For the talent peer group

1. A Review of the Empirical Evidence on Generational Differences
in Work Attitudes
Jean M. Twenge
Published online: 18 February 2010
Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
Abstract
Purpose This article reviews the evidence for genera-
tional differences in work values from time-lag studies
(which can separate generation from age/career stage) and
cross-sectional studies (which cannot). Understanding
generational shifts is especially important given the coming
retirement of Baby Boomer workers and their replacement
by those born after 1982 (GenMe/GenY/Millennials).
Findings Most studies, including the few time-lag stud-
ies, show that GenX and especially GenMe rate work as
less central to their lives, value leisure more, and express a
weaker work ethic than Boomers and Silents. Extrinsic
work values (e.g., salary) are higher in GenMe and espe-
cially GenX. Contrary to popular conceptions, there were
no generational differences in altruistic values (e.g.,
wanting to help others). Conflicting results appeared in
desire for job stability, intrinsic values (e.g., meaning), and
social/affiliative values (e.g., making friends). GenX, and
especially GenMe are consistently higher in individualistic
traits. Overall, generational differences are important
where they appear, as even small changes at the average
mean that twice or three times as many individuals score at
the top of the distribution.
Implications To recruit GenMe, companies should focus
on work–life balance issues and flexible schedules. Pro-
grams based on volunteering, altruistic values, social val-
ues, or meaning in work will likely be no more successful
than they were for previous generations. The lack of gen-
erational differences in job hopping suggests that GenMe
workers who are satisfied will be retained.
Originality/value No previous review has summarized all
of the available studies examining generational differences
in work values.
Keywords Work values Á Generations Á Work ethic Á
Leisure Á Extrinsic values
With the retirement of many Baby Boomers (born 1946–
1964), the workplace is changing. Organizations are expe-
riencing an influx of younger workers, many born after 1982
(and called, variously, GenY, Millennials, nGen, or GenMe;
I will use the GenMe label: Twenge 2006). Just as they did
when GenX (born 1965–1981) entered the workforce in the
1980s and 1990s, managers are wondering if it’s just their
perception, or if this young generation of workers really is
different. This article will review the empirical evidence on
generational differences in work values to give managers and
others a clearer picture of how to recruit, retain, and motivate
the members of today’s multigenerational workplace.
Generational differences in work values have received
extensive media coverage recently in major outlets such as
‘‘60 Minutes,’’ Business Week, The Wall Street Journal, and
Fortune (e.g., Alsop 2008; Chao 2005; Gloeckler 2008; Hira
2007; Needleman 2008). These reports noted the accom-
modations and perks many companies have implemented to
attract and retain young workers, from employees being paid
to volunteer, to more time off, to in-house gyms. However,
many of these reports—and possibly the programs used by
the companies—have not been verified by empirical
research on generational differences. For example, the vol-
unteer programs are based on the idea that those born after
1982 are more altruistic and have a greater desire than GenX
and the Boomers did to help others and do work that is
worthwhile to society (perhaps based on the theories of
J. M. Twenge (&)
Department of Psychology, San Diego State University,
5500 Campanile Drive, San Diego, CA 92182-4611, USA
e-mail: jtwenge@mail.sdsu.edu
123
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:201–210
DOI 10.1007/s10869-010-9165-6

2. Howe and Strauss 2000). However, the truth of this
assumption has not been verified by, for example, examining
generational differences in altruistic work values. As
another example, many articles and programs emphasize the
importance of leisure activities and time off to the young
generation, but rarely mention any empirical evidence on
leisure values. Books on generations at work (e.g., Lancaster
and Stillman 2003; Tulgan 2009) often rely on qualitative
interviews done at one time rather than quantitative data to
draw conclusions—an improvement over conjecture, but not
systematic evidence of generational differences.
One of the biggest challenges in research on genera-
tional differences is, to put it facetiously, the lack of a
workable time machine. Most studies on generational dif-
ferences in work values are cross-sectional, with data on
workers of different ages collected at one point in time.
Thus, any differences could be due to age/career stage or to
generation, and it is impossible to separate the two (Schaie
1965). The best design for determining generational dif-
ferences is a time-lag study, which examines people of the
same age at different points in time. With age held con-
stant, any differences are due to either generation (enduring
differences based on birth cohort) or time period (change
over time that affects all generations). Time period effects
are often the weakest of the three, as attitudes are often
formed early and retained (e.g., Low et al. 2005; Schaie
1965), so the time-lag design has distinct advantages for
isolating generational differences. However, time-lag
studies are rare because they require similar samples of the
same age asked the same questions in different years. To
my knowledge, only three academic studies have examined
work values using a time-lag design (Kowske et al. 2010;
Smola and Sutton 2002; Twenge et al. in press). A fourth
study, published online as an ‘‘issues brief’’ by the Families
and Work Institute (2006), contains time-lag data from
surveys of several thousand U.S. workers in 1977, 1992,
and 2002 drawn from the National Study of the Changing
Workforce and the Quality of Employment Survey.
All the academic time-lag studies have weaknesses that
should be noted. Smola and Sutton (2002) compared the
responses of a 1999 sample of workers in the U.S. to those of
a 1974 sample on some of the same questions. Unfortu-
nately, the 1999 sample had only an 8% response rate, which
may have biased the results. Only comparisons on individual
items were possible, as the scale total means from the 1974
data were not available; nor were the standard deviations for
individual items. The 1999 sample did not include GenY/
GenMe, as the oldest in this generation were only about 17 in
1999; GenX was the youngest generation studied. The sec-
ond study, Twenge et al. (in press), drew data on work values
from the nationally (U.S.) representative survey Monitoring
the Future (MTF), which has surveyed high school seniors
every spring since 1976. The time-lag design and the
nationally representative sample with a high participation
rate are major strengths. The downside is that this is a sample
of young people poised to enter the workforce rather than
actual workers. Although work values seem to be fairly
stable through young adulthood (Low et al. 2005), it is still
possible that these values could change once the participants
enter the working world. Kowske et al.’s (2010) study has
data on job satisfaction from workers of many ages across
24 years (1985–2009) and thus can separate the effects of
age, generation, and time period. However, it can only
directly compare young workers (and thus completely con-
trol for age) for GenX and GenMe, as Boomers were
twentysomething workers in the late 1960s through the early
1980s, before data collection for this study began in 1985. In
addition, respondents in this dataset must volunteer by
responding to an advertisement; thus their attitudes may not
be representative of the American workforce as a whole
(Malhotra and Krosnick 2007). It is also possible that the
likelihood of volunteering for a study might interact with
generation and confound the results.
Overall, the literature on generational differences in
work values is diverse; the studies reviewed below used
respondents from Australia, Belgium, Europe as a whole,
New Zealand, and the U.S. In addition, no two studies
looked at exactly the same work values or variables.
However, most of the studies examine at least one variable
falling into one of five general categories: work ethic, work
centrality, and leisure; altruistic values; extrinsic versus
intrinsic values; affiliation or social values; and job satis-
faction and intention to leave. Below, I review the available
evidence—primarily papers published in peer-reviewed
journals—on generational differences in work values, and
the evidence for personality differences relevant to the
workplace. Where possible, I note the effect sizes for the
generational differences in terms of d, which captures the
difference in standard deviations between two groups. The
size of an effect needed to be important is somewhat sub-
jective; Cohen (1977) chose somewhat arbitrary cutoffs of
d = 0.20 = small, d = 0.50 = moderate, and d = 0.80
large. (Note, however, that the effect size of the obesity
epidemic over 30 years in the U.S. is ‘‘only’’ d = 0.31;
Twenge and Campbell 2009). In addition, I address issues
such as the age-generation confound, the size of the effects,
and whether the effects are linear or categorical.
The Evidence for Generational Differences
in Work Values
Work Ethic, Work Centrality, and Leisure
Three time-lag studies find that more recent generations
place less value on work for its own sake. Smola and
202 J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:201–210
123

3. Sutton’s (2002) 1999 respondents were more likely than the
1974 respondents to agree that ‘‘I would quit my job if I
inherited a lot of money’’ (d’s = 0.13 and 0.14 for 27–40-
year-old respondents and 41–65-year-old respondents,
respectively) and disagree that ‘‘Rich people should feel an
obligation to work even if they do not need to’’ (d’s = 0.38
and 0.61; note that effect sizes were calculated using only
the 1999 SDs as the SDs from 1974 were not available. In
addition, effect sizes cannot be computed for scales in this
study as the content means were not available for the 1974
data.) Similarly, in the MTF time-lag study, 2006 partici-
pants (GenMe) were more likely than Boomers to agree that
‘‘If I had enough money, I would not want to work’’
(d = 0.16; GenX was in the middle; Twenge et al. in press).
Both the studies also found that work centrality has
declined. Smola and Sutton (2002)’s 1999 respondents,
compared to those in 1974, were less likely to agree that
‘‘Work should be one of the most important parts of a
person’s life’’ (d’s = 0.50 and 0.59). Similarly, 2006
GenMe respondents, compared to Boomers in 1976, were
more likely to disagree that ‘‘I expect my work to be a very
central part of my life’’ (d = 0.27; 2/3 of GenMe expected
work to be central, compared to 3/4 of Boomers at the same
age) and more likely to agree that ‘‘To me, work is nothing
more than making a living’’ (GenX was again in the mid-
dle; d = 0.38; 1/3 of GenMe agreed, compared to 1/4 of
Boomers at the same age).
The Families and Work Institute report on several
thousand U.S. workers found that the desire to move into a
job with greater responsibility declined over time: In 1992,
80% of workers under 23 eventually wanted a job with
more responsibility, but that slid to 60% in 2002. Those
23–27 years old (69% in 1992, 54% in 2002) and
38–57 years old (41% in 1992, 31% in 2002) also showed
declines. Many of those who did not desire advancement
named not wanting to work more hours as the reason.
In cross-sectional data, the Families and Work Institute
report also found that more Boomers (22%) than GenX
(13%) or GenMe (12%) were work-centric, and more of
GenMe (50%) and GenX (52%) were family-centric than
Boomers (40%); this was true even when only those with
children at home were compared and the age of the
youngest child was controlled. Cennamo and Gardner’s
(2008) cross-sectional study found that GenMe valued
freedom (which they defined as work-life balance) more
than GenX or Boomers.
GenMe also scored significantly higher than Boomers
(d = 0.57) on a reliable and scalar invariant scale of leisure
work values such as valuing a job with more vacation time
and wanting a job that allows one to work slowly (GenX
was in the middle; Twenge et al., in press). Some con-
ceptions of leisure values include freedom from supervi-
sion as part of the concept; for example, the item ‘‘A job
which leaves you mostly free of supervision from others’’
loaded on the leisure factor in the MTF data. In that study,
GenX was significantly more likely than Boomers to value
freedom from supervision; this decreased between GenX
and GenMe, though GenMe still valued this slightly more
than Boomers (Twenge et al., in press). Jurkiewicz (2000)
also found that GenX valued freedom from supervision
more than Boomers in her cross-sectional study of public
sector employees. Thus, across three time-lag studies and
two cross-sectional studies, fewer respondents recently and
in younger generations were focused on work and more
were focused on leisure.
However, Davis et al.’s (2006) cross-sectional study of
U.S. information technology workers found that GenX
scored higher in job involvement and normative commit-
ment to the organization than Boomers, though they
acknowledged this could be due to career stage rather than
generation. Wong et al.’s (2008) cross-sectional study of
Australian workers found that GenX, and especially Gen-
Me, scored higher than Boomers in achieving traits, which
they defined as perceiving oneself as ‘‘ambitious and
career-oriented and the degree to which they prefer to work
to demanding goals and targets,’’ and found no differences
in Immersion, or being ‘‘motivated by work that requires
commitment beyond ‘normal’ working hours.’’ Wong et al.
note that these differences were likely caused by age/career
stage rather than generation, as previous research has found
a strong age effect for achieving traits, with younger people
scoring higher (Appelbaum et al. 2004). The Families and
Work Institute report (2006) found this as well, with
younger workers more likely to want to advance (in cross-
sectional data), but the desire to advance decreasing
between 1992 and 2002 (in time-lag data).
There is less data available on work ethic, but it is fairly
consistent. Smola and Sutton’s 41–65-year-old respondents
in 1999 were less likely than those in this age group in
1974 to agree ‘‘A worker should do a decent job whether or
not his supervisor is around’’ (d = 0.37). Participants in
1999 were also less likely than those in 1974 to agree ‘‘A
worker should feel a sense of pride in his work’’ or that
working hard made them ‘‘feel more worthwhile and [like]
a better person’’ (d’s = 0.22 and 0.51). In the MTF time-
lag data, GenMe (in 2006) were less likely than Boomers
(in 1976) to agree ‘‘I want to do my best in my job, even if
this sometimes means working overtime’’ (d = 0.22;
Twenge et al., in press; GenX was in the middle). GenMe
was also more likely than Boomers to say that they might
not get the job they wanted because they ‘‘don’t want to
work hard’’ (d = 0.33; Twenge and Campbell 2010).
A cross-sectional study of Australian workers found
that GenX, and especially GenMe, employees were ‘‘less
interested in unpaid overtime’’ than Boomers (Busch et al.
2008). A study of industrial workers found that 2006
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:201–210 203
123

4. workers were willing to lift only 69% as much as workers
tested prior to 1991. They were also willing to carry only
70% as much as pre-1991 workers (Ciriello et al. 2008).
Thus most studies find a decline in the work ethic, with
more recent generations expressing less interest in working
hard, putting in overtime, and taking pride in one’s work.
However, the Family and Work Institute (2006) study
found that workers 23–37 years old actually worked more
hours in 2002 than in 1977, reflecting the general trend
toward longer work hours in the U.S. over time. There are a
number of explanations for this seeming discrepancy
between attitudes and behavior. Perhaps workers may not
want to work more hours but may be required to by their
employers. Or perhaps younger generations’ more negative
attitude toward overtime reflects the reality that working
overtime means working even more hours on top of already
long hours. However, the negative attitude toward overtime
appears even among high school students, most of whom
have not yet held a full-time job (though it is possible they
watched their parents work too many hours). In addition,
the work centrality questions (e.g., ‘‘work is just making a
living,’’ ‘‘work should be one of the most important parts of
a person’s life’’) do not refer to hours worked yet still show
the same decline, suggesting a larger underlying trend
toward valuing work less. Further research should explore
why younger generations place less value on work, and
whether this is caused by (or in spite of) the longer hours
worked by many employees.
Summary
Most studies, including the only three using a time-lag
method to separate generational from age/career stage
differences, consistently find that GenX, and especially
GenMe, express a weaker work ethic, believe that work is
less central to their lives, value leisure, and seek more
freedom and work-life balance than their Boomer coun-
terparts. Thus, there is a fairly consistent generational trend
toward leisure values; when studies find a greater drive for
achievement in GenMe or GenX, they are cross-sectional
and thus may be tapping differences based on age/career
stage rather than generation. The best data available show
that younger generations are more likely to value time off
and less likely to value work for work’s sake. Most of these
effects are moderate in size (d’s between 0.20 and 0.60; the
scale of leisure values, the only evidence not based on
single-item analyses, changed d = 0.57). At the same time,
American workers are now working longer hours than they
did a few decades ago; further research should explore the
possibly reciprocal, and seemingly paradoxical, relation-
ship between longer work hours and waning work cen-
trality and work ethic expressed in surveys.
Altruistic Values (Helping, Volunteering)
The MTF time-lag study found no significant differences
among the three generations on a scale of altruistic work
values (Twenge et al., in press). GenMe was significantly
less likely than Boomers to say they wanted ‘‘a job that
gives you an opportunity to be directly helpful to others’’
(d = -0.13; GenX was in the middle) and there were no
significant differences among Boomers, GenX, and GenMe
in wanting ‘‘A job that is worthwhile to society.’’ Cennamo
and Gardner’s (2008) cross-sectional study also found no
generational/age differences in altruistic work values. It
appears that this work value is fairly constant across
generations.
The apparently mistaken perception that GenMe is more
interested in altruistic values than previous generations
may have begun with data showing that recent high school
seniors were more likely to report volunteering their time
than their predecessors (Howe and Strauss 2000). How-
ever, over this same time period, many high schools began
requiring volunteer service in order to graduate; volunteer
service also became more important for college applica-
tions. Thus, this trend probably does not indicate an
internalized shift toward altruistic values.
Summary
GenMe are not higher in altruistic work values than pre-
vious generations. Thus, programs offering time off work
for volunteering (for a summary, see Needleman 2008) or
recruiting programs emphasizing helping others while
working may be effective for today’s young workers, but
no more so than they are or were for workers of other
generations.
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Work Values
Intrinsic work values include finding meaning and interest
in work; extrinsic values include status, respect, and a high
salary. The MTF time-lag study found no differences in
intrinsic values between Boomers and GenX and a small
decline in intrinsic values from Boomers to GenMe (d =
-0.20; Twenge et al., in press). This factor included items
such as ‘‘A job which is interesting to do,’’ ‘‘A job where
you can learn new things, learn new skills,’’ ‘‘A job where
you can see the results of what you do,’’ and ‘‘A job
where you do not have to pretend to be a type of person
that you are not.’’ Jurkiewicz’s (2000) cross-sectional study
of public sector workers in the U.S. found that Boomers
were more likely than X’ers to value the ‘‘chance to learn
new things’’; there were no significant differences in other
intrinsic values such as ‘‘chance to use my special abili-
ties.’’ Cennamo and Gardner’s (2008) cross-sectional study
204 J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:201–210
123

5. found no significant generational differences in intrinsic
values.
In the MTF time-lag data, extrinsic values showed a
curvilinear pattern, with GenX significantly more likely
to value money, status, and prestige than Boomers
(d = 0.39); these values decreased between GenX and
GenMe (d = -0.13), but were still significantly higher
among GenMe than among Boomers (d = 0.26; Twenge
et al., in press). Jurkiewicz’s (2000) cross-sectional study
found no differences between Boomers and GenX in
extrinsic values such as ‘‘high prestige and social status’’
and ‘‘high salary’’; Cennamo and Gardner’s (2008) cross-
sectional study found no significant generational differ-
ences in most extrinsic values, but did find a significant
difference in status-related work values, with a linear
increase from Boomers to GenX to GenMe.
Summary
Intrinsic values appear to be relatively consistent across
generations, with no differences between Boomers and
GenX in time-lag data, a small decline between Boomers
and GenMe, and few differences in cross-sectional studies.
Thus, theories those younger generations seek ‘‘meaning’’
in work, and expect work to be ‘‘an expression of their
identity’’ (e.g., Arnett, 2004, p. 143) are not supported—at
least not any more for GenX and GenMe than they were for
Boomers. In fact, GenMe favors intrinsic values slightly
less than Boomers did at the same age. The time-lag data
suggests an increase in extrinsic values across the genera-
tions, with an especially large increase from Boomers to
GenX. In addition, a cross-sectional study found that GenX
and GenMe valued status more, but most extrinsic values
did not vary across age/generation.
Affiliation or Social Values
Some workers are motivated by the social and affiliative
aspects of work, such as making friends and having
pleasant interactions with others. The MTF time-lag study
found a decline in social values at work (d = -0.28; e.g.,
‘‘A job that gives you the chance to make friends’’)
between Boomers and GenMe (Twenge et al., in press). In
contrast, Wong et al.’s (2008) cross-sectional study found
that GenX, and especially GenMe, scored higher in affili-
ation values than Boomers on two different scales.
Thus the two studies examining affiliation or social
values find conflicting results. It is possible that the dif-
ferences found in Wong et al.’s cross-sectional study were
caused by age; perhaps, younger people are more interested
in affiliating with people at work (a definite possibility, as
younger people are more likely to be single and have more
of a social life outside of home). It is also possible that the
time-lag study found a time period effect; perhaps, all
generations declined in social values between the 1970s
and the 2000s.
Summary
The two studies examining affiliation or social values at
work find conflicting results, so it is difficult to draw con-
clusions about this value. There may be a time period effect
somewhat independent of generation with more recent
workers not seeking as much social interaction at work.
Job Satisfaction and Intention to Leave
Kowske et al. (2010) present a comprehensive analysis of
job satisfaction items from an over-time survey that sepa-
rates the effects of generation, age, and time period in data
collected between 1985 and 2009. When controlling for
age and time period, they find that GenMe, compared to
GenX, reports higher job satisfaction, more satisfaction
with recognition, more satisfaction with career develop-
ment, and more confidence in job security (these effects
vary between d = 0.24 and d = 0.28). Other effects were
smaller (e.g., d = 0.18 for turnover intentions). Overall,
the results show that GenMe reports higher job satisfaction
than GenX, and expresses less desire to leave their jobs.
Cross-sectional studies show different results, but that
may be due to confounding with age. Cennamo and
Gardner’s (2008) cross-sectional study found that GenMe
was significantly more likely to say they had thoughts of
leaving their company than Boomers (d = 0.67; GenX was
in the middle). They found no significant differences in job
satisfaction and affective organizational commitment.
D’Amato and Herzfeld’s (2008) cross-sectional study of
European managers found that GenX was less willing to
remain with their current employer than Boomers, and
scored lower in organizational commitment. Davis et al.’s
(2006) cross-sectional study found that Boomers scored
higher than GenX in continuance commitment to the pro-
fession, but there were no differences between Boomers
and GenX in work involvement, affective commitment to
the organization, or continuance, affective, or normative
commitment to the profession.
However, Dries et al.’s (2008) cross-sectional study of
European workers found that GenMe actually reported a
higher need for security in their jobs than Boomers, or
especially GenX, agreeing with items such as ‘‘I am most
fulfilled in my work when I feel that I have complete
financial and employment security’’ and ‘‘I seek jobs in
organizations that will give me a sense of security and
stability.’’
The MTF time-lag study had only one question relevant
to job-hopping: ‘‘I would like to stay in the same job for
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:201–210 205
123

6. most of my adult life.’’ Contrary to most of the cross-
sectional findings, GenX and GenMe, compared to
Boomers, were actually slightly more likely to agree with
this item (d = 0.13, Twenge et al., in press). Similarly, the
Families and Work Institute study found that workers age
24–37 were no more likely to say that they planned to leave
their current employers in 2002 than they were in 1977.
However, those under age 23 were more likely to say they
would leave their jobs in 2002 (70%) when compared to
those of the same age in 1977 (52%).
Summary
The best data on job satisfaction, job-hopping, and com-
mitment to the organization—that which controls for age—
shows that GenMe is actually more satisfied with their jobs
and want more job security than older generations. The
generations are fairly similar in their attitudes toward
leaving their current company. There may be a discrepancy
between initial intentions and behaviors; when presented
with other opportunities, GenX and GenMe seem to be
eager to embrace them. As Dries et al. (2008) put it,
‘‘Although certain career aspirations (such as achieving
organizational security) may not have changed much,
career reality has—causing a shift from traditional, boun-
ded career types to staying and homeless career types
(where there is a multiple-employer career, but still a
longing for stability and security)’’ (p. 920). GenMe seems
to be saying that they like their jobs and would like to stay
in them, but this attitude may break down when better
opportunities arise.
Generational Differences in Personality Traits Relevant
to the Workplace
Several studies have examined generational differences in
personality traits using a time-lag design, primarily in child
and college student samples. These studies consistently
show increases in individualistic traits over the generations,
with younger generations scoring higher on both positive
individualistic traits such as self-esteem and assertiveness
(Gentile, Twenge and Campbell 2001, 2009; Twenge 2001)
and more negative individualistic traits such as narcissism
(Twenge et al. 2008; Twenge and Foster 2010; for a review
of the cultural-level changes toward narcissism, see
Twenge and Campbell 2009; for a more extensive review
of how these generational changes in personality traits may
affect the workplace, see Twenge and Campbell 2008).
Effect sizes are between d = 0.33 and d = 1.08. These
results are consistent with a cross-sectional study showing
that GenX (vs. Boomer) employees scored higher in traits
such as self-reliance, competitiveness, and preferring to
work alone (Sirias et al. 2007), including statements
such as ‘‘Winning is everything,’’ ‘‘In the long run, the only
person you can count on is yourself,’’ and ‘‘If you want
something done right, you have got to do it yourself.’’
However, there were no differences in making sacrifices
for the group. A very large cross-sectional study of U.S.
and Canadian workers (n = 20,640) found that younger
leaders were more likely to use a more individual leader-
ship style (vs. the more consensual leadership style favored
by older leaders: Sessa et al. 2007). Sirias et al. suggest that
a new model for teamwork might be necessary, given
GenXers’ more individualistic attitudes. GenMe has con-
tinued these trends.
Individualism has both upsides and downsides. The
upside is that GenX, and especially GenMe, are more likely
to recognize the right and ability of individuals to succeed
and contribute regardless of their background—in other
words, to treat people as individuals rather than members
of racial or gender groups. The downside, especially when
individualism reaches the level of narcissism (defined as an
inflated sense of self), is the possibility of entitlement, or
expecting something for nothing. The rise in narcissistic
and entitled attitudes may be one of the reasons why work
ethic has declined even as materialistic values have
increased, a seemingly contradictory combination (Twenge
and Campbell 2009). This disconnect may be why some
have labeled those born since 1982 ‘‘The Entitlement
Generation’’ (Alsop 2008). Of course, not every—or even
most—members of this generation will fit this description,
but there are more than in previous generations. For a
summary of the generational differences, see Table 1.
Issues in Research on Generational Differences
in Work Values
The Age–Generation Confound
Although in some areas (e.g., work centrality) time-lag and
cross-sectional studies are fairly congruent, in other cases
they disagree. Where they are discrepant, the most logical
explanation is that the cross-sectional study is also tapping
differences due to age or career stage. For example, Wong
et al. (2008) found that GenMe was higher in affiliation
values, whereas a time-lag study found that social values
have declined. Thus, it is fairly likely that the difference
found by Wong et al. (2008) was caused by younger
workers seeking out more of a social life than older (and
probably married) workers, and not by a generational
effect. The other possibility is that the time-lag studies are
finding a time period effect, i.e., all generations have
changed over time in the same way. This is less likely, as
work values remain fairly stable (Low et al. 2005). Nev-
ertheless, both possibilities should be considered.
206 J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:201–210
123

7. Size of the Effects
The size of the generational differences in work values
differs depending on the specific value. In the MTF time-
lag study, the shift in leisure values was the largest, with an
increase of 0.57 standard deviations between Boomers and
GenMe (Twenge et al., in press). Work centrality also
showed fairly large effects in this study: Almost twice as
many young people in 2006 rated having a job with more
than 2 weeks of vacation as ‘‘very important’’ as did in
1976. The effect sizes in Smola and Sutton’s (2002) time-
lag study were similar, with work centrality showing effect
sizes between 0.37 and 0.61. Cennamo and Gardner’s
(2008) cross-sectional study found a large effect for
intention to leave the company, d = 0.67 between Boom-
ers and GenMe; however, it is not known how much of this
effect is due to age/career stage and how much due to
generation.
Many of the other effect sizes are smaller, though still
significant and potentially meaningful. For example, in the
MTF time-lag study, GenMe valued extrinsic rewards
d = 0.26 more than Boomers did at the same age (Twenge
et al., in press). In Wong et al. (2008), one of the smaller
changes was in affiliation, with GenMe higher than
Boomers d = 0.33. Kowske et al. (2010) find generational
effects in job satisfaction around d = 0.25. As noted
above, however, the obesity epidemic effect size is
d = 0.31. The effect of secondhand smoke on lung cancer
in North America, which inspired the passage of many laws
restricting smoking in public places, is d = 0.07. Most
psychological and behavioral differences among men and
women are less than d = 0.50, with most gender differ-
ences in performance less than d = 0.30, yet it is com-
monly accepted that there are meaningful differences by
gender.
In addition, even small to moderate changes in the
average can multiply to large changes at the ends of
distributions. In a time-lag study, the average U.S. college
student’s narcissism score rose d = 0.33 between Boomers
and GenMe (Twenge et al. 2008). This is the same effect
size that Wong et al. (2008) found in their cross-sectional
study for affiliation, and only slightly larger than the
d = 0.28 Kowske et al. (2010) found for job satisfaction.
Although this is only a small to moderate change, there are
fairly large changes higher in the distribution. For example,
only about 15% of Boomers endorsed the majority of
questions on a narcissism inventory in the early 1980s, but
24% of GenMe did. A near-doubling of those high in
narcissism or affiliation between generations is not small
and is likely to be noticed. Thus, it is baffling that Wong
et al. (2008) would conclude that ‘‘in practical application
terms, these differences are almost negligible,’’ especially
since they found many effects higher than d = 0.33. Six of
Wong et al.’s effects were over d = 0.40, and would thus
result in a tripling to quadrupling of those scoring at the
ends of the distribution. Of course, they also found that
several scales showed no differences based on generation/
age. Clearly, not every trait or work value will differ.
It is also extremely important to note that these are
average differences. Even for a larger difference such as
those in leisure values, there is more variation within a
generation than there is among generations. Although the
average GenMe worker will value leisure more than the
average Boomer worker did at the same age, this cannot be
generalized to all members of the generation. Just as
average gender differences or average ethnic differences do
not apply to every member, generation is just one variable
when considering differences among individuals.
Many people probably perceive generational differences
as stronger than they actually are. Some of this might be
the natural human tendency to generalize; for example,
gender differences are smaller than many people perceive.
In addition, some have argued that older people ‘‘always’’
tend to perceive the younger generation negatively, but no
Table 1 Summary of empirical
evidence for generational
differences in work values
Note: Silent born 1925–1945;
Boomers 1946–1964; GenX
1965–1981; GenMe/GenY/
Millennials born 1982–1999
Work value or trait Findings
Work centrality Silent [ Boomer [ GenX [ GenMe
Work ethic Silent [ Boomer [ GenX [ GenMe
Leisure values GenMe [ GenX [ Boomers
Altruistic values (helping, volunteering) No differences
Intrinsic values (meaning, using talents) No differences
Extrinsic values (money, status) GenX [ GenMe [ Boomers
Affiliation or social values Time-lag: Boomers [ GenX [ GenMe
Cross-sectional: GenMe [ GenX [ Boomers
Job satisfaction and intention to leave GenMe [ GenX in job satisfaction
Conflicting results for intention to leave
Individualistic traits and attitudes GenMe [ GenX [ Boomers [ Silent
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:201–210 207
123

8. empirical data have been provided to back up this idea. In
fact, recent polls show that GenMe—not their elders—are
actually the most likely to agree that their generation is
self-indulgent and greedy (Harris Poll 2008). Thus, older
generations are actually more complimentary toward the
young than the young are themselves. Even the quotes
often used to support the ‘‘older people have always
complained’’ idea (e.g., Socrates writing ‘‘Children today
are tyrants. They contradict their parents, gobble their food,
and tyrannize their teachers’’) are apocryphal—Socrates
never wrote anything down, much less a complaint about
Greek youth, and no one has been able to verify this quote.
In addition, the numerous studies reviewed above did
not collect data on how the older generation(s) perceive the
younger generation(s), but instead relied on what those
generations said about themselves. Thus perceptions are
not relevant. As a final point: if individualistic traits, the
desire for leisure, etc., have been increasing linearly for a
long time (and this appears to be true—see below), then it
has ‘‘always’’ been true that younger generations are more
entitled and lazy. Boomers valued work less than Silents,
GenX less than Boomers, and GenMe less than GenX
across the time-lag studies, greater than a half century of
decline in work centrality. Just because something has been
said before does not mean it is wrong, particularly if
change has been linear.
Nevertheless, it is possible that the perception of gen-
erational differences—particularly negative differences—is
stronger than the reality. This may occur because people
remember negative experiences more strongly than good
experiences (Baumeister et al. 2001), and—even apart
from memory—people spend more time dealing with
problems than non-problems, especially the more extreme
cases. For example, a manager is likely to spend more time
managing employees with a very poor work ethic. Even if
the average work ethic has changed only moderately over
the generations that means twice or three times as many
workers very low in work ethic. This may lead to the
perception of a very strong generational shift, even if the
shift at the average is only moderate.
Linear Effects Versus Generational Labels
The three time-lag studies (Families and Work Institute
2006; Smola and Sutton 2002; Twenge et al., in press), all
find a linear (not categorical) trend across the generations
in leisure values and work ethic. For example, in Smola
and Sutton (2002), the Greatest Generation/Silents (41–65
in 1974) report more work centrality and work ethic than
Silents/Boomers (41–65 in 1999), and the Silents/Boomers
27–40 in 1974 report more than the GenX’ers 27–40 in
1999. In the MTF time-lag study, the Boomers report more
when compared to the GenXers, and the GenXers more
than GenMe’ers (Twenge et al., in press). Thus, consistent
with the data on personality traits (e.g., Twenge et al.
2008), there are not sudden shifts in generations but linear
trends, with GenX and GenMe often continuing trends that
began with Boomers, or even earlier. There are a few
exceptions to this rule, such as extrinsic values peaking
with GenX, but most trends build over time rather than
suddenly changing at the commonly used birth year cutoffs
for the generations. The other exception is Kowske et al.
(2010) finding a curvilinear effect for job satisfaction;
however, the Silents and Boomers in their sample were not
surveyed until they were older, so this curvilinear pattern
could still be caused by age effects.
The usual linear pattern of generational effects does not
necessarily mean that generational labels should be aban-
doned; they are useful shorthand for generations that
escape the ambiguity of calling a group, e.g., ‘‘today’s
young generation,’’ as that group will not be so young in a
decade or two when another group of young people has
replaced them. However, the linear nature of the trends
suggests that the usual view of generations as categorical,
separate entities may need to be reconsidered. Instead,
generations can be viewed as part of social change, which
occurs gradually over a number of years. For the three most
recent generations, for example, GenX can be seen as
building on the changes initiated by the Boomers, and
GenMe as building further on them (see Twenge 2006).
Conclusions
Managers face many challenges in the coming decades, and
one of the most important will be hiring, retaining, and
motivating young employees. Tulgan (2009) calls GenY/
GenMe ‘‘the most high-maintenance workforce in the
history of the world,’’ but argues that they will also be the
most productive. That remains to be seen. The current
empirical evidence suggests that GenMe, and to a lesser
extent GenX, employees may be difficult to motivate.
Across several studies, they see work as less central to their
lives, are more likely to value leisure, and say they are less
willing to work hard. Viewed positively, this generation
places a high importance on work–life balance beginning
in high school, long before they have children. Viewed
more negatively, the work ethic has declined and produc-
tivity may follow. Of course, it is difficult to predict how
these attitudes affect behavior and whether they really do
(or will) cause a decline in productivity. Perhaps GenX and
GenMe embrace leisure but will still work just as hard and
be as, or more productive than other generations. The data
showing that Americans now work more hours point in this
direction; however, it is possible that GenMe will not
continue this trend, or will work more hours only if they
feel pressured to do so. Problems with retention may be the
208 J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:201–210
123

9. result, especially as GenMe is more likely to see work as
‘‘just making a living’’ and thus may take less pleasure in
work. However, Kowske et al. (2010) find that GenMe
report higher job satisfaction than GenX. Further research
should attempt to reconcile the seemingly paradoxical
finding that GenMe sees work as less important, but is
more satisfied with their jobs. Generation may also have
interacted with the motivation to volunteer for Kowske
et al’s study of work attitudes: perhaps, GenX’ers dissat-
isfied with their jobs were more likely to participate in the
study, and dissatisfied GenMe’ers less likely.
Other hypothesized generational differences were not
found. Those born after 1982 were not higher in altruistic
or intrinsic values. Thus, an emphasis on meaning in work
and how the work helps others may be effective, but no
more effective than it was for previous generations.
Extrinsic values such as valuing a high salary are higher
among GenMe than the Boomers, but have retreated from
the high reached by GenX’ers. The data on job-hopping
showed somewhat surprisingly that GenMe is not neces-
sarily eager to leave their jobs and reports high job satis-
faction. This represents an opportunity for managers to
retain the young workers they have often found so slippery:
young workers apparently want stability in their jobs just as
much or more than Boomers and GenXers did at the same
age. They may require more flexibility, time off, or other
leisure benefits to stay with the company.
Further research on generational differences in work
values is clearly needed. How are employees reconciling
the heightened desire for leisure with the demands of a 24/
7, connected workplace? Research should also explore
possible reasons for the decline in work centrality—why
are people now less likely to value work? Given the decline
in those wanting a position with more responsibility, career
paths that allow growth but not advancement may need to
be designed. Strategies for getting employees more
engaged in their work may need to be developed, perhaps
beginning with education. One analysis found that high
school students are now less likely to say they enjoy the
work they are doing in their classes (Dumais 2009), and
with fewer employees saying work is important to them,
the modern workplace may be heading for the same level
of disengagement. These observations must also be con-
sidered in light of Kowske et al.’s (2010) findings of
GenMe’s high job satisfaction. GenMe workers are still a
paradox in some ways.
Managers should also try to treat employees as indi-
viduals and not just as members of their generation. There
are definitely some meaningful differences among the
generations. But it is more important to find the young
employees you want—who are, for example, enthusiastic
and hard-working—than it is to craft strategies that would
attract the average member of their generation. Instead,
consider strategies that will attract the above-average
member—they are the ones you want at the desk next to
you anyway.
Acknowledgment The author would like to thank Dr. Charlotte
Sutton for providing the standard deviations from her 2002 research
study.
References
Alsop, R. (2008). The trophy kids go to work. The Wall Street
Journal, October 21. Accessed December 2, 2008, from
http://www.onlinewsj.com.
Appelbaum, S. H., Serena, M., & Shapiro, B. T. (2004). Generation X
and the Boomers: Organizational myths and literary realities.
Management Research News, 27, 1–28.
Arnett, J. J. (2004). Emerging adulthood. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D.
(2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychol-
ogy, 5, 323–370.
Busch, P., Venkitachalam, K., & Richards, D. (2008). Generational
differences in soft knowledge situations: Status, need for
recognition, workplace commitment and idealism. Knowledge
and Process Management, 15, 45–58.
Cennamo, L., & Gardner, D. (2008). Generational differences in work
values, outcomes and person-organisation values fit. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 23, 891–906.
Chao, L. (2005). For Gen Xers, it’s work to live: Allowing employees
to strike balance between job and life can lead to better retention
rates. The Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition, November 29, B6.
Ciriello, V. M., Dempsey, P. G., Maikala, R. V., & O’Brien, N. V.
(2008). Secular changes in psychophysically determined maxi-
mum acceptable weights and forces over 20 years for male
industrial workers. Ergonomics, 51, 593–601.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences. New York: Academic Press.
D’Amato, A., & Herzfeld, R. (2008). Learning orientation, organi-
zational commitment, and talent retention across generations: A
study of European managers. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
23, 929–953.
Davis, J. B., Pawlowski, S. D., & Houston, A. (2006). Work
commitments of Baby Boomers and Gen-Xers in the IT
profession: Generational differences or myth? Journal of Com-
puter Information Systems, 46, 43–49.
Dries, N., Pepermans, R., & De Kerpel, E. (2008). Exploring four
generations’ beliefs about career: Is ‘‘satisfied’’ the new ‘‘suc-
cessful’’? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 907–928.
Dumais, S. A. (2009). The academic attitudes of American teenagers,
1990–2002: Cohort and gender effects on math achievement.
Social Science Research, 38, 767–780.
Families and Work Institute. (2006). Generation and gender in the
workplace. American Business Collaboration. http://familiesand
work.org/site/research/reports/main.html.
Gloeckler, G. (2008). The millennials invade the B-schools. Business
Week, 47–50. November 13, 2008.
Harris Poll. (2008). Widely held attitudes to different generations.
August 20, 2008, from http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/
allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1328.
Hira, N. A. (2007). Attracting the twentysomething worker. Fortune
(online exclusive), May 15, 2007. Accessed August 31, 2009,
from http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/
2007/05/28/100033934/index.htm.
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:201–210 209
123

10. Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great
generation. New York: Vintage Books.
Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2000). Generation X and the public employee.
Public Personnel Management, 29, 55–74.
Kowske, B. J., Rasch, R., & Wiley, J. (2010). Millennials’ (lack of)
attitude problem: An empirical examination of generation effects
on work attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology.
Lancaster, L. C., & Stillman, D. (2003). When generations collide:
Who they are, why they clash. How to solve the generational
puzzle at work. New York: HarperCollins.
Low, K. S. D., Yoon, M., Roberts, B. W., & Rounds, J. (2005). The
stability of vocational interests from early adolescence to middle
adulthood: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies.
Psychological Bulletin, 131, 713–737.
Malhotra, N., & Krosnick, J. A. (2007). The effect of survey mode
and sampling on inferences about political attitudes and behav-
ior: Comparing the 2000 and 2004 ANES to Internet surveys
with nonprobability samples. Political Analysis, 15, 286–323.
Needleman, S. E. (2008). The latest office perk: Getting paid to
volunteer. More companies subsidize donations of time and
talent; bait for Millennial Generation. The Wall Street Journal,
April 29, 25–26.
Schaie, K. W. (1965). A general model for the study of developmental
problems. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 92–107.
Sessa, V. I., Kabacoff, R. I., Deal, J., & Brown, H. (2007).
Generational differences in leader values and leadership behav-
iors. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 10, 47–74.
Sirias, D., Karp, H. B., & Brotherton, T. (2007). Comparing the levels
of individualism/collectivism between baby boomers and gen-
eration X. Management Research News, 30, 749–761.
Smola, K. W., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences:
Revisiting generational work values for the new millennium.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 363–382.
Tulgan, B. (2009). Not everyone gets a trophy: How to manage
Generation Y. New York: Jossey-Bass.
Twenge, J. M. (2001). Changes in women’s assertiveness in response
to status and roles: A cross-temporal meta-analysis, 1931–1993.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 133–145.
Twenge, J. M. (2006). Generation Me: Why today’s young Americans
are more confident, assertive, entitled—and more miserable than
ever before. New York: Free Press.
Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2001). Age and birth cohort
differences in self-esteem: A cross-temporal meta-analysis.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 321–344.
Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, S. M. (2008). Generational differences in
psychological traits and their impact on the workplace. Journal
of Managerial Psychology, 23, 862–877.
Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2009). The narcissism epidemic:
Living in the age of entitlement. New York: Free Press.
Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2010). Birth cohort differences in
the monitoring the future dataset and elsewhere: Further
evidence for Generation Me. Perspectives in Psychological
Science, 5, 81–88.
Twenge, J. M., Campbell, S. M., Hoffman, B. R., & Lance, C. E. (in
press). Generational differences in work values: Leisure and
extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values decreas-
ing. Journal of Management.
Twenge, J. M., & Foster, J. D. (2010). Birth cohort increases in
narcissistic personality traits among American college students,
1982–2009. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1,
99–106.
Twenge, J. M., Konrath, S., Foster, J. D., Campbell, W. K., &
Bushman, B. J. (2008). Egos inflating over time: A cross-
temporal meta-analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory.
Journal of Personality, 76, 875–901.
Wong, M., Gardiner, E., Lang, W., & Coulon, L. (2008). Generational
differences in personality and motivation: Do they exist and
what are the implications for the workplace? Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 23, 878–890.
210 J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:201–210
123

11. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.