Work design for different generational cohorts: Determining common and idiosyncratic job characteristics

Work design for differentgenerational cohorts

Determining common and idiosyncraticjob characteristics

Tomislav Hernaus and Nina Poloski VokicDepartment of Organization and Management,

Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to uncover the nature of job characteristics related to differentgenerational cohorts (Baby-boomers, Generation X and Generation Y). Significant differences betweenfour task and four social job characteristics across generational cohorts have been revealed.Design/methodology/approach – The empirical research was conducted through a field study ofemployees from large-sized Croatian organizations. A cross-sectional and cross-occupational researchdesign was applied. A total of 512 knowledge workers (139 managers and 373 professionals)participated in the research. Descriptive and inferential statistical methods were used to determine andcompare work design across generations.Findings – The results indicate that job characteristics are not equally represented within differentgenerational cohorts. While the nature of task job characteristics is mostly irrespective of generations,social job characteristics to some extent differ among generational cohorts. High task variety, reasonablyhigh task identity, and a moderate level of both received interdependence and task significance arerecognized as common job characteristics of knowledge workers across generations. However, jobsof Baby-boomers, Xers, and Yers are idiosyncratic for work autonomy, interaction with others, initiatedinterdependence, and teamwork. Additionally, the inclusion of the work type as a control variablerevealed that interaction with others does differ but only among generations of professionals.Originality/value – The present study is the first research in which generational similaritiesand differences have been empirically examined through job characteristics. The authors focused onknowledge workers within an under-researched context (studies about knowledge workers, workdesign and generational differences are rare or non-existent in south-eastern European countries),making this systematic investigation unique and practically significant.

Keywords Croatia, Work design, Job characteristics, Generational differences,Workforce generations

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionWorkforce differentiation is gaining momentum. Organizations are facing a more diverseset of employees (distinguished by age, gender, race, educational level, occupation, etc.),and therefore they strive to find adequate human resource management (HRM) policies.Workforce demographics, especially generational differences, have become a compellingresearch topic (e.g. Zemke et al., 2000; Smola and Sutton, 2002; Glass, 2007; Twenge et al.,2010; Joshi et al., 2011; Truxillo and Fraccaroli, 2013).

Contemporary workforce consists dominantly of three generational cohorts:Baby-boomers (born between 1945 and 1960), Generation X (born between 1960 and1980), and Generation Y (born between 1980 and 2000), while Veterans (born before

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/0953-4814.htm

Journal of Organizational ChangeManagement

Vol. 27 No. 4, 2014pp. 615-641

r Emerald Group Publishing Limited0953-4814

DOI 10.1108/JOCM-05-2014-0104

The authors are grateful to the Guest Editor and two anonymous reviewers for their valuableinsights and recommendations.

615

Work designfor differentgenerational

cohorts

1945) are mostly retired and Generation Z (born after 2000) still have not entered theworking sphere[1]. People from the same generational cohort develop certain shared“generational characteristics”, which affect their outlook on life and work(Kupperschmidt, 2000; Glass, 2007; Dries et al., 2008). It is believed that theircharacteristics affect their worldview, relationships, work ethic and behaviour,motivators, inclination towards teamwork, communication preferences, perception oforganizational hierarchy, how they manage change, etc. (e.g. Kupperschmidt, 2000;Domeyer, 2006; Durkin, 2007a; Glass, 2007; Cates, 2010; Venus, 2011; Pita, 2012).Therefore, by understanding each generation of employees, organizations can tailorHRM policies to meet their needs better (Domeyer, 2006).

However, our knowledge about generational cohorts is mostly theoretical (e.g.Jorgensen, 2003; Wong et al., 2008). Boundaries between generations are both fuzzy andquestionable (e.g. Smola and Sutton, 2002; Giancola, 2006; Lawler, 2011), whileempirical findings related to generational differences are still rare and non-conclusive(e.g. Cennamo and Gardner, 2008; Dries et al., 2008; Macky et al., 2008; Twenge andCampbell, 2008; Posthuma and Campion, 2009; Deal et al., 2010; Hoff, 2010; Twengeet al., 2010). We especially lack studies examining the implications of generationaldifferences in the design of jobs (e.g. Sturman, 2003; de Lange et al., 2010; Truxillo et al.,2012). Although we know that work design does not have universal effects on differentemployees, many workplaces are still not well-designed to meet the altered capabilitiesand preferences of generationally diverse workforce (e.g. Kanfer and Ackerman, 2004;Hedge et al., 2006; Zacher et al., 2010).

Multigenerational lenses should be used both in theory and practice to gain a betterunderstanding of workforce diversity in general, and the nature of job characteristicsspecifically. We need to consider work design from a lifespan perspective (e.g. Truxilloet al., 2012) and determine whether significant differences exist within or betweengenerations. The failure to include worker generation in work design research may limitthe ability to predict individual attitudes and behaviours in organizations accurately.

The purpose of the present study is to uncover the nature of job characteristicsrelated to different generational cohorts. Traditionally important task jobcharacteristics and recently revitalized social job characteristics were examinedacross generational cohorts of knowledge workers (Baby-boomers, Generation X, andGeneration Y). Knowledge workers were in the focus of our study as they are anincreasingly important and voluminous group of employees, including a quarter to ahalf of workers in advanced economies (e.g. Drucker, 1959; Davenport, 2005; Levenson,2012). While knowledge work has already been theoretically defined and described(e.g. Jackson et al., 2003; Alvesson, 2004; Davenport, 2005), we still lack generationallybased empirical findings about the work design practices for knowledge workers.

Our theoretical assumptions and empirical findings aim to offer contributions to themultigenerational literature and work design research domain, respectively. The jobarchitecture of different generational cohorts has clearly been delineated. Common andidiosyncratic job characteristics of knowledge workers according to their generationmembership have been recognized and distinguished. In addition, a step forward hasbeen made by examining the relationship between generational values and objective jobcharacteristics. Differences between task and social job characteristics acrossgenerational cohorts have also been controlled for gender, educational level and worktype, and a particular emphasis has been put on differences within generations ofmanagers and professionals. The paper thereby intends to offer new insights into howgenerational influences can be incorporated into work organization and design decisions.

616

JOCM27,4

Work design and generational cohortsWork design theory and research have largely overlooked workforce diversity issues.However, increasingly diversified workforce in general and generational differencesspecifically should encourage scholars and HR professionals to question traditionalnotions of what makes workers thrive in work contexts. Demographic trends,accompanied with economic, technological and cultural changes, requirecommensurate shifts in how work is structured and organized (e.g. Egri andRalston, 2004; Cartwright and Holmes, 2006; Hewlett et al., 2009; Cordery and Parker,2012). Consequently, work design should meet personal values and work preferences ofdifferent generations of employees.

Personal values and work preferences across generationsA generational cohort includes an identifiable group of individuals who sharedistinctive social or historical life events during critical developmental stages (e.g.Schaie, 1965). People who grew up in the same time period have a strong identificationwith their own “time in history” and may feel, think and act in similar ways based onthe influences of that time (Kindrick Patterson, 2007). Different generational cohortsdiffer significantly according to their values, attitudes, preferences, and behaviours(Kupperschmidt, 2000).

Five generations have been identified in the literature (Veterans, Baby-boomers, andGeneration X, Y and Z), among which Generation Z has not yet entered the workforce.Thereby, personal values and work preferences of the four workforce generationscurrently present in the labour market are described in Table I.

Generational influences in work designA lifespan perspective and the career theory underline the importance of time and agein work design research. They emphasize not only that employees’ jobs, attitudes, andbehaviour develop and change over time (Fried et al., 2007), but also suggest that time-related variables such as age, career stage or generational cohort should shapeparticular job characteristics. For instance, the lifespan work motivation framework,proposed a decade ago by Kanfer and Ackerman (2004) and confirmed later byZaniboni et al. (2013), acknowledged that older and younger workers may reactdifferently to the same job characteristics. A large-scale European Working ConditionsSurvey also showed that forms of work organization vary according to the age profileof employees (Valeyre et al., 2009). In addition, Truxillo et al. (2012) developed a seriesof research propositions on how age may moderate the effects of specific jobcharacteristics on worker attitudes and performance. On the other side, the literatureon careers suggests that a career stage perspective requires distinct job characteristics(Hall and Chandler, 2005), and moderates the effect of stimulating job characteristics onattitudinal reactions (Fried et al., 2007). According to career researchers, the person-jobfit and the work context should change as employees get older (e.g. Perry et al., 2012) orwhen employees make a step up the career ladder.

Beyond age-related and career dynamics studies, generational differences could alsoaffect how a worker reacts to different job characteristics (e.g. Truxillo et al., 2012).Both task and social job characteristics are relevant to gain a better understandingabout the nature of work. Task job characteristics are most commonly investigatedmotivational job characteristics. They primarily deal with how work itself and therange and nature of tasks associated with a particular job are accomplished(e.g. Morgeson and Humphrey, 2006). Social job characteristics have recently been

617


cohorts

Gen

erat

ion

Per

son

alv

alu

es/c

har

acte

rist

ics

Wor

kv

alu

es/p

refe

ren

ces

Vet

eran

sC

onfo

rmis

ts(a

dh

eren

ceto

rule

s),

trad

itio

nal

ists

,d

edic

ated

/co

mm

itte

d,

con

sist

ent,

real

isti

c,p

ract

ical

,st

able

,p

atie

nt,

stro

ng

set

ofm

oral

obli

gat

ion

s

Dis

cip

lin

e(l

awan

dor

der

),re

spec

tau

thor

ity,

har

dw

ork

ing

(tra

dit

ion

al/s

tron

gw

ork

eth

ic),

pri

de

inth

ew

ork

they

do,

sen

seof

du

ty(d

uty

bef

ore

ple

asu

re),

seek

ad

irec

tiv

e/h

iera

rch

ical

lead

ersh

ipst

yle

(com

man

dan

dco

ntr

olm

anag

emen

t),d

elay

edg

rati

fica

tion

,val

ue

job

secu

rity

,mon

ey,o

pp

ortu

nit

yfo

rad

van

cem

ent

and

pu

bli

cre

cog

nit

ion

,co

mm

itm

ent

tote

amw

ork

and

coll

abor

atio

n,

stro

ng

hu

man

rela

tion

ssk

ills

,m

ake

dec

isio

ns

bas

edon

the

com

mon

goo

d,

pre

fer

face

-to-

face

com

mu

nic

atio

n,

key

com

pen

sati

onel

emen

ts–

exp

erie

nce

and

ten

ure

,or

ien

ted

tow

ard

sd

etai

ls,

thor

oug

h,

loy

alto

org

aniz

atio

ns

and

man

ager

s,d

epen

dab

le,

inep

tw

ith

amb

igu

ity

(ris

k-a

ver

se,

pro

mot

eth

est

atu

sq

uo)

and

chan

ge

(“w

e’v

en

ever

don

eit

that

way

bef

ore”

men

tali

ty,p

refe

rg

rad

ual

chan

ge)

,un

com

fort

able

wit

hco

nfl

ict,

rese

rved

inv

oici

ng

dis

app

rov

alor

dis

agre

emen

t,ad

apt

mor

esl

owly

tote

chn

olog

ical

adv

ance

s,g

ood

men

tors

Bab

y-b

oom

ers

Op

tim

ists

,id

eali

sts,

goa

l-d

riv

en,

crit

ical

,to

lera

nt,

self

-cen

tred

,se

lf-s

uff

icie

nt,

mat

eria

list

ic

Com

pet

itiv

en

atu

re,b

oth

pro

cess

-an

dre

sult

s-or

ien

ted

,wor

kah

olic

s(“

liv

eto

wor

k”)

,fin

did

enti

tyin

thei

rw

ork

,ri

skta

ker

s,n

eed

for

mea

nin

gfu

l,p

urp

osef

ul

and

chal

len

gin

gw

ork

,se

ekco

nti

nu

ous

gro

wth

(sel

f-im

pro

vem

ent)

and

opp

ortu

nit

yfo

rad

van

cem

ent,

seek

inv

olv

emen

t,d

istr

ust

auth

orit

y,d

isli

ke

con

form

ity

and

rule

s,le

ader

ship

by

con

sen

sus

and

par

tici

pat

ion

,g

ood

ath

um

anre

lati

onsh

ips,

team

pla

yers

,rel

uct

ant

tog

oag

ain

stp

eers

(“p

eop

lep

leas

ers”

),se

rvic

eor

ien

ted

,val

ue

per

son

alg

rati

fica

tion

,pu

bli

cre

cog

nit

ion

,sta

tus

sym

bol

s(t

itle

s,re

serv

edp

ark

ing

spac

es,e

tc.)

and

ack

now

led

gem

ent

ina

mon

etar

yfo

rm,

val

ue

per

son

alin

tera

ctio

ns

wh

enco

mm

un

icat

ing

,ov

erly

sen

siti

ve

tofe

edb

ack

,su

scep

tib

leto

bu

rnou

tan

dst

ress

-rel

ated

illn

ess

Gen

erat

ion

XIn

div

idu

alis

tic,

pra

gm

atic

,ca

uti

ous,

cyn

ical

/sce

pti

cal,

info

rmal

,in

dep

end

ent,

self

-rel

ian

t,fl

exib

le

Ad

apt

toch

ang

e,ri

skta

ker

s(n

otaf

raid

toro

ckth

eb

oat)

,co

mfo

rtab

lew

ith

com

pet

itio

n,

entr

epre

neu

rial

,ou

tcom

e-or

ien

ted

,v

alu

eq

ual

ity

over

qu

anti

ty,

val

ue

auto

nom

y/i

nd

epen

den

ce,

qu

esti

onau

thor

ity,

dis

lik

esu

per

vis

ion

,d

isd

ain

hie

rarc

hy,

relu

ctan

tto

com

mit

,lo

okfo

rm

ult

iple

task

sto

kee

pth

emin

tere

sted

and

eng

aged

,lea

der

ship

by

com

pet

ence

,sh

ared

lead

ersh

ip,d

islo

yal

,n

ojo

bse

curi

tyex

pec

tati

ons,

poo

rp

eop

lesk

ills

,poo

rte

amp

laye

rs,d

esir

etr

ain

ing

and

dev

elop

men

top

por

tun

itie

s,k

eyco

mp

ensa

tion

elem

ent

–p

rod

uct

ivit

y,te

chn

o-li

tera

te,

seek

wor

k-l

ife

bal

ance

(“w

ork

toli

ve”

),in

tere

stfo

rfl

exib

lew

ork

arra

ng

emen

ts(t

elec

omm

uti

ng

,fl

ex-t

ime,

etc.

) (con

tinu

ed)

Table I.Personal values andwork preferences ofgenerational cohorts

618

JOCM27,4

Gen

erat

ion

Per

son

alv

alu

es/c

har

acte

rist

ics

Wor

kv

alu

es/p

refe

ren

ces

Gen

erat

ion

YO

pti

mis

tic,

amb

itio

us

(hig

hex

pec

tati

ons)

,co

nfi

den

t,h

igh

self

-est

eem

,m

oral

,so

cial

lyaw

are

and

resp

onsi

ble

(civ

ic-m

ind

ed),

idea

list

ic,h

ave

glo

bal

and

div

ersi

tyco

nsc

iou

snes

s,cl

ose

fam

ily

ties

Mos

ted

uca

ted

and

tech

nol

ogic

ally

sav

vy,

mu

ltit

ask

ing

cap

abil

itie

s,lo

okfo

rm

ean

ing

ful,

div

erse

,in

tere

stin

gan

dch

alle

ng

ing

wor

k,

pos

itiv

e(c

an-d

o)at

titu

de,

ach

iev

emen

t/re

sult

s-or

ien

ted

,m

otiv

ated

wor

ker

s,se

ekp

erso

nal

ized

care

erd

evel

opm

ent,

risk

tak

ers,

emb

race

chan

ge,

nee

dcl

ear

goa

lsan

dd

etai

l-or

ien

ted

inst

ruct

ion

s,n

eed

new

exp

erie

nce

san

dtr

ain

ing

opp

ortu

nit

ies,

seek

con

stan

tfe

edb

ack

and

inst

ant

gra

tifi

cati

on,l

ead

ersh

ipb

yp

ooli

ng

tog

eth

er(c

olla

bor

ativ

ed

ecis

ion

-m

akin

g),

accu

stom

edto

alm

ost

egal

itar

ian

rela

tion

ship

s,lo

yal

ifsa

tisf

ied

atw

ork

,se

ekem

plo

yab

ilit

yin

stea

dof

job

secu

rity

(loy

alto

thei

rca

reer

sn

otem

plo

yers

),re

cog

niz

edan

dv

alu

ed,

key

com

pen

sati

onel

emen

ts–

con

trib

uti

onan

dco

mp

eten

ces,

team

-ori

ente

d,

un

der

stan

dcu

stom

ern

eed

san

dw

ants

,en

trep

ren

euri

alsp

irit

,in

exp

erie

nce

d(p

arti

cula

rly

wit

hh

and

lin

gd

iffi

cult

peo

ple

issu

es),

nee

dfo

rsu

per

vis

ion

/men

tori

ng

(had

“hel

icop

ter”

orov

er-i

nv

olv

edp

aren

tsan

dte

ach

ers)

,st

ron

gse

nse

offa

irn

ess

and

eth

ics,

seek

wor

k-l

ife

bal

ance

,in

tere

stfo

rw

ork

pla

cefl

exib

ilit

y,re

lax

atio

nan

dle

isu

reac

tiv

itie

s,an

dv

olu

nte

erin

gp

ossi

bil

itie

s

Sourc

es:

Bas

edon

Ku

pp

ersc

hm

idt

(200

0),

Zem

ke

etal.

(200

0),

Du

rkin

(200

4,20

06,

2007

a,b

),W

ilso

nan

dJo

hn

sen

(200

6),

Gla

ss(2

007)

,K

ind

rick

Pat

ters

on(2

007)

,Dri

eset

al.

(200

8),J

enk

ins

(200

8),M

onta

na

and

Pet

it(2

008)

,Mac

Lau

gh

lin

Fra

nd

sen

(200

9),C

ates

(201

0),H

off

(201

0),T

wen

ge

etal.

(201

0),V

enu

s(2

011)

,H

anse

nan

dL

euty

(201

2),

Kay

e(2

012)

,P

ita

(201

2),

Pri

nce

ton

On

e(2

013)

Table I.

619


cohorts

noted by researchers as important components of work (e.g. Parker and Wall, 2001;Grant et al., 2011). They are the structural features of jobs that influence and emphasizeinterpersonal interactions and social environment as pervasive and represent importantdeterminants of work design and performance (Hernaus and Mikulic, 2014).

Table II exhibits our presumptions about main task (work autonomy, task variety,task significance, task identity) and social job characteristics (interaction with others,initiated and received interdependence, teamwork) according to generations’ personaland work values. Plus (þ ) and minus (�) symbols imply whether specific jobcharacteristics are expected to be enriched and/or relevant for work design of aparticular generation.

Desk research revealed that Baby-boomers prefer higher discretion rights, like tohandle an identifiable piece of work which consists of various and significant tasks,and appreciate good working atmosphere. They strive to provide both high levels of in-role (task) and extra-role (contextual) performance. Generation X (or Xers) valueenriched task job characteristics more than social job characteristics such as teamworkor interaction with others. This means they are primarily focused on their individualtask performance, opposite to Generation Y (or Yers), who rather prefer relationalaspects of jobs and often contribute to the organization by helping others.

Workforce generations obviously have distinctive work preferences andaccordingly they should also have somewhat distinctive job characteristics.A potential match or mismatch between generational preferences and expected jobcharacteristics could provide distinctive, either positive or negative, outcomes acrossgenerational cohorts. In order to determine their job architectures and respectivebehaviour, the following work design hypotheses were tested at the level of eight jobcharacteristics based on the expected job characteristics for each generational cohort:

H1. Yers have significantly less work autonomy than other generational cohorts ofknowledge workers.

H2. Task variety is not significantly different among generational cohorts ofknowledge workers.

H3. Task significance is not significantly different among generational cohortsof knowledge workers.

H4. Baby-boomers have significantly higher task identity than other generationalcohorts of knowledge workers.

H5. Yers interact with others significantly less than other generational cohorts ofknowledge workers.

H6. Yers have significantly lower initiated interdependence than other generationalcohorts of knowledge workers.

H7. Xers have significantly lower received interdependence than other generationalcohorts of knowledge workers.

H8. Xers work in teams significantly less than other generational cohorts ofknowledge workers.

620

JOCM27,4

Bab

y-b

oom

ers

Gen

erat

ion

XG

ener

atio

nY

Job

char

acte

rist

ics

Des

crip

tion

E/R

Arg

um

ents

E/R

Arg

um

ents

E/R

Arg

um

ents

Wor

kau

ton

omy

Pro

vid

esem

plo

yee

sw

ith

the

opp

ortu

nit

yto

exer

cise

dis

cret

ion

,fr

eed

om,

and

ind

epen

den

ceto

mak

ejo

b-

rela

ted

dec

isio

ns

and

acti

ons

(Pie

rce

etal.,

2009

)

þD

istr

ust

auth

orit

y,se

lf-c

entr

ed,

self

-su

ffic

ien

t

þV

alu

eau

ton

omy

/in

dep

end

ence

,q

ues

tion

auth

orit

y

�N

eed

for

sup

erv

isio

n/

men

tori

ng

Tas

kv

arie

tyR

efer

sto

the

deg

ree

tow

hic

ha

job

req

uir

esem

plo

yees

top

erfo

rma

wid

era

ng

eof

dif

fere

nt

task

s.It

issi

mil

arto

not

ion

sof

task

enla

rgem

ent

(Her

zber

g,

1968

;L

awle

r,19

69).

Job

sth

atin

vol

ve

the

per

form

ance

ofa

nu

mb

erof

dif

fere

nt

wor

kac

tiv

itie

sar

eli

kel

yto

be

mor

ein

tere

stin

gan

den

joy

able

top

erfo

rm(S

ims

etal.,

1976

)

þR

isk

tak

ers,

nee

dfo

rm

ean

ing

ful,

pu

rpos

efu

lan

dch

alle

ng

ing

wor

k

þL

ook

for

mu

ltip

leta

sks

tok

eep

them

inte

rest

edan

den

gag

ed

þM

ult

itas

kin

gca

pab

ilit

ies,

look

for

mea

nin

gfu

l,d

iver

se,

inte

rest

ing

and

chal

len

gin

gw

ork

,ri

skta

ker

s,em

bra

cech

ang

eT

ask

sig

nif

ican

ceR

efle

cts

the

deg

ree

tow

hic

ha

job

infl

uen

ces

the

liv

esor

wor

kof

oth

ers,

wh

eth

erin

sid

eor

outs

ide

the

org

aniz

atio

n(H

ack

man

and

Old

ham

,19

76).

Peo

ple

injo

bs

that

hav

ea

sig

nif

ican

tef

fect

onth

ep

hy

sica

lor

psy

chol

ogic

alw

ell-

bei

ng

ofot

her

sar

eli

kel

yto

exp

erie

nce

gre

ater

mea

nin

gfu

lnes

sin

the

wor

k(H

ack

man

and

Old

ham

,19

80)

þId

eali

sts,

fin

did

enti

tyin

thei

rw

ork

,v

alu

ep

ub

lic

reco

gn

itio

nan

dst

atu

ssy

mb

ols

þV

alu

eq

ual

ity

over

qu

anti

tyþ

Soc

iall

yaw

are

and

resp

onsi

ble

,h

ave

glo

bal

and

div

ersi

tyco

nsc

iou

snes

s

Tas

kid

enti

tyT

he

opp

ortu

nit

yto

do

aw

hol

ean

did

enti

fiab

lep

iece

ofw

ork

,fro

ma

log

ical

beg

inn

ing

toa

log

ical

end

ing

poi

nt

(Pie

rce

etal.,

2009

).Jo

bs

that

inv

olv

ean

inta

ctta

sk,s

uch

asp

rov

idin

ga

com

ple

teu

nit

ofse

rvic

eor

pu

ttin

gto

get

her

anen

tire

pro

du

ct,

are

inv

aria

bly

mor

ein

tere

stin

gto

per

form

than

job

sth

atin

vol

ve

only

smal

lp

arts

ofth

eta

sk(H

ack

man

and

Old

ham

,19

80)

þB

oth

pro

cess

-an

dre

sult

s-or

ien

ted

�O

utc

ome-

orie

nte

d�

Ach

iev

emen

t/re

sult

s-or

ien

ted

(con

tinu

ed)

Table II.Expected job

characteristics accordingto generational cohorts

621


cohorts

Bab

y-b

oom

ers

Gen

erat

ion

XG

ener

atio

nY

Job

char

acte

rist

ics

Des

crip

tion

E/R

Arg

um

ents

E/R

Arg

um

ents

E/R

Arg

um

ents

Inte

ract

ion

wit

hot

her

sT

he

exte

nt

tow

hic

ha

job

req

uir

esan

incu

mb

ent

toco

mm

un

icat

ew

ith

peo

ple

bot

hin

sid

e(e

.g.

coll

eag

ues

)an

dou

tsid

e(e

.g.

sup

pli

ers

orcu

stom

ers)

ofth

eor

gan

izat

ion

þL

ead

ersh

ipb

yco

nse

nsu

san

dp

arti

cip

atio

n

�P

oor

peo

ple

skil

ls,

cyn

ical

/sce

pti

cal

þC

olla

bor

ativ

ed

ecis

ion

-mak

ing

,ac

cust

omed

toeg

alit

aria

nre

lati

onsh

ipIn

itia

ted

inte

rdep

end

ence

Inte

rdep

end

ence

emp

has

izes

the

“con

nec

ted

nes

s”of

job

sto

each

oth

ern

eces

sary

toco

mp

lete

wor

k(K

igg

un

du

,19

81)

þD

istr

ust

auth

orit

y,se

lf-c

entr

ed,

self

-su

ffic

ien

t

þV

alu

eau

ton

omy

/in

dep

end

ence

,q

ues

tion

auth

orit

y

�N

eed

for

sup

erv

isio

n/

men

tori

ng

Rec

eiv

edin

terd

epen

den

ceT

wo

dis

tin

ctfo

rms

ofin

terd

epen

den

cear

ein

itia

ted

(th

eex

ten

tto

wh

ich

wor

kfl

ows

from

one

job

toot

her

job

s)an

dre

ceiv

edin

terd

epen

den

ce(t

he

exte

nt

tow

hic

ha

job

isaf

fect

edb

yw

ork

from

oth

erjo

bs)

þL

ead

ersh

ipb

yco

nse

nsu

san

dp

arti

cip

atio

n

�In

tere

stfo

rfl

exib

lew

ork

arra

ng

emen

tsþ

Col

lab

orat

ive

dec

isio

n-m

akin

g,

accu

stom

edto

egal

itar

ian

rela

tion

ship

Tea

mw

ork

Rep

rese

nts

aco

ord

inat

ion

ofef

fort

san

din

teg

rati

onof

exp

erti

seam

ong

peo

ple

wh

op

erfo

rmco

mm

onta

sks.

Tea

mm

emb

ers

shar

eac

cou

nta

bil

ity

for

spec

ific

outc

omes

for

thei

ror

gan

izat

ion

s(T

hom

pso

n,

2011

)

þG

ood

atre

lati

onsh

ip,

relu

ctan

tto

go

agai

nst

pee

rs,

team

pla

yers

�P

oor

peo

ple

skil

ls,

poo

rte

amp

laye

rsþ

Tea

m-o

rien

ted

Note

:E

/R,

enri

ched

/rel

evan

tfo

rw

ork

des

ign

ofa

gen

erat

ion

alco

hor

t

Table II.

622

JOCM27,4

Additionally, some job characteristics are expected to be more idiosyncratic (“flexible”,specific) in nature (e.g. task autonomy, initiated interdependence), while other shouldbe common (“fixed”, universal) for various groups of employees (e.g. task variety andtask significance). This is particularly relevant for knowledge work, given that it is lessstructured (Yan et al., 2011), and that knowledge workers have a high level of intrinsicmotivational preferences (such as those regarding work design). Therefore, it isparticularly interesting and practically useful to recognize and distinguish betweencommon and idiosyncratic job characteristics of various generations of knowledgeworkers. A good understanding of the issue could potentially lead to more alignedHRM policies and work design practices that will ultimately result in higher levels ofwork performance.

Research methodologyParticipants and procedureThis study was a part of a larger research examining interactions among a wider set oforganizational and work design issues. The empirical research was conducted througha field study of employees from large-sized Croatian organizations, which usuallyapply more diverse work solutions and need to handle various HRM requirements.While the population consisted of 226 organizations with more than 500 employeeslisted by the Croatian Chamber of Economy, 48 organizations from 12 differentindustries agreed to participate in the survey (response rate of 21.2 per cent).Manufacturing organizations (33.3 per cent), along with transport and financialcompanies (each 12.5 per cent), were mostly represented.

The data collection process began in November 2009 and lasted until February2010. The self-administered questionnaire was distributed by postal mail to CEOs oftargeted organizations. The snowball sampling strategy was used in order to increasethe sample variety. A total of 512 knowledge workers (139 managers and 373professionals) participated in the research. The modal number of respondents perorganization was six, and the average number was 10.69 (SD¼ 7.72). A cross-sectionaland cross-occupational research design was applied in order to include knowledgeworkers[2] from a variety of different jobs and occupations (185 different job titles),thereby increasing the external validity of the findings (see Chen and Chiu, 2009).Knowledge workers were chosen because they are assigned to handle intellectuallychallenging jobs with more enriched job characteristics in comparison to non-knowledge workers. They have a large influence on organizations (Huang, 2011), andtheir jobs should incorporate a higher degree of expertise, education, and experience(e.g. Davenport, 2005).

Survey participants were divided into the generational cohorts using commonlydefined workforce generations and their birth years according to Zemke et al. (2000):Baby-boomers (1945-1960), Generation X (1960-1980), and Generation Y (1980-2000).Unfortunately, the sample does not include the Veterans, as in Croatia the majority ofthem have already retired[3]. The total sample demographics according to respondents’generations is depicted in Table III.

Research instrumentThe survey was focused on the perceived job characteristics of respondents employedby large-sized Croatian organizations. The measures for task job characteristics andthree out of four social job characteristics were adopted from Work Design Questionnaire(WDQ) – the most comprehensive and a general measure of work design originally

623


cohorts

developed and validated by Morgeson and Humphrey (2006). One social jobcharacteristic measure (teamwork) was adopted from Hernaus (2010). Thequestionnaire encompassed 31 items evaluated on a five-point Likert-type scale.Respondents had to indicate the extent of agreement or disagreement with statementsabout their job characteristics (ranging from 1¼ “strongly disagree” to 5¼ “stronglyagree”). The questionnaire was pre-tested for the Croatian context and its reliability andvalidity had been checked (Cronbach as above the cut-off point of 0.7), resulting in 29items analyzed. The research instrument overview and reliability are shown in theAppendix.

Data analysisShapiro-Wilk tests indicated that our data do not come from a normal distribution( p-value o0.001) and therefore non-parametric statistics was used. Specifically,Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney, w2-tests and Fisher’s exact test were conducteddepending on the type of data, the number of comparison groups and the nature ofcriterion variables. The statistical software package SPSS 18.0 was applied for the dataanalysis.

ResultsCommon and idiosyncratic job characteristics among multigenerational workforceDescriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the existing nature ofknowledge work of different workforce generations. A similar approach has recentlybeen applied in the investigation of work values across generations (e.g. Hansen andLeuty, 2012). Table IV depicts that all task and social job characteristics are reportedto be above average (mean values 43.00) or highly present (mean values 44.00) inknowledge workers’ job architecture, regardless their respective generation. Resultsshow that mean values of five out of eight job characteristics are in the same classrange[4], and absolute differences for the three remaining job characteristics are not

GenerationBaby-boomers (n¼ 100) Xers (n¼ 313) Yers (n¼ 99) Total (n¼ 512)

Sample characteristics n % n % n % n %

GenderMan 62 63.9 158 51.5 38 38.4 258 51.3Woman 35 36.1 149 48.5 61 61.6 245 48.7Educational levelHigh school degree 13 13.0 35 11.2 7 7.1 55 10.8College degree 18 18.0 38 12.1 6 6.2 62 12.1Bachelor degree 59 59.0 200 63.9 75 76.5 334 65.4Master degree 7 7.0 22 7.0 1 1.0 30 5.9Postgraduate degree 3 3.0 18 5.8 9 9.2 30 5.9Work typeManager 39 39.0 93 29.7 7 7.1 139 27.1Professional 61 61.0 220 70.3 92 92.9 373 72.9

Notes: While 19.53 percent of our respondents are Baby-boomers, 61.13 percent Generation X and19.34 percent Generation Y, in Croatian population in 2008 (last available data) there was 17.28 percentof Veterans, 19.64 percent of Baby-boomers, 27.99 percent of Generation X, 25.43 percent of GenerationY, and 9.66 percent of Generation Z (calculated using data from CBS, 2009)

Table III.Total sampledemographicsa

624

JOCM27,4

Bab

y-b

oom

ers

Xer

sY

ers

Job

char

acte

rist

ics

nM

ean

Ran

kS

DS

kew

Ku

rtn

Mea

nR

ank

SD

Sk

ewK

urt

nM

ean

Ran

kS

DS

kew

Ku

rt

Wor

kau

ton

omy

973.

932

0.78�

0.66�

0.01

311

3.62

40.

76�

0.38�

0.07

983.

504

0.69�

0.29

0.07

Tas

kv

arie

ty97

4.20

10.

66�

0.60�

0.21

310

4.16

10.

72�

0.83

0.84

974.

131

0.65�

0.52�

0.12

Tas

ksi

gn

ific

ance

923.

447

0.80�

0.28�

0.04

295

3.27

80.

76�

0.37

0.08

923.

217

0.72�

0.53

0.02

Tas

kid

enti

ty99

3.89

30.

74�

0.47�

0.09

309

3.80

20.

73�

0.53

0.13

983.

852

0.74�

0.20�

0.47

Inte

ract

ion

wit

hot

her

s97

3.67

40.

76�

0.44�

0.02

307

3.66

30.

79�

0.39�

0.24

973.

415

0.79�

0.24�

0.28

Init

iate

din

terd

epen

den

ce10

03.

645

0.64�

0.19

0.34

310

3.46

60.

75�

0.33

0.68

983.

415

0.77�

0.24

0.40

Rec

eiv

edin

terd

epen

den

ce99

3.63

60.

83�

0.62

0.60

307

3.56

50.

78�

0.18�

0.08

983.

623

0.81�

0.07�

0.78

Tea

mw

ork

963.

388

0.73�

0.35

0.36

305

3.46

60.

71�

0.21

0.01

963.

217

0.62�

0.04�

0.41

Note

:M

inim

um¼

1,m

axim

um¼

5

Table IV.Respondents’ job

characteristics

625


cohorts

large (0.43 for work autonomy, 0.26 for interaction with others, and 0.23 for initiatedinterdependence). Respondents’ jobs are highly challenging and meaningful, andinclude a high level of interpersonal relations and teamwork, just as knowledgeworkers’ jobs should be designed. Generational differences in work design are notpresent in absolute terms, although dominant job characteristics slightly differ whenlooking at rankings.

Boomers have jobs with enriched task characteristics (task variety, work autonomy,and task identity), whereas jobs of Xers and Yers are dominantly characterized by hightask variety and task identity. In addition, Xers exhibit a high level of interaction withothers, and Yers have a high level of received interdependence throughout their workpractice.

Table V shows that four out of eight job characteristics differ significantly betweengenerations: first, work autonomy – significantly higher for Boomers than for Xersand Yers; second, interaction with others – significantly lower for Yers; third, initiatedinterdependence – significantly higher for Boomers; and fourth, teamwork –significantly higher for Xers when comparing with Yers.

Findings reveal that common job characteristics of knowledge workers acrossgenerations, when looking at both average values and significant differences, includehigh task variety (mean values higher than 4.00), reasonably high task identity (meanvalues slightly below 4.00), and both moderate received interdependence (mean valuesaround 3.50) and task significance (mean values slightly above 3.00). On the otherhand, work autonomy, interaction with others, initiated interdependence and teamworkhave been recognized as idiosyncratic job characteristics of knowledge workers ofdifferent generations.

The inferential statistical analysis of the significant differences in task jobcharacteristics of the three examined generations revealed that differences almost donot exist. The second and the third hypothesis were supported, while the fourthhypothesis is rejected. The data analysis showed that task variety, task significanceand task identity are not significantly different job characteristics across generations.Only work autonomy was found to be idiosyncratic and significantly lower for Yersthan for Boomers (the first hypothesis thus being supported).

Opposite to task job characteristics, the analysis of perceived social jobcharacteristics of different generations’ work design revealed that certaindifferences are present. The fifth and the sixth hypothesis were supported, whilethe seventh and the eighth hypothesis were rejected. Interaction with others,

Kruskal-Wallis testsMann-Whitney tests

Boomers vs Xers Boomers vs Yers Xers vs YersJob characteristics w2 s U s U s U s

Work autonomy 20.643 0.000*** 11,371.0 0.000*** 3,071.0 0.000*** 13,482.5 0.082Task variety 0.797 0.671 14,685.0 0.725 4,372.5 0.389 14,325.5 0.477Task significance 4.065 0.131 11,972.5 0.086 3,558.5 0.061 12,975.5 0.523Task identity 1.383 0.501 14,116.5 0.244 4,557.0 0.457 14,839.5 0.764Interaction with others 8.150 0.017* 14,792.5 0.922 3,798.0 0.020* 12,165.5 0.006**Initiated interdependence 6.136 0.047* 13,249.0 0.027* 4,019.0 0.027* 14,612.0 0.565Received interdependence 1.274 0.529 14,095.0 0.272 4,708.0 0.717 14,486.5 0.577Teamwork 10.322 0.006** 13,764.5 0.375 3,880.0 0.058 11,479.0 0.001**

Notes: * po0.05; ** po0.01; *** po0.001

Table V.Significant differencesin respondents’ jobcharacteristics acrossgenerations

626

JOCM27,4

initiated interdependence and teamwork practices appear to be idiosyncratic innature, i.e. differ significantly among generational cohorts. However, workforcegenerations were found to have a similar level of received interdependence withintheir jobs, making this part of job interdependence common for various generationsof knowledge workers. In addition, although teamwork practices seem tostatistically differ among generations of employees, Xers surprisingly reportedthe highest mean values.

Controlling for background variablesIn order to further validate our results, we assessed the effect of three demographiccontrol variables (i.e. gender, educational level, and work type) on work designcharacteristics. Perceived task and social job characteristics were not found to besignificantly different depending on the gender or educational level, except for thework autonomy (gender-U¼ 27.539; s¼ 0.036; po0.05; educational level-w2¼ 17.505; s¼ 0.002; po0.01). However, data clearly showed that jobs ofmanagers and professionals differ significantly along two job characteristics (workautonomy-U¼ 21.645; s¼ 0.003; po0.05; interaction with others-U¼ 15.236;s¼ 0.041; po0.05).

Therefore, the three-way cross-tab and the w2-tests (2 � 3 contingency tables foreach job characteristic) were conducted in order to explore job characteristics acrosswork type and generational cohorts. The Fisher’s exact test was applied becausesubsamples were small and expected counts were less than five (see Field, 2013).The analysis of job characteristics’ differences along the generational cohorts ofdifferent work types revealed that initial findings still hold true, as displayedin Table VI.

Work autonomy was found to differ across work types but not across generationsof managers and professionals. The result of the three-way cross-tab and w2-testfor work autonomy is inconsistent with the related findings of the Kruskal-Wallis testthat discovered the existence of significant differences in the level of work autonomyacross generational cohorts of knowledge workers. Obviously, the discrepancy inrespondents’ answers regarding this job characteristic was probably the consequenceof the work type. Other task job characteristics (i.e. task variety, task significance, andtask identity) did not differ significantly either across work types or generationsof employees.

Among social job characteristics, both forms of job interdependence (i.e. initiatedand received) were not found to be significantly different across work type subsamplesor across generational cohorts. However, similar to work autonomy, the result of thethree-way cross-tab and w2-test for initiated interdependence is contradictory asthe data analysis revealed that significant differences of initiated interdependence doexist across generational cohorts of knowledge workers. Furthermore, interactionwith others was found to differ across work types and generations of professionalsbut not across generations of managers, which supported the acceptance of the fifthhypothesis solely for the professional subsample. Finally, teamwork practices did notdiffer significantly either across work types or generational cohorts, which supportedthe rejection of the eighth hypothesis. Altogether, the inclusion of the work type asa control variable confirmed the rejection of the fourth, the seventh and the eighthhypothesis, and supported the acceptance of the second and the third hypothesis.However, the acceptance of the first, the fifth and the sixth hypothesis was questionedafter controlling for the work type.

627


cohorts

Dif

fere

nce

sac

ross

wor

kty

pe

Man

ager

sP

rofe

ssio

nal

sn

Mea

nS

DS

kew

Ku

rt

Dif

fere

nce

sac

ross

gen

erat

ion

sn

Mea

nS

DS

kew

Ku

rt

Dif

fere

nce

sac

ross

gen

erat

ion

sJo

bch

arac

teri

stic

sU

sw2

sw2

s

Wor

kau

ton

omy

21.6

450.

003*

*13

93.

950.

61�

0.69

1.45

5.03

50.

507

367

3.55

0.79

�0.

19�

0.34

13.2

550.

078

Tas

kv

arie

ty3.

732

0.91

713

84.

430.

67�

1.71

4.78

6.04

40.

840

366

4.06

0.68

�0.

49�

0.13

3.02

20.

812

Tas

ksi

gn

ific

ance

7.55

60.

459

133

3.48

0.71

�0.

310.

747.

648

0.48

634

63.

220.

77�

0.34

�0.

174.

829

0.77

3T

ask

iden

tity

4.61

60.

834

137

3.88

0.73

�0.

710.

476.

217

0.34

536

93.

810.

74�

0.35

�0.

163.

664

0.92

3In

tera

ctio

nw

ith

oth

ers

15.2

360.

041*

138

3.91

0.63

�0.

430.

167.

671

0.20

636

33.

510.

82�

0.22

�0.

3918

.303

0.01

2*In

itia

ted

inte

rdep

end

ence

9.55

50.

270

138

3.55

0.68

0.03

0.32

9.37

80.

297

370

3.46

0.75

�0.

400.

6110

.537

0.20

0R

ecei

ved

inte

rdep

end

ence

8.45

20.

352

138

3.69

0.87

�0.

420.

115.

069

0.77

236

63.

550.

76�

0.20

�0.

2112

.889

0.09

2T

eam

wor

k13

.322

0.07

713

74.

080.

67�

0.33

0.10

6.90

30.

277

360

3.94

0.67

�0.

190.

0810

.862

0.16

9

Note

s:

*po

0.05

;**

po0.

01

Table VI.Significant differencesin respondent’s jobcharacteristics acrosswork type and generations

628

JOCM27,4

Discussion and conclusionResearch implicationsWork design choices and decisions are particularly relevant at the individual level,having a strong influence on various attitudinal, motivational, behavioural, andwell-being outcomes. Besides others, the generational aspect of workforce should beimplicit to work design practices of job incumbents (e.g. Truxillo et al., 2012; Zaniboniet al., 2013). Personal values and work preferences of workforce generations inparticular delineate organizational behaviour patterns that can be further shapedthrough a careful design of the organizational work setting (Robertson, 1994).

Despite the theory suggesting that multigenerational workforce should have animportant role in human resource decisions concerning work design, our study on therelationship between generational cohorts and work design provided mixed results.Work autonomy, initiated interdependence, interaction with others, and teamwork aredistinguished as idiosyncratic job characteristics. The former two are significantlymore enriched in Baby-boomers’ jobs, while the latter ones are significantly lesspresent in Yers’ jobs. However, high task variety, reasonably high task identity, and amoderate level of both received interdependence and task significance are recognizedas common job characteristics of knowledge workers across generations.

The impression that Yers are dependent[5] compared with their more independentpredecessors (Kindrick Patterson, 2007) was validated through research, as workautonomy was reported to be not only the lowest in absolute terms, but also statisticallysignificantly lower compared to both Baby-boomers and Xers. This is in line with Glass(2007) who found that the older worker may feel insulted by specific instructions, wherethe Yer would feel uneasy or lost without enough guidance. However, these generationaldifferences seem to disappear within managerial and professional subsamples,suggesting that occupational groups are at least equally important for making workdesign decisions. For instance, although managers usually have larger discretion rightsthan professionals from the same generational cohort, it is also possible that “younger”managers have higher work autonomy than “older” professionals.

Task variety and task significance were two task job characteristics expected to besimilar for knowledge jobs no matter the generational differences (þ for E/R for all thethree generations). Collected data provided a strong evidence for this assumption. Taskvariety was a single job characteristic highly present (mean values higher than 4.00),and task significance was one of the task job characteristics with the lowest meanvalue (for Xers it was the only job characteristic evaluated on average below 3.50) forall the three generations of respondents. However, contrary to the belief that Yers haveunique multitasking capabilities (MacLaughlin Frandsen, 2009)[6], and opposite fromprevious findings about Yers not being satisfied with the slow route to the top (Durkin,2006)[7], the data revealed that task variety is a slightly more enriched characteristic ofBoomers’ and Xers’ jobs. Considering task significance, although scholars (i.e. Durkin,2004, 2006, 2007b) wrote about Xers’ and Yers’ need to have an influential job[8], thisresearch provided empirical support for task significance being more enriched/relevantin Boomers’ jobs. Obviously, idealistic values of Baby-boomers are more stronglyarticulated than quality pursuit of Xers or social awareness of Yers.

Enriched task identity was supposed to be predominantly a characteristic ofBoomers’ jobs. Research findings confirmed our presumption, as they indicated thatBaby-boomers have the highest task identity. In addition, task identity showed to bethe lowest for Xers, which corresponds with previous findings about Xers being onlyoutput-focused and outcome-oriented (Glass, 2007; Kaye, 2012)[9].

629


cohorts

Taken as a whole, the given results for task job characteristics indicate that thesemotivational attributes of jobs are mostly common in nature and irrespective ofworkforce generations. The nature of knowledge work, employee’s organizationalposition or his/her career stage probably has a stronger effect on task design thaneither employee’s age or generational values.

On the other hand, social job characteristics to some extent differ amonggenerational cohorts. They were expected to be the highest in Boomers’ and thelowest in Xers’ job architecture. The majority of absolute values and the results ofMann-Whitney tests proved the superiority of Boomers’ jobs in terms of enrichedsocial job characteristics. However, Xers, although considered poor team players, whooften do things themselves (Kindrick Patterson, 2007), were found to have moresocially focused jobs than Yers. Such a finding is somewhat different from assumedand expected job characteristics and generational values of Yers, who are not afraideither to interact with colleagues from other hierarchical levels (Durkin, 2007b)[10] orto practice teamwork (Durkin, 2004; MacLaughlin Frandsen, 2009)[11]. Obviously,younger workforce generations, although having strong social network preferences,still have less opportunity to communicate and coordinate their work efforts withcolleagues, suppliers or customers. In other words, because their jobs are stillrelationally bounded, there is a mismatch between their personal values and occupiedjobs, which constrains their potential to be fully realized at work.

Although some of the results are unexpected, they could be a consequence of theBoomers in the sample being more represented in managerial positions, and Yers moreoften employed in non-managerial expert positions. Due to their age/limited workexperience, Yers are underrepresented within a managerial population. Yers still holdentry-level positions and they have not yet reached managerial ones, which impliesthat differences in work design among generations could also be a result ofrespondents’ career phases and not necessarily of their generational membership.

Practical implicationsOur results offer significant practical implications for HRM. First, HRM experts couldprovide work redesign interventions by customizing jobs according to generationalvalues and preferences. For instance, Baby-boomers, as the most experienced cohort ofemployees, should occupy jobs comprised of autonomous tasks that initiate the workof others. Xers in general, contrary to widespread belief, should have team-basedwork design. Yers need less interaction opportunities to handle their tasks thanBaby-boomers and Xers. Overall, findings suggest that a certain amount of workplaceinterventions should be generationally based. By taking into consideration personalvalues and work preferences of various generational cohorts, and through achieving aperson-job fit, organizations can potentially increase the performance level of theiremployees.

Second, managers and HR professionals could be encouraged to take a differentiatedapproach to motivational and relational aspects of work design. Research findingsclearly offer useful insights about what could really move employees forward andencourage them to provide an extra effort at the workplace. For instance, Baby-boomerscould be motivated through job enlargement, as well as by providing them with a moreindependent and identifiable work with a visible outcome. Younger generations could bestimulated by being given responsibility for handling multiple tasks from the beginningto the end. Additionally, Xers could be motivated by jobs which involve a lot ofcommunication and interaction both inside and outside the organization, while Yers

630

JOCM27,4

could be challenged by work that is greatly affected by the work of other people.Each generational cohort has its own, somewhat different stimulus to work. Therefore,decision makers need to search for the fine-grained dynamics among the changingnature of work, versatile organizational requirements, specific personal traits as well asinherent generational patterns of work and behaviour.

Nevertheless, HR managers should not view employees solely through generationallenses (e.g. Domeyer, 2006). Although generational-specific HRM practices should beappreciated, generation membership represents only one of several demographic aspectsthat affect work design practices. Statistically significant relationships reported betweenrespondents’ generation and their work type imply a possible influence of othercontextual variables. Age, career stage, job experience, organizational tenure, or familylife-cycle also affect the nature of work and job characteristics of knowledge workers to acertain extent. For instance, Deal et al. (2010) found that behaviour is more likely to beaffected by maturation, life stage, the economy, or other environmental factors[12] thanby some fundamental shift in generational attitudes and behaviours. Their findingscorrespond to Lawler’s (2011) note that designing work on the basis of what fits aparticular age group is likely to be a poor approach, as what might appeal to one Gen Ymay not resonate with another. In other words, generational patterns do exist, and theyshould shape HRM policies and work design practices, but they cannot fully explainwork behaviours within organizations.

Finally, delineated generation related similarities and differences in task and socialjob characteristics of knowledge workers confirm that generationally savvy managersshould respect multigenerational employees. Similar to age (e.g. de Lange et al., 2010),the generational cohort also does matter and can make a difference regarding workdesign decisions. Distinct personal values and work preferences across generationsseem to play an important role in shaping the contemporary workplace, eventuallyresulting in higher or lower performance behaviour.

Limitations and future researchOne of the key limitations of our and similar generational studies is the use of cross-sectional data which does not enable to determine the causality of effects. Instead ofcross-sectional research, a longitudinal research or a time-lag method should beemployed. Namely, in that way it would be possible to compare people of the same ageat different points in time, so any differences would have to be caused by generation (orperhaps time period) rather than age (Twenge et al., 2010). The ideal design for a studyof generational differences is a sequential cohort design that begins with the datacollection at a young age and follows several generations longitudinally as they movethrough their working lives (Schaie, 1965). Future studies should also try to determineand examine non-linear relationships between workforce generations and various workdesign issues.

Furthermore, our research was based on self-evaluations and may therefore be asubject to bias. However, such an approach is acceptable as there is strong evidencethat employee self-ratings are congruent with objective job features (e.g. Oldham et al.,1976; Fried and Ferris, 1987; Kulik et al., 1987; Naughton and Outcalt, 1988; Spector,1992; Parker and Ohly, 2009; Hornung et al., 2010; Barrick et al., 2013). Nevertheless,the relationship between generation membership and objective job features shouldbe a future research topic, as this could further support the presumption about theimportance of the segregated approach to work design for different generationalcohorts.

631


cohorts

It is also important to notice the limited scope of our findings. The study investigatedtask and social job characteristics of knowledge workers employed by large-sizedCroatian organizations. Besides task- and social-, knowledge job characteristics have alsobeen recognized in the literature (e.g. Morgeson and Humphrey, 2006; Humphrey et al.,2007). Namely, problem solving, job complexity, skill variety, and related jobcharacteristics could also be influenced by generational preferences. Next, weexamined the nature of managerial and professional work, while manual and clericalwork should also be investigated. Finally, although we managed to cover variousindustries and occupational titles in our sample, the results cannot be generalized acrossthe global workforce. Thus, the present study should be cross-culturally validated.Future studies could go not only into the direction of exploring a potential cross-culturalimpact on generationally based work design, but could explore generations’ specificsin different cultural contexts. Namely, there is a problem of generations in differentnational contexts not being surrounded by the same economic, political, social ortechnological environment – for example, while Baby-boomers in the USA were raisedin the era of extreme optimism, opportunity, and progress (Zemke et al., 2000) theircounterparts in Croatia lived in socialist regime characterized by limitations andshortages of resources.

Finally, it is also important to mention that according to some authors (e.g. Twengeet al., 2010; Hansen and Leuty, 2012) few studies have empirically substantiatedgenerational differences in work values and job characteristics. Although theorysuggests that generations do differ according to their personal values and workpreferences, the generational context is still understudied and has not taken asignificant part in HRM decisions. Thus, scholars should broaden their empiricalunderstanding about multigenerational effects on work design, which will lead topractical solutions for creating an optimal mix of job characteristics that accentuatesgenerational specifics.

To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first research effort in whichgenerational similarities and differences have been empirically examined through jobcharacteristics. As it was conducted in an under-researched context (studies aboutknowledge workers, work design and generational differences were dominantlyconducted in the USA, Great Britain and within more developed countries while theyare rare or non-existent in south-eastern European countries), its findings aretheoretically and practically significant. Future research endeavours should validateand extend our results, in order to gain additional understanding of the respectivenature of work design and performance for different generational cohorts.

In particular, as Generation Z will be joining the workforce very soon, the researchimperative is to develop and anticipate possible job characteristics for this upcominggenerational cohort of knowledge workers. Because Zers were in a certain way bornwith customized and highly interactive technology, they would certainly requiretailor-made and interactive work design solutions. Ultimately, we expect thatdifferentiated workforce strategies and more idiosyncratic work design solutions willstrongly motivate not only upcoming generations of employees, but the entireworkforce to perform better while striving to achieve organizational goals.

Notes

1. Years of birth of different generations, as well as the names for each generation in theworkforce, are not consistent among authors. Birth years used in this paper are those of Zemkeet al. (2000), while the used generational names are the ones used most frequently. However, it

632

JOCM27,4

is interesting to mention that Veterans are also called the Silent Generation, the TraditionalGeneration, the Greatest Generation, the Traditionalists, the Matures, the Conservatives, andthe Peacemaker Generation; Baby-boomers are also known as the Boom(er) Generation, the“Me” Generation, the GenMe, and the Generation M; Generation X is occasionally namedthe 13th generation, the Baby Bust Generation, the Slacker Generation, the Divorce Generation,or the Sandwich Generation; Generation Y is also known as the Millennium Generation, theMillennials, the Generation Next, the Nexters, the Net Generation, the Digital Generation,the Digital Natives, the Echo Boomers, the Screenagers, the Nintendo Generation, and thePeter Pan Generation; and Generation Z is also called the Internet Generation, the Generation I,the iGeneration, the Dot-com Kids, the Generation 2020, or the New Silent Generation (based onZemke et al., 2000; Wilson and Johnsen, 2006; Dries et al., 2008; Hoff, 2010; Levickaite, 2010;Twenge et al., 2010; Hansen and Leuty, 2012).

2. According to the CRANET methodology (see Brewster et al., 2004), knowledge workersinclude managers and professionals.

3. According to the Labour Act (Official Gazette, 2009), the current retirement age for women inCroatia is 60, and 65 for men.

4. Class ranges: 1.00-1.50, 1.51-2.50, 2.51-3.50, 3.51-4.50, 4.51-5.00.

5. For example, unlike their parents’ generation, who became independent as soon as theyfinished college, it is estimated that more than 60 per cent of Generation Y returned home tolive with parents for some period of time after college (Kindrick Patterson, 2007).

6. Yers are said to learn to multitask by playing sports, taking music lessons, achieving inschool, and finding time for social interests (MacLaughlin Frandsen, 2009).

7. Yers typically want to start at the top, or at least move up the ladder quickly (Pita, 2012).They often do not believe they should have to spend years in an entry-level position, “payingtheir dues” – a mind-set that can be a source of tension with other generations, such asolder Xers and Baby-boomers, who have paid their dues, slowly climbed the ladder, and areretiring later in their careers (Pita, 2012).

8. For example, Xers respond to a clearly defined mission and want to know how their effortswill directly contribute to the organization’s goals (Durkin, 2007b). They will work longhours to get the job done that is important and beneficial to the organization (Durkin, 2006).Differently, Yers will be loyal and work hard if they are respected for their desire to work forthe good of the company (Durkin, 2004).

9. Xers’ standpoint is that if the work is done, it does not matter how it was done or where –they are much more concerned about outcome than process (Glass, 2007).

10. It is common for Yers to walk right into the CEO’s office and offer their unsolicited opinions,as they are a generation of conversationalist who are not shy about voicing their opinions, astheir parents were always asking for their opinions (Durkin, 2007b).

11. Yers are said to be team-oriented – they have developed a strong team sense, work well ingroups rather than individually, and prefer to work in groups (MacLaughlin Frandsen, 2009).Therefore, it is believed that organizations that focus on team-building and team-orientedprojects will be rewarded by the work of Yers, who are comfortable in the team role (Durkin,2004).

12. For example, in an effort to identify predictors of work ethics Cherrington (1976 afterSmola and Sutton, 2002) found that the work ethic is developed in an individual duringthe years between six and 16 and is brought about by experiences and expectations that theindividual had during that period – those experiences and expectations seem to have moreto do with what is going on in the environment and in the home than with the year theindividual was born.

633


cohorts

References

Alvesson, M. (2004), Knowledge Work and Knowledge-Intensive Firms, Oxford University Press,Oxford, NY.

Barrick, M.R., Mount, M.K. and Li, N. (2013), “The theory of purposeful work behavior: the role ofpersonality, higher-order goals, and job characteristics”, Academy of Management Review,Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 132-153.

Brewster, C., Mayrhofer, W. and Morley, M. (2004), Human Resource Management in Europe:Evidence of Convergence?, Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.

Cartwright, S. and Holmes, N. (2006), “The meaning of work: the challenge of regaining employeeengagement and reducing cynicism”, Human Resources Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 2,pp. 199-208.

Cates, S.V. (2010), “Generational management in corporate America: the differences andchallenges in management of four generations of working adults”, Chinese BusinessReview, Vol. 9 No. 8, pp. 46-54.

CBS (2009), Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Croatia, Central Bureau of Statistics of theRepublic of Croatia, Zagreb.

Cennamo, L. and Gardner, D. (2008), “Generational differences in work values, outcomes, andperson-organisation fit”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 8, pp. 891-906.

Chen, C. and Chiu, S. (2009), “The mediating role of job involvement in the relationship betweenjob characteristics and organizational citizenship behaviour”, Journal of Social Psychology,Vol. 149 No. 4, pp. 474-494.

Cordery, J.L. and Parker, S.K. (2012), “Work design: creating jobs and roles that promoteindividual effectiveness”, in Kozlowski, S.W.J. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Industrialand Organizational Psychology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 247-284.

Davenport, T.H. (2005), Thinking for a Living: How to Get Better Performance and Results fromKnowledge Workers, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Deal, J.J., Altman, D.G. and Rogelberg, S.G. (2010), “Millennials at work: what we knowand what we need to do (if anything)”, Journal of Business & Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 2,pp. 191-199.

de Lange, A.H., Taris, T.W., Jansen, P., Kompier, M.A.J., Houtman, I.L.D. and Bongers, P.M. (2010),“On the relationships among work characteristics and learning-related behavior: does agematter?”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 925-950.

Domeyer, D. (2006), “How to get the most from a multigenerational workforce”, OfficePRO,Vol. 66, pp. 14-16.

Dries, N., Pepermans, R. and de Kerpel, E. (2008), “Exploring four generations’ beliefs aboutcareer – is ‘satisfied’ the new ‘successful’ ”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 8,pp. 907-928.

Drucker, F.P. (1959), Landmarks of Tomorrow, Harper, New York, NY.

Durkin, D. (2004), “The generation gap”, Business NH Magazine, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 25-27.

Durkin, D. (2006), “Managing the new generation”, Business NH Magazine, Vol. 23 No. 8,pp. 21-22.

Durkin, D. (2007a), “Engaging four generations to enhance productivity”, Chief Learning Officer,Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 30-35.

Durkin, D. (2007b), “Recruiting and retaining generations X and Y”, Business NH Magazine,Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 21-22.

Egri, C.P. and Ralston, D.A. (2004), “Generation cohorts and personal values: a comparison ofChina and the US”, Organization Science, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 210-220.

634

JOCM27,4

Field, A. (2013), Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Fried, Y. and Ferris, G.R. (1987), “The validity of the job characteristics model: a review andmeta-analysis”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 287-322.

Fried, Y., Grant, A.M., Levi, A.S., Hadani, M. and Haynes Slowik, L. (2007), “Job design intemporal context: a career dynamics perspective”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 911-927.

Giancola, F. (2006), “The generation gap: more myth than reality”, Human Resource Planning,Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 32-37.

Glass, A. (2007), “Understanding generational differences for competitive success”, Industrialand Commercial Training, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 98-103.

Grant, A.M., Fried, Y. and Juillerat, T. (2011), “Work matters: job design in classic andcontemporary perspectives”, in Zedeck, S. (Ed.), APA Handbook of Industrial andOrganizational Psychology, Vol. 1, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC,pp. 417-453.

Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1976), “Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory”,Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 250-279.

Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1980), Work Redesign, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Hall, D.T. and Chandler, D.E. (2005), “Psychological success: when the career is a calling”, Journalor Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 155-176.

Hansen, J.C. and Leuty, M.E. (2012), “Work values across generations”, Journal of CareerAssessment, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 34-52.

Hedge, J.W., Borman, W.C. and Lammlein, S.E. (2006), The Aging Workforce: Realities,Myths, and Implications for Organizations, American Psychological Association,Washington, DC.

Hernaus, T. (2010), “Integrating macro- and micro-organizational variables through amultilevel approach”, unpublished doctoral thesis, Faculty of Business and Economics,Zagreb.

Hernaus, T. and Mikulic, J. (2014), “Work characteristics and work performance of knowledgeworkers”, EuroMed Journal of Business, Vol. 9 No. 3.

Herzberg, F. (1968), Work and the Nature of Man, Staples Press, London.

Hewlett, S.A., Sherbin, L. and Sumberg, K. (2009), “How gen Y & Boomers will reshape youragenda”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 87 Nos 7/8, pp. 71-76.

Hoff, J. (2010), “Generational differences in work preferences”, master thesis, University ofTwente, Enschede.

Hornung, S., Rousseau, D.M., Glaser, J., Angerer, P. and Weigl, M. (2010), “Beyond top-down andbottom-up work redesign: customizing job content through idiosyncratic deals”, Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, Vol. 31 Nos 2/3, pp. 187-215.

Huang, T.-P. (2011), “Comparing motivating work characteristics, job satisfaction, and turnoverintention of knowledge workers and blue-collar workers, and testing a structural modelof the variables’ relationships in China and Japan”, The International Journal of HumanResource Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 924-944.

Humphrey, S.E., Nahrgang, J.D. and Morgeson, F.P. (2007), “Integrating motivational, social,and contextual work design features: a meta-analytic summary and theoreticalextension of the work design literature”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 5,pp. 1332-1356.

Jackson, S.E., Hitt, M.A. and DeNisi, A.S. (Eds) (2003), Managing Knowledge for SustainedCompetitive Advantage: Designing Strategies for Effective Human Resource Management,Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

635


cohorts

Jenkins, J. (2008), “Strategies for managing talent in a multigenerational workforce”, EmploymentRelations Today, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 19-26.

Jorgensen, B. (2003), “Baby Boomers, generation X and generation Y? Policy implications fordefence forces in the modern era”, Foresight, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 41-49.

Joshi, A., Liao, H. and Roh, H. (2011), “Bridging domains in workplace demography research: areview and reconceptualization”, Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 521-552.

Kanfer, R. and Ackerman, P.L. (2004), “Aging, adult development, and work motivation”,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 440-458.

Kaye, B. (2012), “Four generations – develop and engage them at work”, Leadership Excellence,Vol. 29 No. 1, p. 20.

Kiggundu, M.N. (1981), “Task interdependence and the theory of job design”, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 499-508.

Kindrick Patterson, C. (2007), “The impact of generational diversity in the workplace”, DiversityFactor, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 17-22.

Kulik, C.T., Oldham, G.R. and Hackman, J.R. (1987), “Work design as an approach toperson-environment fit”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 278-296.

Kupperschmidt, B.R. (2000), “Multigeneration employees: strategies for effective management”,Health Care Manager, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 65-76.

Lawler, E.E. (1969), “Job design and employee motivation”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 4,pp. 426-434.

Lawler, E.E. (2011), “It’s individuals not generations that matter”, working paper, Center forEffective Organizations, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, available at:http://ceo.usc.edu/pdf/B11-17.pdf (accessed 16 July 2013).

Levenson, A. (2012), “Talent management: challenges of building cross-functional capability inhigh-performance work systems environments”, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources,Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 187-204.

Levickaite, R. (2010), “Generations X, Y, Z: how social networks form the concept of the worldwithout borders (the case of Lithuania)”, Limes, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 170-183.

MacLaughlin Frandsen, B. (2009), “Leading by recognizing generational differences”, Long-TermLiving, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 34-35.

Macky, K., Gardner, D. and Forsyth, S. (2008), “Generational differences at work: introduction andoverview”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 8, pp. 857-861.

Montana, P.J. and Petit, F. (2008), “Motivating generation X and Y on the job and preparing Z”,Global Journal of Business Research, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 139-148.

Morgeson, F.P. and Humphrey, S.E. (2006), “The work design questionnaire (WDQ): developingand validating comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 6, pp. 1321-1339.

Naughton, T.J. and Outcalt, D. (1988), “Development and test of an occupational taxonomybased on job characteristics theory”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 32 No. 1,pp. 16-36.

Official Gazette (2009), “The Labour Act”, Official Gazette of the Republic of Croatia,Nos 149/09.

Oldham, G.R., Hackman, J.R. and Pearce, J.L. (1976), “Condition under which employeesrespond positively to enriched work”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 4,pp. 395-403.

Parker, S.K. and Ohly, S. (2009), “Extending the reach of job design theory: going beyond the jobcharacteristics model”, in Wilkinson, A., Redman, S.S. and Bacon, N. (Eds), Sage Handbookof Human Resource Management, Sage, London, pp. 269-286.

636

JOCM27,4

Parker, S.K. and Wall, T.D. (2001), “Work design: learning from the past and mapping anew terrain”, in Anderson, N., Ones, D.S., Sinangil, H.K. and Viswesvaran C. (Eds),Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1, Sage Publications,London, pp. 90-110.

Perry, E.L., Dokko, G. and Golom, F. (2012), “The aging worker and person-environment fit”, inHedge, J.W. and Borman, W.C. (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Work and Aging, OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford, pp. 187-213.

Pierce, J.L., Jussila, I. and Cummings, A. (2009), “Psychological ownership within the job designcontext: revision of the job characteristics model”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 477-496.

Pita, K. (2012), “Five generations in the workplace”, Fairfield County Business Journal, Vol. 48No. 8, p. 27.

Posthuma, R.A. and Campion, M.A. (2009), “Age stereotypes in the workplace: commonstereotypes, moderators, and future research directions”, Journal of Management, Vol. 35No. 1, pp. 158-188.

PrincetonOne (2013), “Understanding generation Y – what you need to know about themillennials”, working paper, PrincetonOne, Skillman, NJ, available at: www.princetonone.com/news/PrincetonOne%20White%20Paper2.pdf (accessed 16 July 2013).

Robertson, P.J. (1994), “The relationship between work setting and employee behaviour: a studyof a critical linkage in the organizational change process”, Journal of OrganizationalChange Management, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 22-43.

Schaie, K.W. (1965), “A general model for the study of developmental problems”, PsychologicalBulletin, Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 92-107.

Sims, H.P., Szilagyi, A.D. and Keller, R.T. (1976), “The measurement of job characteristics”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 195-212.

Smola, K.W. and Sutton, C.D. (2002), “Generational differences: revisiting generational workvalues for the new millennium”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 4,pp. 363-382.

Spector, P.E. (1992), “A consideration of the validity and meaning of self-report measures of jobconditions”, in Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I.T. (Eds), International Review of Industrialand Organizational Psychology, Vol. 7, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 123-151.

Sturman, M.C. (2003), “Searching for the inverted U-shaped relationship between timeand performance: meta-analyses of the experience/performance, tenure/performance, andage/performance relationships”, Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 609-640.

Thompson, L.L. (2011), Making the Team: A Guide for Managers, Prentice Hall,New Jersey, NJ.

Truxillo, D. and Fraccaroli, F. (2013), “Research themes on age and work: introduction tothe special issue”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3,pp. 249-252.

Truxillo, D.M., Cadiz, D.M., Rineer, J.R., Zaniboni, S. and Fraccaroli, F. (2012), “A lifespanperspective on job design: fitting the job and the worker to promote job satisfaction,engagement, and performance”, Organizational Psychology Review, Vol. 2 No. 4,pp. 340-360.

Twenge, J.M. and Campbell, S.T. (2008), “Generational differences in psychological traits andtheir impact on the workplace”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 8,pp. 862-877.

Twenge, J.M., Campbell, S.M., Hoffman, B.J. and Lance, C.E. (2010), “Generational differencesin work values: leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic valuesdecreasing”, Journal of Management, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 1117-1142.

637


cohorts

Valeyre, A., Cartron, D., Cszimadia, P., Gollac, M., Illessy, M. and Mako, C. (2009), WorkingConditions in the European Union: Work Organisation, European Foundation for theImprovement of Living and Working Conditions, Dublin.

Venus, M. (2011), “The multi-generational workplace – how employers can help silents, Boomers,Gen Xers and millennials work together”, Northern Colorado Business Report, DiversitySupplement, pp. 7-10.

Wilson, J.L. and Johnsen, L.E. (2006), “Motivating your generation X and Y team members”, SumNews, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 8-10.

Wong, M., Gardiner, E., Lang, W. and Coulon, L. (2008), “Generational differences in personalityand motivation: do they exist and what are the implications for the workplace?”, Journal ofManagerial Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 8, pp. 878-890.

Yan, M., Peng, K.Z. and Francesco, A.M. (2011), “The differential effects of job design onknowledge workers and manual workers: a quasi-experimental field study in China”,Human Resource Management, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 407-424.

Zacher, H., Heusner, S., Schmitz, M., Zwierzanska, M.M. and Frese, M. (2010), “Focus onopportunities as a mediator of the relationships between age, job complexity, and workperformance”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 374-386.

Zaniboni, S., Truxillo, D.M. and Fraccaroli, F. (2013), “Differential effects of task variety andskill variety on burnout and turnover intentions for older and younger workers”, EuropeanJournal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 306-317.

Zemke, R., Raines, C. and Filipczak, B. (2000), Generations at Work – Managing the Clash ofVeterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in Your Workplace, AMACOM, New York, NY.

638

JOCM27,4

Appendix

Var

iab

les

Ori

gin

and

nu

mb

erof

item

sIt

ems

Cro

nb

ach

’a

Wor

kau

ton

omy

Th

ree

out

ofn

ine

orig

inal

WD

Qit

ems

(on

ep

erea

chau

ton

omy

job

dim

ensi

on–

wor

ksc

hed

uli

ng

,d

ecis

ion

mak

ing

,w

ork

met

hod

s)

Th

ejo

bal

low

sm

eto

dec

ide

onth

eor

der

inw

hic

hth

ing

sar

ed

one

onth

ejo

bT

he

job

pro

vid

esm

ew

ith

sig

nif

ican

tau

ton

omy

inm

akin

gd

ecis

ion

sT

he

job

allo

ws

me

tod

ecid

eon

my

own

how

tog

oab

out

doi

ng

my

wor

k

0.78

5

Tas

kv

arie

tyF

our

orig

inal

WD

Qit

ems

Th

ejo

bin

vol

ves

ag

reat

dea

lof

task

var

iety

Th

ejo

bin

vol

ves

doi

ng

an

um

ber

ofd

iffe

ren

tth

ing

sT

he

job

req

uir

esth

ep

erfo

rman

ceof

aw

ide

ran

ge

ofta

sksb

Th

ejo

bin

vol

ves

per

form

ing

av

arie

tyof

task

s

0.75

9

Tas

ksi

gn

ific

ance

Fou

ror

igin

alW

DQ

item

sT

he

resu

lts

ofm

yw

ork

are

lik

ely

toaf

fect

sig

nif

ican

tly

the

liv

esof

oth

erp

eop

leT

he

job

itse

lfis

ver

ysi

gn

ific

ant

and

imp

orta

nt

inth

eb

road

ersc

hem

eof

thin

gs

Th

ejo

bh

asa

larg

eim

pac

ton

peo

ple

outs

ide

the

org

aniz

atio

nT

he

wor

kp

erfo

rmed

onth

ejo

bh

asa

sig

nif

ican

tim

pac

ton

peo

ple

outs

ide

the

org

aniz

atio

n

0.70

7

Tas

kid

enti

tyF

our

orig

inal

WD

Qit

ems

Th

ejo

bin

vol

ves

com

ple

tin

ga

pie

ceof

wor

kth

ath

asan

obv

iou

sb

egin

nin

gan

den

dT

he

job

isar

ran

ged

soth

atI

can

do

anen

tire

pie

ceof

wor

kfr

omb

egin

nin

gto

end

Th

ejo

bp

rov

ides

me

the

chan

ceto

fin

ish

com

ple

tely

the

pie

ces

ofw

ork

Ib

egin

Th

ejo

bal

low

sm

eto

com

ple

tew

ork

Ist

art

0.84

4

(continued)

Table AI.Research instrument

overview and reliability

639


cohorts

Var

iab

les

Ori

gin

and

nu

mb

erof

item

sIt

ems

Cro

nb

ach

’a

Inte

ract

ion

wit

hot

her

sT

wo

orig

inal

and

two

adju

sted

WD

Qit

ems

(to

incl

ud

ein

tern

alco

mm

un

icat

ion

wit

hco

llea

gu

esfr

omd

iffe

ren

tu

nit

sw

ith

inan

org

aniz

atio

n)

Th

ejo

bre

qu

ires

spen

din

ga

gre

atd

eal

ofti

me

wit

hp

eop

lefr

omot

her

org

aniz

atio

nal

un

itsa

Th

ejo

bre

qu

ires

spen

din

ga

gre

atd

eal

ofti

me

wit

hp

eop

leou

tsid

em

yor

gan

izat

ion

On

the

job

,I

freq

uen

tly

com

mu

nic

ate

wit

hp

eop

lefr

omot

her

org

aniz

atio

nal

un

itsa

Th

ejo

bin

vol

ves

inte

ract

ion

wit

hp

eop

lew

ho

are

not

mem

ber

sof

my

org

aniz

atio

n

0.74

5

Init

iate

din

terd

epen

den

ceT

hre

eor

igin

alW

DQ

item

sT

he

job

req

uir

esm

eto

acco

mp

lish

my

job

bef

ore

oth

ers

com

ple

teth

eir

job

Oth

erjo

bs

dep

end

dir

ectl

yon

my

job

Un

less

my

job

isd

one,

oth

erjo

bs

can

not

be

com

ple

ted

0.72

2

Rec

eiv

edin

terd

epen

den

ceT

hre

eor

igin

alW

DQ

item

sT

he

job

acti

vit

ies

are

gre

atly

affe

cted

by

the

wor

kof

oth

erp

eop

leT

he

job

dep

end

son

the

wor

kof

man

yd

iffe

ren

tp

eop

lefo

rit

sco

mp

leti

onM

yjo

bca

nn

otb

ed

one

un

less

oth

ers

do

thei

rw

ork

0.83

1

Tea

mw

ork

Six

orig

inal

item

sfr

omH

ern

aus

(201

0)I

pla

yd

iffe

ren

tro

les

inse

ver

alte

ams

Iof

ten

coor

din

ate

acti

vit

ies

amon

gte

amm

emb

ers

and

org

aniz

atio

nal

un

its

Iof

ten

acco

mp

lish

my

task

sth

rou

gh

team

wor

kI

feel

ast

ron

gco

hes

ion

amon

gm

yte

amm

emb

ers

Im

ostl

yco

llab

orat

ew

ith

coll

eag

ues

from

the

sam

eh

iera

rch

ical

lev

elb

Mos

tof

the

tim

eI

wor

kin

ate

am

0.73

4

Note

s:

aO

rig

inal

item

adju

sted

by

auth

ors;

bit

emex

clu

ded

du

eto

con

stru

ctre

liab

ilit

yre

qu

irem

ents

Table AI.

640

JOCM27,4

About the authors

Dr Tomislav Hernaus is an Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Economics and Business,University of Zagreb. His current research interest is multilevel design of organizations andwork. He is the author or a co-author of three books, a dozen book chapters, and a significantnumber of scientific papers published in refereed journals or presented at conferencesworldwide. He has received several awards and honours for his scientific accomplishments.Dr Tomislav Hernaus is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

Nina Poloski Vokic is a Full Professor at the Faculty of Economics and Business, Universityof Zagreb. Her current research interests include human resource metrics, employee relations anddiversity issues. She is the author or a co-author of three books, an editor of three books, and theauthor of numerous book chapters and scientific papers. She has received several awards andhonours for her scientific accomplishments.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

641


cohorts

Work design for different generational cohorts: Determining common and idiosyncratic job characteristics

Documents