Satisfaction with work and person–environment fit: are there intergenerational differences? An examination through person–job, person–group and person–supervisor fit
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Through three dimensions of person–environment (PE) fit, namely person–job (PJ) fit, person–group (PG) fit and person–supervisor (PS) fit, this paper examines generational differences on which dimension is more important to explain Baby Boomers', Generation X's and Generation Y's satisfaction with work. Design/methodology/approach Gathered from a sample of 1,065 employees in the province of Québec, Canada, data were analyzed through one-way ANOVA and structural equation modeling. Findings The findings suggest that Generation X scored lower on satisfaction with work, that there is a difference in the level of PG fit and PS fit between the generations, and that PJ fit explains satisfaction with work for all generations, while PG fit is significant only for Generation Y employees. Practical implications This paper sheds light on the importance for practitioners, when implementing human resource (HR) policies and strategies aiming to increase satisfaction with work, of prioritizing PJ fit and to consider PG fit for Generation Y members. Originality/value This research provides a meaningful contribution to current knowledge on generational diversity in the workplace and its impact on managerial practices by examining different levels of satisfaction with work and of PJ, PG and PS fit for three generations and the importance of each type of fit in explaining satisfaction with work for theses generations.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it