MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7028512963

Generational Differences in the Workplace: Myth or Reality?

2018· other· en· W7028512963 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueUSC Research Bank (University of the Sunshine Coast) · 2018
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGenerational Differences and Trends
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKing's College LondonNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaU.S. Department of DefenseTrent UniversityLondon School of Economics and Political ScienceMenzies Centre for Australian Studies, King's College London, University of LondonNottingham Trent UniversityNational Institute for Occupational Safety and HealthPortland State University
KeywordsJob satisfactionAffect (linguistics)Generation yMythologyMultivariate analysisGeneration xJob attitudeSocial perception
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The existence of up to five generations within the work environment, i.e. the Silent Generation/Traditionals, Baby Boomers, Generation X/Gen Xers, Generation Y/Millennials and Generation Z/iGeneration, has raised queries on the differences, if any, that exist between these groups. There are hypotheses that they differ in work values, expectations and entitlements. However, the research to date does not provide definitive evidence on how these groups perceive and respond to work-related outcomes. This present study seeks to add to the evidence by exploring attitudes of the Traditionals, Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y on various work-related outcomes, i.e., work-life conflict, job satisfaction, organisational commitment, and turnover intentions. Previous discussions on differences between these groups have postulated that these are areas on which the groups could differ. Method: The study used a cross-sectional design, which included collecting the data using an online survey. The participants completed measures of work-life conflict, job satisfaction, organisational commitment, turnover intentions, busyness, positive and negative affect (PANAS, satisfaction with life, self-efficacy, psychological job demands, co-worker social support, job autonomy, and demographic information. Analysis: The data were subjected to various analyses. These included psychometric testing to assess the robustness of the variables, correlation analyses and multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA). These analyses provided insight into the nature of the relationships and the interdependence of the factors in the present study. Results: The participants (N = 462) were between 17 and 76 years old (M = 31.23; SD = 14.27) and consisted of more women than men (M = 1.79; SD = 0.41). The MANCOVA consisted of the four dependent variables of work-life conflict, job satisfaction, organisational commitment, and turnover intentions; age recorded into three groups of Traditionals/Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y, which was entered as a fixed factor; busyness, social support, PANAS, satisfaction with life, self-efficacy, psychological job demands, co-worker social support, and job autonomy were entered as covariates. The overall model was not significant indicating that the fixed factor of age, as categorised into the three groups, did not affect the dependent variables. However, the univariate tests showed that age did affect organisational commitment, with the group of Traditionals/Baby Boomers more likely to be committed to their organisations. The factors that affected on or more of the dependent variables were busyness, satisfaction with life, self-efficacy, demands, social support and autonomy. Discussion: Diversity in the workforce is a reality, whether this is in respect of age, gender, disability or ethnicity, and which supports the need for an inclusive work environment. This present research provides insight into the perceptions of three generations of workers. It showed that the three generations did not differ in their ratings of work-related outcomes and as such these differences might not be relevant on which to focus extensively. The work characteristics that affected this sample were those that have been shown previously to impact, such as having too much to do and not enough control to manage the work day. These issues will be discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.608
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.175
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.196 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it