Explore the vast range of titles available.

Generational differences in the workplace have been a popular topic over the past two decades, generating a volume of articles, book chapters and books. We critically review the research evidence concerning generational differences in a variety of work-related variables, including personality, work values, work attitudes, leadership, teamwork, work–life balance and career patterns, assess its strengths and limitations, and provide directions for future research and theory. Our review indicates that the growing body of research, particularly in the past 5 years, remains largely descriptive, rather than exploring the theoretical underpinnings of the generation construct. Evidence to date is fractured, contradictory and fraught with methodological inconsistencies that make generalizations difficult. The results of time-lag, cross-temporal meta-analytic and cross-sectional studies provide sufficient “proof of concept” for generation as a workplace variable, but further theoretical and qualitative work is needed to flesh out mediators and moderators in the relationship between generation and work-related variables. We conclude by arguing for a more nuanced and theoretical research agenda that views generation as a social force in organizations rather than as merely a demographic variable. We also call for qualitative research, greater consideration of context and more methodological rigor.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether work values vary across different life and career stages in a sample of Millennials. Design/methodology/approach – The sample for this study was comprised of 906 Canadian Millennials (born between 1980 and 1994). Findings – Pre-career and working Millennials varied in terms of the importance they placed on five work values – interesting work, achievement, good co-workers, doing work that helped people and salary – although these differences were small in magnitude. This suggests that Millennials’ work values are relatively stable as they grow older and gain work experience. Research limitations/implications – A large body of research citing generational differences relies upon cross-sectional studies which compares different generations of individuals at different life stages, thus making it impossible to disentangle whether the differences are a result of generational or life-cycle effects. The findings that the importance of work values shift over the life course suggest that maturation effects may explain only a small portion of these differences in the emerging adulthood phase. This finding is particularly important for researchers who rely on samples of post-secondary students as this is a period of change from both an individual and career developmental perspective. Practical implications – This research suggests that pre-career Millennials may be attracted to organizations which emphasize a collegial work environment and socially responsible culture. Once they are in the workforce, Millennials can be attracted and retained through attractive working conditions and remuneration. All Millennials are most likely to be attracted to workplaces that provide interesting work, work-life balance, job security and the information workers need to do their jobs effectively. Originality/value – Developmental psychology and career development literature suggest that transitioning from school-to-work is a major life event. Past research has shown that the importance of work values change across this transition and that this change differs among social generations (i.e. Baby Boomers and Generation Xers), but research to date has not examined this transition in the current, millennial generation (born after 1980). We answer the call for researchers to understand Millennials as they progress in their careers, demonstrate that the shift in work values is different for Millennials, and provide actionable recommendations for managers.

Purpose This study investigates the relationship between “new career” profiles (Briscoe and Hall, 2006) and two sets of career factors: agency (i.e. career commitment, self-efficacy, and work locus of control), and career attitudes (i.e. salience and satisfaction). Thus, the purpose of this paper is to understand whether career profiles are a valuable way to understand careers in the modern career era, and if so, which profiles exist, and what differences exist across the profiles. Design/methodology/approach The participants in this study were 1,987 managers and professionals, recruited from a large database of potential respondents. Cluster analysis determined which profiles were apparent among the participants through a two-step clustering procedure using the Bayesian information criterion algorithm. The authors then compared the clusters using analysis of variance (ANOVA) with cluster membership as the independent variable and the career agency and attitude variables and age as the dependent variables. Findings Cluster analysis of the protean and boundaryless career attitudes of 1,987 respondents identified three career profiles: Trapped/Lost, Protean Career Architects, and Solid Citizens. ANOVA confirmed that people indicative of the three profiles differed significantly on all study variables. The findings suggest that the three different career profiles predict important differences in career variables and outcomes that are relevant to individual progression and growth needs and may be a valuable way to study contemporary careers. In particular, the person-centred approach acknowledges that the protean and boundaryless career concepts are related though distinct concepts that can be combined to show that individuals vary in the degree to which their career orientations are consistent with contemporary career constructs. Research limitations/implications The authors have demonstrated that career profiles are a meaningful way to categorize career actors on the basis of their career orientation, as well as their scores on a host of important career variables. Although the study benefits from a large sample and a valid measure of career profiles, it does have some limitations. First, the authors relied on self-reported data gathered on a single survey questionnaire. Furthermore, because the study is cross-sectional, the authors cannot examine the long-term impact of career profile on outcomes such as career satisfaction or if career profiles are enduring or malleable over time. Practical implications From a practical perspective, it may be incumbent on organizations, career counsellors and individuals to develop an awareness to which career profile individuals belong (DeFillippi and Arthur, 1996). Doing so may offer insight into the likely challenges that career actors will face as their career unfolds, and ideally help individuals develop career management strategies to create career growth, rather than a more passive and reactive approach. A number of implications for each of the three career profiles are offered within the paper. Originality/value Utilizing a two-step clustering procedure, the authors provide empirical evidence of three of the 16 career profiles proposed by Briscoe and Hall (2006): Trapped/Lost, Protean Career Architects and Solid Citizens. Next, the authors explored the utility of the profiles for career development and demonstrated significant differences in career-related psychological factor and attitudes across profiles. Finally, the authors take a person-centric approach to career orientation, allowing for individual differences in career enactment. Overall, the results of this study show that career profiles are a highly useful composite that reflect important patterns relative to new career variables.

Purpose – Individuals normally make fairness judgements when experiencing negative outcomes on an important task, such as finding employment. Fairness is an affect-laden subjective experience. Perceptions of injustice can cause resource depletion in unemployed job seekers, potentially leading to reduced self-regulation. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the role of: first, justice perceptions during a job search and their impact on job search self-efficacy (JSSE); second, the mediating role of JSSE between justice perceptions and job search strategies; and third, associations between job search strategies and quantity and quality of job search behavior. Design/methodology/approach – Unemployed individuals (n=254) who were actively searching for a job reported on their past job search experiences with respect to justice, completed measures of JSSE, and reported recent job search behavior. Findings – Results reveal the potentially harmful impact of perceived injustice on job search strategies and the mediating role of JSSE, a self-regulatory construct and an important resource when looking for a job. Specifically, perceived injustice is negatively associated with JSSE. Reduced JSSE is associated with a haphazard job search strategy and less likelihood of exploratory and focussed strategies. A haphazard job search strategy is associated with making fewer job applications and poor decision making. Conversely, perceived justice is associated with higher JSSE and exploratory and focussed job search strategies. These two strategies are generally associated with higher quality job search behavior. Research limitations/implications – There are two major limitations. First, while grounded in social-cognitive theory of self-regulation and conservation of resources (COR) theory, a cross-sectional research design limits determination of causality in the model of JSSE as a central social-cognitive mechanism explaining how justice impacts job search strategies. Second, some results may be conservative because social desirability may have restricted the range of negative responses. Practical implications – This study provides insights to individuals who are supporting job seekers (e.g. career counselors, coaches, employers, and social networks). Specifically, interventions aimed at reducing perceptions of injustice, increasing JSSE, and improving job search strategies and behavior may ameliorate the damaging impact of perceived injustice. Originality/value – This study is the first to examine perceived justice in the job search process using social-cognitive theory of self-regulation and COR theory. Moreover, we provide further validation to a relatively new and under-researched job search strategy typology by linking the strategies to the quantity and quality of job search behaviors.

Purpose - This study aims to compare the career patterns of Matures, Baby Boomers, Generation Xers and Millennials over the various stages of their careers to determine whether there have been notable shifts away from the \"traditional\" career model characterized by long-term linear, upward career movement, toward a \"modern\" career model characterized by increased job mobility, organizational mobility and multi-directional career movement. Design/methodology/approach - The retrospective career accounts of 105 Canadians were gathered through review of resume information and semi-structured interviews. The job changes and organizational changes experienced by each respondent in each five-year career period (e.g. age 20-24, 25-29) and the direction of job changes (i.e. upward, downward, lateral or change of career track) were recorded. The generations were compared statistically on each of these measures through analysis of variance (ANOVA). Findings - Significant inter-generational differences were observed on all variables of interest, but the differences were largely restricted to the age 20-24 and 30-34 career stages. Research limitations/implications - The study relied on a small sample because of the qualitative nature of the data collection. The sample was also exclusively Canadian. The results should therefore be interpreted with care and the research should be replicated with different types of respondents and in different cultural contexts. Practical implications - The research demonstrates to employers that the younger generations change jobs and employers at a greater rate than previous generations and that they are more willing to accept non-upward career moves. Recruiting and retaining young employees will therefore require a different approach than was used for previous generations. Originality/value - The use of retrospective accounts allowed for the comparison of generations within various career stages. This overcomes a significant limitation of cross-sectional studies of generational phenomena by simultaneously considering life-cycle and generational cohort effects.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the gender gap in pre-career salary expectations. Five major explanations are tested to explain the gap, as well as understand the relative contribution of each explanation. Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected from 452 post-secondary students from Canada. Findings – Young women had lower initial and peak salary expectations than their male counterparts. The gap in peak salary could be explained by initial salary expectations, beta values, the interaction between beta values and gender, and estimations of the value of the labor market. Men and women in this study expected to earn a considerably larger peak salary than they expected for others. Research limitations/implications – Cross-sectional data cannot infer causality, and the Canadian sample may not be generalizable to other countries given that an economic downturn occurred at time of data collection. Research should continue to investigate how individuals establish initial salary expectations, while also testing more dynamic models given the interaction effect found in terms of gender and work values in explaining salary expectations. Practical implications – The majority of the gender gap in peak salary expectations can be explained by what men and women expect to earn immediately after graduation. Further, women and men have different perceptions of the value they attribute to the labor market and what might be a fair wage, especially when considering beta work values. Social implications – The data suggests that the gender-wage gap is likely to continue and that both young men and women would benefit from greater education and information with respect to the labor market and what they can reasonably expect to earn, not just initially, but from a long-term perspective. Originality/value – This study is the first to simultaneously investigate five theoretical explanations for the gender gap in pre-career expectations.

The topic of generational differences in the workplace has been immensely popular over the past decade, spawning a large number of academic publications and a far greater number of consulting reports, popular press books, magazine articles, media reports, blogs, and infographics. Indeed, a new industry of consultants and public speakers seems to have emerged primarily to capitalize on the popularity of this topic. As Costanza and Finkelstein (2015) note, the research on this “hot topic” has often seemed opportunistic, lacking rigor and depth. The relative ease of cutting existing cross-sectional data by age and calling it a generation study has tempted researchers to hop on the bandwagon, resulting in a large number of empirical studies with nearly identical literature reviews that overrely on popular press and opinion-based literature. There has been a lamentable tendency toward blind empiricism with little or no connection to theory, as has been stated elsewhere (Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Parry & Urwin, 2011).

PurposeThis study analyzed three years of data from the Collegiate Leadership Competition to investigate potential differences in longitudinal leader self-efficacy growth between students who identify as men and those who identify as women.Design/methodology/approachSurvey design.FindingsResults indicate that women participants enter their competition experience at higher levels of leader self-efficacy than men and that both groups were able to sustain moderate levels of growth measured several months after the end of the competition.Originality/valueThe gap between men and women in their leader self-efficacy did not change over the several months of measurement. Implications for leadership educators are discussed.

Purpose - This study aims to compare the career patterns of Matures, Baby Boomers, Generation Xers and Millennials over the various stages of their careers to determine whether there have been notable shifts away from the \"traditional\" career model characterized by long-term linear, upward career movement, toward a \"modern\" career model characterized by increased job mobility, organizational mobility and multi-directional career movement.Design methodology approach - The retrospective career accounts of 105 Canadians were gathered through review of résumé information and semi-structured interviews. The job changes and organizational changes experienced by each respondent in each five-year career period (e.g. age 20-24, 25-29) and the direction of job changes (i.e. upward, downward, lateral or change of career track) were recorded. The generations were compared statistically on each of these measures through analysis of variance (ANOVA).Findings - Significant inter-generational differences were observed on all variables of interest, but the differences were largely restricted to the age 20-24 and 30-34 career stages.Research limitations implications - The study relied on a small sample because of the qualitative nature of the data collection. The sample was also exclusively Canadian. The results should therefore be interpreted with care and the research should be replicated with different types of respondents and in different cultural contexts.Practical implications - The research demonstrates to employers that the younger generations change jobs and employers at a greater rate than previous generations and that they are more willing to accept non-upward career moves. Recruiting and retaining young employees will therefore require a different approach than was used for previous generations.Originality value - The use of retrospective accounts allowed for the comparison of generations within various career stages. This overcomes a significant limitation of cross-sectional studies of generational phenomena by simultaneously considering life-cycle and generational cohort effects.