cohort groups
and their stereotypical values/characteristics. Third, the pre-
sented stereotypes are associated with Western culture gen-
erations. As argued by Parry and Urwin (2011) and discussed
in more detail in the future research section of this manu-
script, national culture is likely to have a significant influence
on generational values, attitudes, and behaviors.
Baby Boomers
Baby Boomers were born between the early 1940s and mid-
1960s (Sessa et al., 2007). Boomers, as they are often called,
were the result of the persistently high birth rates in America
between 1945 and the 1960s and, as a result, this generation is
densely populated (Lyons et al., 2007).Because this generation
comprises such a large segment of society, Boomers have had a
strong generational presence (i.e., significant influence on
society). Events that shaped the Boomers generation include
theVietnamWar,theWatergate scandal (Lancaster & Stillman,
2002), Woodstock (Adams, 2000), the civil rights movement,
the Kennedy and King assassinations, and the sexual revolu-
tion (Bradford, 1993). Boomers are stereotypically described
as achievement oriented (O’Bannon, 2001), independent, in
control of their own destinies (Mitchell, 1998), respectful of
authority (Allen, 2004), loyal and attached to organizations
(Hart, 2006; Loomis, 2000), and diligent on the job (Yu &
Miller, 2003). Boomers are also often viewed as competitive,
and they tend to measure success materially (Eisner, 2005).
Some empirical evidence supports many of the stereotypical
values associated with Boomers. For example, Egri and
Ralston (2004) found that Boomers were higher than both
older generations and GenXers in self-enhancement values
(e.g., achievement, hedonism, power). Additionally, Boomers
were found to be higher in self-reliance, hard work, and work
centrality than younger generations (Meriac, Woehr, &
Banister, 2010).
Generation X
Generation X, or Gen X (Coupland, 1991), was born between
1965 and 1979 and is defined by life experiences such as the
© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
177
age of economic uncertainty, recessions, high unemploy-
ment, inflation, downsizing, and high divorce rates among
their parents (Kupperschmidt, 2000; Lyons et al., 2007). It is
also worth noting that many GenXers are the children of
compulsive workers which is posited to have had a dramatic
impact on the attitudes and values of this generation (Eisner,
2005). The popular press has also noted that many GenXers
were school-age children who spent part of their day unsu-
pervised at home while their parents worked. Therefore, they
are believed to be individualistic, distrustful of corporations,
lacking in loyalty, focused on balancing their work and per-
sonal lives (Eisner, 2005), financially self-reliant, and entre-
preneurial risk takers (de Meuse, Bergmann, & Lester, 2001;
Tulgan, 1995). Commonly accepted stereotypes suggest that
GenXers are also more likely to leave an employer for more
challenging work, a higher salary, or better benefits because
they grew up in an era where organizational loyalty and com-
mitment were not regularly rewarded with job security (Hays,
1999; Loomis, 2000). Research appears to support this asser-
tion as Smola and Sutton (2002) found GenXers to be less
loyal, more “me” oriented, expectant of promotion sooner
than older generations, and less likely to view work as an
important part of one’s life. Other perceived characteristics of
this generation include being outcome focused, skeptical
(Francis-Smith, 2004), and desiring of specific and construc-
tive feedback (Allen, 2004). Empirical support for these ste-
reotypical values is limited, but Egri and Ralston (2004)
found that GenXers attributed significantly higher impor-
tance to openness to change values (e.g., self-direction, stimu-
lation) but lower importance to self-enhancement values
(e.g., achievement, hedonism, power) than Boomers. Addi-
tionally, Meriac et al. (2010) found that GenXers were lower
in centrality of work than Boomers.
Millennials
There is little agreement regarding the label for the most
recent cohort to enter the workforce. Referred to as
Millennials, Nexters (Howe, Strauss, & Matson, 2000), the
Net Generation (Tapscott, 1998), and Generation Y
(Neuborne & Kerwin, 1999), this generation typically begins
with birth years between 1980 and 1983 but has no agreed-
upon “cutoff” date for inclusion (Sessa et al., 2007).
Millennials are the first “high-tech” generation, having never
known life before cell phones, personal computers, and ATMs
were commonplace (Mitchell, 1998; Ryan, 2000). Addition-
ally, the globalization of society and the marketplace is
thought to have had a tremendous impact on their values
(Howe et al., 2000). Millennials are the most racially and eth-
nically diverse of the four generations (Mitchell, 1998) and, as
a result, they are thought to value diversity and change
(Patterson, 2005). Common stereotypes for this generation
include being distrustful of organizations, having a strong
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2014, 44, pp. 175–189
178
desire for meaningful work (Ryan, 2000), holding lifelong
learning as a high priority, and viewing family as the key to
happiness (Mitchell, 1998). Similar to Boomers, Millennials
are thought to feel a strong desire to succeed and measure
their own success by the meaningfulness of work (Eisner,
2005). Research findings supporting these contentions are
somewhat sparse although Millennials have been found to
value leisure more than other generations and work harder
than Generation X (Meriac et al., 2010).
Hypotheses
As discussed in the previous passages, there is a growing body
of literature that suggests generations are distinctive from one
another because social, historical, and life experiences (i.e.,
life history patterns) affect individuals’ dominant attitudes
and values (cf. Beutell & Wittig-Berman, 2008; Cennamo &
Gardner, 2008; D’Amato & Herzfeldt, 2008; Egri & Ralston,
2004; Lyons et al., 2007; Sessa et al., 2007; Smola & Sutton,
2002; Twenge & Campbell, 2008). Because life history pat-
terns are, in part, a function of one’s generation (i.e., social
and cultural events of one’s formative years), many have
assumed that generational cohort groups differ in several
workplace behaviors because they differ in their formative
experiences and resulting values. Our objective is to examine
if the three generational cohort groups in Western culture
detailed above differ in workplace behavior as predicted by
common generational stereotypes.
Job mobility behaviors
Job mobility refers to patterns of intra- and inter-
organizational transitions over the history of a person’s
career (Hall, 1996; Sullivan, 1999), or a person’s history of
changing jobs. Previous research has found that the number
of times individuals leave jobs is related to future turnover
(Ghiselli, 1974; Judge & Watanabe, 1995; Munasinghe &
Sigman, 2004). Recognizing this tendency, some organiza-
tions prefer to “screen out” applicants who have changed jobs
frequently in the past in order to have a stable workforce
(Griffeth & Hom, 2001).
Commonly held stereotypes suggest several reasons why
generations may differ in terms of job mobility behaviors. In
Western cultures, many older generation employees (e.g.,
Boomers) entered the workforce when the predominant
career management strategy was to enter a firm, work hard,
be loyal to the organization, and be rewarded with job secu-
rity (Hall, 1996). During this era, one’s career path often
entailed a sequence of jobs within a single organization
(Levinson, 1978; Whyte, 1956), and employees were
described as not only working for organizations but belong-
ing to them (Whyte, 1956). However, more recent genera-
tions (e.g., Gen X and Millennials) entered the workforce in
© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Generational differences in behavior
an era where downsizing, layoffs, and offshoring were more
commonplace. As a result, employee loyalty and commitment
were often not consistently reciprocated with job security (de
Meuse et al., 2001; Smola & Sutton, 2002; Tulgan, 1995;
Twenge & Campbell, 2008), and the career paths of these
younger generations are more likely to involve multiple jobs
across multiple organizations (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996).
Because of these generational life experiences, many
researchers have posited that generations differ in regard to
personal values that are related to employer loyalty and deci-
sions to terminate employment. Boomers are thought to be
more likely to remain loyal and attached to an organization
(Hart, 2006; Loomis, 2000; Patterson, 2005) because they
believe in lifetime employment, company loyalty, and paying
one’s dues to get ahead (Elsdon & Lyer, 1999). On the other
hand, GenXers and Millennials are often perceived as willing
to leave a job when better opportunities arise or to look for
other opportunities when their current employers are not
meeting their needs (Crainer & Dearlove, 1999). GenXers are
also thought to be less likely to display loyalty to a particular
organization because they are more independent, self-reliant
(Hart, 2006), and entrepreneurial (O’Bannon, 2001) than
previous generations. In fact, Generation X is said to have
pioneered the “free agent” workforce, focusing on keeping
skills current to improve their security (Eisner, 2005). Simi-
larly, Millennials are thought to be comfortable with change
and less likely to view job security as an important factor in
their careers (Hart, 2006). These reported generational ste-
reotypes suggest Boomers will differ from GenXers and
Millennials regarding their job mobility behaviors. There-
fore, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 1. Boomers will exhibit fewer job mobility
behaviors than GenXers and Millennials.
Compliance with work rules
and policies
In most organizations, control mechanisms such as work
rules, policies, and procedures exist to guide employees in
the performance of their jobs. Failure to comply with these
rules and policies can be detrimental to organizational
success (e.g., litigation, inefficiencies, substandard quality of
products or services, etc.), and managers must deal with
problem behaviors in the workplace to minimize negative
organizational consequences (Orey, 2007; Vardi & Weitz,
2004). Managing such misbehavior often involves taking
disciplinary action against employees such as suspension,
demotion, and, ultimately, termination. Since models of
organizational misbehavior include individual values as
antecedents of such behavior (Vardi & Weitz, 2004), it is
important to investigate possible generational differences in
incidences of rules violations and terminations.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2014, 44, pp. 175–189
Becton et al.
Boomers are often described as having a strong work ethic,
highly involved in their jobs (Kupperschmidt, 2000), and dili-
gent on the job (Yu & Miller, 2003). Others suggest that most
Boomers respect authority (Allen, 2004) and traditional
values in the workplace (O’Bannon, 2001). In contrast,
younger generations tend to be viewed as fiercely independ-
ent (Lancaster & Stillman, 2002; Tapscott, 1998; Zemke,
Raines, & Filipczak, 2000), placing little value on tradition
and conformity (Lyons et al., 2007). Empirical studies suggest
that younger generations are higher in individualistic traits
such as self-esteem, assertiveness, and narcissism (Twenge,
2001; Twenge & Campbell, 2001, 2009; Twenge & Foster,
2010; Twenge, Konrath, Foster, Campbell, & Bushman,
2008). There is also some empirical evidence that indicates
younger generations are not as concerned with the impres-
sion they make on others, are less formal, and are less likely to
conform (Cohen, 2007; Twenge & Campbell, 2008). Coupled
with the notion that Generation X and Millennials are less
loyal to their employers (Hart, 2006), these tendencies may
also result in greater disregard for work rules, policies, and
procedures. Consequently, the popular stereotypes suggest
that older generations are more respectful of work rules than
younger generations. By extension, we hypothesize that older
generations will be more compliant, resulting in more
instances of rules compliance and fewer terminations.
Hypothesis 2. Boomers will exhibit more instances of
compliance and experience fewer instances of termina-
tion than GenXers and Millennials.
Willingness to work overtime
As discussed earlier, scholars suggest that Generation X is
much more concerned with work–life balance (Chao, 2005;
Eisner, 2005) than any other generation, and the personal
values and goals of GenXers are likely more important
than work-related goals (Howe et al., 2000). On the other
hand, Boomers and Millennials value material and financial
success (Eisner, 2005; Yu & Miller, 2003). Boomers are
often described as wanting it all and seeking to get it by
working long hours (Eisner, 2005). Researchers suggest that
Millennials, raised mostly by Boomers, have experienced
powerful pressure from parents to explore financially reward-
ing vocational paths (Twenge, 2010). As a result, Millennials
are said to be driven by personal achievement and success
(Pew Research Center, 2007). Some have made the observa-
tion that GenXers “work to live” whereas Boomers “live to
work” (Chao, 2005). Empirical evidence also suggests that
Generation X values work–life balance. For example, Burke
(1994) found that Generation X rated a balanced lifestyle as
one of the most important job factors while company perks
and community status were the least important. Other
studies have drawn similar conclusions and found that family
© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
179
and personal relationships are more important to Generation
X’s personal happiness than their work (Arnett, 2000;
Eskilson & Wiley, 1999; Smola & Sutton, 2002). Additionally,
the Families and Work Institute (2006) reports that GenXers
are more family centric than both Boomers and Millennials.
While work–life balance is related to numerous work
behaviors, we argue that willingness to work overtime is one
way a greater need for work–life balance is manifested. Since
the very nature of overtime involves working more hours
than the normal workload, working overtime is likely in
direct competition with time devoted to family obligations,
hobbies, and activities outside of work (Mayo Foundation for
Medical Education and Research, 2008). To test the popular
stereotypes suggesting that GenXers differ considerably from
other generations concerning the value they attach to work–
life balance, we hypothesize that GenXers will exhibit less
willingness to work overtime in comparison with Boomers or
Millennials.
Hypothesis 3. GenXers will report less willingness to
work overtime than Boomers or Millennials.
Method
Sample and procedure
Study participants were job applicants for a variety of posi-
tions in two different hospitals located in the southeastern
United States. As part of the application process, job seekers
completed a biodata questionnaire (to be described in more
detail in the Measures section) and an online application
that included birth date. A total of 8,128 applicants were
available for analysis. The sample consisted of 1,641 (20.2%)
Baby Boomers, 4,972 (61.2%) GenXers, and 1,515 (18.6%)
Millennials. The mean age of Baby Boomers was 48.5 years
old (SD = 4.79), the mean age of GenXers was 30.8 years old
(SD = 5.05), and the mean age of Millennials was 21.5 years
old (SD = 1.38). The sample consisted of 301 (3.7%) Native
Americans, 116 (1.4%) Asian/Pacific Islanders, 237 (2.9%)
Hispanics, 3,955 (48.7) African Americans, and 3,211
(39.5%) Caucasians. A total of 308 (3.8%) did not disclose
their race. The sample was comprised of 6,828 (83.2%)
females and 1,300 (15.8%) males while 83 (1%) failed to
provide their gender.
Measures
To measure differences in workplace behaviors among indi-
viduals from different generations, we drew from applicant
responses to a biodata measure on an employment applica-
tion. The instrument used in the present study was developed
and validated for use as a selection device in the health care
industry (Becton, Matthews, Hartley, & Whitaker, 2009). The
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2014, 44, pp. 175–189
180 Generational differences in behavior

biodata instrument presented 40 multiple-choice questions Compliance with work rules

and scenarios that asked applicants about previous life
experiences related to high school, college, and work assign-
ments. A sample of items from this instrument was selected
for the present study, matching the content of the items to the
behaviors of interest.
Job mobility behaviors
Job mobility behaviors were measured via two biodata items.
The first item asked applicants to indicate the longest time
ever spent in one job and response options included 1 (less
than three months), 2 (three to six months), 3 (six months to
one year), 4 (one to two years), 5 (two to five years), and 6 (more
than five years). To aid in the interpretation of our results, the
data were re-coded to reflect a more quantitative measure by
calculating the midpoint of each category in months (i.e.,
1 = 1.5 months, 2 = 4.5 months, etc.). The second item asked
applicants the number of jobs held in the last five years
and response options included 1 = one, 2 = two, 3 = three,
4 = four, and 5 = five or more. A summary of mean responses
to job mobility behavior items by generation is given in
Table 1.
Compliance behaviors were measured using two biodata
items. The first item asked applicants to report how their
most recent supervisor would rate their attendance. Response
options included 1 (bottom 5%), 2 (lower than most),
3 (typical of most people), 4 (higher than most), and 5 (top 5%
of all employees).
The second item asked applicants how their most recent
supervisor would rate their appearance as it related to adher-
ence to dress code. Response options included 1 (never appro-
priate), 2 (sometimes appropriate), 3 (usually appropriate),
and 4 (always appropriate). A summary of compliance behav-
iors by generation is given in Table 2.
Terminations
Terminations were assessed using a biodata item asking the
number of times an applicant had been fired in the past.
Response options for this question included 1 (never), 2 (I left
a job to avoid being fired), 3 (I have been fired once), and 4 (I
have been fired at least twice). A summary of terminations by
generation is given in Table 3.

Table 1 Job Mobility and Control Variables. Sample Means with Standard Deviations Given in Parentheses

Job mobility

Longest number of months Number of jobs held in

Generation spent in single job the last 5 years Age

Boomers 72.9 (20.2) 2.0 (1.0) 48.5 (4.8)

Gen X 48.5 (24.7) 2.5 (1.1) 30.8 (5.0)
Millennials 22.6 (16.6) 2.6 (1.1) 21.5 (1.4)
Total 48.6 (27.4) 2.4 (1.1) 32.6 (9.8)

Table 2 Compliance with Work Rules

Attendance rating

Bottom Lower than Typical of Higher than Top 5%

Generation 5% (%) most (%) most (%) most (%) (%)

Boomers 0.18 0.31 13.73 34.05 51.74

Gen X 0.22 0.60 20.90 33.66 44.62
Millennials 0.00 0.40 17.36 34.92 47.26
Total 0.17 0.50 18.79 33.97 46.55

Appearance rating

Never appropriate Sometimes Usually appropriate Always appropriate

Generation (%) appropriate (%) (%) (%)

Boomers 0.06 0.18 5.24 94.52

Gen X 0.08 0.20 4.89 94.83
Millennials 0.14 0.48 6.77 92.62
Total 0.09 0.25 5.30 94.36

Table values represent the sample percent of a given generation who selected the corresponding column category response.

© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2014, 44, pp. 175–189
Becton et al. 181

Table 3 Terminations

Employment history

Quit since likely to

Generation Never been fired (%) be fired (%) Fired once (%) Fired at least twice (%)

Boomers 78.86 1.91 15.37 3.87

Gen X 80.03 1.79 16.08 2.10
Millennials 87.85 2.06 8.85 1.24
Total 81.22 1.86 14.62 2.30

Table values represent the sample percent of a given generation who selected the corresponding column category response.

Table 4 Willingness to Work Overtime

Willingness to work overtime

Never when Rarely when Occasionally when Most times Every time
Generation asked (%) asked (%) asked (%) when asked (%) when asked (%)

Boomers 0.24 0.92 11.72 43.28 43.83

Gen X 0.22 0.87 13.31 47.49 38.11
Millennials 0.69 1.31 10.27 47.21 40.52
Total 0.31 0.96 12.44 46.58 39.71

Table values represent the sample percent of a given generation who selected the corresponding column category response.

Willingness to work overtime
Willingness to work overtime was measured with one biodata
item. This item asked applicants how often their most recent
supervisor would say they were willing to work overtime.
Response options included 1 ( never when asked), 2 (rarely
when asked), 3 (occasionally when asked), 4 (most times when
asked), and 5 (every time when asked). A summary of willing-
ness to work overtime by generation is given in Table 4.
Control variables
Scholars have argued that it is difficult to separate the effects
of age and generation (Macky et al., 2008; Twenge &
Campbell, 2008), and this is a challenge for all generational
research (Parry & Urwin, 2011). For example, including age
as a covariate is inappropriate because it has a naturally high
correlation with generational cohort (Egri & Ralston, 2004).
Further, due to the partial nature of coefficients in statistical
models, it is not possible to interpret the effect of generation
while holding age constant. Thus, in an attempt to explore a
potential age confound, we included a control variable
labeled “relative age.” Relative age was calculated for each
applicant by subtracting the mean age for their generation
from their own age, and thus measures the distance from their
age to the average of their generation (see Table 1 for a
summary of mean age by generation). The “relative age” is
computed by subtracting an individual’s age from the mean
age of his/her generation. Thus, someone with a “relative age”
of 5 is 5 years older than the average for his/her generation.
Including this measure as a control variable allowed us to
examine the effects of age increases within each generation
and provides insight into the potential age confound. In addi-
tion to controlling for relative age in our analyses, we also
included (when significant) an interaction term between
“relative age” and generation. This allows for possible differ-
ences in the slope of the relationship between age and the
response variables by generation.
Gender was also included as a control variable because
research suggests that males and females differ considerably
with respect to job mobility (Booth, Franscesconi, &
Garcia-Serrano, 1999; Keith & McWilliams, 1997) and will-
ingness to work overtime (Becker & Moen, 1999; Keene &
Reynolds, 2005).
Data and analysis
Due to the different response formats associated with our
items (i.e., interval, ordinal, etc.), we used a variety of analyses
to test our hypotheses. Additionally, several of the response
options were selected by a small percentage of participants
and we combined these categories with the next response
option. We do not believe this adjustment influenced our
results considering the model parameters in an ordinal logis-
tic regression are invariant to collapsing adjacent categories
(Greenland, 1994; Murad, Fleischman, Sadetzki, Geyer, &
Freedman, 2003), and doing so when some categories are very
sparse can improve the asymptotic fit of the maximum likeli-
hood analysis.
The response options for the items relating to job mobility
in Hypothesis 1 were measured on an interval scale, thus

© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2014, 44, pp. 175–189
182
hierarchical multiple regression analysis was used to test
Hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 2 concerns compliance with work
rules and terminations. The response options for each of
these questions were ordinal. For the item relating to attend-
ance, we combined the first two response options (1 = bottom
5%; 2 = lower than most) with the third response option
(3 = typical of most) because these two options were selected
by less than 1% of the sample for each category. This recoding
resulted in three categories for attendance rating (3 = typical
of most or lower; 4 = higher than most; 5 = top 5%) and ordinal
logistic regression was used to test for generational differ-
ences. Similarly, the response options for appearance ratings
were ordinal, and the two lowest categories (1 = appearance is
never appropriate; 2 = appearance is sometimes appropriate)
were combined with the third response option (3 = appear-
ance is usually appropriate). This adjustment created a binary
coding of the appearance variable (3 = appearance is not
always appropriate; 4 = appearance is always appropriate) and
binary logistic regression was used to test Hypothesis 2 with
respect to appearance rating. The response options for termi-
nations were ordinal (e.g., 1 = never; 2 = I left a job to avoid
being fired; 3 = I have been fired once; 4 = I have been fired at
least twice) and did not require any adjustment; thus, ordinal
logistic regression was used to test Hypothesis 2 with respect
to terminations. Finally, we combined the lowest two
response options for willingness to work overtime (1 = never
work when asked; 2 = rarely work when asked) with the third
category (3 = occasionally work when asked) and used ordinal
logistic regression to test Hypothesis 3.
Results
Intercorrelations among the study variables are presented in
Table 5. The correlations among age, longest number of
months spent in a single job, and number of jobs held in the
last 5 years were computed using Pearson’s product moment
correlation. All correlations involving attendance rating,
appearance rating, and employment history were computed
using Spearman’s rank correlation. Hypothesis 1 posited that
Boomers would exhibit fewer job mobility behaviors than
GenXers and Millennials. Table 6 presents the hierarchical
regression analysis used to test this hypothesis. Step 1
Table 5 Correlation Coefficients among Study Variables
Age
longest number of months spent in single job 0.565**
Number of jobs held in the last 5 years −0.220**
Attendance rating 0.026*
Appearance rating 0.029**
Employment history −0.191**
**Correlation is significant at the .01 level. *Correlation is significant at the .05 level.
© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Generational differences in behavior
included only the control variables (i.e., gender and relative
age). Step 2 included the controls and main effects for genera-
tion (R2 = .34, p < .001). Step 3 included the controls, main
effects for generation, and the interaction between relative
age and generation (R2 = .014, p < .001). We contend that the
relative age × generation interactions provided additional
insight by investigating the effects of age increases on the vari-
able of interest within each generation. As predicted, the main
effect for generation indicated that Boomers reported longer
time in one job than GenXers and Millennials. Specifically,
when comparing individuals of the same gender and relative
age, GenXers spent, on average, 24.16 fewer months on the
job (95% CI −25.32, −23.00) than Boomers, while Millennials
spent, on average, 50.21 fewer months on the job (95% CI
−51.66, −48.76) than Boomers.
The significant relative age × generation interactions
imply that the association between relative age and the time
spent on the job differs due to generation. For Boomers,
each additional year of relative age translates into an average
job tenure of .69 months longer (95% CI .48.89). For Gen
X, an additional year of relative age translates into 2.11
additional months of job tenure (difference between
Boomers and Gen X is 1.42 months, 95% CI 1.18, 1.66). For
Millennials, relative age seems even more important to job
tenure, and an additional year of age is associated with 3.63
months longer on the job (difference between Boomers and
Millennials is 2.94, 95% CI 2.15, 3.74). These results indicate
that there are significant job tenure mean differences
between Boomers and Gen X and between Boomers and
Millennials when controlling for relative age and the inter-
action between relative age and generation.
A similar analysis was performed to test for generational
differences in the number of jobs held in the last 5 years (see
Table 6). The second step of the hierarchical regression that
included the main effects showed a significant change in
unexplained variability (R2 = .03, p < .001), as did the third
step that included the interaction term between generation
and relative age (R2 = .02, p < .001). Results revealed that
Boomers had fewer jobs in the past 5 years than either
GenXers or Millennials. More specifically, GenXers of the
same relative age and gender had an average of .45 more jobs
(95% CI .39.50) than Boomers, while Millennials averaged
Longest number of months Number of jobs held in Attendance Appearance
spent in single job the last 5 years rating rating
−0.272**
0.090** −0.056**
0.056** −0.014 0.133**
−0.160** −0.087** 0.000 0.017
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2014, 44, pp. 175–189
Becton et al. 183

Table 6 Regression Analysis of Job Mobility Behaviors

Longest time in one job Number of jobs in the past 5 years

Variable b 95% CI β R2
ΔR 2
b 95% CI β R2 ΔR2

Step 1 .09 .02

Constant 52.59 (51.17, 54.01) 2.45 (2.40, 2.51)
Sex (1 = female) −4.75*** (−6.30, −3.20) −.06 −.05 (−.11, .02) −.02
Relative age 1.81*** (1.69, 1.94) .30 −.03*** (−.04, −.03) −.14
Step 2 .42 .33*** .05 .03***
Constant 76.35 (74.92, 77.84) 2.09 (2.02, 2.16)
Sex (1 = female) −4.30*** (−5.53, −3.05) −.06 −.07* (−.13, −.00) −.02
Relative age 1.81*** (1.71, 1.91) .30 −.03*** (−.04, −.03) −.14
Gen X −24.16*** (−21.33, 23.00) −.43 .45*** (.39, .50) .20
Millennial −50.20*** (−51.66, −48.74) −.71 .57*** (.49, .64) .20
Step 3 .43 .01*** .07 .02***
Constant 76.45 (75.03, 77.87) 2.10 (2.03, 2.17)
Sex (1 = female) −4.41*** (−5.64, −3.18) −.06 −.07* (−.14, −.01) −.03
Relative age .69*** (.48, .89) .12 −.02*** (−.03, −.01) −.09
Gen X −24.16*** (−25.32, −23.00) −.43 .45*** (.39, .50) .20
Millennial −50.21*** (−51.66, −48.76) −.71 .55*** (.48, .63) .20
Gen X × age 1.42*** (1.18, 1.66) .21 −.02*** (−.04, −.01) −.09
Millennial × age 2.94*** (2.15, 3.74) .03 .20*** (.16, .25) .13

Note. For this analysis, the generation variables were coded as Gen X = 1, 0 otherwise; and Millennial = 1, 0 otherwise. *p < .05. **p < .01.
***p < .001.

Table 7 Ordinal Multinomial Regression Analysis of Attendance

Variable β SE b Wald’s X2 eβ (odds ratio) 95% CI eβ

Lower than most people −5.42 .15 1,301.07*** .004 (.003, .006)
Typical of most people −1.84 .07 688.65*** .16 (.14, .18)
Higher than most −.28 .07 16.86*** .76 (.67, .87)
Millennial −.19 .07 8.02** .83 (.73, .94)
Gen X −.34 .05 39.36*** .71 (.64, .79)
Sex (1 = female) −.21 .06 12.755*** .81 (.73, .91)
Relative age .003 .005 .489 1.00 (.99, 1.01)

Note. The last response category, “In the top 5%,” was the reference category. The Boomers category was used as the reference category for genera-
tion, and male was used as the reference category for sex. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

.55 more jobs (95% CI .48, .63) than Boomers. The significant
relative age main effect indicated that an additional year of
relative age is related to a .02 decrease in the average number
of jobs held in the last 5 years (95% CI −.03, −.01) for
Boomers. Additionally, the significant relative age × Gen X
interaction suggests that an additional year of relative age
resulted in a .04 decrease in the average number of jobs held
in the last 5 years when compared to Boomers (difference
between Boomers and GenXers is −.02, 95% CI −.04, −.01).
Conversely, an additional year of age for Millennials results in
an average increase of .18 jobs in the last 5 years as compared
to Boomers (difference between Millennials and Boomers is
.20, 95% CI .16, .25). Thus, comparable Millennials who are
older in their generation tend to have held more jobs in the
past 5 years, while comparable Boomers and GenXers who are
older in the generation tend to have held fewer jobs, on
average, in the past 5 years. These results suggest that there are
still significant mean differences in the number of jobs held in
the past 5 years between Boomers and Gen X and between
Boomers and Millennials when controlling for relative age
and the interaction between relative age and generation.
Taken collectively, results of both hierarchical regression
analyses for the longest time spent in one job and for the
number of jobs held in the past 5 years lend support for
Hypothesis 1.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that Boomers would exhibit more
instances of compliance with work rules and fewer termina-
tions than GenXers and Millennials. Tables 7–9 contain
results of the regression analyses used to test the hypoth-
esized generational effects on appearance, attendance, and
terminations.
Concerning attendance, results indicated that there was
overall significance associated with the fitted model contain-
ing relative age, gender, and generation as predictors of

© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2014, 44, pp. 175–189
184 Generational differences in behavior

Table 8 Binary Logistic Regression Analysis of Appropriate Appearance

Variable β SE b Wald’s X2 eβ (odds ratio) 95% CI eβ

Usually appropriate −2.27 .13 291.28*** .10 (.08,.13)

Millennial .34 .15 5.13* 1.40 (1.04,1.87)
Gen X −.03 .13 .05 .97 (.78,1.25)
Sex (1 = female) −.77 .11 49.03*** .46 (.38,.58)
Relative age −.01 .01 1.44 .99 (.97,1.01)

Note. The last response category “always appropriate” was used as the reference category. The Boomers category was used as the reference category
for generation, and male was used as the reference category for sex. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 9 Ordinal Multinomial Regression Analysis of Termination

Variable β SE b Wald’s X2 eβ (odds ratio) 95% CI eβ

Never been fired .956 .08 132.7*** 2.60 (2.21,3.06)

Left because likely to be fired 1.09 .08 169.5*** 3.00 (2.51,3.48)
Fired once 3.26 .11 923.2*** 25.90 (21.00,31.95)
Millennial −.68 .10 46.0*** .51 (.42,.62)
Gen X −.07 .07 1.1 .93 (.81,1.07)
Sex (1 = female) −.44 .07 36.2*** .65 (.56,.75)
Relative age .02 .01 12.6*** 1.0 (1.01,1.03)

Note. The last response category “fired twice or more” was used as the reference category. The Boomers category was used as the reference category
for generation, and male was used as the reference category for sex. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

attendance behaviors (log likelihood = −8,670.33, χ2 = 56.19,
df = 4, p < .001). However, the interaction between relative
age and generation was not significant, thus not included in
the fitted model. The reported proportional odds ordinal
logistic regression model (see Table 7) compares the odds of a
respondent selecting the next higher category over the com-
bined adjacent and lower categories. Because of the categori-
cal nature of the generational variable and gender control
variable, the odds for each of these variables are compared
relative to a specific reference category. For all logistic regres-
sion models in this paper, we selected male as the referent cat-
egory for gender and Boomer as the referent category for
generation. Thus, for example, the Gen X coefficient (eβ = .71,
95% CI .64, .79) is interpreted as the odds of a Gen X member
selecting the next higher attendance category as compared to
a Boomer of the same relative age and gender. Because this
odds ratio is less than 1, it implies a 29% reduction in the odds
of GenXers selecting a higher attendance category compared
to Boomers. Similarly, the odds of comparable Millennials
responding in the next higher attendance category is .83 that
of Boomers (95% CI .73, .94). This implies a 17% reduction
in the odds of comparable Millennials rating their attendance
in the higher category than Boomers.
Table 8 presents the binary logistic regression results used
to test generational differences for the appearance dimension
of Hypothesis 2. Again, the relative age × generation interac-
tions were not significant and thus excluded from our final
model. The final model indicated a significant association
between generation and appropriate appearance (log likeli-
hood = −1,719.02, χ2 = 55.23, df = 4, p < .001). The results
indicate that when controlling for relative age and gender,
Millennials’ odds of responding in the category of “usually
appropriate” is 1.4 times higher than that of a Boomer (95%
CI 1.05–1.87). However, the odds of GenXers responding in
the “usually appropriate” category was not significantly dif-
ferent from that of Boomers (eβ = .99, 95% CI .97, 1.01).
Results of the ordinal logistic regression analyses for
generational effects on terminations (see Table 9) indicated
that there was an association between generation and disci-
plinary action (log likelihood = −4,829.8, χ2 = 107.5, df = 4,
p < .001). Again, this final model did not include the relative
age × generation interactions because they were not signifi-
cant in the original model. Our findings revealed that the
odds of Millennials selecting the next higher response cat-
egory over that of the combined lower categories was .51
times less than Boomers (95% CI .42, .62). However, the odds
of GenXers responding in a higher disciplinary category was
not significantly different than Boomers (95% CI .81, 1.1).
Taken collectively, results of the three analyses regarding
attendance, appearance, and terminations provide partial
support for Hypothesis 2. It is important to note that the rela-
tive age × generation interactions were not significant in all
three analyses, indicating that increases in age within each
generation have similar effects on the workplace behavior
associated with Hypothesis 2.
Hypothesis 3 predicted that GenXers would be less willing
to work overtime than other generations. Table 10 presents
the ordinal logistic regression analysis used to test this

© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2014, 44, pp. 175–189
Becton et al.
Table 10 Ordinal Multinomial Regression Analysis of Willingness to Work Overtime
Variable β SE b
Never or occasionally when asked −2.24 .07
Most times when asked .03 .07
Millennial −.09 .07
Gen X −.20 .05
Female −.30 .06
Relative age −.00 .00
Note. The last response category “every time when asked” was used as the reference category. The Boomers category was used as the reference cat-
egory for generation, and male was used as the reference category for sex. * p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
prediction. The interaction between generation and relative
age was originally included in our model but found to be not
significant, and thus excluded from the final model. Our final
model indicated an association between generation and
willingness to work overtime (log likelihood = −7,963.13,
χ2 = 43.71, df = 4, p < .001). Further, results suggested that
the odds of selecting the next higher response category over
that of the combined lower categories differed significantly
between GenXers and Boomers.
More specifically, the odds of GenXers responding in a
higher willingness to work overtime category is .82 times
lower (95% CI .73–.94), on average, than Boomers. As
expected, there was no significant difference between compa-
rable Millennials and Boomers in terms of the odds of will-
ingness to work overtime. These results provide support for
Hypothesis 3 and indicate that GenXers are less likely to work
overtime as compared to Boomers and Millennials.
Discussion
The results of the present study suggest that while genera-
tional differences exist in some workplace behaviors, the
popular generational stereotypes are not always consistent
with workplace behaviors. As mentioned earlier, these find-
ings deviate from the majority of existing generational differ-
ences research in that our study focused on job behaviors
versus attitudes or values. We believe our results can be
instructive and have important implications for management
and HR practices.
Overall, our results suggest that organizations should be
cautious in taking the advice of some scholars to implement
HR strategies that recognize the unique values and charac-
teristics of each generation versus general strategies applied
to all generations of employees (D’Amato & Herzfeldt,
2008). Although we did find evidence of some generational
differences in workplace behavior, the effects sizes were
quite small as evidenced by the small, but statistically sig-
nificant changes in R2 in the hierarchical regression analysis,
and the odds ratios near 1.0 in the ordinal logistic regression
analyses. As such, we tend to agree with others who have
argued that the cost of tailoring HR practices to each gen-
© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
185
Wald’s X2 eβ (odds ratio) 95% CI eβ
946.86*** .11 (.09,.12)
.15 1.03 (.90,1.17)
1.65 .92 (.80,1.05)
13.68*** .82 (.73,.91)
26.59*** .74 (.66,.83)
.07 1 (.99,1.01)
eration may outweigh the potential benefits (Kowske,
Rasch, & Wiley, 2010). Moreover, we caution practitioners
to avoid treating employees simply as members of genera-
tions, ignoring the fact that other individual differences
likely play a more prominent role in workplace behaviors
than generational differences (cf. Twenge, 2010). Rather
than developing HR strategies that target specific genera-
tions, organizations may be better served by designing
greater flexibility into HR practices and strategies in order
to address the needs and values of all employees regardless
of generational cohort group.
The inclusion of relative age in our analyses also has impor-
tant implications. This approach allowed us to compare
increases in age within each generation on the investigated
workplace behaviors. In terms of our specific findings, the
significant relative age × generation interaction effects for job
mobility behaviors indicated that increases in age within
younger generations (i.e., GenXers and Millennials) had a
greater effect on these behaviors than increases in age within
the Boomer generation. These results suggest that we should
interpret our findings regarding generational differences in
job mobility behaviors with caution. More specifically, gen-
erational differences in job mobility behaviors may be attrib-
uted to age or life stage effects versus a pure generational
effect. For example, some scholars argue that human develop-
ment is characterized by different life stages that are unique in
terms of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral experiences (cf.
Levinson, 1980). As such, the nature of jobs held by older
workers or their current life cycle may explain the lower job
mobility behaviors for Boomers. However, the relative
age × generation interactions were not significant for the
other workplace behaviors, providing more evidence of
generational effects on workplace behaviors. Additionally,
inspecting the results of the study seems to suggest that at
least some of the differences cannot be explained simply by
age. For example, we found that participants from older gen-
erations generally reported being fired fewer times than
younger generations. If age alone influenced results, we
would expect the opposite because older generations have
been in the workforce longer and have had more opportu-
nities to be fired.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2014, 44, pp. 175–189
186 Generational differences in behavior

Limitations and future research their responses are subject to independent verification
reduces the likelihood of faking or giving socially desirable
While our study reveals some interesting results, we should
answers (Kluger & Colella, 1993). All participants in this
note several potential limitations. Due to the cross-sectional
study signed an acknowledgment that their responses may be
nature of our data, we were unable to explicitly test for age,
verified and dishonest answers would result in disqualifica-
life stage, or career stage effects. While the relative age
tion from the hiring process. Although the authors feel that
measure used in our analyses provides unique insight into
adequate measures were taken to ameliorate the effects of
these issues, we encourage future researchers to further
faking or giving socially desirable responses, we cannot com-
investigate generational differences using other data collec-
pletely rule out such concerns. Future research would benefit
tion methods such as longitudinal designs. As suggested by
from assessing generational differences in workplace behav-
an anonymous reviewer, another possibility is for future
ior using sources such as official employment records of dis-
researchers to use additional individual variables (e.g.,
ciplinary action, rules violations, terminations, etc.
number of children, applying for full-time or part-time
A final limitation concerns statistical significance and
jobs) as proxies for family or life stage effects. Unfortunately,
sample size. While our study did find significant differences
the field data collection design prevented us from collecting
between generational cohort groups on several work-related
this type of data because participants were applying for
behaviors, our sample size was very large. With large samples,
actual jobs, and it would be illegal for us to ask specific ques-
even small effects can be found to be highly significant. Thus,
tions about number of children, marital status, etc. Simi-
results should be interpreted in light of effect sizes, which
larly, we echo Parry and Urwin’s (2011) call for future
were small.
research to explicitly consider other within-generation indi-
vidual characteristics such as ethnicity or national culture.
The nature of the data used for analyses presents another
Conclusion
possible limitation. We collected data from participants’ self-
reported biodata items on an employment application and The current study extended previous research on the effects of
the accuracy of self-report data is often debated. However, generational differences in the workplace by investigating
research has shown that the accuracy of biodata can be max- actual employee behaviors. While results indicated some gen-
imized by using several strategies. First, the more objective erational differences in workplace behavior exist, the effect
(i.e., verifiable) the biodata items, the greater the accuracy sizes for these relationships were small. As such, we caution
(Becker & Colquitt, 1992; Schrader & Osburn, 1977; Shaffer, organizations from exerting much effort to redesign practices
Saunders, & Owens, 1986). All items used in the current study and policies in an attempt to more effectively manage workers
were objective and verifiable. Second, informing applicants from different generations.

References
Abramson, P. R., & Inglehart, R. (1995).
Value change in global perspective. Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Adams, S. J. (2000). Generation X: How
understanding this population leads
to better safety programs. Professional
Safety, 45, 26–29.
Allen, P. (2004). Welcoming Y. Benefits
Canada, 28, 51–53.
Arnett, J. J. (2000). High hopes in a grim
world. Youth & Society, 31, 267–286.
Arnett, J. J. (2010). Oh, grow up! Genera-
tional grumbling and the new life stage
of emerging adulthood—Commentary
on Trzesniewski & Donnellan (2010).
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5,
89–92.
Arthur, M. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (1996).
The boundaryless career: A new employ-
ment principle for a new organizational
era. New York: Oxford University Press.
Becker, P. E., & Moen, P. (1999). Scaling
back: Dual-career couples’ work-family
strategies. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 61, 995–1007.
Becker, T., & Colquitt, A. (1992). Potential
versus actual faking of a biodata form:
An analysis along several dimensions of
item type. Personnel Psychology, 45, 389–
406.
Becton, J. B., Matthews, M. C., Hartley, D.
L., & Whitaker, D. H. (2009). Biodata as a
predictor of turnover, organizational
commitment, & job performance in
the healthcare industry. International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17,
189–202.
Beutell, N. J., & Wittig-Berman, U. (2008).
Work-family conflict and work-family
synergy for generation X, baby boomers,
and satisfaction outcomes. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 23, 507–523.
Booth, A. I., Franscesconi, M., &
Garcia-Serrano, C. (1999). Job tenure
and job mobility in Britain. Industrial
and Labor Relations Review, 53, 43–
70.
Bradford, F. W. (1993). Understanding Gen
X. Marketing Research, 5, 54.
Burke, R. J. (1994). Generation X: Measures,
sex and age differences. Psychological
Reports, 74, 555–562.
Carlson, K. S., & Gjerde, P. F. (2009).
Preschool personality antecedents of
narcissism in adolescence and emerging
adulthood: A 20-year longitudinal study.
Journal of Research in Personality, 43,
570–578.
Cennamo, L., & Gardner, D. (2008). Gen-
erational differences in work values, out-
comes and person-organisation values

© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2014, 44, pp. 175–189
Becton et al.
fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23,
891–906.
Chao, L. (2005). For Gen Xers, it’s work to
live: Allowing employees to strike balance
between job and life can lead to better
retention rates. Wall Street Journal,
Eastern edition, November 29, B6.
Cohen, J. S. (2007). Dressed for success? Or
unfairly singled out? Chicago Tribune,
September 2.
Coupland, D. (1991). Generation X: Tales for
an accelerated culture. New York: St.
Martin’s Griffin.
Crainer, S., & Dearlove, D. (1999). Death of
executive talent. Management Review,
July–August, 17–23.
D’Amato, A., & Herzfeldt, R. (2008). Learn-
ing orientation, organizational commit-
ment, and talent retention across
generations. Journal of Managerial Psy-
chology, 23, 929–953.
de Meuse, K. P., Bergmann, T. J., & Lester, S.
W. (2001). An investigation of the rela-
tional component of the psychological
contract across time, generation, and
employment status. Journal of Mana-
gerial Issues, 13, 102–118.
Dittman, M. (2005). Generational differ-
ences at work. Monitor on Psychology, 36,
54–55.
Egri, C. P., & Ralston, D. A. (2004). Genera-
tion cohorts and personal values: A com-
parison of China and the United States.
Organization Science, 15, 210–220.
Eisner, S. P. (2005). Managing generation Y.
SAM Advanced Management Journal, 70,
4–15.
Elsdon, R., & Lyer, S. (1999). Creating
value and enhancing retention
through employee development: The
Sun Microsystems experience. Human
Resource Planning, 22, 39–48.
Eskilson, A., & Wiley, M. G. (1999). Solving
for X: Aspirations and expectations of
college students. Journal of Youth & Ado-
lescence, 28, 51–70.
Families and Work Institute. (2006). Gen-
eration and gender in the workplace.
American Business Collaboration.
Retrieved April 23, 2009, from http://
familiesandwork.org/site/research/
reports/mai.html.
Foster, J. D., Campbell, W. K., & Twenge, J.
M. (2003). Individual differences in nar-
cissism: Inflated self-views across the
© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
lifespan and around the world. Journal
of Research in Personality, 37, 469–
486.
Francis-Smith, J. (August 26, 2004). Surviv-
ing and thriving in the multigenerational
workplace. Journal Record, 1.
Fyock, C. D. (1990). America’s work force is
coming of age. Toronto: Lexington Books.
Ghiselli, E. E. (1974). Some perspectives
for industrial psychology. American Psy-
chologist, 29, 80–87.
Giancola, F. (2006). The generation gap:
More myth than reality? Human Resource
Planning, 29, 32–37.
Greenland, S. (1994). Alternative models
for ordinal logistic regression. Statistics in
Medicine, 13, 1665–1677.
Griffeth, R. W., & Hom, P. W. (2001).
Retaining valued employees. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hall, D. T. (1996). Protean careers of the 21st
century. Academy of Management Execu-
tive, 10, 8–16.
Hart, K. A. (2006). Generations in the work-
place: Finding common ground. Retrieved
April 14, 2007, from www.mlo-
online.com
Hart, P. M., Schembri, C., Bell, C. A., &
Armstrong, K. (2003). Leadership,
climate, work attitudes and commitment:
Is Generation X really that different? Paper
presented at Academy of Management
Meeting, Seattle, Washington.
Hays, S. (1999). Gen X and the art of the
reward. Workforce, 78, 44–47.
Howe, H., Strauss, W., & Matson, R. J.
(2000). Millennials rising: The next great
generation. New York: Vintage.
Hung, K. H., Gu, F. F., & Yim, C. K. (2007). A
social institutional approach to identify-
ing generational cohorts in China with a
comparison with American consumers.
Journal of International Business Studies,
38, 836–853.
Inglehart, R. (1977). The silent revolution:
Changing values and political styles
among Western publics. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in
advanced industrial society. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Inglehart, R., & Norris, P. (2003). Rising
ride: Gender equality and cultural change
around the world. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2014, 44, pp. 175–189
187
Judge, T., & Watanabe, S. (1995). Is the past
prologue: A test of Ghiselli’s hobo syn-
drome. Journal of Management, 21, 211–
229.
Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2000). Generation X and
the public employee. Public Personnel
Management, 29, 55–74.
Jurkiewicz, C. L., & Brown, R. G. (1998).
GenXers vs Boomers vs Matures: Genera-
tional comparisons of public employee
motivation. Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 18, 18–37.
Keene, J., & Reynolds, J. (2005). The job
costs of family demands: Gender differ-
ences in negative family-to-work spillo-
ver. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 275–299.
Keith, K., & McWilliams, A. (1997). Job
mobility and gender-based wage growth
differentials. Economic Inquiry, 35, 320–
333. Retrieved from Academic Search
Premier database.
Kluger, A., & Colella, A. (1993). Beyond the
mean bias: The effect of warning against
faking on biodata item variances. Person-
nel Psychology, 46, 763–780.
Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of self. New
York: International Universities Press.
Kowske, B. J., Rasch, R., & Wiley, J. (2010).
Millennials’ (lack of) attitude problem:
An empirical examination of genera-
tional effects on work attitudes. Journal of
Business Psychology, 25, 265–279.
Kupperschmidt, B. R. (2000). Multi-
generation employees: Strategies for
effective management. The Health Care
Manager, 19, 65–76.
Lancaster, L. C., & Stillman, D. (2002).
When generations collide: Who they are,
why they clash, how to solve the genera-
tional puzzle at work. New York: Harper
Collins.
Levinson, D. (1978). The seasons of a man’s
life. New York: Knopf.
Levinson, D. J. (1980). Toward a conception
of the adult life course. In N. J. Smelser &
E. H. Erikson (Eds.), Themes of work and
love in adulthood (pp. 265–289). Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Levy, L., Carroll, B., Francoeur, J., & Logue,
M. (2005). The generational mirage? A
pilot study into perceptions of leadership of
Generations X and Y. Hudson Global
Resources, Sydney.
Loomis, J. E. (2000). Gen X. Indianapolis,
IN: Rough Notes Co.
188
Lyons, S. T., Duxbury, L., & Higgins, C.
(2007). An empirical assessment of gen-
erational differences in basic human
values. Psychological Reports, 101, 339–
352.
Macky, K., Gardner, D., & Forsyth, S.
(2008). Generational differences at work:
Introduction and overview. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 23, 857–861.
Mannheim, K. (1952). The sociological
problem of generations. In K. Mannheim
(Ed.), Essays on the sociology of knowledge
(p. 306). London: RKP (first published
1923).
Mannheim, K. (1972). The problem of gen-
erations. In P. G. Altbach & R. S. Laufer
(Eds.), The new pilgrims: Youth protest
in transition (pp. 101–138). New York:
David McKay.
Mayo Foundation for Medical Education
and Research. (2008). Work-life balance:
Ways to restore harmony and reduce
stress. Retrieved April 22, 2009, from
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/
work-life-balance/WL00056
McCrae, R. R., Costa Jr, P. T., Terracciano,
A., Parker, W. E., Mills, C. J., De Fruyt, F.,
et al. (2002). Personality trait develop-
ment from age 12 to age 18: Longitudinal,
cross-sectional, and cross-cultural analy-
ses. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 83, 1456–1468.
Meriac, J. P., Woehr, D. J., & Banister, C.
(2010). Generational differences in work
ethic: An examination of measurement
equivalent across three cohorts. Journal
of Business Psychology, 25, 315–324.
Mitchell, S. (1998). American generations:
Who they are. How they live. What they
think. Ithaca, NY: New Strategist.
Munasinghe, L., & Sigman, K. (2004). A
hobo syndrome? Mobility, wages and job
turnover. Labour Economics, 11, 191–218.
Murad, H., Fleischman, A., Sadetzki, S.,
Geyer, O., & Freedman, L. (2003). Small
samples and ordered logistic regression.
The American Statistician, 57, 155–160.
Neuborne, E., & Kerwin, K. (February 15,
1999). Generation Y. Business Week,
Online. Retrieved April 3, 2009, from
http://www.businessweek.com/1999/
99_07/b3616001.htm
O’Bannon, G. (2001). Managing our future:
The Generation X factor. Public Person-
nel Management, 30, 95–109.
© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Orey, M. (2007). Fear of firing. Business
Week, April 23, 52.
Parry, E., & Urwin, P. (2011). Generational
differences in work values: A review of
theory and evidence. International
Journal of Management Reviews, 13,
79–96.
Patterson, C. (January 2005). Generational
diversity: Implications for consultation
and teamwork. Paper presented at the
meeting of the Council of Directors of
School Psychology Programs on Genera-
tional Differences, Deerfield Beach, FL.
Pew Research Center. (2007). How young
people view their lives, futures, and politics:
A portrait of “Generation Next.” Retrieved
April 23, 2009, from http://people-press
.org/report/3000/a-portrait-of
-generation-next
Roberts, B. W., Edmonds, G., & Grijalva, E.
(2010). Is it Developmental Me, not
Generation Me: Developmental changes
are more important than generational
changes in narcissism—Commentary on
Trzesniewski & Donnellan (2010). Per-
spectives on Psychological Sciences, 5,
97–102.
Rogler, L. H. (2002). Historical generations
and psychology: The case of the Great
Depression and World War II. The
American Psychologist, 57, 1013–1023.
Ryan, M. (September 10, 2000). Gerald
Celente: He reveals what lies ahead.
Parade Magazine, pp. 22–23.
Schrader, A., & Osburn, H. (1977). Biodata
faking: Effects of induced subtlety and
position specificity. Personnel Psychology,
30, 395–404.
Sessa, V. I., Kabacoff, R. I., Deal, J., & Brown,
H. (2007). Generational differences in
leader values and leadership behaviors.
The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 10,
47–74.
Shaffer, G. A., Saunders, V., & Owens, W. A.
(1986). Additional evidence for the accu-
racy of biographical data: Long-term
retest and observer ratings. Personnel
Psychology, 39, 791–809.
Sherman, R. O. (2008). One size doesn’t fit
all: Motivating a multigenerational staff.
Nursing Management, 39, 8–10.
Smola,K.,& Sutton,C. (2002).Generational
differences: Revisiting generational work
values for the new millennium. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 23, 363–382.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2014, 44, pp. 175–189
Generational differences in behavior
Sullivan, S. E. (1999). The changing nature
of careers: A review and research agenda.
Journal of Management, 25, 457–484.
Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The
rise of the net generation. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Terracciano, A. (2010). Secular trends
and personality: Perspectives from
longitudinal and cross-cultural studies—
Commentary on Trzesniewski &
Donnellan (2010). Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 5, 93–96.
Trzesniewski, K. H., & Donnellan, M. B.
(2010). Rethinking “Generation Me” a
study of cohort effects from 1976–2006.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5,
58–75.
Tulgan, B. (1995). Managing Generation X:
How to bring out the best in young talent.
New York: Nolo Press.
Twenge, J. M. (2001). Changes in women’s
assertiveness in response to status and
roles: A cross-temporal meta-analysis,
1931–1993. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 81, 133–145.
Twenge, J. M. (2010). A review of the
empirical evidence on generational
differences in work attitudes. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 25, 201–
210.
Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, S. M. (2008).
Generational differences in psychologi-
cal traits and their impact on the work-
place. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
23, 862–877.
Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, S. M. (2009).
The narcissism epidemic: Living in the age
of entitlement. New York: Free Press.
Twenge, J. M., Campbell, S. M., Hoffman, B.
J., & Lance, C. E. (2010). Generational
differences in work values: Leisure and
extrinsic values increasing, social and
intrinsic values decreasing. Journal of
Management, 36, 1117–1142.
Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2001).
Age and birth cohort differences in self-
esteem: A cross-temporal meta-analysis.
Personality and Social Psychology Review,
5, 321–344.
Twenge, J. M., & Foster, J. D. (2010).
Birth cohort increases in narcissistic
personality traits among American
college students 1982–2009. Social
Psychological and Personality Science, 1,
99–106.
Becton et al.
Twenge, J. M., Konrath, S., Foster, J. D.,
Campbell, W. K., & Bushman, B. J.
(2008). Egos inflating over time: A cross-
temporal meta-analysis of the Narcissis-
tic Personality Inventory. Journal of
Personality, 76, 875–901.
Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. (2004). Misbehavior in
organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence-
Erlbaum.
Westerman, J. W., & Yamamura, J. H.
(2007). Generational preferences for
© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
View publication stats
work environment fit: Effects on
employee outcomes. Career Development
International, 12, 150–161.
Whyte, W. H. (1956). The organization man.
Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Wong, M., Gardiner, E., Lang, W., &
Coulon, L. (2008). Generational differ-
ences in personality and motivation: Do
they exist and what are the implications
for the workplace? Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 23, 878–890.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2014, 44, pp. 175–189
189
Yu, H. C., & Miller, P. (2003). The
generation gap and cultural influence—
A Taiwan empirical investigation. Cross
Cultural Management, 10, 23–41.
Zemke, R., Raines, C., & Filipczak, B.
(2000). Generations at work: Managing
the clash of veterans, boomers, Xers and
Nexters in your workplace. New York:
AMA Publications.