Intellectual structure of multigenerational workforce and contextualizing work values across generations: a multistage analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study attempts to understand the research clusters and thematic evolution of the topic generational diversity at workplace, over the period of 2001–2009 and 2010–2018. Furthermore, it attempts to identify the key shifts (and convergence) that have taken place in the value system across generational cohorts. Design/methodology/approach In this context, the first stage of the study involved an in-depth systematic analysis of extant literature on multigenerational workforce between 2001–2009 and 2010–2018 by applying bibliometric analysis. Following an explanatory mix-method approach, the second stage of the study comprised of 32 interviews conducted across generations, exploring the role of ethics at the workplace. Findings It was revealed that during the period 2001–2009, communication and identification of generational characteristics emerged as the major themes. The 2010–2018 period unraveled four themes of research – retaining and engaging millennials through leadership, generational differences in work values, impact of generational differences on organizational-level variables and generational diversity in education and nursing. The outcome from the second stage showed that work values differ across generations with an emphasis on intrinsic work values, and work values have rather deteriorated, with baby boomers possessing stronger work ethics in comparison to the millennials. Finally, an integrated model for multigenerational workforce has been proposed. Research limitations/implications This paper provides significant inputs to the expanding research in the area of work values, as it delves into the principal mechanisms leading to differences in work values among generations. Originality/value Bibliometric analysis, which is a quantitative approach to understanding the intellectual structure of a research topic, has been applied to generational diversity at the workplace. This constitutes a novel attempt that can be bracketed as a pertinent contribution to the field.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".