Work Values Across Generations

Abstract

Mainstream publication discussions of differences in generational cohorts in the workplace suggest that individuals of more recent generations, such as Generation X and Y, have different work values than do individuals of the Silent and Baby Boom generations. Although extant research suggests that age may influence work values, few of the assertions about generation differences have been tested by empirical research. The present study investigated work values, as measured by the Minnesota Importance Questionnaire, across three generations (Silent Generation, N = 371; Baby Boom, N = 1179; and Generation X, N = 139) while accounting for age. Results suggested that workers from the Silent Generation placed more importance on Status and Autonomy than did Baby Boom or Generation X workers. More recent generations (Baby Boom and Generation X) were found to place more importance on Working Conditions, Security, Coworkers, and Compensation. Additional analyses suggest that, while the measured differences among the three generations are small, generation influences work values more so than does age.

Keywords

work values generational differences birth cohort effects

For the first time ever, four generations of Americans are working side by side. Of these generations, the oldest is the Silent Generation, followed by the largest—the Baby Boomers, then Generation X. Generation Y, also often referred to as Millennials, is the youngest generation. While having diversity of ages in the workplace can be beneficial, organizations and workers alike have observed differences in the way in which these four generations function in the workplace. Organizations now are faced with the challenges of integrating different generations in the workplace as well as the complexity of creating environments to attract and satisfy workers of each generation. The need to understand generations has sparked numerous publications and books aimed at explaining the differences between younger and older workers; often the discussion centers on the hypothesis that younger and older workers have different values related to work. Despite the interest in characterizing work values of different generations, assertions presented in the popular press are made with little or no empirical support. Thus, the current study was conducted to investigate popular assumptions about the work values of three cohorts—The Silent Generation, Baby Boomers, and Generation X.

Generations in the Workplace

The term generation typically refers to a group of individuals who share common life experiences such as world events, natural disasters, politics, economic conditions, and pop culture (Smith & Clurman, 1998). The unique life experiences introduced during formative years inevitably contribute to the values of individuals of each generational cohort (Smith & Clurman, 1998). Current discussions mention four distinct generations that are living today—the Silent Generation, Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y. One difficulty in understanding different generations has been the varying opinions on the specific birth years, which define each generation in America. To remain consistent with the majority of the literature on generations, the following definition of each group was adopted for this study: the Silent Generation includes those born between 1925 and 1945; Baby Boomers have birthdates from 1946 to 1964; Generation X consists of those born between 1965 and 1980, and Generation Y is comprised of individuals born after 1980 (Lancaster & Stillman, 2002). While some disagreement may occur over what birth years define each generation, there is relative agreement about the attributes of each generation. This study focuses on the Silent Generation, Baby Boomers, and Generation X.

The Silent Generation

Also known as the Greatest Generation or Traditionalists, the Silent Generation received its name from a 1951 Time article that was meant to reflect this generation’s withdrawn, cautious, and silent characteristics (Strauss & Howe, 1991). This generation, raised during the Great Depression and World War II, endured hard times and is one of the smaller American generations by population (Strauss & Howe, 1991). As a generation, the Silent Generation was the youngest generation ever to marry and have children (Strauss & Howe, 1991). These individuals are described as being very loyal, having a lot of faith in institutions, and often planning on working for one organization for a long time (Lancaster & Stillman, 2002). Most value earning money and saving money and as a result, they have become a wealthy generation (Kupperschmidt, 2000; Strauss & Howe, 1991). They view work as a duty and an obligation (Kupperschmidt, 2000).

Baby Boomers

As the American economy recovered from World War II and the Great Depression, a surge in births made the Baby Boomer generation the largest generation in American history. Because of this cohort’s large size, Boomers are seen as a generation that has been forced to be competitive for resources and opportunities (Lancaster & Stillman, 2002). They value striving to get ahead, having material success, and want to be seen as individuals (Kupperschmidt, 2000; Strauss & Howe, 1991). Growing up in a time of great prosperity, they have been described as being very optimistic and responsible for many social movements in America’s history (Lancaster & Stillman, 2002). However, Boomers also often are seen as workaholics, who value their careers, and seek meaningfulness in life from their work (Strauss & Howe, 1991).

Generation X

While the Silent Generation is seen as loyal and Boomers as optimistic, Generation X is described as cynical and skeptical (Lancaster & Stillman, 2002), which may be in part a response to witnessing many negative events while growing up, such as the Persian Gulf War, increases in crime and the divorce rate, and the spread of AIDS (Losyk, 1997). Generation X was revolutionized by television and the media that provided this generation with more exposure to world events and pop culture than previous generations (Lancaster & Stillman, 2002). This is the first generation where the majority of both parents worked outside the home causing many Gen Xers to become latchkey kids, taking care of themselves for hours each day while their parents were still at work (Kupperschmidt, 2000; Strauss & Howe, 1991). Perhaps because of this, individuals of Generation X have developed skills of independence, adaptability, and resilience (Thiefoldt & Scheef, 2004). Some hypothesize that growing up alone because of working parents, shaped them to value family and flexible work arrangements that allow them to balance work and family demands (Losyk, 1977).

Despite research confirming this generation’s overall cynicism, there is evidence that Gen Xers are motivated to achieve (Arnett, 2000) and they are noted for being self-starters and resourceful (Strauss & Howe, 1991; Lancaster & Stillman, 2002). Yet, other generations describe Generation Xers as being “lost” and misguided (Strauss & Howe, 1991). While they may be cast as less loyal to organizations than their parents were, the members of this generation also are described as committed to their work despite switching jobs often (Cohen, 2002). Furthermore, Gen Xers are motivated at work by feedback, challenges, and developmental opportunities (Cohen, 2002).

Work Values

A handful of major career development theories include a discussion of work values (Dawis, 2005; Super et al., 1957). Within the Theory of Work Adjustment, work values are conceptualized as aspects of a job that are necessary to promote job satisfaction (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984). Donald Super (1980, p. 130) defined work values as “an objective, either a psychological state, a relationship, or material condition, that one seeks to attain.” Regardless of varying definitions, Zytowski (1994) noted that in the vocational psychology literature, work values most often are characterized as positive reinforcers of job satisfaction.

Empirical research on work values has found that work values predict job satisfaction (Dawis, 2002; Rounds, 1990) and vocational interests (Berings, De Fruyt, & Bouwen, 2004) and are associated with career choice (Kalleberg & Stark, 1993; Young, 1984; Zytowski, 1994) and work performance (Swenson & Herche, 1994). Furthermore, a match between an employee’s values and the reinforcement of these values in the work place predicts tenure, intentions to stay in the job (Hesketh, McLachlan, & Gardner, 1992), and satisfaction up to 8 years later (Bizot & Goldman, 1993).

Work Values Across Generations

Research specifically addressing work values among generations has suggested that some differences do exist across generations (see Twenge, 2010 for a review). In a comparison of Generation X and Baby Boom workers, Jurkiewicz (2000) found that Baby Boomers ranked “chance to learn new things” and “freedom from pressures to conform both on and off the job” higher than did Gen Xers, while Gen Xers ranked “freedom from supervision” higher. Work by Cennamo and Gardner (2008) suggested that Baby Boomers placed less importance on status than Generation X or Y workers. Generation Y workers also endorsed more importance on freedom at work. Smola and Sutton (2002) found that Generation X workers valued being promoted more quickly than did Baby Boomers. Real, Mitnik, and Maloney (2010) found that Generation Y skilled-trade workers placed more importance on social and intrinsic values than did Baby Boomer workers.

Lyons, Duxbury, and Higgins (2005a) found generational differences among four of the five work values they studied. Altruistic work values were found to have decreased importance by generation with the Silent Generation placing the most importance on altruism and Generation Y the least. Social work values, such as interacting with others, as well as prestige work values were more important for younger generations (Generations X and Y) than older generations (Silent and Baby Boom Generations). Generation X individuals were found to place the most importance on intrinsic work values relative to Baby Boomers, Generation Y, or the Silent Generation.

Despite some evidence supporting generational differences in work values, additional research suggests that more similarities than differences exist. While some differences were found by Jurkiewicz (2000), as mentioned previously, the majority of values assessed (12 of the 15) were not ranked differently by Baby Boom and Generation X workers. Cennamo and Gardner (2008) did not find differences between Baby Boom, Generation X, and Generation Y workers on extrinsic, intrinsic, altruistic, or social values. Finally, Lyons and colleagues (2005a) found no differences in extrinsic work values, such as salary, benefits, and job security.

Beyond the paucity of empirical research in this area, the frequency of conflicting results makes it difficult to make firm conclusions on work values across generations. For instance, while Cennamo and Gardner (2008) and Smola and Sutton (2002) found no generational differences in intrinsic values, Lyons et al. (2005a) and Real et al. (2010) did find significant generational differences. Cennamo and Gardner (2008) also found no difference in the importance of social values by generation while others have found Generation Y workers place more importance on social values than other generational groups (Lyons et al., 2005a; Real et al., 2010).

Moreover, results on generational differences in work values are complicated by the interaction of generation and age. For example, Lyons and colleagues’ study, like most extant research on work values, assessed individuals at the same point in time, which confounds the results with age. Assessing individuals at one time point while they are currently in the work place is convenient, but existing evidence suggests that work values are influenced by age (Rhodes, 1983). For example, early research by Singer and Stefflre (1954) found, for a sample of adolescents and adult workers, adolescents placed more importance on having an interesting job, having a very highly paid job, and a job where you could make a name for yourself than did adults. The adult sample, on the other hand, placed more importance on independence in their job than did adolescents. Additional research by Cherrington, Condie, and England (1979) found that age was positively related to moral importance of work and pride in craftsmanship while the importance of money, importance of friends over work, and acceptance of welfare (e.g., acceptance of government or church welfare or help from friends and family) were negatively associated with age.

The possibility of the influence of age on values suggests that generational differences in values may be better examined if individuals are assessed at relatively the same age. Evidence suggests that when age is kept constant, cohort differences in values remain. An investigation by Sinisalo (1994) found differences in work values among three different cohorts of adolescents measured in 1977, 1989, and 1995. Individuals measured in 1977 were of the Baby Boom generation and adolescents measured in 1989 and 1995 were part of Generation X. Results suggested that self-actualizing values, such as being creative, using one’s knowledge, developing skills and abilities, and having responsibility, were significantly higher among adolescents in 1995 (late Generation X individuals) than in 1977 or 1989. In addition, intrinsic values were most important among the 1989 cohort (early Generation X).

Research by Simmons and Penn (1994) focused on differences in values of college students over three decades (1970, 1980, and 1990). Specifically, in three samples of college students collected during three decades, they found that most values were stable over time but also that some values increased in importance over the decades. Of note were increases from 1970 to 1980 in the importance of improving one’s standard of living, hoping to become wealthy, developing a career, being recognized for accomplishments, and being unique. Other values—playfulness, becoming a celebrity, and spending time organizing and directing—showed smaller increases in importance over the span of three decades but were significantly different between students measured in 1970 and 1990. These results suggest that different cohorts may exhibit some differences in values, while being measured at relatively the same age.

Sverko (1999) also tried to address differences in work values by generation while accounting for age by assessing groups of high school and college students from two different cohorts in 1983 and 1993/1994. Most notably, the later cohort (collected in 1993 and 1994) placed more importance on utilitarian values (working conditions, pay, advancement, prestige, and authority) and individualistic values (autonomy, lifestyle, and variety) than did the 1983 cohort. Despite both of these cohorts belonging to Generation X, these results imply a shift in work values among the early and latter groups of this generation.

New evidence by Twenge, Campbell, Hoffman, and Lance (2010) supported work value differences across generations when accounting for age by assessing samples of high school seniors collected in 1976 (Baby Boomers), 1991 (Generation X), and 2006 (Generation Y). Results showed that Baby Boomers preferred intrinsic and social work values more than other generations, while leisure and extrinsic values were rated as more important by Generation X and Y students. No generational differences were found for altruistic values.

Other research highlights the difficulty of separating the effects of cohort and age on values. Longitudinal research by van der Velde, Feji, and van Emmerick (1998) tried to tease apart the influence of age or generation on values by investigating whether changes in work values were due to changes in cultural norms or due to aging. They concluded that values varied more by age than by cultural changes in a sample from the Netherlands. Specifically, they found that among three age groups (18-, 22-, and 26 year-olds), age explained an increase in intrinsic work values over a 4-year period more so than did cohort differences. However, some values still were significantly different based on cohort. The youngest cohort reported placing more importance on intrinsic work values and the role of work in one’s life and less importance on the obligation for one to work and the social relationships at work. Thus, it seems that both age and cohort may influence development of values.

In sum, the research on generational differences in work values has produced conflicting results that are complicated by the impact of age on values. When age is taken into account, differences in intrinsic, extrinsic, and social values seem to persist (Sinisalo, 1994; Sverko, 1999; Twenge et al., 2010). While progress has been made on investigating the influence of generation and age on values, several shortcomings of this body of research exist. One issue is that existing studies that account for age all utilized student or young adult samples, whose lack of work experience may have an impact on work values. Finally, few studies have assessed work values using instruments with substantial evidence of validity.

To address these issues, the goal of the current study was twofold—to compare work values among three generations and to disentangle the relationship between age, generation, and work values in a sample consisting of working adults. This was accomplished by measuring work values of individuals at relatively the same age from three different generations (Silent Generation, Baby Boomers, and Generation X). The first set of analyses was conducted to determine if differences in work values among three generations exist. It was expected that significant generational differences in work values would be found. Moreover, direct comparisons between each generation were of interest, thus the second set of analyses focused on understanding the relationship among age, generation, and work values. Given the inconsistent empirical evidence of generational differences in values, this study was designed to test the assumption in mainstream literature that Generation X workers place more importance on intrinsic values, such as Achievement, Altruism, and Autonomy values, whereas Baby Boomers and Silent Generation workers are assumed to place more importance on extrinsic values such as Comfort and Status values. An additional aspect of this research was to examine if birth cohort was more related to work values than is age at the time of assessment. Previous research has concluded that generational differences in work values persist even after differences in age at the time of measurement are controlled (Twenge et al., 2010; van der Velde et al., 1998). Along this line, the third hypothesis predicted that while work values may be related to age at the time of measurement, generation of birth would likely show a stronger relation with work values.

Method

Participants

Participants were clients of a vocational assessment clinic (N = 1689), who gave permission for their assessment data to be used for research. These data were collected over the past 30 years. The sample was comprised of 44.8% females with a mean age of 33.3 years (SD = 7.94) and 55.2% males with a mean age of 33.7 years (SD = 8.03). The racial composition of the sample, reported by participants, was 91.9% Caucasian American, 1.4% African American, 0.7% Asian American, 0.3% Hispanic, 0.1% Native American, and 0.3% other races. Data on race were not reported by 5.4% of the participants. Almost half of participants (48.2%) reported earning a college degree. Of the remaining participants, 0.5% had less than a high school education, 23% had obtained a high school diploma, 9.8% had earned an Associate’s degree or technical certificate, 10.8% had a master’s degree, 3.4% had a doctoral or professional degree, and 4.4% did not report their highest level of education. Furthermore, the participants were mostly employed (72.4%); however, 14.3% reported being unemployed but seeking work, 6.0% were unemployed and not seeking work, and 3.9% were not in the labor force (e.g., homemaker, student, and disabled). Employment status was not given for 3.4% of the sample.

Participants were categorized into one of three generations based on their birthdates (Lancaster & Stillman, 2002) yielding the following samples: Silent Generation (N = 371, born between 1925 and 1945), Baby Boomers (N = 1179, born between 1946 and 1964), and Generation X (N = 139, born between 1965 and 1980). The mean age of the Silent Generation was 41.4 years (SD = 6.22); the mean age of Baby Boomers was 31.7 years (SD = 6.99); and Generation X had a mean age of 27.9 years (SD = 5.87).

Measures

Minnesota Importance Questionnaire

Work values were assessed using the Minnesota Importance Questionnaire (MIQ; Gay, Weiss, Hendel, Dawis, & Loftquist, 1971; Rounds, Henley, Dawis, Lofquist, & Weiss, 1981) that provides information on 6 overarching values and 20 facets of values. Two versions of the MIQ were used over the course of clinic operations. While both versions are identical in item content, revisions to the format of the client profile resulted in a new manual. The MIQ scores are reported as z scores with lower scores for a value indicating less importance. Evidence of reliability and validity of MIQ scores was examined during the development of the assessment. Test–retest reliabilities of MIQ scales at an immediate interval ranged from .72 to .93 while reliabilities for a 10-month interval between testing sessions ranged from .46 to .79 (Hendel & Weiss, 1970). Additionally, Hendel and Weiss (1970) found profile stability correlations, over a 10-month interval that ranged from .58 to .97 with a median of .87, suggesting evidence of reliability of individual profiles. Principal axis factor analyses conducted using MIQ scores from a sample of 5,358 individuals, including college students, vocational rehabilitation clients, and employed workers, suggested that a seven-factor solution best fit the data, with the seventh factor being a residual (Gay et al., 1971). These factors, the overarching values, accounted for 54% of the total variance, and 46% of the variance was accounted for by facet scales. Weiss, Dawis, England, and Lofquist (1966) found that correlations between MIQ scores and abilities tests from the General Aptitude Test Battery rarely exceeded r = .30 suggesting evidence of discriminate validity for MIQ scores. They also found that MIQ scores differentiated among occupational groups. Additionally, Macnab and Fitzsimmons (1987) found evidence of convergent and discriminate validity for eight different work values (authority, coworkers, creativity, responsibility, security, social service, work conditions, and recognition) when MIQ scores were compared to scores on three other measures of work values. Macnab and Fitzsimmons (1987) also noted that while the MIQ profile labels lower order, facet scales as needs, these scales mirror what are called values scales on other measures, suggesting that on the MIQ, needs scales are really akin to work values for interpretive purposes.

Data Analyses

The results of research exploring gender differences in work values have been contradictory. Studies that have found gender differences in work values (Beutell & Brenner, 1986; Elizur, 1994; Manhardt, 1972; Mason, 1994) suggest that men value job security, pay, and independence more whereas women value social aspects of work and their working environment. However, other studies have shown that gender difference do not exist (Brief & Aldag, 1975; Brief & Oliver, 1976; Lefkowitz, 1994). Research by Lyons, Duxbury, and Higgins (2005b) has found an interaction between generations and gender, and they recommended that both gender and generation be considered when examining work values. Given the inconsistency of findings in this area, initial analyses were done to examine gender differences in the current sample. Results of this analysis supported gender differences (see Table 1 ). Women were found to place greater importance than did men on the overarching values of altruism (t(1687) = −2.33, p < .05) and safety (t(1687) = −4.00, p < .001). Women also were found to place significantly more importance on facet values representing the need for activity (t(1687) = −2.96, p < .01), compensation (t(1687) = −3.44, p < .001), working conditions (t(1687) = −2.48, p < .05), morals (t(1687) = −4.35, p < .001), company policies (t(1687) = −4.53, p < .001), and supervision of human relations (t(1687) = −4.29, p < .001), while men placed significantly greater importance on the facet values representing need for security (t(1687) = 4.25, p < .001). Given these statistically significant findings, the remaining analyses were conducted separately for each gender.

Table 1.

Comparison of Female and Male Minnesota Importance Questionnaire Scores

	Women		Men
MIQ	M	SD	M	SD	T score df(1687)	p
Achievement	1.73	.50	1.71	.55	−.83	.41
Ability Utilization	1.63	.56	1.60	.62	−1.20	.23
Achievement	1.80	.58	1.79	.64	−.35	.73
Comfort	.45	.49	.41	.50	−1.46	.14
Activity	−.01	.84	−.13	.81	−2.93	.00
Independence	.00	.80	−.07	.84	−1.79	.07
Variety	.46	.75	.47	.86	.29	.78
Compensate	.93	.69	.81	.70	−3.44	.00
Security	.56	.84	.73	.83	4.25	.00
Working Conditions	.72	.65	.64	.69	−2.48	.01
Status	.48	.62	.52	.66	1.23	.22
Advancement	1.11	.80	1.15	.79	.91	.36
Recognition	1.12	.69	1.08	.72	−1.10	.27
Authority	−.19	.84	−.10	.89	2.05	.04
Social Status	−.16	.98	−.10	1.00	1.32	.19
Altruism	.94	.62	.86	.66	−2.33	.02
Coworkers	.59	.68	.53	.70	−1.77	.08
Social Service	.61	.93	.69	.91	1.95	.05
Morals	1.61	1.13	1.36	1.19	−4.35	.00
Safety	.63	.59	.52	.59	−4.00	.00
Policies	.86	.67	.71	.69	−4.53	.00
Supervision of Human Relations	.70	.74	.55	.72	−4.29	.00
Supervision of Technical Skills	.34	.71	.29	.74	−1.43	.15
Autonomy	1.10	.60	1.11	.66	.26	.80
Creativity	1.09	.69	1.13	.71	1.34	.18
Responsibility	1.10	.65	1.06	.73	−.99	.32

Results

Three sets of analyses were done to investigate differences in work values and needs for generational groups. The first set of analyses sought to test the first hypotheses that addresses whether generational differences in work values were evident. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used to determine if generational differences and similarities existed while accounting for differences in age at the time of measurement because of significant age differences between each generational group, (F(2, 1689) = 341.89, p < .001). Because of the large sample sizes, only generational differences significant at or below the p = .01 level are reported.

Mean Differences in MIQ Scores Across Generational Groups

Table 2 reports the descriptive statistics for MIQ scores, for each generational group by gender, and ANCOVA results. No significant generational differences for women were found among the six overarching work values; however, significant generational differences were found for 3 of the 20 work values facets—Working Conditions (F(2, 757) = 5.89, p < .01, Advancement (F(2,757) = 4.74, p < .01), and Coworkers (F(2, 757) = 5.48, p < .01).

Table 2.

Mean Scores and ANCOVA for Gender for MIQ Work Values by Generation

	Silent Generation				Baby Boomer				Generation X				ANCOVA
	Women		Men		Women		Men		Women		Men		Women	Men
	N = 164		N = 207		N = 524		N = 655		N = 69		N = 70		df = 2,757	df = 2,932
MIQ	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	F	F
Achievement	1.72	.54	1.72	.54	1.74	.50	1.72	.55	1.65	.42	1.56	.64	1.29	2.57
Ability Utz.	1.64	.60	1.58	.60	1.64	.56	1.62	.61	1.56	.53	1.44	.68	.79	2.61
Achievement	1.79	.61	1.84	.63	1.82	.58	1.79	.63	1.71	.50	1.63	.72	1.55	1.65
Comfort	.44	.55	.34	.51	.44	.47	.42	.50	.54	.45	.51	.43	1.20	4.85^**
Activity	.00	.90	−.10	.77	.00	.81	−.15	.82	−.17	.85	−.11	.86	2.67	.17
Independence	.03	.78	−.11	.90	−.02	.80	−.07	.83	.09	.86	.02	.77	.78	1.73
Variety	.46	.80	.48	.81	.45	.75	.46	.87	.50	.73	.50	.84	.55	.11
Compensate	1.00	.71	.74	.72	.89	.69	.82	.68	1.09	.62	.93	.81	3.58^*	3.71^*
Security	.50	.90	.61	.88	.55	.82	.75	.81	.76	.75	.88	.74	1.83	4.67^**
Working Conditions	.63	.65	.45	.69	.73	.65	.68	.67	.88	.67	.80	.68	5.89^**	10.27^** ^*
Status	.54	.64	.53	.71	.45	.62	.52	.66	.52	.59	.39	.51	2.48	3.28^*
Advancement	1.21	.80	1.07	.85	1.08	.80	1.18	.77	1.11	.76	1.07	.74	4.74^**	1.67
Recognition	1.17	.66	1.14	.70	1.09	.70	1.09	.72	1.21	.68	.89	.74	2.62	4.20^*
Authority	−.05	.85	.04	.94	−.22	.84	−.13	.88	−.30	.84	−.32	.81	3.06^*	5.62^**
Social Status	−.19	1.00	−.13	1.01	−.17	.98	−.08	1.01	−.01	.90	−.12	.86	.90	.33
Altruism	.96	.66	.80	.65	.92	.62	.88	.66	1.02	.49	.88	.69	.95	1.67
Coworkers	.62	.70	.37	.73	.55	.68	.55	.67	.79	.63	.75	.77	5.48^**	2.72
Social Service	.69	.89	.71	.90	.59	.95	.71	.91	.55	.89	.52	.97	1.76	1.63
Morals	1.56	1.18	1.32	1.14	1.61	1.13	1.38	1.21	1.73	.97	1.37	1.21	2.66	3.65^*
Safety	.64	.65	.50	.65	.62	.58	.53	.58	.70	.57	.49	.52	.56	.65
Policies	.87	.67	.73	.74	.86	.67	.71	.67	.87	.70	.66	.65	.04	.17
Supervision-HR	.75	.81	.57	.75	.68	.72	.55	.72	.76	.70	.47	.70	.74	.30
Supervision-Tech. Skills	.29	.74	.20	.84	.34	.70	.31	.71	.47	.68	.34	.61	1.48	2.27
Autonomy	1.14	.64	1.14	.70	1.11	.60	1.12	.64	1.01	.57	.91	.75	1.51	3.75^*
Creativity	1.12	.72	1.17	.71	1.09	.69	1.14	.69	1.00	.63	.93	.80	1.88	4.19^*
Responsibility	1.15	.67	1.10	.80	1.10	.63	1.07	.69	.97	.67	.86	.79	1.41	3.15^*

^* p ≤ .01.

^** p ≤ .001.

Among men, ANCOVA results showed significant differences between generations for the overarching value, Comfort (F(2, 932) = 4.85, p < .01). Generation differences were found for 3 of the 20 work values facets for men—Security (F(2, 932) = 4.67, p < .01), Working Conditions (F(2, 932) = 10.27, p < .001), and Authority (F(2, 932) = 5.62, p < .01).

The second hypothesis assumed that Generation X workers would place more importance on intrinsic values, such as Achievement, Altruism, and Autonomy values, whereas Baby Boomers and Silent Generation workers would place more importance on extrinsic values such as like Comfort and Status values. Post hoc analyses of the significant generational differences from the first analysis were conducted to test these assumptions. The Bonferroni correction was used to adjust the significance level to account for multiple comparisons. Women among the Silent Generation were found to place significantly more importance on Advancement (p < .001) and Coworkers (p < .05) than did Baby Boom women. Additionally, the value of Working Conditions was significantly more important to Baby Boom workers (p < .05) and Generation X workers (p < .01) than did workers from the Silent Generation. Whereas, the value of Coworkers was most important to Generation X women.

Men from the Silent Generation were found to place significantly more importance on Authority than did Baby Boom (p < .05) or Generation X (p < .01) workers. Men from both the Baby Boom generation (p < .001) and the Generation X (p < .001) placed more importance on Working Conditions than did Silent Generation men. Baby Boom men (p < .05) and Generation X men (p < .05) also placed more importance on Comfort and Security than did Silent Generation men.

In sum, results only partially supported hypothesized relations. No generational differences were found in Achievement values as expected. While there was no difference in the overarching value of Altruism, some statistically significant differences in the facet values for Altruism (specifically Coworkers and Morals) were found. Generation X workers were not found to value Autonomy more than other generations. On the contrary, results showed that men of the Silent Generation placed more importance on the facet scales of Autonomy (Creativity and Responsibility) than did men from other generations. As expected, men of the Silent Generation placed more importance on the overarching value of Status and the corresponding facets of Recognition and Authority relative to other generations. Silent Generation women also placed more importance on Advancement than did women from other generations. Generation X workers, as anticipated, put more importance on Comfort (for men only) and on the facet values of Compensation, Security (men only), and Working Conditions than did Silent and Baby Boom Generation workers.

Predicting MIQ Scores From Generational Group and Age

The third set of analyses sought to evaluate and compare the strength of predicting MIQ scores from generation versus age. It was expected that while age may predict some values, generation would significantly predict a greater number of work values. This hypothesis was tested by examining the relationship between MIQ scores and generation by conducting categorical regressions using generational membership and age as independent variables and MIQ scores as dependent variables. Optimal scaling was used to allow the categorical data of generational membership to be used. For analyses, the Silent generation was assigned the lowest value and Generation X the highest; therefore, positive beta weights are indicative of increased importance of a value by more recent generations, while negative beta weights are indicative of decrease in importance by more recent generations. This analysis was done to determine if MIQ scores were significantly predicted by generational group and/or age, with the assumption that birth cohort, rather than age, would be more related to work values.

Categorical regressions for women suggested that generation significantly predicted the facet values of Activity (β = −.09, F(2, 757) = 5.40, p < .01), Compensation (β = .08, F(2, 757) = 5.05, p < .01), Working Conditions (β = .13, F(2, 757) = 10.28, p < .001), Advancement (β = −.13, F(2, 757) = 9.86, p < .001), Authority (β = −.10, F(2,757) = 5.48, p < .01), Coworkers (β = .11, F(2, 757) = 8.30, p < .001), and Morals (β = .10, F(2, 757) = 6.07, p < .01). Age was found to be a significant predictor for the facet work values of Activity (β = −.10, F(1, 757) = 6.73, p < .01), Advancement (β = −.12, F(1, 757) = 8.75, p < .01), Coworkers (β = −.16, F(1, 757) = 18.60, p < .001), and Morals (β = .13, F(1, 757) = 10.29, p < .001). Overall, effect sizes were in the small range (R ² < .02) with the exception of Coworkers, which generation and age yielded a moderate effect size (R ² = .03). No overarching values were significantly predicted for women (Table 3 ).

Table 3.

Predicting MIQ Scores by Generational Group and Age for Women

		Generation		Age
MIQ Scores	R ²	β	F	β	F
Achievement	.00	−.06	2.48	−.01	.16
Ability Utilization	.00	−.04	1.28	−.01	.12
Achievement	.00	−.06	2.22	−.05	1.60
Comfort	.00	.06	2.50	−.02	.32
Activity	.01	−.09	5.40^*	−.10	6.73^*
Independence	.00	.04	1.39	.00	.01
Variety	.00	.04	.91	−.07	3.06
Compensate	.01	.08	5.05^*	.04	1.04
Security	.01	.07	3.17	−.03	.71
Working Conditions	.01	.13	10.28^**	.07	3.20
Status	.01	−.08	4.08	−.07	2.71
Advancement	.02	−.13	9.86^**	−.12	8.75^*
Recognition	.01	−.08	4.48	−.09	5.00
Authority	.01	−.10	5.48^*	.00	.01
Social Status	.00	.06	2.52	.00	.01
Altruism	.00	.06	2.32	.01	.02
Coworkers	.03	.11	8.30^**	−.16	18.60^**
ocial Service	.01	−.09	4.19	−.06	2.03
Morals	.02	.10	6.07^*	.13	10.29^**
Safety	.00	.05	1.70	.02	.29
Policies	.00	−.01	.04	.03	.51
Supervision of Human Relations	.00	−.04	1.28	−.01	.11
Supervision of Technical Skills	.01	.08	4.06	.01	.10
Autonomy	.00	−.07	2.74	−.03	.62
Creativity	.01	−.06	2.40	−.07	2.59
Responsibility	.01	−.07	3.17	.00	.01

Note: *p ≤ .01.

**p ≤ .001.

Results for men found that generation was a significant predictor for the overarching values of Comfort (β = .13, F(2, 932) = 10.70, p < .001), Status (β = −10, F(2, 932) = 6.67, p < .001), and Autonomy (β = −.09, F(2, 932) = 5.94, p < .01). Facet values predicted by generation included Compensation (β = .11, F(2, 932) = 7.12, p < .001), Security (β = .12, F(2, 932) = 8.65, p < .001), Working Conditions (β = .18, F(2, 932) = 19.86, p < .001), Recognition (β = −.10, F(2, 932) = 6.50, p < .01), Authority (β = −.13, F(2, 932) = 11.34, p < .001), Coworkers (β = .08, F(2, 932) = 4.77, p < .01), Morals (β = .12, F(2, 932) = 8.32, p < .001), Creativity (β = −.11, F(2, 932) = 9.41, p < .001), and Responsibility (β = −.08, F(2, 932) = 4.91, p < .01; Table 4 ).

Table 4.

Predicting MIQ Scores by Generational Group and Age for Men

		Generation		Age
MIQ Scores	R ²	β	F	β	F
Achievement	.01	−.06	3.74	.03	.83
Ability Utilization	.00	−.06	3.18	−.03	.69
Achievement	.01	−.05	2.24	−.03	.96
Comfort	.01	.13	10.70^**	.08	4.03
Activity	.00	−.04	1.13	.01	.07
Independence	.00	.07	3.19	.07	2.90
Variety	.00	−.02	.28	.02	.42
Compensate	.01	.11	7.12^**	.07	3.22
Security	.01	.12	8.65^**	.06	2.17
Working Conditions	.03	.18	19.86^**	.04	.88
Status	.01	−.10	6.67^**	−.12	9.10^*
Advancement	.02	.06	2.70	−.14	17.72^**
Recognition	.01	−.10	6.50^*	−.07	3.22
Authority	.01	−.13	11.34^**	−.06	2.09
Social Status	.01	.03	.73	−.08	4.24
Altruism	.01	.08	4.20	.06	2.03
Coworkers	.03	.08	4.77^*	−.11	8.48^*
Social Service	.00	−.06	2.89	−.03	.76
Morals	.02	.12	8.32^**	.16	16.42^**
Safety	.00	.04	1.11	.04	1.38
Policies	.00	−.04	.97	.06	2.28
Supervision of Human Relations	.00	−.03	1.04	.02	.53
Supervision of Technical Skills	.00	.07	2.92	.02	.21
Autonomy	.01	−.09	5.94^*	−.04	1.22
Creativity	.01	−.11	9.41^**	−.07	3.62
Responsibility	.01	−.08	4.91^*	−.01	.11

Note: *p ≤ .01.

**p ≤ .001.

Age significantly predicted the overarching value of Status for men (β = −.12, F(2, 932) = 9.10, p < .01). Three facet values were predicted by age—Advancement (β = −.14, F(2, 932) = 17.72, p < .001), Coworkers (β = −.11, F(2, 932) = 8.48, p < .01), and Morals (β = .16, F(2, 932) = 16.42, p < .001). Effect sizes for men suggested few moderate effects (R ² = .03) for the values of Working Conditions and Coworkers, with most effect sizes being small (R ² < .02). As expected, generational group seemed to be more related to MIQ scores than age in most cases. Additionally, effect sizes were small overall.

Discussion

Results of the present study suggest that there are few differences in work values among the three generations studied. The few generational differences in overarching work values were only for men on the values of Comfort—highest among Generation X—and Status and Autonomy—highest among Silent Generation men. A more fine-grained analysis using the facet scales showed that both women and men from Generation X endorsed increased importance on Compensation and Working Conditions. Women of Generation X also placed increased importance on the values of Coworkers, while women of the Silent generation placed more importance on Advancement. Men of the Silent generation indicated the values of Recognition, Creativity, and Responsibility were more important than did other generations. Security and Moral values were highest among Generation X men relative to men of the Silent and Baby Boom generations.

Given the popular opinion that GenXers are quite different from older generations, finding so few differences in measured values was unexpected. One possible explanation for this disconnect between perception and empirical results may be embedded in the way in which the content of values items are interpreted by different generations. The most robust finding was that more recent generations placed more importance on Working Conditions than did workers from the Silent Generation. This finding is similar to results from Sverko (1999) who also found that working environment was more important to recent cohorts than earlier cohorts. Similarly, Rodriguez, Green, and Ree (2003) found that Generation X workers valued a fun and challenging environment more than Baby Boomers did. Many have suggested that the corporate environment has become increasingly important to younger generations who expect their work and home lives to intersect (Hammill, 2005; Losyk, 1997). Organizations note that Generation X workers are more likely to switch organizations if they do not feel that their work needs are met (Cohen, 2002; DeMarco, 2007), which has important cost ramifications for organizations. Moreover, men from the Baby Boom and Generation X cohorts showed increased importance on the value of Comfort, which may be another indication of the importance of the work environment for recent generations.

Second, increased importance of Compensation for both women and men of Generation X was found. Sverko (1999) and Twenge and colleagues (2010) found similar results using a time-lag design that assessed same-age individuals at different times. Interestingly, main stream discussions more often cite Baby Boomers as more interested in pay than Generation X workers (Kupperschmidt, 2000; Strauss & Howe, 1991; Williams, 2010). Wording of this item on the MIQ may provide one explanation for this confounding result in the present study. On the MIQ, Compensation is worded as “My pay would compare well to that of other workers,” which emphasizes equality. It has been noted that Generation X workers value respect and equality (Cooper & Cooper, 1998; Fisher, 2006), which might be captured in this instance more so than the importance of high pay.

Research by the Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School (2006) suggests that workers from more recent generations prefer working in industries that can offer more job security. While younger generations value security, they value security in their profession rather than having security in their current job, which is unlike individuals of the Silent Generation who appear to closely link job security to tenure in the company for which they worked (Cooper & Cooper, 1998; Kupperschmidt, 2000). These notions were supported in the current study in that Generation X men were found to place increased importance on Security relative to men from the Silent and Baby Boom generations.

Overall, no generational differences in altruistic values were found, which is consistent with results from Lyons et al. (2005a) and Twenge et al. (2010). Despite these findings, organizations still assume that more recent generations place more value on opportunities to be altruistic and thus still continue to invest in programs, such as volunteering on company time, to entice these generations to join their organizations (Needleman, 2008; Skelton, 2010).

Further analyses addressed whether generation and/or age were significant predictors of MIQ scores and found that in numerous cases, MIQ scores were significantly predicted by generation for both women and men (Compensation, Working Conditions, Authority, Coworkers, and Morals). Age was also a significant predictor of some values for both women and men (Advancement, Coworkers, and Morals). Comparisons between the generation analysis and the age analysis suggest that generation, as expected, had more influence on work values than did age. Despite these results, examination of effect sizes showed that generation and age had little effect, albeit statistically significant, on work values. The exception to this is the moderate effect of generation and age on the importance of Coworkers for both women and men and the importance of Working Conditions for Men. As mentioned previously, the association of generation and the importance of Working Conditions seems to be consistent in the literature with Generation X employees indicating their working environment is important to their satisfaction (Rodriguez et al., 2003; Sverko, 1999).

Later generation was found to predict importance of Coworkers, which is consistent with results from previous research (Hagstrom & Gamberale, 1995; Lyons et al., 2005a; Real et al., 2010), which suggests that younger generations place more value on social connections at work. However, others also have found that Generation X workers place less value (van der Velde et al., 1998) or possibly equal importance (Twenge et al., 2010) on social relationships at work than do workers from the Baby Boom Generation or Silent Generation. A lack of consensus on this point may be due to the differing reasons by each generation for wanting relationships at work. One suggestion is that workers of the Silent Generation do value relationships at work but may be more apt to play the role of mediator or mentor (Cooper & Cooper, 1998; Dunn-Cane, Gonzalez, & Stewart, 1999) where Generation X workers want to be able to have positive relationships at work to foster collaboration and establish a voice in decision-making processes (DeMarco, 2007; Fisher, 2006). Thus, depending on the way in which a values item is worded, different generations may endorse valuing connections with coworkers but for varying reasons.

Study results suggest that aging also seems to be related to decreased importance in getting along with coworkers. The negative relationship between age and the importance of coworkers is consistent with previous findings by Cherrington et al. (1979) and Singer and Stefflre (1954), which suggested that older individuals placed less importance on social connections at work. A reason for this finding may be that as workers age, they likely have developed and established more friendships and do not need work to provide as much social support as do younger workers. This also may explain why generational differences in the importance of social relationships at work tends not to be found in time-lag studies where participants of generations are measured at the same age (e.g., Twenge et al., 2010) while significant differences are found when this value is assessed using cross-sectional methods, when individuals from earlier generations are also older than individuals from more recent generations (e.g., Lyons et al., 2005a; Real et al., 2010).

Individuals also placed greater importance on doing work that is in line with their morals as they aged. Increased importance on morality of the work has been shown to be related to increased life experiences, such as education, which is accumulated with age (Cherrington et al., 1979). Complicating this finding is that the importance of Morals also was predicted by generation, with more recent generations endorsing more importance in work that is consistent with their moral values. Finding that both generation and age influence Moral values may explain why only marginal differences in Moral values were found between different cohorts in the first analysis. Furthermore, this may suggest that as Generation X workers age, the importance of doing working consistent with one’s morals may be even more important to their job satisfaction.

The lack of research that explores both age and birth year and/or generation makes it difficult to put the results of the present study into context. Research by Sinisalo (1994) examined changes in work values in adolescents groups measured in 1977, 1984, and 1995. He found that the 1995 cohort of adolescents valued creativity, developing skills, and responsibility more than the two older cohorts. In the present sample, individuals of the Silent Generation rated the importance of Creativity and Responsibility higher than individuals of the Baby Boom or Generation X cohorts, which is inconsistent with mainstream rhetoric about Generation X workers being motivated by chances to be autonomous and develop creative solutions (Cohen, 2002; Cooper & Cooper, 1998; Dunn-Cane et al., 1999). This inconsistency between the findings for the present sample and for Sinisalo’s sample could possibly be due to cultural differences as well as the different age at which values were measured. Sinisalo’s study focused on values among a sample of adolescents in the ninth grade of school in Finland, who all were 15- to 16-years old. In addition to country of origin differences, Sinisalo’s sample differs from the present sample in that participants were younger, had less education, and likely had less work experience, all variables that have been related to one’s development of work values (Cherrington et al., 1979; Johnson & Elder, 2002; Pinfield, 1984).

To some extent age is related to different life events, such that as one ages, more opportunities occur to experience events that could affect the development of one’s values. While age may serve as one way to account for differences in culminated life experiences, additional research that accounts for age and life events may be able to offer clarification about the processes involved in work value development. Moreover, more longitudinal research is needed to tease apart the antecedents and consequences of different work values.

An overarching caution about the present results is the interpretation of these findings, given that the mean differences between work values between the three generations studied were very small although statistically significant in some cases. Further examination of previous research also suggests that while work values of different generations may vary, the magnitude of these differences is quite small. The small effect sizes found in the present study are similar to other results. For instance, research by both Smola and Sutton (2002) and Hagstrom and Gamberale (1995) concluded that the results indicated differences among different generations, but upon further examination, the effect sizes for both studies suggest very small differences between groups.

Furthermore, an order of importance analysis for the three generations in the current study (i.e., ordering mean MIQ scores from most to least important) showed very few differences in rank order. (See Table 2 for cohort mean scores on all MIQ scales.) For instance, with the exception of Generation X women, every group rated Achievement, Autonomy, and Altruism as the top three important values, respectively. For Generation X women, the top three values were Achievement, Altruism, and Autonomy, respectively. The only notable differences in values were among the order of work values rated as less important (e.g., Safety, Status, and Comfort). Thus, as Jurkiewicz and Brown (1998) point out, very few work values differ by generation, especially when the ranking, instead of rating, of work values is examined.

Given that most of the values measured do not appear to be different across generations, and that even the statistically significant differences were small, the question still remains why organizations have observed differing values among generations in the workplace. As research by Deal (2007) contends, even among values that are similar across generations, the ways in which individuals of each generation satisfy these values in the workplace may contribute to conflicts in the workplace. For example, Deal (2007) found that 72% of participants across generations placed high importance on family, but for older workers this may be expressed by working long hours to earn a larger income whereas for younger workers it may mean working fewer hours to allow more time with family (Ballenstedt & Rosenberg, 2008). Thus, while all generations may value family, individuals from different generations may use opposing means to express the importance they place on their families. The assumption that each generation may interpret work values differently could explain why a survey by the career firm of Lee Hecht Harrison found that 60% of workplaces report tensions between employees of different generations (as cited in Armour, 2005).

In addition, existing measures of work values may not be assessing values that younger workers find important and therefore may be neglecting information on the source of these observed value differences. Authors have noted that younger workers value work environments that facilitate a balance between work and family demands (Armour, 2005). Research done by Catalyst (2001), a nonprofit organization that focuses on expanding opportunities for women in business, found that younger workers were attracted to organizations that offered benefits and options to balance work and life commitments such as telecommuting and flexible work hours. Others posit that younger workers value a workplace that is laid-back, fun, and allows casual dress where as older workers value more formal work environments (Catalyst, 2001, Lancaster & Stillman, 2002; Kelly Services, 2005). Items that assess these attitudes are not included in extant work values inventories. Therefore, the values that may yield the most meaningful differences between generational groups are not being assessed.

Knowledge about differences in work values and the means to satisfy these values based on one’s age or generation is valuable to organizations. As the Baby Boom generation, the largest segment of individuals participating in paid labor, begin to age and leave the workforce organizations have become concerned with attracting and retaining Generation X and Y workers to fill their positions (Deal, 2007; Dohm, 2000). Additionally, there is speculation that the exit of older workers will create talent shortages and make succession planning increasingly difficult for organizations (Dychtwald, Erickson, & Morison, 2006; Lancaster & Stillman, 2002). To plan for these changes, evidence suggests that one way to attract and increase the tenure of employees is by providing organizational environments that reinforce what is of importance to individuals (Dychtwald et al., 2006; Hesketh et al., 1992). If organizations incorporate information about the work values of different cohorts of workers into their organizational culture, greater satisfaction and retention of workers is expected. For example, in the current study, Generation X workers were found to value Working Conditions and Compensation more than other generations. Therefore, workplaces that can provide comfortable environments, offer a variety of different positions for continued employment, and provide equitable pay may be more likely to satisfy and retain Generation X workers. On the other hand, workers from the Silent Generation were found to value advancement, status, and recognition, so work tasks that provide opportunities to develop into new positions and provide formalized acknowledgement of accomplishments would likely satisfy workers of this generation, retaining their talent in the workforce longer. While it is known that congruence between work environments and individual’s work values predicts satisfaction and tenure, developing work environments based on knowledge of work values for different generations merits further examination.

Using information about work values of individuals from various generational cohorts is also important to maintaining communication in organizations. Much of the interest in generational differences has been driven by increasing conflicts between generations, or the generation gap, a term coined by Mead (1970). As numerous authors suggest, contributing to the disconnect between various generations in the workplace is the lack of communication and understanding between generations within organizations (Lancaster & Stillman, 2002; Zemke, Raines, & Filipczak, 2000). Information about what is important in work environments for each generation can help bridge this gap and aid in creating common ground between workers from different generations. Ways to further understand and educate workers about how each generation may have similar values, but different means to satisfy these values, is an important area for future research.

Limitations

The present study sought to expand the existing empirical research on work values of individuals from three cohorts. Furthermore, the relationship between work values, age, and generation was examined. The present study used a sample of individuals seeking career services, who may have been dissatisfied with their current occupations. It is unknown whether possible job dissatisfaction may have had an impact on participants’ work values. Moreover, previous research has not used the MIQ to investigate generational differences in work values. Additional investigations of work values of generations using the same measures would be beneficial to establishing a consistent pattern of work values for each generation.

Footnotes

Authors made equal contributions to this publication.

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

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Armour

(2005, November 16). Generation Y, they’ve arrived at work with a new attitude. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2005-11-06-gen-y_x.html

Arnett

J. J.

(2000). High hopes in a grim world: Emerging adults’ views of their futures and of Generation X. Youth & Society, 31, 267–286.

Ballenstedt

Rosenberg

(2008, July 1). De-generation. Government Executive. Retrieved from http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=40350&dcn=todays_most_popular

Catalyst. (2001). The Next Generation: Today’s Professionals, Tomorrow’s Leaders. Retrieved from http://www.catalyst.org/file/46/the%20next%20generation%20today’s%20professionals,%20tomorrow’s%20leaders.pdf

Berings

De Fruyt

Bouwen

(2004). Work values and personality traits as predictors of enterprising and social vocational interests. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 349–364.

Beutell

N. J.

Brenner

O. C.

(1986). Sex differences in work values. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 28, 29–41.

Bizot

E. B.

Goldman

S. H.

(1993). Prediction of satisfactoriness and satisfaction: An 8-year follow-up. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 43, 19–29.

Brief

A. P.

Aldag

R. J.

(1975). Male-female differences in occupational attitudes within minority groups. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 6, 305–314.

Brief

A. P.

Oliver

R. L.

(1976). Male-female differences in work attitudes among retail sales managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 526–528.

10.

Cennamo

Gardner

(2008). Generational differences in work values, outcomes, and person-organisation values fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 891–906.

11.

Cherrington

D. J.

Condie

S. J.

England

J. L.

(1979). Age and work values. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 617–623.

12.

Cohen

(2002). I/Os in the know offer insights on Generation X workers. Monitor on Psychology, 33, 66–67.

13.

Cooper

J. F.

Cooper

E. A.

(1998). Generational dynamics and librarianship: Managing Generation X. Illinois Libraries, 80, 18–21.

14.

Dawis

(2002). Person-Environment-Correspondence Theory. In Brown

S. D.

Associates (4th ed.). Career choice and development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

15.

Dawis

R. V.

(2005). The Minnesota theory of work adjustment. In Brown

Lent

(Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (chap. 1). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

16.

Dawis

R. V.

Lofquist

L. H.

(1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

17.

Deal

J. J.

(2007). Retiring the generation gap: How employees young and old can find common ground. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

18.

DeMarco

(2007). HR: The Gen-X friendly workplace. Manufacturing News. Retried from http://www.themanufacturer.com/us/content/5752/HR:_The_Gen-X_friendly_workplace

19.

Dohm

(2000). Gauging the labor force effects of retiring baby-boomers. Monthly Labor Review, 123, 17–25.

20.

Dunn-Cane

K. M.

Gonzalez

J. L.

Stewart

H. P.

(1999). Managing the new generation. Association of Operation Room Nurses, 69, 930. 933–936, 939–940.

21.

Dychtwald

Erickson

T. J.

Morison

(2006). Workforce crisis: How to beat the coming shortage of skills and talent. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

22.

Elizur

(1994). Gender and work values: A comparative analysis. Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 201–212.

23.

Fisher

(2006). What do Gen Xers want [Online exclusive]? Fortune. Retrieved July 23, 2009, from http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/17/news/companies/bestcos_genx/index.htm

24.

Gay

E. G.

Weiss

D. J.

Hendel

D. D.

Dawis

R. V.

Lofquist

L. H.

(1971). Manual for the Minnesota Importance Questionnaire. Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, 28.

25.

Hagstrom

Gamberale

(1995). Young people’s work motivation and value orientation. Journal of Adolescence, 18, 475–490.

26.

Hammill

(2005). Mixing and managing four generations of employees [Online exclusive]. FDU Magazine Online. Retrieved July 23, 2009, from http://www.fdu.edu/newspubs/magazine/05ws/generations.htm

27.

Hendel

D. D.

Weiss

D. J.

(1970). Individual inconsistency and reliability of measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 579–593.

28.

Hesketh

McLachlan

Gardner

(1992). Work adjustment theory: An empirical test using a fuzzy rating scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40, 318–337.

29.

Johnson

M. K.

Elder

G. H.

Jr. (2002). Educational pathways and work value trajectories. Sociological Perspectives, 45, 113–138.

30.

Jurkiewicz

C. L.

(2000). Generation X and the public employee. Public Personnel Management, 29, 55–74.

31.

Jurkiewicz

C. L.

Brown

R. G.

(1998). GenXers vs. Boomers vs. Matures: Generational comparisons of public employee motivation. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 18, 18–37.

32.

Kalleberg

A. L.

Stark

(1993). Career strategies in capitalism and socialism: Work values and job rewards in the United States and Hungary. Social Forces, 72, 181–198.

33.

Kelly Services. (2005, July). Getting workplace value from Generation Y. Smartmanager, 87. Retrieved from http://www.smartmanager.com.au/web/au/smartmanager/en/pages/87_workplace_value_gen_y.html

34.

Kupperschmidt

B. R.

(2000). Multigenerational employees: Strategies for effective management. Health Care Manager, 19, 65–76.

35.

Lancaster

L. C.

Stillman

(2002). When generations collide: Who they are. Why they clash. How to solve the generational puzzle at work. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

36.

Lefkowitz

(1994). Sex-related differences in job attitudes and dispositional variables: Now you see them …. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 323–349.

37.

Losyk

(1997). Generation X: What they think and what they plan to do. The Futurist, 31, 39–44.

38.

Lyons

Duxbury

Higgins

(2005a). An empirical assessment of generational differences in work-related values. Human Resource Management, 26, 62–71.

39.

Lyons

Duxbury

Higgins

(2005b). Are gender differences in basic human values a generational phenomenon? Sex Roles, 53, 763–778.

40.

Manhardt

P. J.

(1972). Job orientation of male and female college graduates in business. Personnel Psychology, 25, 361–368.

41.

Mason

S. E.

(1994). Work values: A gender comparison and implications for practice. Psychological Reports, 74, 415–418.

42.

Macnab

Fitzsimmons

G. W.

(1987). A multitrait-multimethod study of work-related needs values and preferences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 30, 1–15.

43.

Mead

(1970). Culture and commitment: A study of the generation gap. Garden City, NY: Natural History Press.

44.

Needleman

S. E.

(2008, April 29). The latest office perk: Getting paid to volunteer. Wall Street Journal, 25–26. Retrieved August 31, 2010, from http://www.onlinewsj.com

45.

Pinfield

L. T.

(1984). A comparison of pre- and postemployment work values. Journal of Management, 10, 363–370.

46.

Real

Mitnick

A. D.

Maloney

W. F.

(2010). More similar than different: Millennials in the U.S. building trades. Journal of Business Psychology, 25, 303–313.

47.

Rhodes

S. R.

(1983). Age-related differences in work attitudes and behavior: A review and conceptual analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 328–367.

48.

Rodriguez

R. O.

Green

M. T.

Ree

M. J.

(2003). Leading Generation X: Do the old rules apply? The Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9, 67–75.

49.

Rounds

J. B.

(1990). The comparative and combined utility of work value and interest data in career counseling with adults. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 32–45.

50.

Rounds

J. B.

Henley

G. A.

Dawis

R. V.

Lofquist

L. H.

Weiss

D. J.

(1981). Manual for the Minnesota Importance Questionnaire: A measure of vocational needs and values. Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

51.

Simmons

D. D.

Penn

J. R.

(1994). Stability and sharing of value norms among American university student cohorts in 1970, 1980, and 1990. Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 69–78.

52.

Singer

S. L.

Stefflre

(1954). Age differences in job values and desires. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1, 89–91.

53.

Sinisalo

(1994). Changing work values and expressed educational plans of adolescents: A cross-sectional follow-up of three cohorts in Finland. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 19, 227–236.

54.

Skelton

(2010, July 21). Getting paid to volunteer is new corporate trend. Lincoln Star Journal. Retrieved August 31, 2010, from http://journalstar.com

55.

Smith

J. W.

Clurman

(1998). Rocking the ages, the Yankelovich report on generational marketing. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

56.

Smola

K. W.

Sutton

C. D.

(2002). Generational differences: Revisiting generational work values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 363–382.

57.

Strauss

Howe

(1991). Generations: The history of America’s future, 1584 to 2069. New York, NY: Quill William Morrow.

58.

Super

D. E.

(1980). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 52, 129–148.

59.

Super

D. E.

Crites

J. O.

Hummel

R. C.

Moser

H. P.

Overstreet

P. L.

Warnath

C. L.

(1957). Vocational development: A framework for research. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

60.

Sverko

(1999). The Work Importance Study: Recent changes of values in Croatia. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48, 89–102.

61.

Swenson

M. J.

Herche

(1994). Social values and salesperson performance: An empirical examination. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22, 283–289.

62.

Thiefoldt

Scheef

(2004, August). Generation X and the Millennials: What you need to know about mentoring the new generations. Law Practice Today. Retrieved from http://www.abanet.org/lpm/lpt/articles/nosearch/mgt08044_print.html

63.

Twenge

J. M.

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

64.

Twenge

J. M.

Campbell

S. M.

Hoffman

B. J.

Lance

C. E.

(2010). Generational difference in work values: Leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values decreasing. Journal of Management, Retrieved March 20, 2010. doi:10.1177/0149206309352246

65.

van der Velde

M. E. G.

Feji

J. A.

van Emmerick

(1998). Change in work values and norms among Dutch young adults: Aging or societal trends? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 22, 55–76.

66.

Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School. (2006, October 13). For which reasons does Generation Y work? [Press Release]. Retrieved from http://www.vlerick.be/en/news/news/686-VLK.html

67.

Weiss

D. J.

Dawis

R. V.

Lofquist

L. H.

England

G. W.

(1966). Instrumentation for the Theory of Work Adjustment. Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, 21.

68.

Williams

R. B.

(2010, August 1). Money no longer the motivator for Gen X and Gen Y? [Online exclusive]. Psychology Today. Retrieved on September 3, 2010, from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201008/money-no-longer-the-motivator-gen-x-and-gen-y

69.

Young

R. A.

(1984). Vocational choice and values in adolescent women. Sex Roles, 10, 485–492.

70.

Zemke

Raines

Filipczak

(2000). Generations at work: Managing the clash of Veterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in your workplace. New York, NY: AMACOM.

71.

Zytowski

D. G.

(1994). A Super contribution to career theory: Work values. Career Development Quarterly, 42, 25–31.