Are Millennials Different? A Time-Lag Study of Federal Millennial and Generation X Employees’ Affective Commitment

Abstract

Stereotypes about Millennials permeate conversations about public management, often without evidence. Based on generational theory and psychological contract theory, this study hypothesizes and empirically compares affective commitment levels of U.S. federal Millennials and Generation Xers. This study uses a time-lag design with data from the 2011 Federal Viewpoint Survey and the 2004 Federal Human Capital Survey to investigate Millennials and Generation Xers under 30 years old and untangle the generational difference effect while controlling for the age difference. The findings show that Millennials reported slightly higher levels of affective commitment in comparison with Generation Xers (contrary to common stereotypes). This study also reports null findings or the absence of evidence for the differences regarding how managerial practices (support for work–life balance, financial rewards, and meaningful work) influence their affective commitment. In addition, federal employees belonging to the Millennial generation reported work interests differing from the common stereotypes. This study advances public management scholarship regarding affective commitment of generations and young employees, as well as contributing evidence about generational differences in an under-studied field: the public sector. Practically, the findings help reduce erroneous stereotypes and foster effective and equitable management of the public workforce.

Keywords

Millennial Generation X Generation Y affective commitment federal government

Introduction

The work-related attitudes of Millennials have received extensive coverage in the mass media and in academic journals. Commonly, Millennials are portrayed as narcissistic, materialistic, entitled, and more likely to quit their jobs (Anderson et al., 2017; Holtschlag et al., 2020; Twenge & Kasser, 2013). As such, many scholars suggest specific strategies to accommodate distinctive characteristics of Millennials to attract and retain them (Anderson et al., 2017; Ebeling et al., 2020). In the public sector, despite little empirical work to support these claims, public managers hear a lot about the need to adjust their working environment to accommodate the distinctive needs of Millennials (e.g., Hamidullah, 2015; Owen, 2020). Tailoring management practices to generational stereotypes without reliable evidence is costly (Costanza & Finkelstein, 2015; Lyons & Kuron, 2014), therefore scholarly research that provides evidence on generational differences in the public workplace is essential to help public managers navigate their changing workforces.

Examining generational differences is challenging, since “the relationship between age, period, and generation makes isolating the effect of a single variable, such as generation, difﬁcult” (Kowske et al., 2010, p. 268). Kowske et al. (2010) argue that one way to separate generational effects is to “use a hierarchical age-period-cohort (HAPC) model using repeated cross-sectional individual level data” (p. 268). However, this type of research is rarely undertaken since it requires multiple years of repeated cross-sectional individual level data. Some study one generation without comparing it with other generations to see whether they are distinct (AbouAssi et al., 2019; Breitsohl & Ruhle, 2016; Curtin et al., 2011; Henstra & Mcgowan, 2016). Others compare several generations at one point in time (Einolf, 2020; Ertas, 2015) and, therefore, cannot separate generational effect from chronological age effect, which is a significant factor influencing employee attitudes and behaviors (Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Twenge, 2010). A time-lag study, which studies employees in the same age group at different time periods (Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Twenge, 2010), offers an alternative strategy. This approach produces findings that exclude age effect and only involve generational effect and period effect (i.e., changes in society and the economy over time that affect people). The time-lag design is argued to have “distinct advantages for isolating generational differences,” since “time period effects are often the weakest of the three, as attitudes are often formed early and retained” (Twenge, 2010, p. 202).

This study employs time-lag design using data from the 2011 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) and the 2004 Federal Human Capital Survey (FHCS) to examine two groups of employees: those who were under 30 years old in 2004 (i.e., Generation Xers) and those who were under 30 years old in 2011 (i.e., Millennials). It compares the two generations in one of the most important work attitudes: affective commitment, which is defined as the employee’s “emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization” (Meyer et al., 2002, p. 21). It also examines how managerial practices influence this attitude among members of two generations. To explore how attitudes shift across generations, generational theory (Eyerman & Turner, 1998; Gilleard, 2004; Ryder, 1965; Twenge, 2010) and psychological contract theory (Rousseau, 1989) are used as the theoretical framework for the present study. Generational theory suggests that each generation tends to possess different values and preferences, which can influence their work attitudes (Becton et al., 2014; Eyerman & Turner, 1998; Gilleard, 2004; Ryder, 1965; Twenge, 2010). Since Millennials are often seen as valuing leisure time over work (Lyons & Kuron, 2014), it is expected that they may exhibit lower affective commitment. How managerial practices can differently influence generations can be explained by combining psychological contract theory and generational theory. The psychological contract is defined as employees’ beliefs about the mutual obligations of their employers and themselves (Morrison & Robinson, 1997) and was commonly used to understand employees’ affective commitment (Mensah, 2019; Mussagulova et al., 2021). According to this perspective, employees will reciprocate with higher commitment when organizational managerial practices meet their expectations (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2003). However, since generational theory suggests that different generations may place different levels of importance on similar managerial practices, this study expects that employees from different generations may reciprocate with different levels of affective commitment. The present study focuses on three managerial practices: support for work–life balance, financial rewards, and meaningful work. These managerial practices reflect the prevailing assumptions about Millennials’ differences in work values and preferences. Millennials are commonly viewed as valuing these practices more than Generation Xers, and therefore, they may reciprocate with higher affective commitment.

Employee affective commitment is the attitudinal focus of this study due to its valuable contribution to organizational effectiveness. It can foster important workplace behaviors and outcomes such as work motivation, proactive work behavior, innovative behavior, and work quality and performance (Brimhall, 2021; Hansen & Kjeldsen, 2018; Luu, 2018; Park & Rainey, 2007). Some public administration scholars equate the importance of affective commitment with public service motivation for the public sector (Nyhan, 1999). Learning how to efficiently enhance the affective commitment of employees from different generations can benefit organizations more than learning how to prevent turnover (Park & Rainey, 2007). This is because employees who stay with an organization due to job enjoyment (i.e., affective commitment) can make greater contributions compared with those who stay due to either the feeling of obligation (i.e., normative commitment) or the fear of high costs of leaving an organization (i.e., continuance commitment) (Park & Rainey, 2007).

This study advances public administration literature in four aspects. First, it provides a unique understanding of the affective commitment of federal employees belonging to different generations such as Millennials and Generation Xers. Although prior public administration studies provided some evidence about Millennials’ turnover intention and job mobility, there is no direct comparison between two different generations (i.e., Millennials and Generation Xers) in this important job attitude. Second, this study offers evidence of important job factors that make young employees (under 30) stay with and contribute to their organizations’ success. Despite being the age group that has the highest turnover intention (Ertas, 2015), young employee retention is rarely studied separately in the public sector. Third, this study sheds light about generational differences in an under-explored field, the public sector, thereby adding to the existing evidence about generations in workplaces. Finally, this study is the first to use the time-lag design from large-N working employee surveys in the public sector, providing a robust and unique test of generational issues. In doing so, it also responds to the call for “greater method rigor” (Lyons & Kuron, 2014), providing more reliable findings that advance theories and practices.

This article is structured as follows: The next section reviews the related literature and develops hypotheses about generational differences in the U.S. federal workplace. Following the “Literature Review and Hypothesis Development,” the “Method” section presents data sources, variable measurement, and analysis strategy. After that is the “Results” section where evidence is shown to support the hypotheses. The last section is the “Discussion and Conclusion,” which involves theoretical and practical implications, limitations, and future research directions.

Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

Generational Theory

Generational theory (Eyerman & Turner, 1998; Gilleard, 2004; Ryder, 1965) supports the view that people can be classified into distinctive groups called “generations,” who hold different beliefs and values. According to this theory, a generation is represented as a cohort that experiences similar historical events at similar ages, shares important life experiences, and thus may possess similar attitudes and values in work and life (Eyerman & Turner, 1998; Gilleard, 2004; Ryder, 1965). Twenge et al. (2010) argue that “each generation is influenced by broad forces (i.e., parents, peers, media, critical economic and social events, and popular culture) that create common value systems distinguishing them from people who grew up at different times” (p.1120). In addition, Rogler (2002) maintains that environmental forces influence the preadult cohort more strongly than coexisting older cohorts whose identities and values are already formed. These distinctions are argued to create unique identities for each generation (Egri & Ralston, 2004; Hung et al., 2007). For example, successive generations are often viewed as possessing high expectations for pay and leisure activities (Lyons & Kuron, 2014).

Organizational scholars commonly measure a generation as a group of people who were born in the same time period (demographic cohort) and focus on examining how birth cohorts differ from each other (Lyons & Kuron, 2014). This approach is argued to be advantageous since it brings “empirical precision to the ambiguous construct of generation” (Lyon & Kuron, 2014, p. S141). Members of the contemporary workforce are typically categorized into four generations. Twenge et al. (2010) define Baby Boomers as those who were born between 1946 and 1964 and who are generally the oldest members of the workforce. Generation X are those born between 1965 and 1981. Millennials were born between 1982 and 1999, and many of the youngest members of this generation have not yet entered the workforce (Twenge et al., 2010). Similarly, very few members of Generation Z, born on or after 2000, have joined the workforce and data about this generation in the workplace is very limited.

Although generational theory is popular in management discourse, several scholars have questioned its validity (Becton et al., 2014; Costanza & Finkelstein, 2015). Shared historical events and life experiences may vary greatly among generational members depending on their locations and social status (Becton et al., 2014). Therefore, generational distinctiveness based on the commonly claimed events may not hold true for all birth cohort members who live in different locations and may have disparate life experiences. Moreover, some scholars argue that generational differences are rooted in stereotypes rather than empirical fact (e.g., Becton et al., 2014; Costanza & Finkelstein, 2015). This is because most claims are anecdotal with very little evidence about how historical events can shape generational distinctiveness (Becton et al., 2014). Furthermore, evidence for the distinctive values and characteristics of each generation is fragmented, unreliable, and inconsistent since research cannot differentiate generational effect from age and period effects (Becton et al., 2014; Costanza & Finkelstein, 2015). Therefore, it is vital to have more empirical research to clarify generational issues in different contexts like the public sector (Lyons & Kuron, 2014). This study examines differences in work values and attitudes of two generational cohorts of federal employees: Millennials and Generation Xers. To further explore these differences, the following section summarizes popular claims about these two generations.

Millennials and Generation Xers

Millennials are those born between 1982 and 1999 (Twenge et al., 2010) and made up about 35% of the U.S. workforce in 2017 (Fry, 2018). Millennials grew up at times of economic prosperity (Ng & Johnson, 2015; Solnet & Hood, 2008), rapid advancement of information technology, and widespread use of social media (Park & Gursoy, 2012; Wiedmer, 2015). The terrorist attack that occurred in New York City on September 11, 2001 is a significant event that has arguably shaped how Millennials view life (Ng et al., 2010). Many scholars assumed that Millennials are the products of the middle class and “helicopter” parents, who overprotect their children (Bracy et al., 2010; Pînzaru et al., 2016). As a consequence, Millennials are stereotypically seen as narcissistic, believing that they are special and deserving (Twenge et al., 2008). The narcissism associated with Millennials is a subclinical type that is less extreme than clinical ones, and healthy people may possess this to some degree (Bergman et al., 2011, p. 706). The review of Lyons and Kuron (2014) found that research generally suggests that Millennials demonstrate greater extroversion and more awareness of a bigger world due to the advancement of information technology. Furthermore, many scholars argue that this generation places priority on leisure activities over jobs, but they also have higher expectations at work (Lyons and Kuron, 2014). This generation is also commonly depicted as “Generation Me” who are more self-centered and higher in self-esteem than prior generations (Twenge, 2008, 2014).

Generation Xers were born between 1965 and 1981 (Twenge et al., 2010) and accounted for around 33% in the U.S. labor force in 2017 (Fry, 2018). Generally, Generation Xers grew up at times of economic downturn and faced more financial difficulties than Millennials (Beutell & Wittig-Berman, 2008; Eisner, 2005). It is commonly assumed that Generation Xers lacked parental care and supervision since many had parents who were both in the workforce and/or were divorced (Lissitsa & Kol, 2016). In addition, the period in which Generation X grew up (1960s–1970s) was dominated by an ethos of individualism, which arguably influenced this generation’s personalities (Benson & Brown, 2011). Regarding experience with technology, Stich (2017) argues that “when people in this generation were children, they grew up experiencing both ways of life—one before, and one after technology” (p. 32). Compared with generations immediately before them, Benson and Brown (2011) claim that Generation Xers are “generally more technologically savvy.” Many scholars (e.g., Greenwood et al., 2010; Gursoy et al., 2008) maintain that the main characteristics of Generation X are individualism and self-reliance; they are more willing “to go it alone.”

Affective Commitment of Millennials and Generation Xers

Generational theory suggests that each generation’s cohort may possess different work attitudes, like low or high levels of affective commitment, due to the influence of life events during their growing up period (Becton et al., 2014; Eyerman & Turner, 1998; Gilleard, 2004; Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Ryder, 1965). The general management research, as well as the common assumption, typically supports the idea that workers in younger generations, like Millennials, are less committed to their employers (Costanza et al., 2012; Glazer et al., 2019; Lyons & Kuron, 2014). Millennials are generally reported to have lower work centrality (i.e., lower value of the importance of work in people’s lives [Bagger & Li, 2012]) and higher leisure values (Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Twenge et al., 2010; Wray-Lake et al., 2011). For Millennials, a job is often seen as a means to fund their vacations and hobbies (Kerslake, 2005; Morton, 2002). Some scholars argue that the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 strongly influenced Millennials to value other life issues rather than work (Ng et al., 2010). Many others see Millennials as being more narcissistic due to being overly protected by their “helicopter” parents (Bracy et al., 2010; Pînzaru et al., 2016). Narcissistic Millennials may demonstrate less affective commitment to their current employers since they tend to have inflated views of their abilities and other job opportunities, as well as lower job satisfaction (Morf et al., 2011).

There is no direct evidence about the levels of affective commitment of Millennials and other generations in public workplaces. However, some previous public administration studies have shown that Millennials have significant “intention to quit a job,” even those who have the highest ranking in the workforce. Johnson and Ng (2016) found that two-thirds of the Millennial respondents in the 2011 Young Nonprofit Professionals Network Survey indicated sector-switching intentions. In addition, Ertas (2015), using the 2011 FEVS, found that Millennials working in federal agencies report their intentions to leave more frequently than employees of older generations. Lyons et al. (2012) also found that Canadian Millennials have higher numbers of job changes per year than those in prior generations. Since affective commitment is a predictor of turnover (Albrecht & Travaglione, 2003; Meyer et al., 2002), it can be inferred that Millennials have lower levels of affective commitment compared with Generation Xers.

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Millennials working in federal government agencies will report lower levels of affective commitment compared with Generation Xers.

Managerial Practices and Affective Commitment of Millennials and Generation Xers

Psychological contract theory is commonly used to explain the development of employees’ affective commitment (Mensah, 2019; Mussagulova et al., 2021). The psychological contract is “an employee’s beliefs about the reciprocal obligations between that employee and his or her organization, where these obligations are based on perceived promises and not necessarily recognized by agents of the organization” (Morrison & Robinson, 1997, p. 229). In other words, psychological contracts elucidate what employees expect their employers to offer them (employers’ obligations), and what they need to give their employers in return (employees’ reciprocal obligations) (Rousseau, 1989, 1995). An important element in psychological contract theory is that employees reciprocate by contributing to their organizational development when their employers fulfill their obligations as expected by the employees (the psychological contract fulfillment) (Coyle-Shapiro & Kessler, 2003; Rousseau, 1989, 1995). According to this, employees become effectively committed when their employer’s treatment of them meets their expectations (Eisenberger et al., 1990; Naim & Lenka, 2018). Managerial practices, such as support for work–life balance, meaningful work, and opportunities for development, can signal to employees that their employers are fulfilling their obligations and, therefore, can foster employees’ affective commitment (Mensah, 2019). However, this study expects that employees from different generations may reciprocate with different levels of affective commitment. Prior literature suggests that Generation Xers and Millennials may value different things at work, which result from the shared experiences of events in each generation’s formative years (Eyerman & Turner, 1998; Gilleard, 2004; Ryder, 1965; Twenge, 2010). Hence, they may respond to similar managerial practices differently. In particular, they will be more reciprocal to the practices that they place more importance on.

Drawing from psychological contract theory, generational theory, and common claims about generational differences, the following sections hypothesize how differently managerial practices affect Millennials and Generation Xers’ affective commitment or how the two generations differently reciprocate their organizational treatments. The general as well as public management literature has provided evidence about how certain managerial practices influence employee affective commitment, such as support for work–life balance, meaningful work, financial rewards, social support, opportunities for development, and fairness (French & Emerson, 2015; Kim & Lee, 2020; Luu, 2018; Mercurio, 2015; Meyer & Allen, 1998; Tummers & Knies, 2013). Among these factors, this study will focus on three major factors that can theoretically and empirically affect Millennials more strongly based on their distinctive characteristics, namely, support for work–life balance, financial rewards, and meaningful work.

Support for work–life balance and affective commitment

Psychological contract theory suggests that when managerial practices are consistent with expectations, employees will reciprocate by being more affectively committed to their organizations (Meyer et al., 1993; Rousseau, 1989). Employees expect their organizations to offer work–life balance programs that allow them to be able to manage work, family, and other life issues (Caillier, 2013; Kim & Lee, 2020; Parkes & Langford, 2008). When employees perceive that their organizations fulfill their work–life balance expectations, according to psychological contract theory, they will reciprocate with higher levels of affective commitment. However, this study hypothesizes that Millennials may have stronger reactions with support for work–life balance or they would reciprocate with higher levels of affective commitment since they often place more importance on this factor. Previous studies in the general management literature commonly characterize Millennials as exhibiting lower work centrality, placing more value on leisure activities, and expressing greater expectations for work–life balance support (Bresman, 2015; Buzza, 2017; Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Ng et al., 2010; Twenge & Kasser, 2013). Among workplace generations, Millennials are often seen as expecting more work–life balance support (Ng et al., 2010; Twenge & Kasser, 2013). They tend to value a job that provides a more flexible work schedule and more vacation time (Twenge et al., 2010).

According to generational theory and common claims, distinct experiences in formative years of Millennials can explain why they strongly value work–life balance support (Twenge, 2010). Millennials were often argued to have come of age exposed to more advanced information technologies. Thus, they can easily blend work and life, and prefer flexible work schedules and remote working (Sun, 2021; Wiedmer, 2015). Other scholars argue that prominent historical events that happened as they grew up, such as the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, also strongly influence them to value life issues over work (Ng et al., 2010). Furthermore, as life and work demands seem to increase at the time Millennials start to have families, they may need more organizational support for balancing their work and life (Soergel, 2015). Since Millennials value work–life balance more than employees from previous generations, it is plausible that federal Millennials will give higher value to this practice and hence reciprocate with higher levels of affective commitment.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Support for work–life balance will be associated more strongly with affective commitment among Millennials than among Generation Xers in U.S. federal agencies.

Financial rewards and affective commitment

Financial rewards, similarly, are an important managerial practice that influence public employee affective commitment of all generations (French & Emerson, 2015; Miao et al., 2014). This is because financial rewards help cover employees’ basic necessities like food, water, and shelter (French & Emerson, 2015). Pay is also important for employees’ social and esteem needs since a high and equitable pay may represent the rank, belongingness and authority of each employee (French & Emerson, 2015; Kuvaas, 2006; Vandenberghe & Tremblay, 2008). Employees, therefore, will expect equitable pay and when organizational human practices are commensurate with their expectation regarding pay, according to psychological contract theory, they will reciprocate with higher levels of affective commitment. Nevertheless, this study argues that Millennial and Generation X’s employees may have different responses to financial rewards due to the importance they place on this factor. Millennials are generally reported as putting very high importance on this practice in the workplace (Ng & Johnson, 2015; Ng et al., 2010). Compared with other generations, the importance of material rewards appears to be higher among Millennial employees (Krahn & Galambos, 2014; Lub et al., 2016; Lyons & Kuron, 2014). As such, this study expects that Millennials will reciprocate with higher affective commitment when they are satisfied with the financial rewards.

The difference in how Millennials value financial rewards is possibly due to their greater sense of narcissism (Twenge et al., 2010), which is often argued to be the products of middle-class and “helicopter” parents (Bracy et al., 2010; Pînzaru et al., 2016). Millennials are stereotypically seen as narcissistic, believing that they are special and deserving (Twenge et al., 2008), implying that they may have higher expectations for financial rewards than previous generations to appease their narcissistic traits. Social context may also be involved. Millennials have faced increasing costs of education and more requirements for advanced degrees in finding jobs (Levenson, 2010). As such, they have greater pressure to earn more money, and financial rewards may often be a factor that can strongly affect their attitudes. Furthermore, Millennials have grown up in the era of social media where people can easily showcase their possessions on social networks. Thus, financial rewards may become more important for Millennials than for members of the prior generation. Since Millennials place more importance on financial rewards, they may be more likely to respond with higher affective commitment if they are satisfied with their pay.

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Financial rewards will be associated more strongly with affective commitment among Millennials than among Generation Xers in U.S. federal agencies.

Meaningful work and affective commitment

Meaningful work can be seen “not as simply whatever work means to people (meaning), but as work that is both significant and positive in valence (meaningfulness)” (Steger et al., 2012, p. 323). In other words, meaningful work refers to employees’ perceptions about the value and importance of their work. Employees, especially those in the public sector, always expect that their organizations offer meaningful work (Yeoman, 2014). Meaningful work is a fundamental need, which helps employees to see themselves as worth-while, purposeful and an important part of the world (Kahn, 1990; Mostafa & Abed El-Motalib, 2020; Tummers & Knies, 2013; Yeoman, 2014). Hence, when organizations offer meaningful work to fulfill employees’ expectations, according to psychological contract theory, they will reciprocate by increasing their affective commitment (Jiang & Johnson, 2018; Steger et al., 2012; Tummers & Knies, 2013). However, it is expected that Millennials and Generation Xers react differently to meaningful work since they differ in how they value this factor. Millennials may reciprocate with higher affective commitment since they are often seen as placing very high value on work that is meaningful (Ng et al., 2010). Millennials are reported as often looking at the values and missions of organizations and being more willing to work for ones that contribute to the general welfare of the society rather than just seeking profits (Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Ng & Gossett, 2013; Ng et al., 2010). Since nonprofit and government employers can satisfy these needs, Ng and Gossett (2013) found that Canadian Millennials wanted to work for the Government the most.

There are several possible explanations for Millennials’ high expectations of meaningful work. Twenge (2009) argues that the most important feature of Millennials is their “narcissism.” Since narcissists have inflated views of their own abilities, this implies that they believe in their own importance and capacity and want to work in jobs that can make them feel they are important. In addition, growing up in an era of information technology, Millennials are more connected to others and more socially conscious of the larger world (Twenge et al., 2010). Therefore, doing an important job for society is an important factor that they expect in their work. Another possible explanation for such a pattern is that, as Millennials have lower work centrality than previous generations (Twenge et al., 2010; Wray-Lake et al., 2011), meaningful work may affect their affective commitment more than that of Generation Xers. Jiang and Johnson (2018) suggest that how the nature of work affects employee affective commitment depends on the level of employee work centrality. Specifically, meaningful and important work influences employee affective commitment more strongly for employees who place less importance on work (low work centrality). This might occur because employees who view work as peripheral may perceive the meaningful nature of the work as more motivating. In sum, meaningful work may be particularly salient to Millennials to increase their affective commitment since they place more importance on this factor.

Hypothesis 4 (H4): Meaningful work will be associated more strongly with affective commitment among Millennials than among Generation Xers in U.S. federal agencies.

Method

Data

This study adopts time-lag design (Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Twenge, 2010) by using data from U.S. federal employee surveys in two different years to compare Millennials and Generation Xers when they were the same age. In more recent surveys, The U.S. Office of Personnel Management stopped providing information about age groups, making classifying employees into generational groups impossible. Only the data for the years 2004 and 2011 contain the under 30-year-old group that meets the common classification of Millennials and Generation Xers. More specifically, as Millennials were born between 1982 and 1999 (Ertas, 2015; Twenge et al., 2012), the group of employees under 30 years old in 2011 FEVS can be assigned as Millennials. Generation Xers were born between 1965 and 1981 (Ertas, 2015; Twenge et al., 2012) and thus, employees under 30 years old in 2004 FHCS can be assigned as Generation Xers. This study focused only on the under 30 group (e.g., rather than “between 30 and 40” or “between 40 and 50” year old groups) because this was the only group with members of either the Millennial or Generation X cohorts in the two federal employee surveys in 2011 and 2004. It should be cautioned that the current data may create some limitations to the external validity of this study, since Federal employees under 30 years old in the sample may differ from other sector employees or employees from different age groups (Park & Lee, 2020); Also, different context in the 2 years (i.e., 2004 and 2011) may influence the examination of generational differences (this is an inherent limitation of time-lag design as aforementioned in the introduction). Yet, this is the most comprehensive available data that provide the opportunity to examine federal employees belonging to different generations at the same age group and control for the age difference effect. Moreover, turnover is especially high in younger employees (Ertas, 2015), resulting in significant challenges for organizations, such as reduced productivity and increased recruiting and training costs (De Winne et al., 2019; Moon, 2017; Wynen et al., 2019). Hence, studying the factors influencing affective commitment among different generations in the under 30-year-old group can help inform practices to promote retention and contribution among younger employees.

FEVS (formerly FHCS) measures federal employee perceptions of their agencies, their managers, and their work environment. FHCS/FEVS was conducted every other year from 2002 to 2008, then annually from 2010 to 2020. The 2011 FEVS was conducted in April and May 2011; 540,727 employees in 83 federal agencies were invited to answer the survey with a response rate of 49.3% (266,376 employees answered). The 2004 FHCS was conducted from August to December 2004; 276,000 employees from 73 agencies were invited to answer the survey, resulting in a 53.6% response rate (147,914 employees completed the survey). This study is based on age groups to choose the subsets of employees under 30 years old in the two surveys. The 2011 FEVS contains 13,626 employees under 30 years old while 2004 FHCS involves 1,105 employees under 30 years old. Using listwise deletion, the final sample has 10,800 observations in total, including 10,165 Millennials and 635 Generation Xers.

Variables

To ensure consistency, each of the study variables was measured with identical items in the 2011 FEVS and the 2004 FHCS datasets. The dependent variable is Affective Commitment, which refers to employee emotional attachment to an organization (Meyer et al., 2002). It was measured by using a three-item index, including: “I like the kind of work I do,” “My work gives me a feeling of personal accomplishment,” and “I recommend my organization a good place to work.”

There are four main independent variables. The first is Support for Work-Life Balance, capturing the degree to which employees feel they have support for their work–life balance needs (Ertas, 2015). It was measured using one item: “My supervisor supports my need to balance work and other life issues.” The second independent variable is Financial Rewards, measuring the degree to which employees are satisfied with their pay (Kim & Lee, 2020), by using one item: “Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your pay?” The third independent variable is Meaningful Work, measuring the degree to which employees feel their work is important and meaningful (Steger et al., 2012). To construct this measure, this study used a two-item index, including: “The work I do is important,” and “I know how my work relates to the agency’s goals and priorities.” The fourth independent variable is Generation, measuring whether the respondent is a Millennial or a Generation Xer, in both cases under the age of 30. The group of employees under 30 years old in FEVS 2011 was coded as Millennials (1) and the group of employees under 30 years old in FEVS 2004 was coded as Generation Xers (0).

Control variables include Social Support, Opportunities for Development, Fairness, and Demographic Variables since they can be associated with affective commitment (Gupta et al., 2016; Luu, 2018; Meyer et al., 2002; Perreira et al., 2018). Social Support captures the degree to which employees receive help and assistance in the workplace (Karasek & Theorel, 1990). It was measured by using a two-item index: “Employees in my work unit share job knowledge with each other,” and “The people I work with cooperate to get the job done.” Opportunities for Development refers to whether organizations offer employees training and working opportunities to enhance their skills and competencies (Holman & Wall, 2002). It was measured by using a three-item index, including: “I am given a real opportunity to improve my skills in my organization,” “Supervisors/team leaders in my work unit support employee development,” and “My training needs are assessed.” Fairness refers to employees’ perception about whether the rewards are fair to the efforts they devoted to their work (Mowday, 1991). This variable was measured with a three-item index, including “Promotions in my work unit are based on merit,” “Awards in my work unit depend on how well employees perform their jobs,” and “My performance appraisal is a fair reflection of my performance.” (Supplemental Appendix A presents a comparison of the present study’s variable measures with previous studies.)

Demographic variables, comprising Race (1 = non-Minority [Non-Hispanic White]; 0 = Minority [other responses]), Gender (1 = Female; 0 = Male), Tenure (1 = More than 3 years; 0 = Up to 3 years), and Supervisory Status (1 = Supervisor/Manager/Executive; 0 = non-Supervisor), were also included as control variables in the models. Except for Generation, Race, Gender, Supervisory Status, and Tenure, all items in the variables were measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). For the variables measured by more than one item, their index scores were calculated using Anderson–Rubin scores method on the full datasets of FEVS 2011 and FHCS 2004 (DiStefano et al., 2009). To ease data interpretation, all variables (except for demographic control variables) were standardized before conducting the analysis.

The present study uses some single-item measures that can be subject to nonlinearities. This is a potential limitation of the present study due to using FEVS with inherent shortcomings about offering the appropriate items to measure the variables. However, it should be noted that many scholars still support that regression is very robust and can maintain its essential validity even when their assumptions (normality, homogeneity of variances, sample size, and interval measurement) are not strictly met (Murray, 2013; Norman, 2010). As such, the potential of nonlinearities due to using single-item measures may not be an issue that can significantly reduce the reliability of the findings.

The convergent validity and discriminant validity of the five latent variables were tested with confirmatory factor analysis on the full data of the 2 years 2004 and 2011. The measurement model had a good fit to the data with χ² = 19,684.784 (p = .000), df = 55, RMSEA = .043 (90% CI = [.043, .044]), CFI = .990, TLI = .985, and SRMR = .047. In addition, all standardized factor loadings were significant and larger than .50, providing support for the validity of the latent constructs (Supplemental Appendix B). The reliability of the indexes was supported since their Cronbach’s alpha statistics equaled or exceeded the acceptable cut-off value of .70 (Lance et al., 2006) (Supplemental Appendix B).

Common Method Variance

Several measures have been taken to mitigate the influence of common method variance (CMV) on the analysis results (Fuller et al., 2016). First, this study used the survey that was conducted anonymously with voluntary participation to avoid social preference issues (Lee et al., 2012; Podsakoff et al., 2012). Second, the latent constructs were validated theoretically and empirically (Conway & Lance, 2010). Third, this study calculated variance inflation factors (VIFs) of all variables to detect multicollinearity (Akinwande et al., 2015; Kock, 2015). The result showed that VIFs, ranging between 1.206 and 2.535, were below the threshold value of 3.3 (Kock, 2015). This result indicated that CMV was not a significant issue that could distort the findings.

Analysis Strategy

To test the proposed hypotheses, this study used a set of ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analyses. Model 1 presents the unconditional estimated difference of Millennials and Generation Xers in their affective commitment levels. Model 2 estimates the difference of their affective commitment when accounting for control variables (including demographic characteristics and other managerial practices). Model 3 examines how generations respond differently to some managerial practices without control variables. In Model 4, along with the variables in Model 3, controls for demographic variables and other managerial practices were added to examine how different generations respond to some managerial practices when accounting for other factors.

Results

Descriptive statistics and correlations of all the variables are reported in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics.

Variables	Millennials (N = 10,165)	Generation Xers (N = 635)	All employees under 30 years old (N = 10,800)	All employees in the surveys (N = 221,833)
Demographic variables	%	%	%	%
Race (non-Minority)	66.581	85.984	67.722	66.736
Gender (Female)	52.356	43.622	51.842	46.594
Tenure (>3 years)	32.720	24.409	32.231	80.612
Supervisory status	3.856	2.077	3.750	29.497
Other variables	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)
Affective commitment (standardized)	0.009 (0.999)	−0.140 (1.013)	0 (1)
Support for work–life balance (standardized)	−0.004 (1.007)	0.060 (0.871)	0 (1)
Financial rewards (standardized)	0.001 (1.004)	−0.009 (0.934)	0 (1)
Meaningful work (standardized)	0.012 (1.001)	−0.193 (0.960)	0 (1)
Social support (standardized)	−0.011 (1.008)	0.176 (0.842)	0 (1)
Opportunities for development (standardized)	−0.005 (1.004)	0.074 (0.932)	0 (1)
Fairness (standardized)	0.007 (1.004)	−.107 (0.926)	0 (1)

Table 2.

Correlation Matrix.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Affective commitment
2. Support for work–life balance	.39***
3. Meaningful work	.63***	.28***
4. Financial rewards	.32***	.24***	.20***
5. Social support	.47***	.38***	.38***	.25***
6. Opportunities for development	.61***	.55***	.45***	.33***	.52***
7. Fairness	.51***	.45***	.41***	.36***	.51***	.63***
8. Race (non-Minority)	.01	.05***	−.07***	.06***	.03*	.01	−.01
9. Gender (female)	−.04***	−.04***	.01	.01	−.08***	−.05***	−.03**	−.11***
10. Tenure (>3 years)	−.00	−.03***	.01	.03**	−.05***	−.06***	−.05***	−.02*	.02*
11. Supervisory status	.02*	−.04***	.04***	.01	−.03**	−.01	−.00	−.00	−.00	.13***

Note. N = 10,800 employees.

p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Table 1 summarizes the descriptive characteristics of the overall sample, as well as Millennials and Generation Xers separately. The majority of respondents in both generations identified as nonminority, yet the proportion of nonminority Generation Xers was about 19% higher than that of Millennials (85.98% vs. 66.58%, respectively). Overall, the Millennial workforce had 9% more female employees compared with Generation X (52.36% vs. 43.62%, respectively). In terms of organizational tenure, the proportion of employees with more than 3 years of experience is higher in Millennials in comparison with Generation Xers (32.72% vs. 24.40%, respectively). Very few Millennials and Generation Xers hold supervisory positions (3.86% and 2.08%, respectively). Since these demographic characteristics can influence employees’ attitudes, this study controls for all of them in the analysis models.

The results of the OLS regression analyses are reported in Table 3.

Table 3.

Results of Testing Differences in How Generations and Managerial Practices Influence Affective Commitment.

Variable	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4
Intercept	−.140*** (.040)	−.146*** (.030)	−.043 (.030)	−.145*** (.031)
Generation	.149*** (.041)	.110*** (.027)	.046 (.031)	.109*** (.028)
Race (non-Minority)		.064*** (.014)		.064*** (.014)
Gender (female)		−.025 (.013)		−.025 (.013)
Tenure (>3 years)		.035* (.013)		.035* (.014)
Supervisory status		.025 (.034)		.025 (.034)
Social support		.101*** (.008)		.101*** (.008)
Opportunities for development		.288*** (.010)		.288*** (.010)
Fairness		.063*** (.009)		.063*** (.009)
Support for work–life balance		.021** (.008)	.199*** (.035)	.044 (.033)
Financial rewards		.085*** (.007)	.119*** (.032)	.084** (.029)
Meaningful work		.417*** (.007)	.561*** (.032)	.426*** (.030)
Support for work–life balance × generation			−.007 (.036)	−.024 (.033)
Financial rewards × generation			.047 (.033)	.002 (.030)
Meaningful work × generation			−.015 (.033)	−.010 (.030)
Adjusted R²	.0011	.5568	.4733	.5567

Note. N = 10,800 employees. Robust standard errors are reported in parentheses.

p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

H1 posited that Millennials would exhibit lower affective commitment than Generation Xers. Model 1 in Table 3 shows that the unconditional effect of generation (1 = Millennials; 0 = Generation Xers) on affective commitment was positive and statistically significant. Surprisingly and contrary to this study’s expectations, Millennials reported higher levels of affective commitment (0.149 SD) as compared with Generation Xers. However, the adjusted R² of Model 1 indicates that generation only explains a very small variance (0.11%) of affective commitment. In Model 2, after accounting for demographic and other managerial practices variables, this generation effect, although slightly decreased, remained significant and positive. Holding all else equal, Millennials reported .110 more standardized deviation of affected commitment than Generation Xers. As the result was contrary to this study’s hypothesis, H1 was not supported.

H2–4 hypothesized that Millennials would be more responsive to support for work–life balance, financial rewards, and meaningful work. The results from model 3 in Table 3 showed that the interactions between (support for work–life balance, financial rewards, and meaningful work) and generation were not statistically significant. These interaction effects remained nonsignificant even after accounting for control variables in model 4. As such, H2–4 were not supported.

Model 2 in Table 3 also shows that all studied managerial practices were statistically significant and positively associated with affective commitment. However, these factors influence affective commitment at different degrees. Meaningful work has the strongest association with affective commitment as one standard deviation increase in this factor was associated with a 0.417 standard deviation increase in affective commitment, holding all else equal. Opportunities for development come in second as a standard deviation increase in this factor was associated with a 0.288 standard deviation increase in affective commitment, holding all else equal. However, one standard deviation increase in support for work–life balance, financial rewards, social support, and fairness was associated with a very low (from 0.021 to 0.101 SD) increase in affective commitment, holding all else equal.

Among the demographic control variables, race and tenure were significantly and positively associated with affective commitment (Model 2, Table 3). Holding all else constant, nonminority employees reported .064 more standardized deviation of affected commitment than their minority counterparts. Moreover, employees who worked for their organizations for more than .3 years reported 0.035 more standardized deviation of affected commitment than their less tenured counterparts, holding all else equal.

Discussion and Conclusion

This study provides evidence about generational differences between U.S. federal Millennials and Generation Xers with rigorous research designs. The findings show that Millennials report slightly higher levels of affective commitment in comparison with Generation Xers (contrary to common stereotypes). The present study also reports null findings or the absence of evidence for the differences between Millennials and Generation Xers in the federal agencies regarding how managerial practices influence their attitude. The findings may reflect the real characteristics of the two generations or result from the study’s methodological limitations (Landis et al., 2014). Nonetheless, this study presents an empirical test and finds no evidence to support common perceptions about Millennials or generational differences in the public sector workforce.

This study contributes to the public administration literature in four ways. First, it provides evidence about federal Millennials in comparison with Generation Xers in regard to their affective commitment, thereby contributing to an understanding of generational differences in the public sector. Prior public management studies have provided some evidence about Millennial job entrance motivation (Breitsohl & Ruhle, 2016; Henstra & Mcgowan, 2016), job expectation (Curtin et al., 2011), public service motivation (Einolf, 2020), turnover intention (Ertas, 2015; Johnson & Ng, 2016), and job mobility (AbouAssi et al., 2019). However, a comparison between Millennials’ and Generation Xers’ affective commitment, which can significantly affect their individual behaviors and performance, has not been executed. Studying this attitude of Millennials in comparison with prior generations is necessary and important to foster an understanding of generational differences and design appropriate employee retention strategies in public workplaces. The results that U.S. federal Millennials are not so different from Generation Xers in terms of their affective commitment levels, as well as how managerial practices affect this attitude, are aligned with several prior public management studies. For instance, Ertas (2015) found that most work attributes similarly influence turnover intentions of U.S. federal Millennials and prior generations. Einolf (2020) found that Generation X’s and Millennial master of public administration (MPA) students only differ slightly in public service motivation and its causes, and in prosocial behaviors. The results are also consistent with several prior studies in the private sector that found very little evidence for generational differences at work, such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover (Costanza et al., 2012; Zabel et al., 2017).

Second, the findings also offer interesting insights into factors that influence the affective commitment of Millennial and Generation X employees who are under 30 years old and tend to have the highest turnover intention in public organizations, but they are rarely studied separately (Ertas, 2015). In particular, Millennials who are under 30 years old in the federal agencies are mostly influenced by meaningful work, while financial rewards and support for work–life balance have only modest association with their affective commitment. This is aligned with prior works that showed intrinsic motivation as a significant factor influencing Millennials to join the public workforce (Breitsohl & Ruhle, 2016; Henstra & Mcgowan, 2016). The findings that financial rewards and support for work–life balance have modest influence on Millennials’ affective commitment contradict how Millennials are commonly viewed or stereotyped. A possible explanation for this study’s findings is that Millennials working in the public sector may be a self-selected group that are different from Millennials in general, so the general stereotypes may not be applicable. In the public sector, according to public service motivation theory (Perry & Wise, 1990), public servants have a strong desire to serve the public interest rather than acquiring material rewards. Put differently, Millennials working in the public sector may have a strong psychological contract regarding meaningful contribution of their work to society rather than expectations about financial rewards and support for work–life balance. As such, the characteristics of public employees may overshadow the effect of generation on employees. The minimal association between support for work–life balance and affective commitment for Millennials and Generation Xers who are under 30 years old can also be due to young employees not having many childbearing and/or other family-related responsibilities. A possible explanation for the marginal association of financial rewards and affective commitment is that public sector employees are a self-selected group who do not have much debt or financial responsibilities (Ng & Johnson, 2020); therefore, they are less likely to be moved by this factor.

Third, the findings also provide further evidence of generational differences in a subset of under-explored employees: those in the public sector. Although generational differences have been researched widely in general management, research and evidence in the public sector are still much less extensive. The findings, which do not show sufficient evidence to support that there are significant differences between U.S. federal Millennials and Generation Xers in their affective commitment levels and antecedents, add to the existing evidence of other prior general management studies about the minimal differences of generations at workplaces (e.g., Becton et al., 2014; Costanza & Finkelstein, 2015) and question the validity of generational theory. Furthermore, the present study’s findings suggest generational theorists should consider how generational identities may interact with working sectors (especially the public sector) and life stages to influence employees’ attitudes and behaviors.

Fourth, this study also advances public management research methods by using time-lag design, studying Millennials and Generation Xers at the same age group at two different time points, to separate generational difference effect from age difference effect. Previous public management studies mostly used data of different generations at one point in time (Einolf, 2020; Ertas, 2015), and therefore cannot separate age and generational effects when comparing different generations. Another common approach is only studying Millennials at one point in time, which cannot directly compare different generations (AbouAssi et al., 2019; Breitsohl & Ruhle, 2016; Curtin et al., 2011; Henstra & Mcgowan, 2016; Johnson & Ng, 2016). Different from prior studies, this study’s approach of using time-lag design helps differentiate the effects of generational difference from age difference, which is an important factor that can influence employees’ attitudes and behaviors at work (Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Twenge, 2010). Another advantage of this study’s design is using working employee and large-N samples, thereby enhancing the validity of the results over the extant empirical work that only uses small student samples (Einolf, 2020; Henstra & Mcgowan, 2016). As such, it provides complementary results for prior studies to offer more insights into generational issues at public workplaces.

The findings of this study also offer important implications for practitioners. The results, contrary to popular stereotypes, show that Millennials demonstrate statistically higher levels of affective commitment, yet this difference is substantively small. As such, public managers and other employees should remain cautious about holding negative stereotypes about Millennials and other employees based on their generational identity. Prior work has implied that stereotypes can lead to biased judgments and treatments, harming employees’ emotions, attitudes, and performance (Chang et al., 2019; Kunesh & Noltemeyer, 2019; Meisner, 2012). This study also cannot find evidence supporting the significant differences in how managerial practices influence the affective commitment of Millennials and Generation Xers. Without inferring too much from a null finding, this nonetheless cautions public organizations against designing distinct managerial interventions for each cohort (until research provides sufficient evidence to do so). Previous studies have argued that organizational practices related to generations are not only ineffective but also impose more costs on organizations (Becton et al., 2014; Kowske et al., 2010).

There are several methodological shortcomings in the present study. First, as this study uses data from one source (employee self-reported), its results can be affected by CMV. Nonetheless, several checks have been implemented to ensure CMV is not a significant issue that can distort the study’s findings. Second, since this study used the time-lag design from two cross-sectional databases to test the hypotheses, it could not make causal inferences. Third, this study does not control for period effect, and therefore its findings can be influenced by context difference in the 2 years 2004 and 2011. Fourth, as the year gap between the Millennials and Generation Xers in the sample is not large, the size of the difference between the two groups may be deflated. Fifth, the study’s sample containing employees under 30 years old may limit the generalization of the findings to other age groups or entire generational cohorts. Finally, this study used data from FEVS and FHCS, which were not designed for academic research purposes, and therefore its measurement may not be perfect.

Despite the limitations, the present research provides helpful insight for further research. Future scholarship should examine a more comprehensive range of generations’ employees in other public workplaces, such as local government or nonprofit organizations. In addition, public administration researchers can investigate whether generational cohorts are different regarding work-related attitudes and behaviors (other than affective commitment) and whether organizational practices affect them differently. Such answers will help confirm whether it is effective and efficient to design special management practices toward a generation. Furthermore, future work should examine generational differences at different age groups to see whether the findings of this research hold true for other employees. Finally, alternative designs such as multi-source data, multiple-item measures, or experiments should be adopted in the future to enhance the validity of the findings.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-ppm-10.1177_00910260221129840 – Supplemental material for Are Millennials Different? A Time-Lag Study of Federal Millennial and Generation X Employees’ Affective Commitment

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-ppm-10.1177_00910260221129840 for Are Millennials Different? A Time-Lag Study of Federal Millennial and Generation X Employees’ Affective Commitment by Nhung Thi Hong Nguyen in Public Personnel Management

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research is funded by University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City (UEH), Vietnam.

ORCID iD

Nhung Thi Hong Nguyen

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biography

Nhung Thi Hong Nguyen is currently a lecturer at School of Government, University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. She received her PhD degree in public administration and public affairs from Virginia Tech, USA. Her research interests include leadership, human resource management, and organizational behavior in public workplaces.

References

Akinwande

M. O.

Dikko

H. G.

Samson

(2015). Variance Inflation Factor: As a Condition for the Inclusion of Suppressor Variable(s) in Regression Analysis. Open Journal of Statistics, 5(7), 754–767. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojs.2015.57075

AbouAssi

Johnson

M. J.

Holt

S. B.

(2019). Job mobility among millennials: Do they stay or do they go? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 41, 219–249.

Albrecht

Travaglione

(2003). Trust in public-sector senior management. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(1), 76–92.

Anderson

H. J.

Baur

J. E.

Griffith

J. A.

Buckley

M. R.

(2017). What works for you may not work for (Gen)Me: Limitations of present leadership theories for the new generation. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 245–260.

Bagger

(2012). Being important matters: The impact of work and family centralities on the family-to-work conflict–satisfaction relationship. Human Relations, 65(4), 473–500.

Becton

J. B.

Walker

H. J.

Jones-Farmer

(2014). Generational differences in workplace behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44(3), 175–189.

Benson

Brown

(2011). Generations at work: Are there differences and do they matter? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(9), 1843–1865.

Bergman

S. M.

Fearrington

M. E.

Davenport

S. W.

Bergman

J. Z.

(2011). Millennials, narcissism, and social networking: What narcissists do on social networking sites and why. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(5), 706–711.

Beutell

N. J.

Wittig-Berman

(2008). Work-family conflict and work-family synergy for generation X, baby boomers, and matures: Generational differences, predictors, and satisfaction outcomes. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(5), 507–523.

10.

Bracy

Bevill

Roach

T. D.

(2010). The millennial generation: Recommendations for overcoming teaching challenges. Proceedings of the Academy of Educational Leadership, 15(2), 21–26.

11.

Breitsohl

Ruhle

(2016). Millennials’ public service motivation and sector choice—A panel study of job entrants in Germany. Public Administration Quarterly, 40(3), 458–489.

12.

Bresman

(2015). What Millennials want from work, charted across the world. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2015/02/what-millennials-want-from-work-charted-across-the-world?referral=03759&cm_vc=rr_item_page.bottom

13.

Brimhall

K. C.

(2021). Are we innovative? Increasing perceptions of nonprofit innovation through leadership, inclusion, and commitment. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 41(1), 3–24.

14.

Buzza

J. S.

(2017). Are you living to work or working to live? What Millennials want in the workplace. Journal of Human Resources Management and Labor Studies, 5(2), 15–20.

15.

Coyle-Shapiro

J. A. M.

Kessler

(2003). The employment relationship in the UK public sector: A psychological contract perspective. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(2), 213–230.

16.

Caillier

J. G.

(2013). Satisfaction with work-life benefits and organizational commitment/job involvement: Is there a connection? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 33(4), 340–364.

17.

Chang

Luo

Walton

Aguilar

Bailenson

(2019). Stereotype threat in virtual learning environments: Effects of avatar gender and sexist behavior on women’s math learning outcomes. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 22(10), 634–640.

18.

Conway

J. M.

Lance

C. E.

(2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 325–334.

19.

Costanza

D. P.

Badger

J. M.

Fraser

R. L.

Severt

J. B.

Gade

P. A.

(2012). Generational differences in work-related attitudes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(4), 375–394.

20.

Costanza

D. P.

Finkelstein

L. M.

(2015). Generationally based differences in the workplace: Is there a there there? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8(3), 308–323.

21.

Curtin

P. A.

Gallicano

Matthews

(2011). Millennials ’ approaches to ethical decision making : A survey of young public relations agency employees. Public Relations Journal, 5(2), 1–22.

22.

De Winne

Marescaux

Sels

van Beveren

Vanormelingen

. (2019). The impact of employee turnover and turnover volatility on labor productivity: a flexible non-linear approach. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(21), 3049–3079. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2018.1449129

23.

DiStefano

Zhu

Mîndrilă

(2009). Understanding and using factor scores: Considerations for the applied researcher. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14(20). http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=14&n=20

24.

Fuller

C. M.

Simmering

M. J.

Atinc

Babin

B. J.

(2016). Common methods variance detection in business research. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3192–3198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.008

25.

Fry

(2018). Millennials are the largest generation in the U.S. labor force. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2018/04/11/millennials-largest-generation-us-labor-force/

26.

Ebeling

P. A.

Dent

D. L.

Kempenich

J. W.

(2020). The millennials have arrived: What the surgeon educator needs to know to teach millennials. Surgery (United States), 167(2), 265–268.

27.

Egri

C. P.

Ralston

D. A.

(2004). Generation cohorts and personal values: A comparison of China and the United States. Organization Science. Institute for Operations Research and Management Sciences.

28.

Einolf

(2020). Millennials and public service motivation: Findings from a survey of master’s degree students. Public Administration Quarterly, 40(3), 429–457.

29.

Eisenberger

Fasolo

Davis-LaMastro

(1990). Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1), 51–59.

30.

Eisner

S. P.

(2005). Managing generation y. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 70(4), 4–15.

31.

Ertas

(2015). Turnover intentions and work motivations of Millennial employees in federal service. Public Personnel Management, 44(3), 401–423.

32.

Eyerman

Turner

B. S.

(1998). Outline of a theory of generations. European Journal of Social Theory.

33.

French

P. E.

Emerson

M. C.

(2015). One size does not fit all: Matching the reward to the employee’s motivational needs. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 35(1), 82–94.

34.

Gilleard

(2004). Cohorts and generations in the study of social change. Social Theory and Health, 2(1), 106–119.

35.

Glazer

Mahoney

A. C.

Randall

(2019). Employee development’s role in organizational commitment: A preliminary investigation comparing generation X and millennial employees. Industrial and Commercial Training, 51(1), 1–12.

36.

Greenwood

Murphy

Gibson

J. W.

(2010). Analyzing generational values among managers and non-managers for sustainable organizational effectiveness. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 75(4), 33.

37.

Gupta

Agarwal

U. A.

Khatri

(2016). The relationships between perceived organizational support, affective commitment, psychological contract breach, organizational citizenship behaviour and work engagement. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(11), 2806–2817.

38.

Gursoy

Maier

T. A.

Chi

C. G.

(2008). Generational differences: An examination of work values and generational gaps in the hospitality workforce. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27(3), 448–458.

39.

Hansen

J. R.

Kjeldsen

A. M.

(2018). Comparing affective commitment in the public and private sectors: a comprehensive test of multiple mediation effects. International Public Management Journal, 21(4), 558-588.

40.

Hamidullah

M. F.

(2015). Managing the next generation of public workers. Routledge.

41.

Henstra

Mcgowan

R. A.

(2016). Millennials and public service : An exploratory analysis of graduate student career motivations and expectations. Public Administration Quarterly, 40(3), 490–516.

42.

Holman

D. J.

Wall

T. D.

(2002). Work characteristics, learning-related outcomes, and strain: A test of competing direct effects, mediated, and moderated models. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7(4), 283–301.

43.

Holtschlag

Masuda

A. D.

Reiche

B. S.

Morales

(2020). Why do millennials stay in their jobs? The roles of protean career orientation, goal progress and organizational career management. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 118, 103366.

44.

Hung

K. H.

F. F.

Yim

C. K.

(2007). A social institutional approach to identifying generation cohorts in China with a comparison with American consumers. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(5), 836–853.

45.

Johnson

M. J.

E. S.

(2016). Money talks or millennials walk: The effect of compensation on nonprofit millennial workers sector-switching intentions. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 36(3), 283–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X15587980

46.

Jiang

Johnson

M. J.

(2018). Meaningful work and affective commitment: A moderated mediation model of positive work reflection and work centrality. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33(4), 545–558.

47.

Kerslake

(2005). Words from the Ys. New Zealand Management, 52, 44–46.

48.

Kock

(2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM. International Journal of E-Collaboration, 11(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101

49.

Kahn

W. A.

(1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.

50.

Karasek

Theorel

(1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life. Basic Books.

51.

Kim

S. Y.

Lee

(2020). Work–life program participation and employee work attitudes: A quasi-experimental analysis using matching methods. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 40(3), 468–490.

52.

Kowske

B. J.

Rasch

Wiley

(2010). Millennials’ (lack of) attitude problem: An empirical examination of generational effects on work attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 265–279.

53.

Krahn

H. J.

Galambos

N. L.

(2014). Work values and beliefs of “Generation X” and “Generation Y..” Journal of Youth Studies, 17(1), 92–112.

54.

Kunesh

C. E.

Noltemeyer

(2019). Understanding disciplinary disproportionality: Stereotypes shape pre-service teachers’ beliefs about black boys’ behavior. Urban Education, 54(4), 471–498.

55.

Kuvaas

(2006). Work performance, affective commitment, and work motivation: The roles of pay administration and pay level. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(3), 365–385.

56.

Lance

C. E.

Butts

M. M.

Michels

L. C.

(2006). The sources of four commonly reported cutoff criteria. Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 202–220.

57.

Levenson

A. R.

(2010). Millennials and the world of work: An economist’s perspective. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 257–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9170-9

58.

Landis

R. S.

James

L. R.

Lance

C. E.

Pierce

C. A.

Rogelberg

S. G.

(2014). When is nothing something? Editorial for the null results special issue of Journal of Business and Psychology. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(2), 163–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9347-8

59.

Lee

Benoit-Bryan

Johnson

T. P.

(2012). Survey research in public administration: Assessing mainstream journals with a total survey error framework. Public Administration Review, 72(1), 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02482.x

60.

Lyons

Kuron

(2014). Generational differences in the workplace: A review of the evidence and directions for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(S1), S139-S157.

61.

Lissitsa

Kol

(2016). Generation X vs. Generation Y—A decade of online shopping. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 31, 304–312.

62.

Lub

X. D.

Bal

P. M.

Blomme

R. J.

Schalk

(2016). One job, one deal...or not: Do generations respond differently to psychological contract fulfillment? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(6), 653–680.

63.

Luu

(2018). Discretionary HR practices and proactive work behaviour: The mediation role of affective commitment and the moderation roles of PSM and abusive supervision. Public Management Review, 20(6), 789–823.

64.

Lyons

Kuron

(2014). Generational differences in the workplace: A review of the evidence and directions for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(S1), S139–S157.

65.

Lyons

S. T.

E. S.

Schweitzer

(2012). Generational career shift: Millennials and the changing nature of careers in Canada. In Managing the New Workforce (pp. 64–85). Edward Elgar Publishing.

66.

Morf

Horvath

Torchetti

(2011). Narcissistic self-enhancement: Tales of (successful?) self-portrayal. In Alicke

M. D.

Sedikides

(Eds.), Handbook of self-enhancement and self-protection (pp. 399–424). The Guilford Press.

67.

Mussagulova

Chen

C. A.

Dennis Dong

H. K.

(2021). Confronting pension reform: Public employees’ psychological contract breach, negative perception, regret, and the moderating role of PSM. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 0734371X211011640.

68.

Mensah

J. K.

(2019). Talent management and employee outcomes: A psychological contract fulfilment perspective. Public Organization Review, 19(3), 325-344.

69.

Murray

(2013). Likert data: What to use, Parametric or non-parametric? International Journal of Business and Social Science, 4(11), 258–265.

70.

Meisner

B. A.

(2012). A meta-analysis of positive and negative age stereotype priming effects on behavior among older adults. Journals of Gerontology—Series B Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 67B(1), 13–17.

71.

Mercurio

Z. A.

(2015). Affective commitment as a core essence of organizational commitment. Human Resource Development Review, 14(4), 389–414.

72.

Meyer

J. P.

Allen

N. J.

(1998). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research and application. SAGE Publications.

73.

Meyer

J. P.

Allen

N. J.

Smith

C. A.

(1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 538–551.

74.

Meyer

J. P.

Stanley

D. J.

Herscovitch

Topolnytsky

(2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1), 20–52.

75.

Miao

Newman

Schwarz

(2014). Servant leadership, trust, and the organizational commitment of public sector employees in China. Public Administration, 92(3), 727–743.

76.

Morrison

E. W.

Robinson

S. L.

(1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 226–256.

77.

Mostafa

A. M. S.

Abed El-Motalib

E. A.

(2020). Ethical leadership, work meaningfulness, and work engagement in the public sector. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 40(1), 112–131.

78.

Mowday

R. T.

(1991). Equity theory perceptions of behavior in organizations. In Steers

R. M.

Porter

L. W.

(Eds.), Motivation and work behavior (pp. 111–131). McGraw-Hill.

79.

Morton

L. P.

(2002). Targeting generation Y. Public Relations Quarterly, 47(2), 46-48.

80.

Norman

(2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(5), 625–632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y

81.

Naim

M. F.

Lenka

(2018). Development and retention of Generation Y employees: a conceptual framework. Employee Relations, 40(2), 433–455. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-09-2016-0172

82.

E. S.

Johnson

M. J.

(2020). Game of loans: The relationship between education debt, social responsibility concerns, and making a career choice in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(2), 292–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764019867773

83.

Nyhan

R. C.

(1999). Increasing affective organizational commitment in public organizations: The key role of interpersonal trust. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 19(3), 58-70.

84.

E. S. W.

Gossett

C. W.

(2013). Career choice in Canadian public service: An exploration of fit with the millennial generation. Public Personnel Management, 42(3), 337–358.

85.

E. S. W.

Johnson

J. M.

(2015). Millennials: Who are they, how are they different, and why should we care? In. The multi-generational and aging workforce (pp. 121–137). Edward Elgar Publishing.

86.

E. S. W.

Schweitzer

Lyons

S. T.

(2010). New generation, great expectations: A field study of the millennial generation. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 281–292.

87.

Owen

(2020). Knowledge management across the generations. https://patimes.org/knowledge-management-across-the-generations/

88.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

89.

Park

Lee

K. H.

(2020). Organizational politics, work attitudes and performance: the moderating role of age and public service motivation (PSM). International Review of Public Administration, 25(2), 85–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2020.1750755

90.

Park

Gursoy

(2012). Generation effects on work engagement among U.S. hotel employees. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(4), 1195–1202.

91.

Park

S. M.

Rainey

H. G.

(2007). Antecedents, mediators, and consequences of affective, normative, and continuance commitment: Empirical tests of commitment effects in federal agencies. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 27(3), 197–226.

92.

Parkes

L. P.

Langford

P. H.

(2008). Work–life bal ance or work–life alignment? A test of the importance of work-life balance for employee engagement and intention to stay in organisations. Journal of Management & Organization, 14(3), 267–284.

93.

Perreira

T. A.

Berta

Herbert

(2018). The employee retention triad in health care: Exploring relationships amongst organisational justice, affective commitment and turnover intention. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 27(7–8), e1451–e1461.

94.

Perry

J. L.

Wise

L. R.

(1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review, 50(3), 367.

95.

Pînzaru

Vătămănescu

E.-M.

Mitan

Săvulescu

Vițelar

Noaghea

(2016). Millennials at work: Investigating the specificity of generation y versus other generations. Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, 4(2), 173–192.

96.

Rousseau

D. M.

(1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2(2), 121-139.

97.

Rogler

L. H.

(2002). Historical generations and psychology: The case of the Great Depression and World War II. American Psychologist, 57(12), 1013–1023. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.12.1013

98.

Rousseau

D. M.

(1995). Psychological Contract in Organizations: Understanding Written and Unwritten Agreements. SAGE Publications.

99.

Ryder

N. B.

(1965). The cohort as a concept in the study of social change. American Sociological Review, 30(6), 843–861.

100.

Soergel

(2015). Study: 1 in 3 Says Work-Life Balance Getting Tougher. U.S.News & World Report. https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/05/05/1-in-3-workers-says-work-life-balance-getting-tougher

101.

Solnet

Hood

(2008). Generation Y as hospitality employees: Framing a research agenda. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 15(1), 59–68.

102.

Sun

(2021). Why do younger generations seek work-life balance? Randstad. https://www.randstad.com.hk/hr-trends/employer-brand/why-younger-generations-seek-work-life-balance/

103.

Steger

M. F.

Dik

B. J.

Duffy

R. D.

(2012). Measuring meaningful work: The work and meaning inventory (WAMI). Journal of Career Assessment, 20(3), 322–337.

104.

Stich

(2017). Winning the loyal business of Gen X with technology. Journal of Financial Planning, 30(9), 32–33.

105.

Tummers

L. G.

Knies

(2013). Leadership and meaningful work in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 73(6), 859–868.

106.

Twenge

J. M.

(2008). Generation me: Why today’s young americans are more confident, assertive, and entitled: And more miserable than ever before. University of Illinois Press.

107.

Twenge

J. M.

(2009). Generational changes and their impact in the classroom: Teaching generation me. Medical Education, 43(5), 398–405.

108.

Twenge

J. M.

(2010). A review of the empirical evidence on generational differences in work attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(2), 201–210.

109.

Twenge

J. M.

(2014). Generation me-revised and updated: Why today’s young Americans are more confident, assertive, entitled—And more miserable than ever before (2nd ed.). Atria Books.

110.

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(5), 1117–1142.

111.

Twenge

J. M.

Campbell

W. K.

Freeman

E. C.

(2012). Generational differences in young adults’ life goals, concern for others, and civic orientation, 1966–2009. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(5), 1045–1062.

112.

Twenge

J. M.

Kasser

(2013). Generational changes in materialism and work centrality, 1976–2007: Associations with temporal changes in societal insecurity and materialistic role modeling. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(7), 883–897.

113.

Twenge

J. M.

Konrath

Foster

J. D.

Campbell

W. K.

Bushman

B. J.

(2008). Egos inflating over time: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of the narcissistic personality inventory. Journal of Personality, 76(4), 875–902.

114.

Vandenberghe

Tremblay

(2008). The role of pay satisfaction and organizational commitment in turnover intentions: A two-sample study. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22(3), 275–286.

115.

Yeoman

(2014). Conceptualising meaningful work as a fundamental human need. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(2), 235–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s

116.

Wiedmer

(2015). Generations do differ: Best practices in leading Traditionalists, Boomers, and Generations X, Y, and Z. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 82(1), 51.

117.

Wray-Lake

Syvertsen

A. K.

Briddell

Osgood

D. W.

Flanagan

C. A.

(2011). Exploring the changing meaning of work for American High School Seniors from 1976 to 2005. Youth & Society, 43(3), 1110–1135.

118.

Wynen

van Dooren

Mattijs

Deschamps

(2019). Linking turnover to organizational performance: the role of process conformance. Public Management Review, 21(5), 669–685. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1503704

119.

Zabel

K. L.

Biermeier-Hanson

B. B. J.

Baltes

B. B.

Early

B. J.

Shepard

(2017). Generational differences in work ethic: Fact or fiction? Journal of Business and Psychology, 32(3), 301–315.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.05 MB