sampling
Running head: RESEARCH PROJECT 1
Ongoing Research Project
Michael
University
Research 8250
Professor X
Background
There are currently four generations working side by side in today’s workforce, yet very soon, there will be a fifth adding to the mix as the oldest generation ages out of the workforce and enters retirement (Zemke, Raines, & Filipczak, 2000). The Silent Generation have all but retired, but some still occupy positions in the workplace and still have significant influence through voting, media, and “heritage” or “emeritus” positions in high-placed institutions such as universities or executive boards. They were born around 1925 through 1945. The Baby Boomers are those said to be born between 1946 and 1964, many are still working and due to retirement age increases and the downfalls of the economy. This generation is can be found amongst Americans leadership at many city, state, and federal levels. The Baby Boomers, despite being rowdy and experimental in their youth, settled into a self-centered and materialistic approach to life in the 1980s, with a clear majority turning to Reagan, Reaganite neoliberal policies and even to religion through “born again” Christianity. Generation X is often referred to as the MTV Generation; they were born between 1965 and 1980. Many grew up during the Vietnam War and the rise of the AIDS virus. They are characterized by their hedonistic approach to life, their rejection of traditional values put forth by their conservative parents, and a cynicism for the established norms of society. Next is Generation Y, or the Millennials, which was born between 1981 and 1995. This generation saw the Persian Gulf War unfold before their very eyes on national television, and soon followed the OJ Simpson trial, as well as Former President Clinton’s impeachment. This so-called Millennial generation is among the most maligned in history, having been dismissed as narcissists and mindless, materialistic and venal workaholics (Barton, Koslow, Fromm, & Egan, 2012; Bergman, Fearrington, Davenport, & Bergman, 2011; Donatone, 2013; Twenge, 2013). This generation has simultaneously grown up with the Internet and yet still carries memories of the world before the digital sphere took over; this generation has nonetheless been denigrated in the popular press to the point where few take people of this generation seriously, even as they “age” into the dominant workforce generation. The newest generation that will be going to work soon is Generation Z, who were born toward the end of the 1990’s to 2010. This generation witnessed the 9/11 attacks from elementary school and endured OIF/OEF each day of their lives, with many seeing parents sent off to the Middle East and shipped home in body bags or with extreme disabilities. They have always known of Homeland Security’s threat levels to include increased airport security. They are soon to be the target demographic of colleges, militaries, private industries, and commerce. However, are these institutions ready for this generation?
According to Jeongeun, Jiyun, Jaquette and Bastedo (2014), there has been a shift in the labor market in the last one decade. Following the technological evolution, most organizations focused on the mechanization of labor in disregard of the human capital requirements. The trend led to the over-reliance on the mechanized systems, which also affect the efficacy of the entire human capital. The adoption has also created challenges in the realization of integrated, diversified, and motivated human capital resources. The current global diversity has led to the recruitment of employees from different social, cultural, and political forums (Fedele, 2016). Integration of the generation Z development might help the organizations in again gain a cohesive and reliable workforce (Zemke, Raines, & Filipczak, 2000).
Problem Statement
The technological evolution has led to high mechanization of employees. In this regard, the human capital has lost its ability to interrelate and remain cohesive. The decline of innovation is one of the obvious consequences of inappropriate labor market entry and overshadowing of the human interactions and subjectivity. Because different generations have experienced technological saturation differently, this leads to meaningful generational differences that must be addressed in the workforce and for which managers and others must be ready.
Purpose of the Study
The study will use a quantitative methodology to analyze the factors that lead to ineffective human capital and to then integrate them with human capital approaches to the future / emerging generation Z. By combining useful human capital approaches with known information about generational cohorts and their characteristics, the study seeks to help to outline meaningful takeaways with respect to generational cohorts and their motivation, especially as related to technology. This particular method of inquiry will include surveys and non-intrusive observations that follow ethical and other protocols for human subject observation. The investigated aspects will include the cultural limits, motivation level, age difference, and remuneration across skills. The study will provide insights on the best possible approach to empower human capital while maintaining a contemporary approach to understanding mechanization and its impacts on the workplace, along with the differential ways in which it may affect the different generations of workers.
Literature Review
The following are articles that I found using the Walden University library PsycARTICLES database and a set of carefully-chosen keywords to help delineate the highest quality peer-reviewed sources. I strongly believe that each of these articles will support my ongoing research project. The research question being asked is as follows:
R1. How does motivation change across generational cohorts before and after technology in the workplace has been introduced?
Key Words: Motivation, Generation, Employee
Article 1
Motivation at Work: Which matters more, generations or managerial level (Deal, et al (2013).
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether generations differ in level of work motivation and whether differences in work motivation are better explained by managerial level than by generation. Data were collected from 3,440 working participants by using an online survey. Results indicate that managerial level better explains work motivation than does generational cohort. Although Gen Xers, Late Boomers, and Early Boomers did differ in external and introjected work motivation, there was substantially more variance in work motivation explained by managerial level. Individuals at lower managerial levels had higher levels of external motivation than did those at higher managerial levels, whereas individuals at higher managerial levels had higher levels of intrinsic, identified, and introjected motivation. Understanding that work motivation appears to be more related to managerial level than it is to generation advances our knowledge of both generational differences and motivation at work. This knowledge assists practitioners by providing evidence that organizations should look to factors of level more than generation when acting to understand and improve employee motivation. Our study shows that in the current managerial working population, work motivation is related to managerial level more than it is to generation. This finding may be surprising to those who assume that the different generations constitute fundamentally different cultures.
Article 2
Age as a moderator of attitude towards technology in the workplace: work motivation and overall job satisfaction (Eliasa, Smith, & Barneya, 2012).
Given the prevalence of technology in the workplace, an understanding of employees' attitudes towards technology is essential. It is also important if these attitudes can be drilled down into educational level or generational cohort. Such attitudes have been linked to such important issues as the successful implementation of new technologies in the workplace, employee intent to use technology, and the actual usage of technology by employees. As a result of the rapidly aging workforce, and because age has been linked to computer use and comfort, it is important to examine the relationship that may exist between age and attitudes towards technology. This study examines age as a moderator of 612 employees' attitudes towards technology in relation to work motivation (intrinsic and extrinsic) and overall job satisfaction. Further, given the technological socialisation of the Generation X (Gen X) versus the Baby Boomers, our sample comprised these two demographics. Hierarchical moderated multiple regression indicates age moderates the relationship between attitude towards technology and intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and to a lesser extent, overall job satisfaction. In each instance, older employees exhibit the strongest relationships with the outcome variables when possessing a high attitude towards technology. In contrast, older employees exhibit the weakest relationships when possessing a low attitude towards technology. These results are supportive of the moderating effect of age on attitude towards technology. Therefore, the article seems to include that attitude, rather than age, has a strong effect on how people react to technology. Finally, implications and directions for future research are discussed.
Article 3
Within-individual increases in innovative behavior and creative, persuasion, and change self-efficacy over time: A social-cognitive theory perspective (Ng, & Lucianetti, 2016).
Studies of innovative behavior (the generation, dissemination, and implementation of new ideas) have generally overlooked the agency perspective on this important type of performance behavior. Guided by social– cognitive theory, we propose a moderated mediation relationship to explain why and how employees become motivated to make things happen through their innovative endeavors. First, we propose that within-individual increases in organizational trust and perceived respect by colleagues promote within-individual increases in creative, persuasion, and change self-efficacy over time. Second, we propose that within-individual increases in self-efficacy beliefs promote within-individual increases an idea generation, dissemination, and implementation over time. Finally, we propose that psychological collectivism (a between-individual variable) is a moderator, and that a higher level of psychological collectivism weakens the positive relationship between within-individual increases in self-efficacy beliefs and within-individual increases in innovative behavior. Repeated measures were collected from 267 employees in Italy at three different time points.
Article 4
The Relationship between Cohabitation and Marital Quality and Stability: Change across Cohorts. (Dush, Cohan, & Amato, 2003).
This author is hesitant to draw conclusions between single and married cohorts, and their workplace productivity, more specifically, if divorce effects workplace productivity. If so, is one generation at a higher risk of divorce then another? It should be noted that this is a significant gap in research that could be explored. Dush, Cohan, & Amato (2003) studied two generational cohorts, the Baby Boomers and Generation X, and the effects of cohabitation on marital stability. They recognized that many heterosexual males who lived together for prolonged periods often resulted is future strained marriages, many of which resulted in divorce (Dush, Cohan, & Amato, 2003). Generation X was found to have 151% increased odds of divorce compared to the Baby Boomers ((Dush, Cohan, & Amato, 2003).
Article 5
The effects of military assignments and duties on the marital status of Navy officers (Doctoral dissertation, Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School).
Studies show that married male workers earn more than single male workers, and male worker’s in general earn more than female workers (Karacaoglu, 2003). Married officers in the U.S. military earn higher scores on evaluations than their single counterparts (Karacaoglu, 2003). This same article suggests that those with children often earn more than single people, but there was no conclusion suggesting that parents were more productive, just that they earn more, and thus several variables could affect this outcome. Research suggested from the authors of this dissertation proclaim that the specific job duties of employees have an overwhelming effect on marriage and in turn increased or decreased productivity (Karacaoglu, 2003).
Introduction
The article “Motivation at work: Which matters more, generation or managerial level?” (Deal et al., 2013) seeks to investigate whether generational cohort affects motivation. Using a survey methodology (n=3440), the authors ultimately found that while there were differences among motivation in different generations, hierarchy within the organization had a greater impact on motivation than generational identity. The conclusion of the authors was that people at lower levels of managerial hierarchy had lower levels of motivation, and the implications of this finding are discussed in the article. The article’s findings seem to defy the generational stereotypes and misconceptions that so often dominate discourse on this topic or inform the public’s general understanding of generational cohorts and their engagement with different forms of technology.
Critique of the Literature Review
The literature review for this study was of a very high quality. The authors broke up the literature review into several sections, including self-determination theory, motivation, and generational cohorts and the different theories about how they affect people. Since the main issue of the study was to evaluate the relationship between generational identity and motivation, it was critical to outline the academic conversation and various beliefs about these main areas of inquiry and belief. The authors did an excellent job of articulating the history of this conversation, even though this meant they drew on some articles that were older than five years old at the time of publication. However, this feature managed to enhance the study because it allowed for a fuller view of the topic. Since generational cohorts is a topic that varies significantly over time, with different generations seeing the very concept differently, it is important to consider the history of the research on this topic as well as the different ways that it has evolved over time.
Furthermore, the literature review does an excellent job of establishing an important framework for the study. The qualitative concepts of motivation and other issues could be lost in endless arguments about their relative definitions and merits, but the grounding in this high-quality literature review eliminates this possibility. It is a very unbiased and exhaustive approach to the topic, with a thorough discussion that seems to have left no stone unturned. Moreover, the literature review itself is grounded in explaining the hypotheses of the study and the ways that the authors sought to answer their questions through their study. The authors provide a three-page, single-spaced references section, which speaks to the truly exhaustive nature of the literature review and the interdisciplinary efforts in which they were engaged in its production. For those reasons, this is a very high quality literature review whose standard should be emulated by other scholars. The literature review more than justifies the assumptions with which the authors began the study and provides a robust theoretical underpinning for the study.
Critique of the Methods/Research Design
The authors’ methodology involved a very clear explanation, including an overview with an introduction to the methodology that outlined the four main hypotheses of the study as well as a more detailed outline of the methods. The authors specified the participants and procedures, including the basic demographic characteristics (n=3440; 1723 men and 1717 women; all were from the United States; average age of 46.1 years; 81% Caucasian). Although these methods are clearly outlined, the fact that the survey only went to people related to or part of the Center for Creative Leadership points to a certain potential for sample bias. The fact that the overwhelming majority of participants was Caucasian and middle-aged means that this is not a very diverse group, and that perhaps the findings are not as universally applicable as the authors would have wanted. The fact that the study was conducted only in the United States also points to the specter of potential sample bias. Therefore, the prospect of sample bias may have unfortunately impeded the generalizability of the results of the study.
The literature review was very strong, but the methodology of a self-reported survey and basic statistical analysis was not as innovative or strong as the promising and exhaustive literature review was. There was no triangulation of the self-reported data with another methodology, such as observation or laboratory testing. This is concerning, especially given the ways that the authors seem to come to their own conclusions, as well as disappointing, given the quality of the literature review. Self-reported data is notoriously unreliable, and the very limited sample set in this study further emphasizes the ways in which the study could be interpreted as classist or otherwise limited to the concerns of male, upper-middle class Caucasians. Further, from the perspective of generational cohort studies, the overwhelming emphasis on middle-aged Caucasians diminishes the contributions that this work can make to the overall literature. At the same time,
Critique of the Results
The results are presented both as numerical data sets as well as with a narrative. The authors clearly explain the justification for their conclusions as well as the intermediate steps they took in analyzing the statistical data. This allows the reader to judge for themselves and to potentially re-analyze the data within their own research. The data set is of major use because other researchers could pick up from it and reach different conclusions. For this reason, the study is of very high quality and represents a contribution.
Another useful thing about this article is how the authors have drilled down each finding into its relationship with the hypotheses they had postulated. They focused on all four of their hypotheses, including the ones that were not supported by the findings. This transparency is instructive and something that other scholars should strive for. Although they only did simple ANOVA tests of the data, the authors nonetheless presented their data in an unbiased way and were unafraid to admit when their results were not as predicted. This is admirable, especially in today’s “publish or perish” world in which careers could be ruined by simply admitting someone is wrong.
Thus, this is an exemplary results section. The authors may not have gotten the results they wanted, but they nonetheless presented them in an unbiased and very effective manner. Even novices to the field will gain knowledge by reading this section, and it provides useful data that many people will benefit from reading and analyzing as they conduct future studies. For nascent scholars seeking to find inspiration in existing works, this article’s results are promising and reassuring because they show how someone can take less-than-desirable results and nonetheless craft a useful piece of scholarship that adds to the intellectual conversation about any topic of interest.
Critique of the Discussion
The discussion of the results could have been taken further by the authors. The authors organize the discussion around four “interesting” findings and several potential explanations. As a discussion section, this is exemplary and gives novice scholars something to aspire to. However, the authors could have gone into greater depth or analysis of the implications. Although they do a good job of explaining their findings as well as the limitations thereof, this section is not as in-depth as the literature review and could have gone further in outlining avenues for future research and analysis. The authors missed opportunities to outline further studies or ways that their hypotheses could be modified for future work.
The authors do account for the study’s limitations at length, which is to their credit (Deal et al., 2013, pp. 12-13). They note that there was self-selection and thus some kind of sample bias, as well as the fact that they could not mitigate for a control population that might be motivated but not working. The biggest limitation that they note, almost as an aside, was the lack of the Millennial generation cohort. This is a very significant limitation since the Millennials are a dominant generation in the workforce right now. As they begin to dominate culturally and economically, the Millennials’ unique features as a generational cohort will mandate greater study, so their exclusion from the study is truly unfortunate.
The discussion concludes with suggestions for future research, which are useful and orienting for those interested in investigating the topic. At the same time, however, they are rather perfunctory and do not go into detail, but rather seem to be an attempt to fill in the gaps of limitations in the present study. These suggestions are intuitive and would have already been obvious to the reader of the study, so they add very little to the study itself or to the literature. This is disappointing, since the reader of the study is already keenly aware through the exemplary sections of the article that the authors are talented and could do far better than what this section offers.
Overall Evaluation
This is overall a very useful contribution to the literature on motivation and management, but the study has some very significant limitations. The literature review is exhaustive and provides an extensive reference / starting point for those who are interested in the topic, but the methodology of the study relies far too heavily on self-reported information and data. The study answers some interesting questions, but the exclusion of a major demographic or generational cohort means that its relevance is very limited in the contemporary world. The study is a useful contribution, as should be emphasized again, but at the same time, its methodology is very limited in terms of what it can offer in the long-term to those who seek to investigate the relationship between motivation and generational cohort or generational identity. Furthermore, the limited sample means that it simply reinforces knowledge about white men, which is decreasingly relevant in today’s pluralistic, increasingly diverse world.
Discussion
The preliminary results from this literature review reveal that there is something of a schizophrenic approach to generational studies in the workplace. Although the ascent of one generation and the descent of another is by definition a current and ongoing problem in business, if not even a metric by which a business should consider itself successful (after all, few businesses survive for the long-term), few studies have considered how to balance the needs of ascending and descending generations in the workforce. The stereotypical, almost clichéd line about technology is that the younger the generation, the better they are with technology. Yet this is a very simplistic view and as these studies have shown, other variables may significantly impact motivation, technological engagement, and other features.
Because there is currently very little information about the youngest generation, Generation Z, in the workplace, there is also a problem related to how little research exists as they begin to enter the workforce in earnest. Although seemingly endless think pieces have been written decrying the Millennials, Generation X, and even the Baby Boomers as the worst generation in human history, little has been written so far about this generation. However, the elders have complained about the youth going back to Socrates’ generation, so it seems inevitable that these articles will begin to proliferate as this generation enters the workforce in droves. Perhaps it is the most common rite of passage for a generation to be maligned as to its profligacy and laziness through the medium of essays and articles, so Generation Z is simply awaiting its moment in the “trending articles” box in the news organization of one’s choice.
There are no hard or fast rules for generational cohorts and technology, because each sector, each firm, and each region (e.g., American south vs. the West Coast) are so vastly different. Arguably, the identity claim to a generational cohort is significantly different from that of a region, nation, or professional identity; perhaps a larger issue could be how long it takes for someone to absorb a new form of technology into their daily life and how it might affect their motivation at work. Further, perhaps there are regional or educational variations among this group. Perhaps, for example, there are major variations between the American South or the Northeast, and so on, or perhaps motivation is highest among people with a higher level of education; perhaps only one generation of the five currently working has a strong interest in and engagement with technology.
References
Barton, C., Koslow, L., Fromm, J., & Egan, C. (2012). Millennial Passions: Food, Fashion, and Friends. Bcg Perspectives.
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.12.022
Deal, J.J., Stawiaki, S., Graves, L., Gentry, W.A., Weber, T.J., & Ruderman, M. (2013). Motivation at Work: Which matters more, generations or managerial level? Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 65(1), 1-16. Doi 10.1037/a0032693
Donatone, B. (2013). Millennial narcissism: Helicopter parents are college students’ bigger problem. Retrieved February 1, 2017, from http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2013/12/millennial_narcissism_helicopter_parents_are_college_students_bigger_problem.html
Dush, C. M., Cohan, C. L., &Amato, P.R. (2003). The Relationship between Cohabitation and Marital Quality and Stability: Change across Cohorts. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(3). (Dush, Cohan, & Amato, 2003)
Eliasa, S. M., Smith, W.L., & Barneya, C.E. (2012). Age as a moderator of attitude towards technology in the workplace: work motivation and overall job satisfaction. Behaviour & Information Technology. Vol. 31 Issue 5, p453-467. 15p.
Fedele, R. (2016). GENERATION NEXT. Australian Nursing & Midwifery
Journal. Vol. 23. No. 7. Pp 16.
Harber, J. G. (2011). Generations in the Workplace: Similarities and Differences. Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 1255.http://dc.etsu.edu/etd/1255
Jeongeun, K., Jiyun, K., Jaquette, O., & Bastedo, M. N. (2014). Institutional Stratification
and the Post-college Labour Market: Comparing Job Satisfaction and Prestige across Generations. Journal of Higher Education. Vol. 85. No. 6. pp 761-791.
Karacaoglu, N. (2003). The effects of military assignments and duties on the marital status of Navy officers (Doctoral dissertation, Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School).
Ng, T.H., & Lucianetti, L. (2016). Within-individual increases in innovative behavior and creative, persuasion, and change self-efficacy over time: A social-cognitive theory perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(1), 14-34. doi:10.1037/apl0000029
Parry, E., & Urwin, P. (2011). Generational differences in work values: A review of theory and evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews. Vol. 73. No. 1. pp 79-96. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00285.x
Twenge, J. M. (2013). The Evidence for Generation Me and Against Generation We. Emerging Adulthood, 1(1), 11–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696812466548
Xiaoqing, G., Yuankun, Z., & Xiaofeng, G. (2013). Meeting the digital natives: Understanding the acceptance of technology in classrooms. Journal of Educational Technology & Society. Vol. 16. No. 1. pp 392-402.
Zemke, R., Raines, C., & Filipczak, B. (2000). Generations at Work: Managing the Clash of Veterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in Your Workplace. New York, N.Y.: American Management Association,
