Multigenerational Workforce: Relationship between

Generational Cohorts and Employee Engagement

by

Phyllis Kiiru-Weatherly

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctorate of Business Administration

Wilmington University

2016

ii

Multigenerational Workforce: Relationship between

Generational Cohorts and Employee Engagement

by

Phyllis Kiiru-Weatherly

I certify that I have read this dissertation and that in my opinion it meets the academic

and professional standards required by Wilmington University as a dissertation for

the degree of Doctor of Business Administration.

Signed ____________________________________________________________

Amy Danley, Ed.D, Dissertation Committee Chair

Signed ____________________________________________________________

Lynda Fuller, Ed.D, Dissertation Committee Member

Signed ____________________________________________________________

Gregory Warren, Ed.D, Dissertation Committee Member

iii

Dedication

I dedicate this dissertation to my children Ava & Jayden, my best friend and

true love, my husband Jerrold. Your never ending love, support, reassurance, and

encouragement throughout this process bolstered me with additional determination,

confidence, and endurance at times when I needed it most. Multiple obstacles and

challenges in our lives during this journey that threatened to derail or postpone my

ability to reach this important milestone. Never once did I consider stopping, though,

because I knew that together, we could overcome anything. You inspire me daily to

be a better person, and I will forever be thankful that I had you by my side during this

journey, cheering me on to the finish line. Looks like we made it!

I also dedicate this work to my parents, Mr. & Mrs Julius Kiiru Chomba, who

have always supported me and celebrated my successes no matter how large or small.

It is because of your modeling and the example you set that I have become a capable,

dedicated, compassionate individual who is proud of the values I uphold and of the

way they show up in my life. You instilled in me a passion for education, hard work,

and perseverance, and for that, I will always be thankful.

iv

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I would like to thank my lord and savior Jesus Christ for

seeing me through this journey. As with any endeavor in life, you are only as

successful as those who support your journey. These years of doctoral study have

provided me with the opportunity to study with a number of outstanding

professionals. There are many people to acknowledge and thank for helping me

accomplish this incredible goal.

Special recognition is extended to Dr. Amy Danley, my Advisor and Chair of

my Dissertation Committee for your extraordinary guidance, support and direction

from my first coursework at Wilmington University to the final approval of my

dissertation. Dr. Lynda Fuller and Gregory Warren, dissertation committee

members, are appreciated for their ongoing support, feedback, and academic

perspectives. You have guided me through this process with calm deliberation.

Wilmington University, with all of the incredible resources of the many support staff

and other esteemed members of the faculty and staff who have been most supportive.

I want to acknowledge my colleagues and employers who supported me along

the way and reminded me why I value my profession. I also want to acknowledge

and thank all of the great researchers who wrote articles and books that I had the

privilege of reading, studying and citing to support my research.

For the commitment to life-long learning, as well as the strength, tenacity and

resolution which carried me through this transformative time, I thank my siblings,

v

Kevin, Sam and Chomba and especially my parents Julius Chomba Kiiru and Esther

Kiiru. I would be remiss not to recognize the power that parents play in molding the

person you become. Mom and Dad, thank you for teaching me the value of work as

foundational to a productive life. I am blessed to have you as my parents.

I am deeply grateful to our children Jayden and Ava for your love, support

and encouragement even when you were too young to understand this journey I was

travelling. Life is about learning and my wish for each of you is that you reach for the

starts and never stop exploring the world around you. It is through this process that

we learn who we truly are and the purpose God has for each of us. I hope I inspire

you as much as you inspire me.

Sincerest appreciation is extended to my husband Jerrold for your continuous

support, encouragement and confidence in me throughout my years of coursework

and completion of this dissertation. I love you and forever grateful for you.

vi

Abstract

Organizational leaders worldwide are concerned that employees are less engaged.

However, there has not yet been conclusive evidence that employee engagement is

actually at lower levels than in previous generations, defined as Baby boomers (born

1946-1964), Generation X (born 1965-1983), and Millennials (born 1984-2002). The

current study measured if engagement, composed of absorption, dedication, and vigor

dimensions (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003) are in fact different by generations and

explored potential causes for this disparity. Specifically, the study measured the

relationship between the employee motivators toward work and generational cohort,

and the relationship between motivations and employee engagement. A three-factor

ANOVA analysis revealed differences in mean dedication and vigor, but not

absorption, across the generational groups. The study determined Baby Boomers

(1946-1964) had significantly higher vigor and dedication than the Millennials, but

not significantly higher absorption. However, the results for absorption trended in the

same direction as the results for vigor and dedication. Additional analyses indicated

that successive generations have viewed their work as less internally motivating. The

researcher synthesized these findings to determine that current workplace conditions

may be realigning the factors that employees find motivating about their jobs, and this

may be negatively impacting their engagement with their work. Implications from

the findings and recommendations for future research are discussed.

vii

Table of Contents

Dedication……………………………………………………………….......………..iii

Acknowledgment…………………………………………………………........……..iv

Abstract……………………………………………………………………….............vi

List of Tables……………………………………….……………………….…….....vii

List of Figures…………………………………………………………...…………..xiv

Chapter

1. Introduction……………….…………………………………………………….…1

Statement of the Problem……………………….…………………… …………...5

Purpose of the Study……………….…………………………………….………..5

Significance of the Study……..…………………………………………………...6

Research Questions………….…………………………………………………….8

Definition of Terms………………………………………………………………..8

Operational Definitions ………………………………………………………….12

Theoretical Framework…………………………………………………………..13

Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations of Study………………………….14

Assumptions……………………………………………………….................14

viii

Limitations………………………………………………………...................15

Delimitations………………………………………………………................15

Implications of the Study……………………………..…………………………..16

Chapter Summary…………………………………….…………………………..16

Dissertation Organization………………………………………………………...17

2. Literature Review……………………………………………………………...…18

Diversity in Today’s Workforce…………………………………………………18

Multigenerational Cohorts…………………………….…………………………24

Baby Boomers………………………………..………………………………26

Generation Xers………………………………………………………………27

Generation Y………………………………..………………………………..28

Workplace and Employee Engagement.…………………………………………32

Historical Overview……………………………………………………………...38

Theoretical Framework…………………………………………………………..40

Motivation ……………………………………………………………………41

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs ……………………………………………….41

ix

Herzburg’s Motivator-Hygiene Theory………………………………………44

Measuring Employee Engagement………………………………………………49

Likert Scales ………………………………………………………………….53

Conclusions……….....……………………………………………...……………54

Methodology……………………………………………………………………..57

Research Design…………………………………………………………………57

Population and Sample…………………………………………………………..61

Data Instrumentation……….………..…………………………………………...64

Data Analysis Plan Research Questions and Hypotheses………………………..68

Statistical Tests……………………………………………………………….70

Operationalization of Variables…..………………..…………………………73

Reliability and Validity…………………………………………………………..74

Reliability Analysis....………………………………………………………...76

Data Collection……………………………………..……………………………77

Data Analysis Procedures………………………………………………………..80

Correlational Analysis………………………………………………………..82

x

Research Questions and Hypotheses………………..…………………………...83

Ethical Considerations…………………………………………………………...84

Summary……….....……………………………………………………..……….85

Results…….……………………………………………………………………...86

Sample Demographics…………………………………………………………...87

Reliability Analysis……………………….…………………………………..…95

Descriptive Statistics and Data Screening……………………………………….96

Research Question 1……...……………………………………………………...97

Hypothesis 1a: Vigor…………………………………………………………97

Hypothesis 1b: Dedication……….………………..………………………….99

Hypothesis 1c: Absorption…………………………………………………..101

Research Question 2……...…………………………………………………….103

Hypothesis 2a…………………………..……………………………………104

Hypothesis 2b………………..………………………………………………106

Hypothesis 2c………………………………………………………………..108

Hypothesis 2d…………… ………………………………………………….109

xi

Hypothesis 2e…………………………………..……………………………111

Research Question 3……...…………………………………………………….113

Hypothesis 3a…………………………..……………………………………114

Hypothesis 3b………………..………………………………………………115

Hypothesis 3c………………………………………………………………..116

Hypothesis 3d…………… ………………………………………………….117

Hypothesis 3e…………………………………..……………………………118

Conclusions……….....………………………………………………………….120

3. Conclusion and Recommendations……………………………………………..122

Causes of Generational Differences in Engagement..………………………….127

Summary………………………………..………………………………………129

Future Research and Limitations…...…………………………………………..130

Implications for Practice ...……………………………………………………..132

References…………………………………………………………………………..134

Appendix …………….……………………………………………………………..148

xii

List of Tables

Table

1 Hypotheses, Statistical Tests, and Scales of Measurement……………….71

2 Reliability Coefficients…………………………………………………...77

3 Year Range of Birth………………………………………………………88

4 Race/Ethnicity………………………………………………………….…88

5 Educational. Attainment………………………………………………….89

6 Years Working at Current Place of Employment……………………...…90

7 Current Role at Job……………………………………………………….91

8 Employment Sector Industry……………………………………………..92

9 Survey Recruitment Organization………………………………………...93

10 Summary of Demographic Variables……………………………………..93

11 Reliability Coefficient…………………………………………………….95

12 Descriptive Statistics……………………………………………………...96

13 Group Means for Vigor by Generational Cohort…………………………97

14 ANOVA Summary Table for Vigor by Generational Cohort…………….98

15 Group Means for Dedication by Generational Cohort…………………..100

16 ANOVA Summary Table for Dedication by Generational Cohort……..100

17 Group Means for Absorption by Generational Cohort………………….102

18 ANOVA Summary Table for Absorption by Generational Cohort……..102

xiii

19 Group Means for Goal Internalization Motivation for Generational

Cohort…………………………………………………………………...104

20 ANOVA Summary Table for Goal Internalization Motivation by

Generational Cohort……………………………………………………..105

21 Group Means for External Self-Concept Motivation by Generational

Cohort…………………………………………………………………...107

22 Group Means for External Self-Concept Motivation by Generational

Cohort…………………………………………………………………...107

23 Group Means for Intrinsic Process Motivation by Generational Cohort..109

24 ANOVA Summary Table for Intrinsic Process Motivation by Generational

Cohort…………………………………………………………………...109

25 Group Means for Internal Self-Concept Motivation by Generational

Cohort…………………………………………………………………...110

26 ANOVA Summary Table for Internal Self-Concept Motivation by

Generational Cohort……………………………………………………..110

27 Group Means for Instrumental Motivation by Generational Cohort……110

28 ANOVA Summary Table for Instrumental Motivation by Generational

Cohort…………………………………………………………………...111

29 Correlation Matrix………………………………………………………113

30 Criteria for Interpreting Magnitude Correlations………………………..114

31 Summary of Hypothesis and Outcomes ………………………………...120

xiv

List of Figures

Figure

1 Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs…………………………………………….42

2 Vigor by Generational Cohort…………………………………………….99

3 Dedication by Generational Cohort……………………………………...101

4 Absorption by Generational Cohort……………………………………...103

5 Goal Internalization by Generational Cohort……………………………106

6 External Self-Concept Motivation by Generational Cohort……………..108

7 Instrument Motivation by Generational Cohort……………………….…112

8 Goal Internalization and Work Engagement…………………………..…115

9 Goal Internalization and Motivation…………………………………..…116

10 Internal Self-Concept Motivation and Work Engagement………………118

11 Instrumental Motivation and Work Engagement………………………..119

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The United States’ workforce currently comprises an unprecedented four

generations of workers: the traditionalists, the Baby Boomers, Generation X, and

Generation Y. The Traditionalists, also known as the Veterans, are the subset of the

workforce born between 1922 and 1945; the Baby Boomers were born between 1946

and 1964; Generation X (or “Gen Xers”), were born between 1965 and 1983, and

Generation Y (or “Millennials”) were born between 1984 and 2002. While this blend

of generations adds valuable diversity to the workforce, it also adds complexity: four

generations are working side-by-side, each at different life stages and with conflicting

needs. Research suggests (Howe & Strauss, 1991) that each generation employs a

unique outlook on the workplace environment; each generation brings to the

workplace differences in attitudes, behaviors, expectations, habits, as well as

motivational buttons. Furthermore, all workers come to the workplace with their own

frames of reference, as well as their own needs and values—many of which are based

on shared early social and economic experiences that are unique to each individual

generation (Hoew & Strauss, 1991). Thus, one of the primary challenges for

researchers and practitioners is to understand the similarities and differences between

each generation.

Companies are constantly faced with the challenge of attracting and retaining

highly-engaged employees. According to Kahn (1990), engagement can be defined

as “the way in which people connect themselves to their work roles, as well as how

2

they express themselves physically, cognitively and emotionally during the

performance of these roles” (p.694). Additionally, May, Gilson, and Harter (2004)

suggested that engagement pertains to how individuals apply themselves while

performing their job in relation to the active use of emotions, behaviors, and cognitive

skills. Furthermore, Schaufeli, Bakker, and Salanova (2006) stated, “engaged

employees have a sense of energetic and effective connection with their work

activities, and they see themselves as able to deal well with the demands of their jobs”

(p. 702). This latter definition of employee engagement includes three sub-

dimensions: vigor, dedication, and absorption. These elements refer to the level of

energy, involvement, and concentration the employee has towards his or her job,

while vigor represents high devotion to one’s work. These definitions have in

common a sense that engagement is a response to one’s work in which an individual

decides to invest in himself or herself or not.

The negative impacts of generational differences, combined with the lack of

employee/workplace engagement, can result in high levels of employee turnover and

burnout, which can impede an organization’s ability to grow and therefore maximize

profits. Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter (2001) defined burnout as the opposite of

engagement – it is where the employee feels overwhelmed by their work and ceases

or reduces effort towards completing it. The research done by Maslach et al. (2001)

built on previous work by Kahn (1990), posited that job engagement is associated

with three psychological conditions: (a) sustainable workload, (b) relevant

recognition and rewards, and (c) supportive work environment, and valued work.

3

Additionally, Kahn (1990) suggested that employees are engaged when their work is

psychologically meaningful. As such, burned-out workers feel exhausted and

unenthusiastic whereas engaged workers display high energy levels and mental

resilience, which makes them enthusiastic about what they do (Schaufeli & Bakker,

2003).

In addition to the lack of employee/workplace engagement and high levels of

employee burnout that generational differences bring to the forefront, generational

differences also negatively impact organizational leadership. Human Resource

professionals have observed conflict among employees as a result of generational

differences, especially as it relates to communication and cultural expectations

(Aggarwal & Bhargave, 2009). Thus, it may be argued that generational differences

not only affect the workplace in terms of individuals, but also in terms of

organizational performance. Furthermore, Bakker (2011) found an association

between lower employee engagement and workplace matters, such as job satisfaction

and employee performance and productivity.

Hence, one possible way for organizations to keep employee engagement

high, as well as job satisfaction, employee performance and productivity levels, is to

motivate each generational cohort based on their needs and expectations. Motivation

as it relates to the workforce provides a common thread across all generations and

may provide insight into the multi-generational challenge. Motivation is typically

described as a force, either intrinsic or extrinsic, that helps an individual achieve their

goals. Workplace motivation occurs through both extrinsic (external) and intrinsic

4

(internal) dynamics. Extrinsic motivators in the work environment include salaries,

bonuses, commissions, health care insurance, promotions, vacations, stock options,

and other tangible rewards (Robbins, 2001). Intrinsic motivational factors in the

workplace include job satisfaction, public and personal recognition, positive

relationships with managers and coworkers, and the ability to influence the work

situation (Thomas, 2009). Understanding the differences in motivating factors among

differing age groups can aid employers in designing effective recruiting and retention

strategies to successfully manage the challenges of a multi-generational workforce,

while maintaining and optimizing organizational performance and productivity

(Parker et al., 2003).

Organizations are always seeking highly engaged employees. As such, the

possibility of generational differences in the workplace is important in terms of

organizational leadership. This is because one of the main objectives of any

organization is to develop employees who are productive, innovative, profitable, less

likely to be absent, and have low turnover rates. Therefore, organizations need to

understand how best they can manage the different generations present in today’s

force so that employee work engagement can be fostered to ensure that all employees

are maximally productive. This study tested potential differences in perceptions of

workplace engagement between the generations that are currently in the workforce.

The study also outlined the problems facing organizational leadership and suggested

strategies to keep a multigenerational workforce highly engaged and highly

productive.

5

Statement of the Problem

According to Macey and Schneider (2008), employees who are engaged tend

to demonstrate higher levels of job satisfaction, productivity, and performance when

compared to their disengaged counterparts. This problem is that differences between

generational cohorts suggest an adverse impact on employee work engagement. As a

consequence, today’s organizations face the difficult challenge of attracting and

retaining highly-engaged employees. Studies showed that attrition and career

changes constantly impacted the workforce in 2013, as more than 20% of employees

worldwide reported that they intended to find a new job within the next year

(Castellano, 2013). Therefore, organizations need to understand these generational

differences and how they impact workplace engagement in order to improve their

employees’ capabilities, which in turn should have positive results on both individual

and organizational performance.

Purpose of the Study

Today’s workforce is changing. The Baby Boomers are now entering their late

60s and there is an influx of Millennials entering the workplace. There are important

ramifications for this development in terms of employee engagement. According to

Gallup’s engagement study, less than one-third (31.5%) of U.S. workers were

engaged in their jobs in 2014 (Adkins, 2015). The recent literature suggested that

companies are struggling to engage the modern 21st century workforce. However,

there is limited literature in research pertaining to the knowledge of engagement in

the current workforce setting among different generations to identify its predictors

6

and consequences. To cite Macey and Schneider (2008), it is important to recognize

that employee engagement is a “desirable condition which an employee exhibits high

levels of involvement, commitment, passion, enthusiasm, focused effort and energy”

(p.16).

The purpose of this study is to determine whether a relationship exists

between generational cohorts in the current workforce and the level of work

engagement, and if so, to what degree? The study also seeks to determine the

relationship, if any, between what motivates each generational cohort, as well as the

relationship between motivation resources and employee engagement. Additionally,

this study will help to understand whether motivation sources have any relationship to

the level of workplace engagement, which in turn would assist organizations in the

recruiting and retention process. Specifically, does the source of engagement differ

across generations, and if so how does this impact each group’s engagement with

their work? This study will conclude with suggestions on how to accommodate each

group based on the results of the study.

Significance of the Study

There are many challenges associated with effectively managing the present-

day multigenerational workforce. Given the demographic mix, it is important for any

organization to understand how to integrate and leverage what each cohort has to

offer in order to improve job satisfaction, productivity, performance, and retention. If

a company has positive employee engagement overall across the organization, it

could deliver a competitive advantage to the organization (Bakker, Schaufeli, Leiter,

7

& Taris, 2008). Employees who are engaged will work harder, for longer hours, and

develop better solutions to problems, leading to optimal organizational outcomes

(Bakker et al., 2008.) This study contributes to the field by adding to the present

empirical research on generational differences in the workplace, as well as its impact

on employee/workplace engagement. Secondly, literature reviews suggest that there

are differences and similarities between generational cohorts. Most of the studies

have focused on the differences between generations rather than a combination of

both views. Thus, this study contributes to leadership literature by providing insights

into what keeps employees motivated and engaged at work, particularly by exploring

differences among generations evaluating the self-perception of generational cohorts

as compared to how others perceive them; it will aid in building a stronger foundation

to understand better generational similarities and differences.

Third, this study contributes to further understanding on how to motivate a

multigenerational workforce from an employer’s perspective and develop solutions

that keep each generation engaged based on the factors that are most likely to

motivate them. Fourth, this study increases knowledge about the relationship between

employee perception and workplace engagement. When dealing with organizations,

it is important to understand both perception and reality in order to create a plan that

can bridge the gap. Finally, this study brings together two different streams of

research: generational differences and employee engagement. It provides quantitative

evidence of the influence of generational differences on employee engagement and

8

offers organizations the insight to develop appropriate strategies to foster and increase

employee engagement.

Research Questions

The study seeks to determine whether potential differences in perceptions of

workplace engagement exist among the four generations currently present in the

workforce, as well as outlines the problems facing organizational leadership and

suggest strategies to keep a multigenerational workforce highly engaged and

productive. Specifically, the research will answer:

RQ1: Is there a difference in the level of engagement among generational

cohorts in the workforce?

RQ2: Is there is a significant difference in the level of engagement among

generational cohorts in the workforce?

RQ3: Does a relationship exist between generational cohorts in the current

workforce and the level of work engagement? If so, to what degree?

RQ4: What are the factors that motivate each generational cohort?

RQ5: Is there a relationship between motivation resources and employee

engagement?

Definition of Terms

For the purposes of this study, the following key terms have been identified as

they relate to the topic:

Absorption - One of the three ways in which employee engagement is

measured by focusing on being completely and happily consumed by work and not

9

wanting to detach from the work because time passes so quickly that everything else

is forgotten (Schaufeli, 2006).

Baby Boomers (Boomers) - The cohort of Americans born between 1946 –

1964.

Engagement - Maslach, Schaulfeli, and Leiter (2001) defined engagement as

an affective, motivational state of fulfillment normally characterized by vigor,

dedication and absorption; An emotional connection an employee feels toward his or

her employment organization, which tends to influence his or her work-related

behavior and level of effort; A separate construct representing a positive, fulfilling,

work-related state of mind characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption

(Demerouti et al., 2001).

Dedication - One of the three ways in which employee engagement is

measured by describing the sense of significance, enthusiasm, and pride an employee

has for the job. Dedication also describes the feeling of inspiration and challenge an

employee feels by work (Schaufeli, 2009).

Diversity - Acknowledging, understanding, accepting, valuing, and

celebrating differences among people with respect to age, class, ethnicity, gender,

physical and mental ability, race, sexual orientation, spiritual practice, and public

assistance status (Esty, Griffin, & Schorr-Hirsh1995).

Employee Hygiene - The components of Herzburg’s motivator-hygiene

theory that represent the cause for employee dissatisfaction in the workplace

(Herzberg et al., 1959).

10

Employee Motivation - The components of Herzberg’s motivator-hygiene

theory that represent the causation and basis for employee satisfaction in the

workplace (Herzberg et al., 1959).

Generation - Kuppershcmidt (2000) defined a generation as an identifiable

group sharing years of birth and significant life events that occur in critical stages of

their lives.

Generation Cohort - “…shaped by events or circumstances according to

which phase of life its members occupy at the time” (Howe & Strauss, 2007, p. 42).

The group in which employees are categorized both by age and identity (Howe &

Strauss, 1991).

Generation X (GenXer) - The cohort of Americans born between 1965 –

1982.

Job Satisfaction - Wright and Davis (2003) defined job satisfaction as the

representation of employees and their work environment by comparing what they

expect to receive versus what they have actually received.

Millennials - The cohort of Americans born between 1983 – 1997.

Motivation-Hygiene Theory - Job satisfaction theory by Frederick Herzberg

that states that factors involved in yielding job satisfaction are separate and different

from the factors leading to job dissatisfaction (Herzberg, 1959).

Motivation-Hygiene Theory Hygiene Factors - Hygiene factors extrinsic to

the job that produce job dissatisfaction and that include: supervision, salary, policy

11

and administration, interpersonal relationships, and working conditions (Herzberg,

1968).

Motivation-Hygiene Theory Motivator Factors - Motivator factors intrinsic

to the job that produce job satisfaction that include: achievement, recognition, work

itself, responsibility, and advancement.

Organizational Commitment - Saks (2006) defined organizational

commitment as the attitude and attachment that people have toward their

organization.

Needs - Used by Maslow to refer to a hierarchy of physiological, safety, love,

esteem and self-actualization necessities (Maslow, 1943).

Perceived Organizational and Supervisor Support - Kahn (1990) suggested

that perceived organizational and supervisory support are the amount of care and

support employees believe they receive from their organization.

Personal Engagement - The behaviors by which employees bring in or leave

out their personal selves during work role performances (Kahn, 1990).

Rewards and Recognition - Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter (2001) defined

rewards and recognition as the perception of benefits received from performing a

role. Maslach et al.(2001) suggested that a lack of rewards and recognition can lead to

burnout, while the presence of rewards and recognition can be important for

engagement.

12

Satisfaction - A multi-dimensional concept that includes perceptions about

the ability of work to fulfill needs (cognitive aspects) and attitudes within the context

of the job (affective aspects).

Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) - A 17-question survey

instrument used by researchers, leaders and organizations to measure the vigor,

dedication and absorption levels of employee engagement conditions in the

workplace (Schaufeli et al., 2006). The original UWES-17 instrument was reduced

from 17 questions to 9 questions to improve its performance (Schaufeli et al., 2006).

Vigor - One of the three ways in which employee engagement is measured by

describing high levels of energy and resilience, the willingness to invest effort, not

being easily fatigued, and persistence in the face of workplace difficulties (Schaufeli,

2009).

Operational Definitions

Employee Engagement - Construct measured by the Utrecht Work

Engagement Scale (Schaufeli, 2009).

Identified Generational Cohort - The age group in which employees

identify themselves to be a member of, measured by the answer to the multiple choice

questions on the survey.

Job Satisfaction - The components of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Maslow,

1943).

Demographics - Data gathered from survey respondents including age,

gender, job title, and job department in which the employee works.

13

Theoretical Framework

Using the context of motivation in the workplace, most studies focus on two

basic types of work values as they apply to engagement and motivation. They are

intrinsic or self-actualization values (e.g., extrinsic values) (Maslow, 1943) or

material values (e.g., Herzberg, 1968). The research for this study was framed by and

examines similarities and differences between Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and

Herzburg’s motivator-hygiene theory and how they interact with engagement theory.

The theories of Maslow and Herzberg are relevant to organizational behavior

specifically as it relates to employee engagement within the generational cohort in the

current workplace. Malsow’s (1943) needs hierarchy is a set of five human goals

ranging from physiological needs to self-actualization. Maslow (1943) hypothesized

that people are motivated by a hierarchy of individual needs suggesting that they are

the primary drivers of human behavior even though there is the assumption that these

needs will never be completely satisfied. Maslow categorized the needs in a

hierarchical model of five levels: physiological needs, safety needs, social needs,

esteem needs, and self-actualization needs.

While Maslow focused on needs and their relationship to motivation,

Herzberg performed a number of research studies on motivation and its relationship

to job satisfaction. Herzberg’s Hygiene Two Factors Theory (1959) is an extension

of Maslow’s theory and consists of 10 work factors. In contrast to Maslow,

(Herzberg,1966) identified five motivator or intrinsic factors that contribute to

internal growth and motivate the employee to high performance and effort. These

14

factors are directly related to the employee’s relationship to their job. They include

the work involved, achievement, responsibility, recognition, and advancement. These

motivating factors contribute to one’s job satisfaction thus creating a positive attitude

and feeling towards work (Herzberg, 1966). The five hygiene or extrinsic factors are

derived from the actual work environment and describe the relationship to the

environment. These factors have little effect on positive job attitudes and can create

job dissatisfaction (Herzberg, 1966). They include feelings about supervision, salary,

policy and administration, interpersonal relationships, as well as working conditions.

Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations of the Study

Assumptions

This study will be based on three assumptions. The first assumption is that the

participants would be available and provide clear, honest, and unbiased feedback

relative to the topic. The second assumption is that participants will respond to the

survey questions related to employee engagement and demographic profile. The

researcher assumed that a quantitative approach would be the most effective means

for achieving the goals of the study, which is to identify generational cohort

relationships to employee engagement in the workforce. For this reason, the study

was conducted under the third assumption that the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale

(UWES) (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003) instrument is a valid and reliable means for

identifying and measuring high and low levels of employee work engagement.

Limitations

15

The intended sample population group for this study is individuals in the

current workforce connected via professional networking groups. Therefore, it may

not be possible to generalize the findings of this study to include the entire United

States’ workforce. Secondly, this research will rely on self-reported data and,

therefore, will be limited to fact that it can be independently verified. Additionally,

the findings of the study may not answer the objectives of the research if study

participants fail to answer the questionnaire with candor. Finally, the researcher has

detected biases in the previous literature in field (Kuppershcmidt, 2000) meaning that

the motivation theory presented in the study was based on an American culture. In

particular, some research has failed to support the assumptions that: (a) all members

of a generation are impressed by the same social and historical events (Richman,

2006); (b) many core characteristics and values of a generation are set for their life

span (Shaw, 2005); and (c) members of a generational cohort experience the same

events the same way (Baumruk, 2004). Therefore, to avoid perpetuating these biases

as well as ensure the validity of this study, the researcher intends to be selective of the

data to be studied and how the researcher has chosen to represent generational

cohorts.

Delimitations

The delimitations of the study are: (a) participation is delimited to an alumni

group in the northeast region of the United States who (i) can be classified as Baby

Boomer, Generation X’er or Generation Y, and (ii) who are currently employed in the

U.S. workforce; (b) in order to assure the reliability of the data collected, the

16

instrumentation (questionnaire) will not include any open-ended questions; a Likert-

type scale with an instrument (questionnaire) designed specifically for the proposed

study will be utilized (UWES-9) developed by Schaufeli et al. (2006).

Implications of the Study

Understanding differences in workplace engagement among the generational

cohorts that comprise today's workforce could help employers create work

environments, which can optimize performance and productivity. Increasing

employee engagement could create positive change by helping organizational leaders

implement strategies to increase productivity, which could ultimately lead to

increased profitability. Increasing organizational profitability could create a stable

workforce, a better economy, and enhanced longevity. Progressing the research on

employee engagement should also interest leaders of academic institutions who are

focused on developing strategies for organizations to increase employee engagement.

The results of this study may consequently help organizations minimize overall

employee turnover and burnout while at the same time identifying any gaps that exist

between generation cohorts and work engagement that impede an organization’s

success.

Chapter Summary

This chapter established the foundation and purpose for this research study.

The chapter encompasses an overview of employee engagement and the challenges it

represents for organizational leaders. In order for an organization to succeed and

maintain a competitive edge, it is important for the leadership of the organization to

17

provide a supportive environment to motivate each of the generational cohorts, which

will foster the generation of a highly-engaged workforce. Thus, the research studied

whether a relationship exists among generational cohorts in the current workforce, as

well as the relationship between motivation resources and employee engagement. For

this objective, a validated model of workplace engagement (UWES-9) is appropriate

to measure the level of engagement based on the designated current workforce.

Another validated model (MSI) was appropriate to understand the differences in

motivation sources between generations and how the differences might relate to

employee engagement in each generational cohort.

Dissertation Organization

Chapter 2 focuses on a review of the literature on generational theories,

workplace engagement, and motivation theories as they apply to the research. The

review includes a brief overview of literature regarding generation cohorts and their

link to employee engagement. Chapter 3 contains a discussion of the methodology,

research design, data collection, and data analysis methods used in the study. It also

covers a discussion of population, sampling, instrumentation and measurement issues,

the validity and reliability of the study, and ethical considerations. Chapter 4 presents

the analyses and results of the data collected for the study, while Chapter 5 provides

conclusions based on the analysis of the data.

18

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter will present a review of the literature used to examine the

relationship between generational cohorts and employee engagement with particular

attention to the human behavior associated with the four generational types found in

today’s workforce. Therefore, this chapter will: (a) examine the diversity of today’s

workforce; (b) discuss the concept of a multigenerational workforce; (c) discuss the

concept of employee engagement, as well as its various dimensions and its evolution;

(d) present an assessment of the historical overview of employee engagement; (e)

examine the link between motivational theories and engagement integration; and (f)

discuss the tool used to measure employee engagement, as well as its applicability to

this study. The literature review includes generational research findings, analysis of

the current workforce, and theories surrounding employee engagement. As the

workplace evolves, historical research will provide a foundation for how

organizations can manage highly- engaged and satisfied multigenerational

employees—both as individuals as and as team members—ultimately increasing

retention and productivity.

Diversity in Today’s Workforce

Rising globalization and the development of a world economy often requires

the interaction between people of diverse populations. The diversity of people

encompasses both the similarities and differences between the members of a group.

Etsy, Griffin, and Hirsch (1995) described the act of accepting diversity as

19

“acknowledging, understanding, accepting, valuing, and celebrating differences

among people with respect to age, class, ethnicity, gender, physical and mental

ability, race, sexual orientation, spiritual practice, and public assistance status” (p. 2).

Employers in all sectors are increasingly focused on attracting and retaining a diverse

workforce as well as creating an environment, where different generations can work

together and interact effectively. Thus, one of the biggest challenges facing managers

today is how to lead a multigenerational workforce. The age spectrum in the

workforce is now so wide that many organizations have four generations of

employees working alongside one another. Employees from different generations

may have varying expectations of their work experience and, therefore, may approach

professional responsibilities differently and prefer different incentives or motivational

methods.

According to a 2012 report from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS,

2012), approximately 243 million individuals were classified as “working-age” in the

United States, with 155 million people actively employed or seeking employment.

Furthermore, it is estimated that 96% of the current U.S. workforce includes three

different generations: Baby Boomers (34%), Generation X (37%), and Millennials

(25%) (BLS, 2012). The remaining 4% includes the oldest generation or

Traditionalists, most of whom are retired. Additionally, by the year 2020, the U.S.

labor force is projected to reach more than 164 million people, an increase of 5.9%

(BLS, 2012). As such, organization leaders must have an understanding of the work

20

values specific to each of these generations if they are to manage and mentor them

both individually, and as members of a diverse workplace.

While a diverse workplace presents many advantages for an organization,

there are challenges to managing these populations. Managing diversity requires

more than simply acknowledging differences between people. It is also important to

recognize the value of these differences, promote inclusiveness, and prevent or

combat discrimination. Additionally, leaders need to remember that diversity is not

about differences among groups; but it is, instead, about differences among

individuals. Therefore, it is crucial to respect the fact that each individual is unique

and does not represent or speak for a particular group. Hence, Esty, Griffin, and

Schorr-Hirsh (1995) argued that organizations that focus on creating a culture of

diversity in the workplace can increase productivity and competitive opportunities,

enhance recruitment and creativity, reduce litigation, and overall build an admirable

business image.

In order to understand generational differences, it is important to set a clear

definition of the term “generation.” There are many available studies on generations,

each using its own parameters for defining these groups. Several definitions exist,

but once stated, studies support differences and preferences in view of the workplace.

The following four definitions of generation capture some of these differences: (i) a

birth cohort identified by the trends and events in history (political, economic and

social), where generations occur in four 20-year recurring cycles equaling 80 years

total or the span of one lifetime (Howe & Strauss, 1991); (ii) an identifiable group

21

(cohort) that shares birth years, age, location, and significant life events at critical

developmental stages, divided by 5-7 years into first wave, core group and last wave

(Kupperschmidt, 2000, p. 66); (iii) an identifiable group that shares a common

historical experience, with the time span between each generation shortening as the

pace of change accelerates (Martin & Tulgan, 2001); and (iv) a cohort born in the

same general time span that shares key experiences and is defined by common tastes

and attitudes, as well as shares economic, social, sociological and demographic

experiences (Zemke, Raines, & Filipczak, 2000).

Despite the differences in mapping the groups, researchers agree that each

generation is characterized in large partly by the historical context into which the

members were born. Circumstances, such as world events and the economy, create

shared experiences (Zemke, 2011; Raines, 2003; Howe & Strauss, 2000), which in

turn dictate cultural experiences (Twenge, 2006). For example, Kuppershcmidt

(2002), who examined the conflict between the four generations comprising today's

nursing workforce, defined a generation as an “identifiable group that shares years of

birth and significant life events that occur in critical stages of their lives.”

Additionally, Karl Mannheim, who may be regarded as the grandfather of

generational research as a result of his 1923 essay entitled “The Problem of

Generations,” postulated that young generations are imperfectly socialized because of

a gap between the ideals learned from older generations (such as their parents)

combined with what they learn from their own life experiences (Pilcher, 1994).

22

Neil Howe and William Straus, leading researchers on the subject of

generations, expanded upon the theory of generations and brought popularity to the

theory in their book entitled, “Generations: The History of America's Future, 1584 to

2069.” According to researchers Howe and Strauss (1991), generational theory is

based on the idea that key historical events and personal experiences during the first

twenty years of life have the powerful ability to create a common ground for shared

beliefs, values, and attitudes towards others. Other factors such as gender, religion,

education, social class, ethnicity, and race may also have an influence on identity,

both as an individual and within a group. Therefore, it is important to be careful

when evaluating generational characteristics to avoid inaccurate stereotypes and the

misrepresentation of groups. Thus, generally speaking, a generation is said to span

approximately 20 years.

Recently, researchers have increasingly scrutinized generational differences in

the workplace since these differences can present challenges in the area of

organizational leadership, employee engagement, performance, productivity, and

employee retention. Of the four generations in the current workforce, the Millennials,

the largest and youngest generation now entering the workplace, has aroused the

highest interest. With regards to the Baby Boomers, the most experienced group,

there is concern for what will happen when they begin to retire—a loss of institutional

knowledge and the task of replacing it. Hence, organizations are adamant about

adjusting their recruiting, training, and retention strategies to accommodate this shift

in the workforce.

23

Therefore, the goal of this research is to help promote the success of business

organizations by obtaining an understanding of the impact generational differences

have on overall productivity and performance, and to do so with a view towards

influencing the outcome. Although the literature confirms generational differences

exist with respect to work values and attitudes, limited attention has been given to

employee engagement, specifically how it may differ for each generation, as well as

its impact on the workplace. Today’s workforce has undergone several changes in

terms of how people get to work in addition to how, when, and where business is

conducted. Therefore, to manage complete and diverse work streams, leaders must

understand the impact of these changes on a multigenerational workforce in order to

effectively lead the organization. Thus, it may be argued that recognizing differences

and understanding each generation and how they influence change is enlightening and

of great value to employers (Twenge, 2006).

In summary, today’s workforce is increasing in diversity, and as a

consequence, organizations must create a work environment where different

generation can work together. However, while having diverse workforces can

positively impact organizations (for example, by increasing productivity and

creativity), managing a diverse workforce can be challenging especially as it relates

to generational differences. This challenge may be attributed to the fact that

assumptions of generational characteristics may influence a biased perspective of

inaccurate stereotypes. As such, it is important to be careful when evaluating

generational characteristics so as to avoid and the misrepresentation of groups. The

24

next section will discuss diversity as it relates to generational

characteristics/differences and multigenerational cohorts.

Multigenerational Cohorts

Employing a multigenerational workforce can be very beneficial to

companies. A workforce composed of differently-aged demographics creates an

environment where each generation brings different skills and talents to the table.

This variety of skills can come together to promote the innovative use of technology,

robust mentoring, and a proud tradition and continuity. Younger professionals have

grown-up in a high-tech world, and for that reason, the effective use of business

technology tools comes quite easily to them, especially when compared to their more

mature counterparts. On the other hand, more mature members of a workforce have

the advantage of deeply established core business skills. A balance of tenure and

experience helps organizations to connect better and meet customer needs.

Organizations benefit when they leverage their employees by valuing knowledge,

experience, and skill above age, seniority, or gender and when they recognize that

employees of all ages create opportunities to teach, share, and learn from each other.

In effect, respecting the importance of a multigenerational workforce creates an

opportunity to maintain continuity in skill and leadership development while also

planning succession strategies.

Glass (2007) argued that there are many challenges associated with

effectively managing a multigenerational workforce including differences in work

ethic, the way employees manage change, and the way they perceive organizational

25

hierarchy. Members of different generations can have different ideas about how work

is done. For example, Baby Boomers believe that working long hours demonstrates

dedication and commitment while the younger generations prefer flexible work

arrangements. According to Glass (2007), younger generations focus more on the

outcome over the process; they are less concerned with how much work is done

where. In the workplace, some of these challenges are heightened by outdated human

resource policies/corporate philosophies, ineffective internal communication, lack of

collaborative decision-making, and lack of internal training programs, which

emphasizes understanding and embraces the differences between groups.

Additionally, conflicts can arise when employees have differing behavioral

expectations (Strauss & Howe, 1991). Hence, it may be argued that the perception of

job satisfaction among a multigenerational workforce varies and thus it may affect the

performance of organizations.

As a result, this study seeks to examine whether generational differences in

employee engagement exist; and if so, do they vary among Baby Boomers,

Generation X, and Millennial generations in the workplace? Historians, sociologists,

and educators have assigned an assortment of names for each of the four generations.

While birth years assigned for each may vary depending on the source from which

data is derived, this research will utilize the following birth ranges for the four major

generations of the 20th

century (Sullivan, Forret, Carraher, & Mainiero, 2009):

Traditionalist, also known as Veterans, were born between 1922 and 1945; Baby

Boomers, were born between 1946 and 1964; Generation X, known as Gen Xers,

26

were born between 1965 and 1983; and Generation Y, also known as Millennial, were

born between 1984 and 2002. Even though four generations are represented in

today’s workforce, due to the low numbers of Traditionalists (now 70-91 years old),

they will not be included. This study will therefore focus on three cohorts only: Baby

Boomer, Gen Y, and Gen X.

Baby Boomers

Baby Boomers earned their name due to the boom in births between 1946 and

1964. This generation grew up embracing the idea of entitlement and expecting the

best from life (Kupperschmidt, 2000). Boomers entered the workplace at a time when

leadership and formal authority were considered to be synonymous (Crumpacker &

Crumpacker, 2007). They were profoundly affected by the Vietnam War, the civil

rights movement, the class of the Kennedys, Kennedy’s and King’s assassinations,

the Watergate sexual revolution (Barford & Hester, 2011) and Woodstock (Adams,

2000). From a diversity point of view, Boomers are less ethnically and culturally

diverse compared to other generations. According to the Pew Research Center

(2010), Non-Hispanics (whites) make up 73% of Boomers. Boomers were found to

have a positive work ethic, especially as it relates to their strength as team players and

mentors, which positively effects change through a strong work commitment

(Kupperschmidt, 2000).

These cohorts value management more than any other generation; therefore,

managers should involve them in the planning process to gain buy in and avoid

problems that may arise (Zemke et al., 2000). Boomers currently hold many of the

27

executive level positions in corporate America. They are known as workaholics, often

putting their jobs before their families (Strauss & Howe, 1997). Boomers believe that

work is a priority and by paying their dues with loyalty and tenure there comes the

reward of seniority (Crumpacker & Crumpacker, 2007). Among their perceived

liabilities of workers in different generations, they expect everyone to be workaholics,

they dislike conflict, they do not like change, and they are self-centered and

judgmental towards others who do not see their point of view (Zemke et al., 2000).

They are the true workaholics of all the generations, but they will strive to find a

better work/life balance as their financial needs dictates that they stay in the

workforce a longer time (Zemke et al., 2000). Thus, this generation is expected to

remain in the workforce longer as some want to continue to work as long as they

physically can, while others cannot afford to retire, either because they failed to save

enough for retirement or because they took a big hit to their retirement funds during

the 2008-2009 recession. While this generation has had a major influence on the

American workforce, they are beginning to enter retirement.

Generation X’ers

Watergate, the Energy Crisis, having single parents, Y2K, activism, corporate

downsizing, and the end of the Cold War, influenced generation X’ers. While many

of them had true dual income families (working moms), they had divorced parents.

As a result, they were the first generation of latchkey kids. In terms of diversity,

GenXers are made up of 62% non-Hispanic whites (Pew Research Center, 2010).

Gen X’ers are competent with technology and comfortable with diversity. They are

28

adaptable to change, are able to multi-task, and work effectively in the face of

competition (Kupperschmidt, 2000). Many members of this generation were greatly

influenced by the experience of their parents being laid off and for that reason they

can be cynical and untrusting (Kupperschmidt, 2000). Generation X has brought

about a more informal workplace. They strive harder for work-life balance than their

Boomer counterparts, preferring to distance themselves from their jobs on weekends

rather than using personal time to put in the extra hours (Howe & Strauss, 2007). The

lack of parental involvement, mixed with cynicism about education, work and money,

has created within Generation X an entrepreneurial spirit and a preference for

individuality in their work (Strauss & Howe, 1997). At work, they are often

characterized as having a high level of education, high job expectations, a lack of

organizational loyalty, a belief in life balance, a global perspective, and a strong

technological influence. Among other perceived liabilities from workers in different

generations, they dislike authority, have distaste for rigid work requirements, are

impatient, lack people skills, and share a mistrust of institutions. Instead, they seek

freedom to be creative and to be their own boss. The key to managing these workers

is therefore giving them the resources they need to learn a job independently; they

will take the initiative to utilize different resources such as online training, and video

to increase their skills and knowledge (Zemke, 2000).

Generation Y

Generation Y or Millennials are frequently referred to as the millennium

generation. They are defined by digital media, a child-focused world, school

29

shootings, terrorist attacks, AIDS, and 9/11. Millennials are the first generation to

enter the workforce having grown up with information technology available at all

times and they are the most educated generation with more than half (54%) having

some kind of education—the highest of any of the cohorts. It is very common for

them to have grown up as children of divorced parents. They often came from

smaller households with parents who had the resources to give them more material

items and attention. These circumstances often resulted in a very scheduled and

sheltered life. Sometimes parents of this generation have been called “helicopter

parents” because of their excessive attention and the need to oversee every aspect of

their children lives (Glass, 2007).

Many perceive Generation Y as entitled when it comes to professional and

career-related matters (Pew Research Center, 2010). Their technological savvy ways

influence their work value system such that they believe they can work flexibly

anytime and anyplace, and that they should be evaluated on work productivity and not

how, where, or when they get it done. Their work ethic does not mandate ten-hour

days and they demand much in the way of a work/life balance. This may create some

friction among the other cohorts who have a different view of the workplace.

According to a survey conducted by Pew Research Center (2010), Millennials value

parenthood and marriage far above career and financial success. While they are

distrustful of organizations and hierarchy, they are more loyal to groups and bosses

than previous generations. They also have strong expectations of their bosses and

managers when it comes to mentoring and helping them to meet professional goals.

30

While they may want long-term relationships with employers, they want it on their

own terms. They have experienced a “real revolution” decrease in career ambition in

favor of more family time, less travel, and less professional pressure. They thrive in a

collaborative work environment and want to enhance their work skills by continuing

their education. Additionally, millennials demand more information and

communication with employers regarding their specific needs (Hankin, 2004;

Terjesen, Vinnicombe, & Freeman, 2007).

In order to successfully manage and lead the blended workforce, leaders must

understand all generations to maximize their potential while comprehending that they

each define work and work/life balance differently. One generation may define it as

working longer hours to achieve a goal, while another might define it as leveraging

technology to be more efficient while still delivering on the same goal (Zemke,

2000). Furthermore, the differences between the generations can create

misunderstandings that might result in workplace conflict (Strauss & Howe, 1991)

since views and values tend to differ among the generational cohorts. According to

Zemke et al. (2000), each cohort is driven by a combination of varying perspectives,

personal ethics, and management styles. Organizations that do not invest in

understanding and leveraging the strengths and differences of each generation will

see a negative impact on employees. Employees are unlikely to embrace

opportunities to learn and enhance skills from each other if it is not a priority for the

leadership team. As a consequence, it may be argued that this impacts employee’s

engagement.

31

To summarize, employing a multigenerational workforce can be very

beneficial to companies since each generation brings different skills and talents to the

organization. Historians, sociologists, and, as noted, educators, have assigned an

assortment of names for each of the four generations: Traditionalist, also known as

Veterans, born between 1922 and 1945; Baby Boomers, born between 1946 and

1964; Generation X known as Gen Xers, born between 1965 and 1983; and

Generation Y, also known as Millennial, born between 1984 and 2002. While the

literature shows that there are many challenges associated with effectively managing

a multigenerational workforce including, for example, the differences in work ethic

and the way employees manage change, members of different generations can have

different ideas about how work is done. Studies show that Baby Boomers have a

positive work ethic, especially as it relates to strength as team players and mentors.

In contrast, Generation Xer’s seek freedom to be creative and even to be their own

bosses. On the other hand, Generation Y’s work ethic does not mandate ten-hour

days and they demand much in the way of a work/life balance. As such, they seek

long-term relationships with their employers, on their own terms. In light of the

foregoing, it may be postulated that each cohort is driven by a combination of varying

perspectives, personal ethics, and management styles; if organizations that do not

invest in understanding and leveraging these variations in strengths and differences,

this may have a negative impact on employee engagement. Therefore, the next

section will discuss diversity as it relates to workplace and employee engagement.

32

Workplace and Employee Engagement

Research shows that work engagement is credited with having a positive

effect on business outcomes and that employees are an asset to an organization

(Artur, 1994; Becker & Huslid, 2000). Therefore, using the organization’s

intellectual capital has become an even greater source of competitive advantage. The

most widely-used definition of intellectual capital is, “knowledge that is of value to

an organization” (Buckingham & Vosburgh, 2001). It essentially represents the value

of an organization’s skills sets and their competitiveness as an enterprise.

Organizations have recently begun analyzing employee engagement as it relates to

motivation and performance (Gallup). When evaluating the factors that contribute to

employee engagement, it is important to consider whether or not the same techniques

work for employees from different generations, especially to attract and retain highly

skilled employees. It is even more critical today for employers to understand and

adjust the training, development and work-life needs of a diverse workforce, and to

work together effectively to remain competitive in the global marketplace. Despite

capturing the attention of management and human resources professionals, one of the

first challenges presented by the literature is the lack of a universal definition of

employee engagement. Several definitions exist, most from a practitioner’s point of

view. Most scholarly definitions of employee engagement are centered on the

emotions, behaviors, and cognitive elements. Despite these various definitions, for

the purpose of this study, engagement will be defined as a positive, fulfilling work-

related state of mind characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli,

33

Salanova, Gonzalez-Romá, & Bakker, 2002). In other words, engagement is a

positive state of being when completing duties at work.

Workplace engagement and its definitions and uses are very similar to another

highly used term, employee engagement. Workplace engagement is defined as

lowering a worker’s burnout level through increased, employee’s efforts, dedication

to one’s job, and the organization and absorption of the employee’s job task

(Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003). Employee engagement refers to an individual’s feelings

and attitude towards their job and is defined by employee characteristics such as job

satisfaction, motivation, and work commitment (Chat-Uthai, 2013). Given the

comparable definition of work engagement and employee engagement, the

terminology, findings, benefits, and recommendations will be considered synonyms

for the purposes of this research.

Research on work engagement has developed in a relatively sequential

manner, which includes personal engagement, burnout/engagement, work

engagement, and employee engagement. Kahn (1990) first discussed engagement

theory from a human resources context, where he introduced the concepts of personal

engagement and personal disengagement. Kahn went on to establish a theoretical

framework to understand when, why, and to what degree individuals invest

themselves in their work performance. He explored engagement and disengagement

between two groups of workers in a qualitative study using grounded theory and

defined employee engagement as “the harnessing of organization members’ selves to

their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically,

34

cognitively, and emotionally during role performances” (p.694). According to Kahn,

engagement implies being psychologically as well as physically present when

occupying and performing an organizational role. Conversely, personal

disengagement is the separation of the self from one’s role and is exhibited by a lack

of physical involvement, cognitive vigilance, and emotional investment. The

cognitive aspect of employee engagement represents employees’ beliefs about the

organization, its leaders, and the working conditions; the emotional aspect represents

how employees feel about each of these three factors and whether they have positive

or negative attitudes toward the organization and its leaders; and the physical aspect

of employee engagement concerns the physical energies exerted by individuals to

accomplish their roles. Thus, Khan (1992, p.322), theorizes that when an individual

finds meaning, feels safe, and has the necessary external and internal resources to

fulfill their work role, he or she will be personally engaged and be “fully present.”

Only one study has been conducted to empirically test and build upon Kahn’s (1990)

model of engagement. May, Gilson, and Harter (2004) and Csikszentmihalyi (1990)

considered constructs of job involvement and flow to be more aligned with

engagement. Job involvement is defined as “a cognitive or belief state of

psychological identification” (Kanungo, 1982). This view differs from engagement

in that it is aligned more with how an individual applies him or herself while

performing work duties. By definition, job involvement is centered on the mental

state of mind, while engagement encompasses emotions and behaviors, and flow is

defined as the “holistic sensation that people feel when they act with total

35

involvement” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, p.136). May et al. (2004) found that there are

three psychological conditions related to engagement or disengagement at work:

meaningfulness, safety, and availability. Overall, while all three psychological

components result in significant positive engagement, meaningfulness is found to

have the strongest relation to different employee outcomes because it mediates the

effects of job enrichment and work role fit. Therefore, implementing strategies that

focus on increasing job involvement can contribute to enhancing organizational

effectiveness and efficiency, which can lead to employees being more engaged in

their work due to a more meaningful and fulfilling experience.

An alternative model of engagement is found in literature on “burnout,”

wherein the opposite concept involves an erosion of engagement in one’s job

(Maslach, Schaufelli, & Leiter, 2001). According to Maslach et al. (2001), a decrease

in the following six specific areas leads to engagement or burnout: sustainable

workload, feelings of choice and control, appropriate recognition and reward, a

supportive work community, fairness and justice, and meaningful and valued work.

Engagement, conversely, is expected to mediate the link between these six work-life

factors and various work outcomes. Additionally, the findings of May et al. (2004)

support that of Maslach et al. (2001regarding the notion of meaningful and valued

work as associated with engagement. An important distinction between engagement

and burnout is that the latter relates specifically to job demands. Engagement, on the

other hand, is indicated by job resources such as job control, the availability of

learning opportunities, access to necessary materials, participation in the decision-

36

making process, positive reinforcement, and support from colleagues (Freeney &

Tiernan, 2006).

Recognizing that engagement and burnout are experienced as opposite

psychological states, Schaufeli et al. (2002) suggested that an employee who

experiences low burnout may not be experiencing high engagement. For the purposes

of this dissertation, engagement is a key component in understanding the relationship

between generational cohorts, employee engagement, and job satisfaction. The

definition of engagement will be aligned with Schaufeli et al. (2002) who defined it

as “a positive fulfilling, work-related state of mind characterized by vigor, dedication

and absorption,” where vigor is energy, mental resilience, invested effort, and

persistence; dedication is the feeling of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride,

and challenge; and absorption is being fully concentrated and happily engrossed in

work such that time passes quickly and one has a difficult time detaching from work

(p.74). According to the model, employees are highly engaged when they

demonstrate a passion for their work and are highly involved with being part of the

work. The study further indicates that engagement is not a momentary and specific

state but is “a more persistent and pervasive affective—a cognitive state that is not

focused on any particular object, event, individual or behavior.” (Schaufeli et al.,

2002, p. 702). As noted by Schaufeli and Bakker (2004), engaged employees are

likely to have a greater allegiance to their organization and are therefore less likely to

leave their jobs.

37

In summary, despite the lack of a universal definition of employee

engagement, organizations have recently begun analyzing employee engagement as it

relates to motivation and performance—specifically vigor, dedication, and

absorption. It has been postulated that employers need to understand and adjust the

training, development, and work-life needs of a diverse workforce in order to increase

productivity and retention. Additionally, theoretical frameworks were established to

understand when, why, and to what degree individuals invest themselves in their

work performance and it has been suggested that engagement implies being

psychologically as well as physically present when occupying and performing an

organizational role (Khan, 1990). Similarly, May, Gilson, and Harter (2004), and

Csikszentmihalyi (1990) considered job involvement to be aligned with engagement.

Therefore, it may be argued that implementing strategies that focus on increasing job

involvement lead to employees being more engaged in their work. By contrast, an

alternative model of engagement is found in the literature on “burnout,” wherein the

opposite concept involves an erosion of engagement in one’s job (Maslach,

Schaufelli, & Leiter, 2001). An important distinction, however, between engagement

and burnout is that the latter relates specifically to job demands. As such, an

employee who experiences low burnout may not necessarily be experiencing high

engagement. Therefore, the next section will examine employee engagement for a

historical perspective in order to understand better what makes an employee engaged

in their job.

38

Historical Overview

Although it has been acknowledged and accepted that employee engagement

is a multi-faceted construct, as previously suggested by Kahn (1990). Truss et al.

(2006) defined employee engagement simply as “passion for work,” a psychological

state that encompasses the three dimensions of engagement as discussed by Kahn.

“Passion for work” therefore captures the common theme that runs through all these

definitions.

Robinson, Perryman, and Hayday (2004) identified key behaviors associated

with employee engagement as: belief in the organization, desire to work to make

things better, understanding of the business context and the “bigger picture,” being

respectful of/and helpful to colleagues, willingness to “go the extra mile”, and

keeping up to date with developments in the field. Additionally, the research has

found that employee engagement is closely linked to feelings and perceptions about

being valued and involved. The key drivers of engagement have been identified as

effective leadership, two-way communication, high levels of internal co-operation, a

focus on employee development, a commitment to employee well-being and clear,

accessible human resources policies and practices to which managers at all levels

adhered.

A more recent model was developed by Saks (2006) to expand on the social

exchange theory, which suggests that employees will choose their level of

engagement based on what they receive in return from their organizations. Saks

(2006) suggested that neither the Kahn (1990) nor the Maslach et al.’s (2001)

39

engagement models addressed the psychological conditions or predecessors that were

necessary for engagement. As such, Saks (2006) went on to define employee

engagement as having two dimensions: job engagement and organization

engagement. Saks (2006) surveyed 102 employees in a variety of industries, and in

one study tested a model of antecedents and consequences of job and organizational

engagement. To measure the job and organization engagement constructs, Saks

developed two 6-item scales to assess an individual’s psychological presence in their

job and organization. Drawing conclusions from this empirical study, Saks found that

job characteristics and organizational support are predictors of job engagement, and

that organizational support is a significant predictor of organizational engagement

with procedural justice approaching significance.

To cite Saks (2006), a stronger theoretical explanation of employee

engagement can be found in Social Exchange Theory (SET). One of the key

principles of SET is that relationships evolve over time into trusting, loyal, and

mutual commitments as long as the parties abide by certain “rules of exchange” in

that the actions of one party lead to a response or actions of the other party

(Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). This exchange can be viewed as both financially

and socially economical. This view is consistent with Robinson et al.’s (2004)

description of engagement as a two-way relationship between employer and

employee. When individuals perceive receipt of organizational support, they are

more likely to return the gesture (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Thus, Saks further

40

argued that one way for individuals to repay their organizations is through their level

of engagement at work.

To summarize, employee engagement is a multi-faceted construct with a central

theme of “passion for work.” The literature shows that there are key behaviors

associated with employee engagement, which are closely linked to feelings and

perceptions about being valued and involved. Further studies suggested that

employees will choose their level of engagement based on what they receive in return

from their organizations. However, recent studies argue that past engagement models

(Kahn, 1990; Maslach et al., 2001) do not address the psychological conditions or

predecessors that are necessary for engagement. As such, employee engagement has

been defined as having two dimensions: job engagement and organization

engagement (Saks, 2006). This view is consistent with another by Robinson et al.

(2004), who defined engagement as a two-way relationship between employer and

employee—but what factors positively influenced this two-way relationship? Hence,

the next section will discuss motivational factors as it relates to employee

engagement.

Theoretical Framework

Using the context of motivation in the workplace, most studies focus on two

basic types of work values as they apply to engagement and motivation. They are

intrinsic or self-actualization values (e.g., extrinsic values: Maslow, 1943) or material

values (e.g., Herzberg, 1968).

41

Motivation

Motivation as it relates to the workforce provides a common thread across all

generations and may provide insight into the multi-generational challenge. Motivation

can be linked to job satisfaction, productivity and performance, as well as to the

decision factors employees use to remain committed to a job or leave an organization.

Understanding the differences in motivating factors among differing age groups can

aid employers in designing effective recruiting and retention strategies that more

successfully manage the challenges of a multi-generational workforce, while

maintaining and optimizing organizational performance and productivity (Parker et

al., 2003).

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

The research for this study has been framed by and examines similarities and

differences between Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and Herzburg’s motivator-hygiene

theory and how they interact with engagement theory. The theories of Maslow and

Herzberg are relevant to organizational behavior specifically as it relates to employee

engagement within the generational cohort in the current workplace. Malsow’s needs

hierarchy is a set of five human goals ranging from physiological needs to self-

actualization. Maslow (1943) hypothesized that people are motivated by a hierarchy

of individual needs, suggesting that they are the primary drivers of human behavior

even though there is the assumption that these needs will never be completely

satisfied. When one need is fulfilled, a person seeks to fulfill the next one, and so on.

The theory suggests that an individual’s needs must be satisfied at the lower levels

42

before they progress to higher, more complex levels because once low-level needs are

satisfied, individuals are no longer motivated by them and need to move to the next

level of needs in order to find new motivations. Maslow categorized the needs in a

hierarchical model of five levels: physiological needs, safety needs, social needs,

esteem needs, and self-actualization needs. One of the limitations of Malsow’s

hierarchy is that it assumes a person can only be motivated by one predominant

category at a time (Maslow, 1943). Implementing Maslow’s theory in the workplace

would mean creating company cultures, policies, and reward and recognition

programs that address all levels of his hierarchical needs theory at any given time at

an individual level. See Figure 1.

Figure 1. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.

43

Physiological needs are described as the basic needs for survival, food, water,

breathing, and sex. Within the workplace they can be described as salary and work

conditions. The second level in his hierarchy of needs motivation theory is safety

needs, which can be described as those needs related to the security of a person’s

body, employment, family, health, and property. In the workplace, safety needs could

include job security and feeling of a safe working environment. The third level is

social needs, which include the need for belonging, love, and affection. Employee

relationships, such as cooperative peers or a good boss at work, help fulfill this need

for acceptance and compassion. In the workplace, love and belonging are associated

with having a friend at work and research shows this improves employee productivity

and engagement (Rath, 2011). The fourth level, esteem, is the need for both self-

esteem and to feel esteem from others. This can be defined by positive self-image

and respect and recognition from others. In the workplace, it could include individual

employee recognition or being recognized for performing well while working on a

team (Rath, 2011). The last level is self-actualization, which is reached only after all

other needs are met. This can be described as someone doing what they believe they

were destined to be doing. In the workplace, this is can be hard to achieve; but one

often knows and feels something is lacking. According to this theory, organizations

can expect increased employee engagement as employees’ needs are met. Once all

the needs are met, full potential can be reached.

To validate Maslow’s theory, in a study conducted by Rath and Harter (2011),

it was found that increased employee engagement enhances work production and

44

satisfaction while allowing employees to feel better about their work and themselves.

The study suggests that organizations need to make their employees feel connected to

company goals and also that their work is contributing to the organization’s big

picture of success (Rath & Harter, 2011). This approach will help organizations

maximize their full potential in the marketplace. Additionally, Rath and Harter found

that measuring well-being provides a strong benchmark for determining the influence

organizations have on their customers and the communities they serve. Upon

completion of the research, five distinct statistical factors emerged, namely: (1) career

well-being focusing on how you occupy your time or simply liking what you do every

day; (2) social well-being, having strong relationships and love in your life; (3)

financial well-being, effectively managing your economic life; (4) physical well-

being, having good health and enough energy to get things done on a daily basis; and

(5) community well-being, the sense of engagement you have with the area where

you live. Furthermore, Rath and Harter (2011) also found that an employee with low

engagement and a low level of well-being will negatively impact selected group

performance; however, when managers and leaders invest in employee well-being,

they positively influence the organization’s overall growth in the process.

Herzburg’s Motivator-Hygiene Theory

While Maslow focused on needs and the relationship to motivation, Herzberg

performed a number of research studies on motivation and its relationship to job

satisfaction. Herzberg’s Hygiene Two Factors Theory (Herzberg, 1959) is an

45

extension of Maslow’s theory. His 1966 Motivation-Hygiene Theory is a two-factor

theory consisting of 10 work factors.

In contrast to Maslow, Herzberg (1966) identified five motivator or intrinsic

factors that contribute to internal growth and motivate the employee to high

performance and effort. These factors are directly related to the employee’s

relationship to their job. They include the work involved, achievement,

responsibility, recognition, and advancement. These motivating factors contribute to

one’s job satisfaction, thus creating a positive attitude and feeling towards work

(Herzberg, 1966). The five hygiene or extrinsic factors are derived from the actual

work environment and describe the relationship to the environment. These factors

have little effect on positive job attitudes and can create job dissatisfaction (Herzberg,

1966). They include feelings about supervision, salary, policy and administration,

interpersonal relationships, as well as working conditions.

The findings that led to the development of Herzberg's motivation theory

suggest that employee satisfaction is based on two sets of factors: motivators, which

when present, would lead to increased job satisfaction, and hygiene, if absent, would

create job dissatisfaction. Herzberg went on to conclude that job satisfiers and job

dissatisfiers are associated with job context. Hygiene factors cause demotivation and

refer to pay, work conditions, policies, administrative efficiency, style of supervision,

and relationships between employees. This resulted in labelling satisfiers as

motivators and dissatisfiers as hygiene factors. Therefore, it has been found that

factors related to work, such as recognition, increased responsibility, and

46

advancement are what make employees satisfied. As such, basic needs do not give

motivation but merely create a favorable work environment. Conversely, what makes

workers unhappy is how they are treated, not the content of what they do. Hence, it

may be argued that the absence of hygiene factors will decrease employee

engagement.

Thus, Herzberg’s theory provides a good framework for identifying the

factors, which affect job satisfaction. These factors, however, may not always pertain

to every situation; as such, one of the major disadvantages of Herzberg’s model is

that it is a generalization that may not be appropriately applied to all groups of

employees or individuals within an organization. What motivates one individual

might be a de-motivator for another. As an example, increased responsibility may

motivate one worker by building self-worth, while for a new mother it is transitioning

back to work, the added responsibility which may include longer working hours and

may be a demotivator due to a lack of work-life balance.

On the other hand, the primary advantage of Herzberg's theory is that it

provides practical solutions for organizations to help identify broader issues that need

to be addressed. The theory also recognizes the fact that motivation comes from

within the individual as opposed to any external factors. Herzberg believes that

organizations could motivate employees by adopting an inclusive culture, which

focus on improving the nature and content of the actual job through: (a) job

enlargement, where workers are given a greater variety of tasks to perform to make

the work more interesting; (b) job enrichment, where workers are given a wider range

47

of more complex and challenging tasks to give a greater sense of achievement; and

(c) empowerment by delegating more power to employees to make their own

decisions regarding their working lives.

In summary, there are some similarities and distinct differences between the

two theories. The Maslow hierarchy of needs impacts all work levels and

performance based on whether a person desires to meet unsatisfied individual needs.

Conversely, Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory has no hierarchy but is rather a

linear model of satisfaction-no satisfaction and dissatisfaction-no dissatisfaction.

Additionally, Maslow’s (1943) theory talks about the needs that must be fulfilled in

order to motivate a person, while Herzberg theory (1966) talks about the causes of

satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Furthermore, Maslow’s theory is based on the

concept of human needs and their satisfaction, while Herzberg’s theory is based on

the use of motivators. Moreover, Maslow states that fulfilling each stage is a

motivator; however, Herzberg agrees that fulfilling the hygiene stage only results in

an employee being in a neutral state and that satisfaction and motivation only come

from the 2nd stage (motivator). In terms of similarities, Herzberg's hygiene has the

same criteria as Maslow's physiological, safety, and belongingness needs as they

relate to the workplace and, specifically, to pay and work conditions. Herzberg’s

motivators and Maslow’s esteem and self-actualization are also similar as they relate

to work-- specifically recognition, achievement, and advancement. Hygiene factors

that can lead to dissatisfaction include company policies, supervision, the relationship

with one’s boss, work conditions, pay and relationships with peers (Herzberg, 1974).

48

Motivators leading to job satisfaction include achievement recognition, growth,

advancement/promotion, the job itself, and recognition. Hence, hygiene factors are

predominantly extrinsic factors, while motivators are the intrinsic factors to the

individual. Therefore, it may be argued that management must address both hygiene

factors and motivators since job enrichment is required for intrinsic motivation.

To summarize, motivation as it relates to the workforce provides a common

thread across all generations and may provide insight into the multi-generational

challenge since it is linked to job satisfaction, productivity and performance, as well

as to the decision factors employees use to remain committed to a job or leave an

organization. Thus, using the context of motivation in the workplace, most studies

focus on two basic types of work values as they apply to engagement and motivation:

intrinsic or self-actualization values (e.g., extrinsic values) (Maslow, 1943) or

material values (e.g., Herzberg, 1968). The research for this study was framed by and

examines similarities and differences between Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and

Herzburg’s motivator-hygiene theory and how they interact with engagement theory.

The theories of Maslow and Herzberg are relevant to organizational behavior

specifically as it relates to employee engagement within the generational cohort in the

current workplace. Malsow’s needs hierarchy is a set of five human goals:

physiological needs, safety needs, social needs, esteem needs, and self-actualization

needs. While Maslow focused on needs and the relationship to motivation, Herzberg

performed a number of research studies on motivation and its relationship to job

satisfaction. Herzberg’s Hygiene Two Factors Theory (1959) is an extension of

49

Maslow’s theory and it consists of 10 work factors. In contrast to Maslow, Herzberg

identified five motivator or intrinsic factors that contribute to internal growth and

motivate the employee to high performance and effort (Herzberg, 1966). These

factors are directly related to the employee’s relationship to their job and thus can be

used to measure employee engagement. Therefore, the next section will discuss

measuring employee engagement in multigenerational cohorts.

Measuring Employee Engagement

To measure employee engagement, this study will utilize the Utrecht Work

Engagement Scale (UWES), a self-reporting questionnaire. The Utrecht Work

Engagement Scale was first developed by researchers, Schaufeli and Bakker (2003).

They sought to examine the relationship between engagement and burnout; it was

perceived that engagement is the opposite of burnout. Schaufeli and Bakker codified

two versions of the UWES, a seventeen-item and a nine-item version confirming

validity, as well as a three-factor structure for each instrument. The Utrecht Work

Engagement Scale (UWES) has been designed to measure work engagement

according to three dimensions: vigor, dedication, and absorption. This refers to the

level of energy, involvement, and concentration of the employee towards his or her

job each of which are assessed by six, five, and six items respectively. To measure

engagement, this 17-item scale, known as UWES-17, is the most accepted instrument

in the literature to date, having been validated and utilized extensively in a number of

countries (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2004; Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova,

2006).

50

Macey and Schneider (2008) described the UWES as one of the few surveys

that measure employee engagement with validity and reliability. Each of the

elements of the questionnaire is measured based upon self-reporting on how

frequently the respondent reports feeling a specific characteristic at work. Vigor is

measured using six questions that refer to high levels of energy and resilience, the

willingness to invest effort, not being easily fatigued, and persistence in the face of

workplace difficulties. Employees who score high in the area of vigor exhibit

behaviors that include having high energy, a high passion for life and work, and a

sense of endurances when working (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003). The six indicators

are: (1) at my work, I feel bursting with energy; (2) on my job, I feel strong and

vigorous; (3) when I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work; (4) I can

continue working for very long periods at a time; (5) at my job I am very resilient,

mentally; and (6) at my work I always persevere, even when things do not go well.

Dedication is measured by five questions that refer to developing a sense of

significance from work and a feeling of enthusiasm and pride in one’s work. These

questions also measure a feeling of being inspired and challenged by the work being

done. Employees who score high in the area of dedication identify strongly with their

work and find work meaningful, inspiring, and challenging. High scores in this area

apply to employees who feel enthusiastic about work and have a high level of pride in

what they are doing (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003). The five indicators are: (1) I find

the work that I do full of meaning and purpose; (2) I am enthusiastic about my job;

51

(3) my job inspires me; (4) I am proud of the work I do; and (5) to me, my job is

challenging.

Absorption is measured using six questions that refer to being completely and

totally involved in work to a point that an employee has difficulty detaching from

work and time passes by quickly. Employees who score high in the area of

absorption are often immersed and have difficulty separating themselves from work.

Therefore, for this type of employee, time at work goes by very quickly; therefore,

things happening around them are not a priority at the time (Schaufeli & Bakker,

2003). The six indicators are: (1) time flies when I am working; (2) when I am

working, I forget everything else around me; (3) I feel happy when I am working

intensely; (4) I am immersed in my work; (5) I get carried away when I am working;

and (6) it is difficult to detach myself from my work.

This measure of engagement and motivation aligns with the satisfaction

theories of both Maslow and Herzberg based on research conducted regarding both

external and internal motivating factors, as well as employee engagement as it relates

to job satisfaction and performance. Each dimension is measured in the UWES based

upon how frequently the respondent reports feeling a specific characteristic at work.

Research findings indicate that there are consistently strong relationships between

increased job demands and burnout (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2003). Additionally, the

researchers found that the relationships were much weaker between job resources and

burnout and that there was an inverse relationship between engagement and turnover

intention.

52

Despite widespread use of the UWES-9, there is still a question raised

concerning its construct validity dimensionality. Mills, Culbertson, and Fullagar

(2012) compared and contrasted the scale’s development of both the original 17-item

UWES-17 and the recent shorter 9-item UWES, which they argued might be

methodologically flawed and, thus, they suggested possible ways to improve it.

Based on this research, the UWES-9 yielded some inconsistent results, which the

researchers attributed to either the nature of the sample or issues with Item 14 in the

absorption factor, “I get carried away when I am working.” Despite the findings,

Mills et al. (2012) stated that the UWES-9 could serve as a viable and perhaps even

preferable alternative to the longer UWES-17, as it is simpler and easier to follow as

well as delivers similar findings.

Similarly, De Bruin and Henn (2013) examined the validity of the UWES

instrument, specifically the measurement dimensionality and ultimately construct

validity of the UWES–9. They examined the instruments general factor saturation,

the effect of multidimensionality on the interpretation of the total score, and the

convergent and discriminant validity of its subscale. Their findings provide clear

empirical support for using the total score of the UWES–9 as suitable for research.

However, they do not recommend using three sub-scale scores or using them as

separate independent or separate dependent variables. Hence, the current study will

use the original theory of Schaufeli et al. (2002), which stated workplace engagement

growth is correlated with an increase of vigor, dedication, and absorption. Thus, the

53

assumption is that a lower work engagement level entails the reduction of one or

more of these items.

Likert Scales

A Likert scale is a psychometric response scale mainly used in questionnaires

to obtain participants level of agreement with a statement or set of statements. It is a

non-comparative scaling technique that only measures a single trait. Respondents are

asked to indicate their level of agreement to a given statement using an ordinal

number. Likert scales usually have five potential choices (strongly agree, agree,

neutral, disagree, strongly disagree) but can sometimes they go up to ten or more.

Each score can be measured individually or summed with a related question to create

a score for a group of statements. The final average score represents overall the level

of accomplishment or attitude toward the subject matter. One of the advantages of

the Likert Scales is that they do not expect a simple yes/no answer from the

respondent, but rather allow for degrees of opinion and even no opinion at all. This

allows for quantitative data collection and easier analysis of a specific topic. One of

the drawbacks of this type of assessment methodology is there can be some limitation

in the level of honesty when people realize that their attitudes are being measured.

Therefore, for this study, the survey will align with Schaufeli et al.’s (2002) definition

of engagement. The survey will include six, five, and six items respectively for the

vigor, dedication and absorption variables.

To summarize, employee engagement is measured using (UWES), a self-

reporting questionnaire which has been designed to measure work engagement

54

according to the three dimensions: vigor, dedication, and absorption. The UWES also

aligns with the satisfaction theories of both Maslow and Herzberg. Firstly, vigor is

measured using six questions that refer to high levels of energy and resilience, the

willingness to invest effort, not being easily fatigued, and persistence in the face of

workplace difficulties. Secondly, dedication is measured by five questions that refer

to developing a sense of significance from work and a feeling of enthusiasm and pride

in one’s work. Employees who score high in the area of vigor exhibit behaviors that

include having high energy, a high passion for life and work, and a sense of

endurances when working. Additionally, employees who score high in the area of

dedication identify strongly with their work and find work meaningful, inspiring and

challenging. Thirdly, absorption is measured using six questions that refer to being

completely and totally involved in work to a point that the employee has difficulty

detaching from work and time passes by quickly. Employees who score high in the

area of absorption are often immersed and have difficulty separating themselves from

work. Additionally, the study will employ the use of Likert scales, a psychometric

response scale mainly used in questionnaires to obtain participants level of agreement

with a statement or set of statements, to administer the UWES questionnaire,

Conclusion

The workplace is complex and changing. A review of the literature has

revealed the manner in which employee engagement has been conceptualized in

many different ways. Employee engagement constructs associate engagement with

high energy and absorption in the work done (Kahn, 1990; Macey & Schneider, 2008;

55

May et al., 2004; Saks, 2006; Schaufeli et al., 2002). Although the models include

some variations, they rely on antecedents for employee engagement. When

comparing the noted models, there are apparent similarities and differences. Although

there is no single agreed upon definition, engagement is defined as a multi-faceted

construct. All models propose that employee engagement is a valid construct that is

important in explaining employee behavior in the workplace. The existence of

different definitions creates challenges in understanding the current state of

knowledge of employee engagement as each study examines it under a different

protocol, using different measures of engagement under different circumstances. In

any case, research models assert that the work environment affects employee

engagement and that it will have certain consequences for the employee and the

organization, such as worker loyalty, an organization that is competitive in the

marketplace and employee intellectual capital.

Therefore, given the unique characteristics of each generational group, the

study seeks to fill the gaps in the literature by providing additional knowledge of

engagement in current work force settings among different generations in order to

identify its predictors and consequences. Research indicates that by better

understanding engagement, new strategies may be developed that may increase levels

of employee engagement, thereby possibly decreasing the costly negative effects of

disengagement. As such, this research will be grounded on the generational cohort

theory, which states that adults have core values shaped by the historic and social

aspects of the society they experience at critical developmental stages throughout

56

their childhood (Kupperschmidt, 2000). Furthermore, this research will be grounded

theoretically on the engagement theory as defined by Khan (1990) and further

developed by Schaufeli and Baker (2004), Maslow’s (1943) Hierarchy of Needs, and

Herzberg’s (1959) Motivation-Hygiene Theory. The research for this study will

examine the similarities and differences between Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and

Herzburg’s motivator-hygiene theory and how they interact with engagement theory

as originally researched by Khan and further developed by Schaufeli et al. (2002),

with a specific focus on employee vigor, dedication, and absorption. Specifically,

this study will examine how these theories relate to employee engagement within the

generational cohorts currently in the workforce.

57

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this current study was to examine the similarities and

differences regarding the perceptions of workplace engagement among the four

generations of the current workforce. The goal was to provide organizations with a

framework to create a workplace culture where all individuals feel respected, valued,

engaged, and appreciated for who they are and what they have contributed. Although

employee engagement has been the subject of many studies, further research—

including four generations and the use of a larger diverse sample population—is

necessary to fill the gap in the literature associated with the challenges of engaging a

multigenerational workforce in order to better understanding how to attract, develop,

and retain valuable employees. Therefore, the scope of this chapter is to discuss the:

(a) research design; (b) population and sample; (c) instrumentation, as well as its

validity and reliability; (d) data collection procedures; and (e) data analyses

procedures.

Research Design

The study employed the use of a quantitative descriptive correlational design

to collect data regarding the perceptions of workplace engagement among the four

generations of the current workforce. According to Creswell (2005), quantitative

research is most appropriate when variables are identified and easy to measure.

Therefore, a quantitative approach is appropriate since the goal of the study is to

identify and explain any relationship between the stated variables. Additionally,

58

quantitative research outcomes are intended to describe and explain the relationship

between variables, as well as the magnitude of the specific phenomena as it relates to

the influence of one variable over another. Creswell (2005) further noted that

correlational designs are appropriate to determine the possible relationship between

the independent and dependent variables.

A quantitative methodology involved the empirical analysis of data that has

been collected from a sample of people from a specific population, with the aim of

making generalizable observations of the population based on the measure of

relationships (Creswell, 2005). Therefore, to cite Creswell, “quantitative research is

based on theories, when the researcher asks specific, narrow questions to test his or

her hypotheses” (p. 46) and it provides explanations of the variables being studied.

Thus, Creswell (2003) associates quantitative approaches with “post positivist claims

for developing knowledge” (p.18), whereby the researcher obtains statistical data

from the data obtained with “predetermined instruments.”

In contrast, qualitative research seeks to answer the “how” and “why”

opposed to “how often” and “how many.” Therefore, qualitative research is

concerned with opinions, feelings, and experiences and is aimed at describing social

phenomena as they occur naturally, that is, no attempt is made to manipulate the

situation, as is the case in quantitative research (Creswell, 2003). Additionally,

qualitative studies are also more difficult to replicate accurately at large, have

complex scales, thus leading to the possibility of less concrete conclusions being

rendered in terms of hypothesis testing and building a solid theory (Lim, 1995;

59

Sackman, 1991). Hence, Creswell (2005) proposed that quantitative methods are

most appropriate for testing theories and hypotheses.

Although the value of qualitative approaches in examining and analyzing case

studies has been widely demonstrated, there are limitations to this approach as far as

the scope of sampling. These limitations would hinder the researcher’s effort to

capture an actual representation as opposed to a projected representation of

generational cohorts in the current workforce. Therefore, qualitative designs are

appropriate when answering broad questions and when little is known about a

phenomenon (Newman, 2003), which is not the case for the problem under study.

Therefore, a quantitative method was deemed suitable because of the comparative and

descriptive nature of the research questions, while minimizing researcher personal

biases.

There are four main types of quantitative research designs: descriptive,

correlational, quasi-experimental, and experimental (Creswell, 2005). This study

employed the use of a correlational research design since the study was specific and

narrow in scope. Creswell (2005) explained that “correlational research designs

involve the use of statistical tests to define the degree of relationships between two or

more variables” (p. 52) and that the goal of a correlational study is to determine

whether a predictive relationship exists between the variables (Ellis & Levy, 2009).

Furthermore, according to Vogt (2009), correlation does not equate to causation. Vogt

went on to attribute this to the fact that correlational research design approaches

provide weak or partial evidence about causation and that variables that are strongly

60

linked causally may not be strongly correlated, and vice versa. Thus, for the purposes

of this study, a correlational research design was most appropriate since it provided

the researcher with a framework for studying any possible relationship between

perceived differences between generation cohorts and workplace engagement

(Salkind, 2006).

The quantitative, correlational method was also compared to the qualitative

designs such as phenomenology, ethnography, case study, grounded theory, and

historical research in order to determine the best research approach. These research

designs are subjective, which allows the researcher to collect data from sources that

are non-numerical and as such are subjected to possible researcher bias (Johnson &

Christensen, 2008). Therefore, a qualitative research design was not appropriate for

the scope of this research study due to possible researcher biases. To cite Johnson and

Christensen (2008), a correlational research design is “a form of nonexperimental

research in which the primary independent variable of interest is a quantitative

variable” (p. 44) since this design is not subjective and is based on the collection of

numeric data; thus, any possible researcher biases will be eliminated. Therefore, a

correlational research design was decided as the most appropriate for this study.

Additionally, correlational designs can be exploratory or predictive and are

appropriate for use when determining whether any relationship exists between

variables without claiming causality (Creswell, 2005). An explanatory correlational

research design is appropriate to determine the degree of covariance between two

variables and the characteristics of such research which includes: (a) the researcher is

61

interested in correlating two or more variables; (b) data collection occurs at one point

in time; (c) data collection consists of information from a single group of participants

for each variable; (d) data analysis involves correlation statistical tests; and (e)

conclusions are the results of the statistical tests. Conversely, prediction correlational

designs are appropriate when a researcher wants to predict how the outcome of one

variable is altered upon variation of the predictors or independent variables. It is

usually the case that a prediction equation is employed, which identifies the degree

and direction of the variables (Creswell, 2005). Thus, since this study sought to test

hypotheses that correlate workplace engagement and the five motivation sources, as

well as did not attempt to control or manipulate the variables, a deductive approach

was deemed necessary to answer the main research questions originally formulated.

Furthermore, since the present study was not intended to measure causality, utilizing

an exploratory correlational design was most appropriate to measure the degree of

relationship between the motivational sources and the level of engagement. The

research questions were formulated and supported by hypotheses predicting a

relationship between work engagement and each of the motivation sources.

Population and Sample

A population is a group of individuals who share characteristics that make

them unique from other groups (Creswell, 2005). The population for this study

included working professional who lived in the United States in entry level, mid- and

senior-level management working in different business sectors such as Sales,

Marketing, IT, HR, Consumer Packaged Goods (CPG), and not-for-profit at the time

62

of the study. Individuals of all races and ethnicities were randomly recruited for the

study via LinkedIn group: a sample frame of the large LinkedIn groups with a

combined total of approximately 23,000 working professionals was solicited to

participate in the survey. The sample include members of the different cohorts

represented in today’s workforce: Traditionalist also known as Veterans, born

between 1922 and 1945; Baby Boomers, born between 1946 and 1964; Generation X

also known as Gen Xers, born between 1965 and 1983; and Generation Y also known

as Millennial, born between 1984 and 2002. Even though four generations are

represented in today’s workforce, due to the low numbers Traditionalists (now 70-91

years old), were not be included. This study will therefore focus on three cohorts:

Baby Boomer, Gen Y, and Gen X.

Individuals born between 1946 and 1964 are considered Baby Boomers. In

contrast to the recent generations, they value management more than any other

generation. As such, managers should involve them in the planning process to gain

buy in and avoid problems that may arise (Zemke et al., 2000). Boomers currently

hold many of the executive level positions in corporate America. They are known as

workaholics, often putting their jobs before their families (Strauss & Howe, 1997).

While this generation has had a major influence on the American workforce, they are

beginning to enter retirement.

Generation X is comprised of individuals born between 1965 and 1983. Gen

X’ers are competent with technology and comfortable with diversity. They are

adaptable to change and able to multi-task and work effectively in the face of

63

competition (Kupperschmidt, 2000). Many members of this generation have been

greatly influenced by the experience of their parents being laid off and for that reason,

they can be cynical and untrusting (Kupperschmidt, 2000). Generation X has brought

about a more informal workplace. They strive harder for a work-life balance than

their Boomer counterparts, preferring to distance themselves from their jobs on

weekends rather than using personal time to put in the extra hours (Howe & Strauss,

1993).

Generation Y are individuals born between the period 1984 to 2002. They are

frequently referred to as the Millennium generation. Digital media, a child-focused

world, school shootings, terrorist attacks, AIDS, and 9/11 define them. Millennials

are the first generation to enter the workforce having grown up with information

technology available at all times and are the most educated generation with more than

half (54%) having some kind of education—the highest of any of the cohorts. Many

perceive Generation Y as entitled when it comes to professional and career-related

matters (Pew Research Center, 2010). Their technological savvy influences their

work value system, such that they believe they can work flexibly anytime and

anyplace and that they should be evaluated on work productivity--not how, where, or

when they get it done. Their work ethic does not mandate ten-hour days and they

demand much in the way of work/life balance.

By sourcing a larger population and using random sampling within the

database, it was felt that an adequate response rate would better support

64

generalization and ensure representation from all four generations. To cite Robson

(2002), “the larger the sample, the lower the likely error in generalizing” (p. 261).

Data Instrumentation

This study employed the use of two main instruments to measure the

correlation between work engagement and motivational sources. Firstly, the

Motivation Sources Inventory survey instrument (MSI) as developed by Barbuto and

Scholl (1998) was used to measure each participant’s motivation sources. The

theoretical concept of Motivation Sources Inventory suggests five sub-scales with a

pre-defined number of unique loading items per sub-scale that seems to capture the

domains of interest for each source of motivation (Barbuto & Scholl,1998). This

approach is appropriate for this study because it recognizes that each source of

motivation exists in various proportions in each employee, but in varying degrees.

This is important because no person is motivated exclusively by just one source of

motivation, and everybody has a different weighting between intrinsic and extrinsic

motives. The first publication in 1998 was based on testing 60 items, namely 12

questions assigned to each Source of Motivation.

According to the MSI, there are five sources of individual motivation:

intrinsic process, instrumental, internal self-concept, external self-concept, and goal

internalization. Barbuto and Scholl (1998) confirmed the validity of the MSI by

using a sample of 156 upper level undergraduate students. Measuring the internal

consistencies of each sub-scale confirms the reliability of the instrument via

Cronbach’s coefficient. The main findings of this investigation are a relatively high

65

validity and reliability of the measure. Measuring internal consistencies of each

subscale confirms the reliability of the instrument. Cronbach’s coefficient for each

sub-scale varies between .88 and .92; a LISREL maximum likelihood confirmatory

factor analysis produced a goodness of fit of .92 (Barbuto & Scholl, 1998, p. 1017).

Both statistics indicate that the 30-item model is adequate to measure the five sources

of motivation (Barbuto & Scholl, 1998). Barbuto (2001) proposed that “using ratio

analysis for each of the five sub-scales will . . . produce stronger results than simple

summated scored for each sub-scale” (p. 386) and he made a recommendation to

“incorporate these ratios in further studies to assess divergent and convergent validity

across samples” (p. 386). Additionally, the Motivation Sources Inventory model and

the developed scales can be used for empirical inquiries. The MSI was selected over

other instruments as it contains a more comprehensive model of motivation.

Authorization to use the MSI scale is shown in Appendix E. According to the

MSI instrument, five sources of individual motivation exist: intrinsic process,

instrumental, internal self-concept, external self-concept, and goal internalization.

The MSI was selected over other instruments as it contains a more comprehensive

model of motivation. Other instruments focus on only one aspect of motivation, for

instance the JD-R model. In the MSI section of the questionnaire, participants

indicated the extent of their agreement with each item using a Likert-type scale

ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). This instrument was selected

to measure the sources of employee motivation that can be related to factors affecting

employee engagement based on validity.

66

Secondly, the UWES-9 developed by Schaufeli, Bakker, and Salanova (2006),

based on the original 17-item UWES (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003), was used to

measure work engagement. Authorization to use the UWES-9 scale is shown in

Appendix D. The UWES-9 was selected for this study because it has been

extensively used across countries to measure workplace engagement; hence its

validity. UWES-9 entails measuring three scales as follows: vigor, dedication, and

absorption. Participants were asked to rate each statement using a Likert-type scale to

indicate how often they have experienced the stated feeling. The scale ranges from 0

(never) to 6 (every day/always). From Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, and

Bakker’s (2002) definition that employee engagement is characterized by vigor,

dedication and absorption, the survey included six, five, and six items respectively for

the vigor, dedication, and absorption variables. Therefore, the instrument’s

quantitative results are valuable for determining employee engagement and

satisfaction within the organization.

Vigor was measured using six questions that refer to high levels of energy and

resilience, the willingness to invest effort, not being easily fatigued, and persistence

in the face of workplace difficulties. According to Schaufeli and Bakker (2003),

employees who scored high in the area of vigor exhibit behavior that includes having

high energy, a high passion for life and work, and a sense of endurances when

working. The six indicators are:

1. At my work, I feel bursting with energy.

2. On my job, I feel strong and vigorous.

67

3. When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work.

4. I can continue working for very long periods at a time.

5. At my job, I am very resilient mentally.

6. At my work, I always persevere, even when things do not go well.

Dedication was measured on the basis of five questions that refer to

developing a sense of significance from work and a feeling of enthusiasm and pride in

one’s work. These questions also measured a feeling of being inspired and

challenged by the work being done. Employees who scored high in the area of

dedication identify strongly with their work and find work to be meaningful, inspiring

and challenging. High scores in this area identify employees who feel enthusiastic

and have a high level of pride in the work they are doing (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003).

The five indicators are:

1. I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose.

2. I am enthusiastic about my job.

3. My job inspires me.

4. I am proud of the work I do.

5. To me, my job is challenging.

Absorption was measured using six questions that refer to being completely

and totally involved in work to a point where an employee has difficulty detaching

from work and time passes quickly. Employees who scored high in the area of

absorption are often immersed and have difficulty separating themselves from work.

For this type of employee, time at work passes very quickly; therefore, the things

68

happening around them are not a priority at the time (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003).

The six indicators are:

1. Time flies when I’m working.

2. When I am working, I forget everything else around me.

3. I feel happy when I am working intensely.

4. I am immersed in my work.

5. I get carried away when I’m working.

6. It is difficult to detach myself from my work.

The concept that represents the dependent variables in this study is

engagement, while the independent variable is the generational cohort. The study

does not address other factors that may influence differences, such as geography or

industry, nor serves as a longitudinal study on the implementation of engagement

programs. As such, the researcher does not intend to provide solutions, but rather to

further the study of this topic and validate existing perceptions. Thus, additional

measurements used in the research are inclusive of: (a) scholarly review of leadership

and psychology research journals that provide relevant findings and insight on the

subject, as well as indicated areas of further research; and (b) a review of existing

data on employee job satisfaction levels versus engagement and perception.

Data Analysis Plan

Research Question and Hypotheses

The researcher will examine the following questions in this current study:

69

RQ1: To what extent is there a difference in the various levels of work

engagement (vigor, dedication, and absorption) across generational cohorts in the

workplace?

The hypotheses related to the first research question were as follows:

H1a: There is a significant difference in the work engagement element of vigor

across generational cohorts.

H1b: There is a significant difference in the work engagement element of

dedication across generational cohorts.

H1c: There is a significant difference in the work engagement level of

absorption across generational cohorts.

RQ2: To what extent is there a difference in the various motivation drivers

(goal internalization, external self-concept, intrinsic process, internal self-concept,

and instrumental motivation) across general cohorts in the workplace?

The hypotheses related to the second research question are as follows:

H2a: There is a significant difference in goal internalization work motivation

across generational cohorts in the workplace.

H2b: There is a significant difference in external self-concept work motivation

across generational cohorts in the workplace.

H2c: There is a significant difference in intrinsic process work motivation

across generational cohorts in the workplace.

H2d: There is a significant difference in internal self-concept work motivation

across generational cohorts in the workplace.

70

H2e: There is a significant difference instrumental motivation across

generational cohorts in the workplace.

RQ3: To what extent is there a relationship between each motivation driver

(goal internalization, external self-concept, intrinsic process, internal self-concept,

and instrumental motivation) and overall work engagement?

The hypotheses associated with the third research question are as follows:

H3a: There is a significant relationship between goal internalization work

motivation and overall workplace engagement.

H3b: There is a significant relationship between external self-concept work

motivation and overall workplace engagement.

H3c: There is a significant relationship between intrinsic process work

motivation and overall workplace engagement.

H3d: There is a significant relationship between internal self-concept work

motivation and overall workplace engagement.

H3e: There is a significant relationship between instrumental motivation work

motivation and overall workplace engagement.

Statistical Tests

Research questions 1 and 2 and the related hypotheses were tested with eight

one-way ANOVAs, one for each hypothesis. The independent variable is the

generational cohort with five levels. (See Appendix A.) Depending upon the

distribution of data, however, some categories had to be excluded. The dependent

variables were the various levels of work engagement (vigor, dedication, and

71

absorption) and the various motivation drivers (goal internalization, external self-

concept, intrinsic process, internal self-concept, and instrumental motivation).

Research question 3 was investigated with the Pearson r. The dependent variable was

overall work engagement. The independent variables were the various motivation

drivers (goal internalization, external self-concept, intrinsic process, internal self-

concept, and instrumental motivation). Table 1 provides the hypotheses, statistical

tests, and scales of measurement of the data.

Table 1

Hypotheses, Statistical Tests, and Scales of Measurement

Hypothesis Statistical

Test

Independent

Variable/Scale of

Measurement

Dependent

Variable/Scale of

Measurement

H1a: There is a significant

difference in the work

engagement element of

vigor across generational

cohorts.

One-Way

ANOVA

Generational

cohort/Nominal

Vigor/Interval

H1b: There is a significant

difference in the work

engagement element of

dedication across

generational cohorts.

One-Way

ANOVA

Generational

cohort/Nominal

Dedication/Interval

H1c: There is a significant

difference in the work

engagement level of

absorption across

generational cohorts.

One-Way

ANOVA

Generational

cohort/Nominal

Absorption/Interval

H2a: There is a significant One-Way Generational Goal

72

difference in goal

internalization work

motivation across

generational cohorts in

the workplace.

ANOVA cohort/Nominal internalization/Interval

H2b: There is a significant

difference in external

self-concept work

motivation across

generational cohorts in

the workplace.

One-Way

ANOVA

Generational

cohort/Nominal

External self-

concept/Interval

H2c: There is a significant

difference in intrinsic

process work motivation

across generational

cohorts in the workplace.

One-Way

ANOVA

Generational

cohort/Nominal

Intrinsic process/Interval

H2d: There is a significant

difference in internal

self-concept work

motivation across

generational cohorts in

the workplace.

One-Way

ANOVA

Generational

cohort/Nominal

Internal self-

concept/Interval

H2e: There is a significant

difference in

instrumental motivation

across generational

cohorts in the workplace.

One-Way

ANOVA

Generational

cohort/Nominal

Instrumental

motivation/Interval

H3a: There is a significant

relationship between goal

internalization work

motivation and overall

workplace engagement.

Pearson r Goal

internalization/Interval

Overall workplace

engagement/Interval

73

H3b: There is a significant

relationship between

external self-concept

work motivation and

overall workplace

engagement.

Pearson r External self-

concept/Interval

Overall workplace

engagement/Interval

H3c: There is a significant

relationship between

intrinsic process work

motivation and overall

workplace engagement.

Pearson r Intrinsic process/Interval Overall workplace

engagement/Interval

H3d: There is a significant

relationship between

internal self-concept

work motivation and

overall workplace

engagement.

Pearson r Internal self-

concept/Interval

Overall workplace

engagement/Interval

H3e: There is a significant

relationship between

instrumental motivation

work motivation and

overall workplace

engagement.

Pearson r Instrumental/Interval Overall workplace

engagement/Interval

Operationalization of Variables

Work engagement, which consisted of the subscales (vigor, dedication, and

absorption) were measured by Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli, 2009).

74

The various motivation drivers (goal internalization, external self-concept, intrinsic

process, internal self-concept, and instrumental motivation) were measured by the

Motivation Sources Inventory (Barbuto & Scholl, 1998). Generational cohorts were a

demographic variable with five levels as indicated in Appendix A. However,

depending on the distribution of data, some categories had to excluded.

Reliability and Validity

Regardless of the methodology design (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed

methods), the researcher had to produce results that are believable, accurate, and

useful (Creswell, 1998). Validity is the extent to which an instrument measures what

it is supposed to measure and performs as it is designed to perform. Validity is

generally measured in degrees and involves collecting and analyzing data to assess

the accuracy of an instrument. In this study, there were internal and external threats

to validity. Internal validity threats are associated with data collection procedures

(Creswell, 2009) and refer to the confidence that other alternative explanations are

unlikely for the findings. External validity, or generalizability, refers to the extent

that the findings will hold true for other settings and circumstances. Although content

validity is the weakest level of assessing internal validity, it is of great importance in

studies designed to ascertain individual attitudes (Creswell, 2009).

The validity of the UWES-9 was confirmed in a multinational study covering

10 countries, resulting in high correlation with the original UWES-17 scale

(Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006, p. 712). Correlation exceeded .90 in all

countries except in France (-.81, median .91). Correlation between the short 3-item

75

scale DE scale and the original 5-item scale exceeded .95 in all countries (median

.96). The correlations between the short version AB scale and the original 6-item

scale exceeded 0.90 except in Belgium (r = .85) and Spain (r = .89). Cronbach’s

coefficient was used to measure the internal consistency of the UWES-9. The

measure represents reliability. Cronbach’s alpha of the 3-item VI scale varied across

countries between .60 and .88. Internal consistency of the DE scale varied between

.75 and .90. The internal consistency of the AB scale varied between .66 and .86.

Cronbach’s alpha for the 9-item scale varied between .85 and .92 across all 10

countries. In only three cases was Cronbach’s alpha lower than .70.

Several studies have been completed to test the validity of the UWES. Mills,

Culbertson, and Fullagar (2012) completed a construct validation of the UWES

(Schaufeli et al., 2002) and UWES-17 (Schaufeli et al., 2006). They found that it has

been a proven analytical tool. The UWES-17 instrument was based on the three work

engagement characteristics—vigor, absorption, and dedication—which have been

consistently found to have high correlation resulting in criticism of the instrument.

As a result, the authors reduced vigor and absorption into one category, which

resulted in the development of the UWES-9 from the initial origin of the UWES-17

(Schaufeli et al., 2006, p. 701). The work engagement characteristics (vigor,

absorption, and dedication) were positively correlated and have been proven to be

consistent.

The MSI developed by Barbuto and Scholl (1998) was used to measure the

five sources of motivation correlated with work engagement. The MSI was selected

76

over other instruments as contains a more comprehensive model of motivation. Other

instruments focus on only one aspect of motivation, for instance the JD-R model.

According to the MSI, there are five sources of individual motivation: intrinsic

process, instrumental, internal self-concept, external self-concept, and goal

internalization. Barbuto and Scholl (2005) confirmed the validity of the MSI having

used a sample of 156 upper level undergraduate students. Measuring internal

consistencies of each subscale confirmed the reliability of the instrument. Cronbach’s

coefficient for each sub-scale varied between .88 and .92 (Barbuto & Scholl, 2005, p.

1017). Barbuto, Trout, and Brown (2004) noted that the Motivation Sources

Inventory has produced Cronbach's coefficient, α, ranging from .60 to .93 for

populations from urban business, health care and social service workers, education

professionals and college students as well as from .69 to .81 measuring the five

sources of motivation for a sample of 168 agricultural workers located in the

Midwestern United States. Furthermore, Barbuto and Scholl (2005) reported

Cronbach’s coefficients of .71 to .85 produced by the Motivation Sources Inventory

in measuring leaders’ sources of motivation.

Reliability Analysis

The reliability of the subscales for the sample was tested with Cronbach’s

alpha. For the five sources of motivation on the MSI, the internal consistency ranged

from .69 for internal process motivation to .80 for external self-concept motivation.

On the UWES, which measured work engagement, the internal consistency ranged

77

from .80 for absorption to .87 for vigor with an overall reliability of .93. The

minimum acceptable reliability is .70. Reliability coefficients are presented in Table

2.

Table 2

Reliability Coefficients

Subscale Cronbach’s alpha

Intrinsic Process Motivation .687

Instrumental Motivation .714

External Self-Concept Motivation .798

Internal Self-Concept Motivation .753

Goal Internalization Motivation .777

Vigor .867

Dedication .847

Absorption .802

Work Engagement .926

Data Collection

An online survey generated data pertaining to the variables in the current

study. Survey techniques are a common tool in quantitative research, making it

possible to ask numerous questions of many people in a short period (Neuman, 2005).

78

The data was collected through the use of two instruments combined into one survey

questionnaire. The first was the Motivation Sources Inventory (MSI) instrument

(Barbuto & Scholl, 1998), which asked participants to rate their level of motivation.

The second instrument used was the Utrecht Worker Engagement Survey (UWES)

(Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004), which requested that participants in the study rate their

level of work engagement. Engagement was measured using the shortened Utrecht

Work Engagement Scale (UWES) comprised of 17 items (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003).

The survey consisted of questions using a 7-point Likert scale as the rating

mechanism and the process was executed online using Survey Monkey. Each of the

elements of the questionnaire was measured based upon self-reporting on how

frequently the respondent reports feeling a specific characteristic at work.

The data for this study were collected via the use of a survey. A survey is a

descriptive research method and is useful when a researcher wishes to collect data on

phenomena that cannot be directly observed. Survey research illustrates the

principles of correlational research because it provides an accurate and efficient

means for describing people's thoughts, opinions, and feelings. Survey research and

correlational research rely on surveys to sample many respondents who answer the

same questions (Neuman, 2005).

For this research study, an online survey was chosen for several reasons.

Online surveys can be easily distributed through email messages; participants can

efficiently be sent reminder email messages to participate; the cost of labor and

printed mailed surveys is reduced; easier data preparation as data can easily be

79

transferred to statistical software; and the bias of personal interviews or face-to-face

surveys can be avoided. The survey instruments used a Likert-type scale to gather

information about the specific variables. The Likert-type scale is a variation of a

summated rating scale allowing respondents to express a favorable or unfavorable

attitude toward the object of interest (Cooper & Schindler, 2006). Additionally,

Likert-type items can provide an ordinal measure of a person’s attitude (Neuman,

2005). These types of scales are usually built with four to eight categories.

The data collection process consisted of the recruitment of participants using

the LinkedIn Network of Executing Women, Managing a Multigenerational

Workforce and Philadelphia SHRM groups, and the Survey Monkey database based

on the inclusion criteria, introduction of the research study, a random sampling

method to obtain completed surveys and a signed electronic consent form. A sample

frame of the large LinkedIn groups with a combined total of approximately 23,000

working professionals was solicited to participate in the survey. By sourcing a larger

population and using a random sampling within the database, an adequate response

rate would better support generalization and ensure representation from all four

generation; “The larger the sample, the lower the likely error in generalizing”

(Robson, 2002, p. 261). The LinkedIn groups included all generational cohorts in the

population because of their size. This is important because of the focus of the

research questions posited here.

The UWES scale consisted of three (3) underlying factors: vigor, dedication,

and absorption. Participants were expected to be honest while responding to the

80

online questionnaire of approximately 43 questions, taking approximately 15 minutes.

The questionnaire consisted of demographic questions: sex, birth date range,

education, position job level, and industry along with the UWES-9, and the MSI scale

questionnaires. The UWES-9 questionnaire included nine questions to measure work

engagement. The MSI scale included six questions for each of the motivation

sources: intrinsic process motivation, instrumental motivation, external self-concept

motivation, internal self-concept, and goal internalization. There was no interaction

between the researcher and the participant unless the participant contacted researcher

to clarify concerns, questions, or discuss withdrawal procedures. The data were

analyzed after the participants completed the surveys to ensure that the measures were

free from error, there was no missing data in the completed surveys, and the study

results produced consistent results.

Data Analyses Procedures

The objective in quantitative correlational research is to use statistical

procedures to determine the strength of the relationship between two variables

(Creswell, 2005). Therefore, multiple regression analysis was used to test, analyze,

and predict the relational effect on the variables. The first part of the analysis

consisted of identifying differences in motivational sources and work engagement

levels (dependent variables) between generations (independent variables). These

differences, if any, would indicate whether generational shifting at the workplace has

had any effect on motivational sources and work engagement levels. The second part

of the analysis involved a correlational design that served to identify any relationship

81

between motivational sources (independent variable) and work engagement

(dependent variables). The survey results were downloaded from the SurveyMonkey

server into the researcher’s computer using Excel and then analyzed in Statistical

Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). SPSS was appropriate for calculations that

were more complex. The reliability and validity of the study data were determined

using Cronbach’s alpha using the F-test to test the validity of the multiple regression

model. Additionally, SPSS was used to conduct the demographics and multiple

regression analyses.

To test hypothesis H1 and H2 and their sub-sets hypotheses, an Analysis of

Variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine the relationship of the constructs in

the study. Cooper and Schindler (2003) described the ANOVA as a statistical method

that uses the variances of each population to define differences among means. One

assumption of the ANOVA is that the variances of the populations are the same.

Therefore, a test of equal variance was conducted prior to the analysis of the data.

ANOVA was conducted and after assumptions were met. The ANOVA statistic was

useful in determining if any of the descriptive variables like gender, years of

experience, and type of organization influence the relationship between perceived

generational differences and motivation. Partial correlations controlled for any

affects by the intervening variables like years of experience, role, gender, and type of

organization. Descriptive statistics were used to determine the mean, median, and

standard variation within variables. Inferential statistics aided with testing

hypotheses and determined the existence of relationships. Inferential statistics

82

offered a precise way to infer results from the sample to the population (Neuman,

2005).

The results of the ANOVA were in a table format. The p value in the table

denoted if the level means were significantly different from each other. To reject the

null hypothesis, the p value should be less than or equal to the α level selected. For

the purpose of the present study, the α level selected was .05. If a statistical

difference was found using ANOVA, Tukey’s multiple comparison test method was

used to compare the generations against each other. The result of Tukey’s test

involved the use of confidence intervals, which serve to determine whether two

means are different. If the interval contains zero, the difference between means is not

statistically significant. The p value can also be used to determine whether pairs of

means are different.

Correlational Analysis

The correlation coefficient measures how much two variables covary

(Neuman, 2005). As suggested by Creswell (2005), the Spearman rho (rs) correlation

coefficient can be useful for nonlinear data. The value r, also called rho, represents

the Pearson correlation coefficient; it is one of the most commonly used measures of

linear relationship between two variables. Partial correlation statistical analysis was

useful in determining the amount of variance explained by intervening variables. The

purpose of multiple regression statistics is to predict future values by examining

combined relationships of independent variables to predict a single dependent

variable. Multiple regression statistics is not the intent of the current study. The intent

83

of the study is to use the Pearson correlation to measure a linear relationship between

generational cohorts and workplace engagement.

Research Question and Hypotheses

The researcher will examine the following questions in this current study:

RQ1: How does the level of work engagement vary by generational cohorts in the

workplace?

a. How do age differences influence employee engagement?

b. How do generational differences influence employee engagement?

The hypotheses related to the first research question were as follows:

H1: Work engagement levels vary across generational cohorts.

H1a: Work engagement element of vigor varies across generational

cohorts.

H1b: Work engagement element of dedication varies across generational

cohorts.

H1c: Work engagement level of absorption varies across generational

cohorts.

RQ2: What are the motivation drivers predominant in each generational cohort?

The hypotheses related to the second research question were as follows:

H2a: Goal internalization work motivation varies across generational

cohort.

H2b: External self-concept work motivation varies across generational

cohort.

84

H2c: Intrinsic process work motivation varies across generational cohort.

H2d: Internal self-concept work motivation varies across generational

cohort.

H2e: Instrumental motivation varies across generational cohort.

RQ3: What is the relationship between each of the sources of motivation and work

engagement?

The hypotheses associated with the third research question are as follows:

H3a: There is a relationship between motivation and workplace

engagement.

H3b: There is a correlation between the overall level of employee

engagement and intrinsic and extrinsic work factors.

H33: There is no correlation between the overall level of employee

engagement and intrinsic and extrinsic work factors.

Ethical Considerations

The research design attended to matters of confidentiality, privacy, avoidance

of harm to participation, and informed consent. Cross-sectional designs do not

require the tracking of participants and this helps to ensure anonymity. There was no

need to keep lists of names or to match names to responses. The information

gathered was not threatening in nature; except for the initial demographic questions,

private information was not collected. Given the topic of the survey and the

anonymity provided, there was little risk of harm to participants in the study. This

study was not personally intrusive, called for no human experiments, and did not

85

create an environment that might result in physical or emotional harm. The survey

was conducted with full disclosure to the participants, who were required to give

informed consent before entering the online survey. As an additional precaution,

permission to conduct the study was obtained from the LinkedIn group administrators

and organization. The University’s Human Subjects Review Committee (HSRC)

approved the study.

Summary

This chapter includes details of the methodology selected for the present

study. A quantitative descriptive correlational cross-sectional research method was

designed to examine patterns and relationships between work engagement and

motivation sources across generations.

86

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

The primary purpose of this study was to determine if and to what extent

significant differences exist between generational cohorts in the workforce relative to

work engagement and motivational sources. A secondary purpose of this study was to

determine if and to what extent relationships exist between work engagement and

motivational sources. The significance of this study lies in the fact that there are many

challenges associated with effectively managing the present day multigenerational

workforce. Given the demographic mix, it is important for any organization to

understand how to integrate and leverage what each cohort has to offer in order to

improve job satisfaction, productivity, performance, and retention. If a company has

a positive workplace engagement overall in the organization, it could deliver a

competitive advantage to the organization (Bakker, Schaufeli, Leiter, & Taris, 2008).

This study contributes to the field by adding to the present limited empirical research

data on generational differences in the workplace, as well as its impact on

employee/workplace engagement.

The data were collected through the use of two instruments combined into one

survey questionnaire. Instruments consisted of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale

(UWES) and the Motivation Sources Inventory survey instrument (MSI). The UWES

is a 17-question survey Likert instrument used by researchers, leaders, and

organizations to measure the vigor, dedication, and absorption levels of employee

87

engagement conditions in the workplace (Schaufeli et al., 2006). The original

UWES-17 instrument was reduced from 17 questions to 9 questions to improve its

performance (Schaufeli et al., 2006). The MSI (1998) was used to measure each

participant’s motivation sources. According to the MSI, there are five sources of

individual motivation: intrinsic process, instrumental, internal self-concept, external

self-concept, and goal internalization. The MSI is also a Likert type instrument.

The survey was launched through SurveyMonkey®, a web-based data

collection tool. The data collection process consisted of the recruitment of

participants using the LinkedIn Network of Executing Women, Managing a

Multigenerational Workforce, the Philadelphia Society for Human Resource

Management (SHRM) groups, and the SurveyMonkey® database. After data

collection concluded, the survey responses were exported to Excel and subsequently

imported into SPSS for analysis.

Chapter 4 is organized by a discussion of the sample demographics, reliability

analysis, descriptive statistics and data screening, research questions/hypothesis

testing, and conclusions. Data were analyzed with SPSS 23 for Windows. The

following provides a discussion of the sample demographics.

Sample Demographics

The sample consisted of 185 participants; 60.5% (n = 112) were females and

39.5% (n = 73) were males. Specific ages ranged from 19 to 73 (M = 39.89, SD =

9.46). The Traditionalists, also known as the Veterans, are those workers born

between 1922 and 1945; the Baby Boomers were born between 1946 and 1964;

88

Generation X or Gen Xers, were born between 1965 and 1983; and Generation Y or

Millennials, were born between 1984 and 2002. The majority of participants (60%, n

= 111) were born between 1965 and 1982. Approximately 26% were born between

1983 and 1987; and 13% (n = 24) were born between 1946 and 1964. Year range of

birth is presented in Table 3

Table 3

Year Range of Birth

Year n=185 % Valid % Cumulative %

Born in 1943 or earlier 0.5 0.5 0.5

1946 – 1964 13.0 13.0 13.6

1965 – 1982 60.0 60.3 73.9

1983 – 1997 25.9 26.1 100.0

Regarding race, approximately half (51.4%, n = 95) were African American or

Black; 41.1% (n = 76) were White; and 4.3% (n = 8) were “other.” Two percent (n =

4) were of Hispanic or Latino origin. Race/ethnicity is presented in Table 4.

Table 4

Race/Ethnicity

Race %

Other 4.3

African American or Black 51.4

Hispanic or Latino origin 2.2

Asian 1.1

White 41.1

Note. Other = mixed races, Haitian or Kenyan.

89

Regarding highest level of education completed, 88.6% (n = 164) had

bachelor’s degrees or higher. Specifically, 41.6% (n = 77) had baccalaureates; 32.4%

(n = 60) had master’s degrees; and 11.9% (n = 22) had doctoral degrees. Educational

attainment is presented in Table 5.

Table 5

Educational Attainment

Educational Attainment %

Some college, no degree 7.6

Associates Degree; Technical School 3.8

Bachelor’s Degree 41.6

Master’s Degree 32.4

Professional school degree (MD, DDC, JD, etc) 2.7

Doctorate degree (PhD, EdD, etc) 11.9

In the sample of respondents, full-time employees (96.8%, n = 179)

outnumbered part-time employees (2.7%, n = 5), those who worked 20 hours a week

or less. One participant (0.5%) did not answer. Seven percent (n = 13) had worked in

their current positions of employment for more than 20 years; 41.1% (n = 76) had

worked in their positions 1-5 years; and 16.2% (n = 30) had worked in their positions

6-10 years. See Table 6.

90

Table 6

Years Working at Current Place of Employment

Years %

Less than 1 year 6.5

1 year - 5 years 41.3

6 years – 10 years 16.3

11 years – 15 years 14.7

16 years – 20 years 14.1

More than 20 years 7.1

Thirty-seven percent (n = 69) were not in a supervisor or leadership role;

18.4% (n = 34) were senior managers/directors; and 16.2% (n = 30) were first-level

supervisors, managers, or front-line managers. Nearly 4% (n = 7) were contract

employees or consultants and 5.4% (n = 10) were “other,” which consisted of

teachers, adjunct professors, school counselors, teacher assistants, etc. Current role at

job is presented in Table 7.

91

Table 7

Current Role at Job

Current Role n=185 Valid %

Other 5.4

Top-level/Senior management level; Executive Suite; President;

Vice President

9.2

Sr. Manager/Director 18.5

Middle-level manager 9.2

First-level manager; Supervisor; Front-line manager 16.3

Trained Professional. Not in a supervisory/leadership position 37.5

Contract employee/Consultant 3.8

Note. Other = Teachers, Adjunct Professors, School Counselors, Teacher Assistants, etc.

Participants were employed in a variety of sectors; some of which included

education (19.5%, n = 36), consumer packaging goods (18.4%, n = 34), and health

care and social assistance (17.3%, n = 32). Sixteen percent (n = 30) were employed in

“other” sectors, which included marketing, retail, real estate, energy, etc.

Employment industry sector is presented in Table 8.

92

Table 8

Employment Sector Industry

Sector n=185 %

Other 16.2

Financial Industry 9.7

Consumer Packaging Goods (CPG) 18.4

Education 19.5

Health Care and Social Assistance 17.3

Information Technology 5.4

Legal Services 0.5

Hospitality 2.2

Manufacturing and Product Development 3.8

Public Service; Government 7.0 Note. Other = Marketing, retail, real estate, energy, etc.

Forty percent (n = 74) of respondents learned about the survey from the

Managing a Multi-Generational workforce - Linked In Group, and about 40% (n =

73) learned about the survey from other sources, which included friends, Facebook,

co-workers, colleagues, the researcher, etc. The survey recruitment organization is

presented in Table 9.

93

Table 9

Survey Recruitment Organization

Organization n=185 %

Other 42.4

Network of Executive Women (NEW) 12.8

Managing a Multi-Generational workforce - Linked In Group 43.0

Philadelphia SHRM 1.7

Note. Other =, co-workers, colleagues, etc.

Table 10 provides a summary of the demographic variables.

Table 10

Summary of Demographic Variables

Variable n=185 %

Gender Male 39.5%

Female

60.5%

Year Range of Birth Born in 1943 or earlier 0.5%

1946 – 1964 13.0%

1965 – 1982 60.3%

1983 – 1997

26.1%

Race/Ethnicity Other 4.3%

African American or Black 51.4%

Hispanic or Latino origin 2.2%

Asian 1.1%

White

41.1%

Educational Attainment Some college, no degree 7.6%

Associates Degree; Technical School 3.8%

Bachelor’s Degree 41.6%

Master’s Degree 32.4%

94

Professional school degree (MD,

DDC, JD, etc)

2.7%

Doctorate degree (PhD, EdD, etc)

11.9%

Current Job Status Full-Time 97.3%

Part-time (20 hours or less per week)

2.7%

Years Working at Current Place

of Employment

Less than 1 year 6.5%

1 year - 5 years 41.3%

6 years – 10 years 16.3%

11 years – 15 years 14.7%

16 years – 20 years 14.1%

More than 20 years

7.1%

Current Role at Job Other 5.4%

Top-level/Senior management level;

Executive Suite; President; Vice

President

9.2%

Sr. Manager/Director 18.5%

Middle-level manager 9.2%

First-level manager; Supervisor;

Front-line manager

16.3%

Trained Professional. Not in a

supervisory/leadership position

37.5%

Contract employee/Consultant

3.8%

Employment Sector Industry Other 16.2%

Financial Industry 9.7%

Consumer Packaging Goods (CPG) 18.4%

Education 19.5%

Health Care and Social Assistance 17.3%

Information Technology 5.4%

Legal Services 0.5%

Hospitality 2.2%

Manufacturing and Product

Development

3.8%

95

Public Service; Government

7.0%

Survey Recruitment Organization Other 42.4%

Network of Executive Women (NEW) 12.8%

Managing a Multi-Generational

workforce - Linked In Group

43.0%

Philadelphia SHRM 1.7%

Reliability Analysis

The reliability of the subscales for the sample was tested with Cronbach’s

alpha. For the five sources of motivation on the MSI, the internal consistency ranged

from .69 for internal process motivation to .80 for external self-concept motivation.

On the UWES, which measured work engagement, the internal consistency ranged

from .80 for absorption to .87 for vigor with an overall reliability of .93. The

minimum acceptable reliability is .70. Reliability coefficients are presented in Table

11.

Table 11

Reliability Coefficients

Subscale Cronbach’s alpha

Intrinsic Process Motivation .687

Instrumental Motivation .714

External Self-Concept Motivation .798

Internal Self-Concept Motivation .753

Goal Internalization Motivation .777

Vigor .867

Dedication .847

Absorption .802

Work Engagement .926

96

Descriptive Statistics and Data Screening

Scores were computed for the subscales by calculating the mean responses for

the items on the scale. The items were measured on a 6-point Likert scale. Therefore,

the mean scores could range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) on the

MSI and from 1 (a few times a year or less) to 6 (everyday) on the UWES. For the

sample, on the MSI, the highest score was obtained for internal self-concept

motivation (M = 5.48, SD = 0.48). The lowest scores were obtained for intrinsic

process motivation (M = 3.21, SD = 0.89) and external self-concept motivation (M =

3.21, SD = 1.08). Scores were approximately equal on the work engagement

subscales of dedication (M = 4.59, SD = 1.26) and absorption (M = 4.60, SD = 1.18).

Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 12.

Table 12

Descriptive Statistics

Variable M SD

Internal Self-Concept Motivation 5.48 0.48

Absorption 4.60 1.18

Dedication 4.59 1.26

Work Engagement 4.54 1.09

Vigor 4.43 1.17

Goal Internalization Motivation 4.09 0.94

Instrumental Motivation 3.63 0.99

Intrinsic Process Motivation 3.21 0.89

External Self-Concept Motivation 3.21 1.08

97

Research Question 1

To what extent is there a difference in the various levels of work engagement

(vigor, dedication, and absorption) across generational cohorts in the workplace? It

was determined that Baby Boomers (1946-1964) had significantly higher vigor (p =

.018) and dedication (p = .043) than the Millennials (1983-1997), but not significantly

higher absorption, p = .081. However, the results for absorption trended in the same

direction as the results for vigor and dedication. The following provides details of the

analyses.

Hypothesis 1a: Vigor

H1a stated that there is a significant difference in the work engagement

element of vigor across generational cohorts. Group means for vigor by generational

cohort are presented in Table 13.

Table 13

Group Means for Vigor by Generational Cohort

Generational Cohort M SD

Baby Boomers (1946 – 1964) 4.96 0.68

Gen Xers (1965 – 1982) 4.44 1.16

Millennials (1983 – 1997) 4.13 1.32

There was a significant difference in the work engagement element of vigor

across generational cohorts, F(2, 180) = 4.12, p = .018. The null hypothesis was that

there was no significant difference in the work engagement element of vigor across

generational cohorts. Each succeeding group was less vigorous. Therefore, the null

98

hypothesis was rejected since there was a significant difference. The ANOVA

Summary Table for vigor by generational cohort is presented in Table 14

Table 14

ANOVA Summary Table for Vigor by Generational Cohort

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p

Between Groups 10.98 2 5.49 4.12 .018

Within Groups 239.60 180 1.33

Total 250.58 182

Scheffe post hoc comparisons revealed that the Baby Boomers (1946-1964)

had significantly higher vigor than the Millennials (1983-1997), p = .018. Baby

Boomers had higher vigor than the Gen-Exers (1965-1982), but it was not

significantly higher, p = .141. Gen-Exers had higher vigor than the Millennials, but it

was not significantly higher, p = .302. This is illustrated in Figure 2.

99

Figure 2. Vigor by generation cohort.

Hypothesis 1b: Dedication

H1b stated that there is a significant difference in the work engagement

element of dedication across generational cohorts. Group means for dedication by

generational cohort are presented in Table 15.

100

Table 15

Group Means for Dedication by Generational Cohort

Generational Cohort M SD

Baby Boomers (1946 – 1964) 5.14 0.74

Gen Exers (1965 – 1982) 4.56 1.31

Millennials (1983 – 1997) 4.35 1.29

There was a significant difference in the work engagement element of dedication

across generational cohorts, F(2, 180) = 3.20, p = .043. The null hypothesis was that

there was no significant difference in the work engagement element of dedication

across generational cohorts. Each succeeding group had less dedication towards their

work. Since there was a significant difference, the null hypothesis was rejected. The

ANOVA Summary Table for dedication by generational cohort is presented in Table

16.

Table 16

ANOVA Summary Table for Dedication by Generational Cohort

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p

Between Groups 9.97 2 4.98 3.20 .043

Within Groups 280.03 180 1.56

Scheffe post hoc comparisons revealed that the significant difference existed between

the Baby Boomers (1946-1964) and the Millennials (1983-1997), p = .045. The Baby

Boomers (1946-1964) had significantly higher dedication than the Millennials (1983-

1997). Baby Boomers had higher dedication than the Gen-Exers (1965-1982), but it

101

was not significantly higher, p = .126. Gen-Exers had higher dedication than the

Millennials, but it was not significantly higher, p = .622. This is illustrated in Figure

3.

Figure 3. Dedication by generational cohort.

Hypothesis 1c: Absorption

H1c stated that there is a significant difference in the work engagement level of

absorption across generational cohorts. Group means for absorption by generational

cohort are presented in Table 17.

102

Table 17

Group Means for Absorption by Generational Cohort

Generational Cohort n=183 M SD

Baby Boomers (1946 – 1964) 5.06 0.92

Gen Xers (1965 – 1982) 4.59 1.18

Millennials (1983 – 1997) 4.40 1.25

There was no significant difference in the work engagement element of absorption

across generational cohorts, F(2, 180) = 2.55, p = .081. The null hypothesis was that

there was no significant difference in the work engagement element of absorption

across generational cohorts. Each succeeding group was less absorbed in their work.

Since there was no significant difference, the null hypothesis was not rejected. The

ANOVA Summary Table for absorption by generational cohort is presented in Table

18.

Table 18

ANOVA Summary Table for Absorption by Generational Cohort

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p

Between Groups 6.99 2 3.50 2.55 .081

Within Groups 247.11 180 1.37

Total 254.10 182

Although the results were not statistically significant, they trended in the direction

that Baby Boomers (1946-1964) had higher absorption than the Millennials (1983-

1997) and the Gen-Exers (1965-1982); the Gen-Exers (1965-1982) had higher

absorption than the Millennials (1983-1997). This is illustrated in Figure 4.

103

Figure 4. Absorption by generational cohort.

Research Question 2

To what extent is there a difference in the various motivation drivers (goal

internalization, external self-concept, intrinsic process, internal self-concept, and

instrumental motivation) across general cohorts in the workplace? It was determined

that there were no significant differences in goal internalization (p = .066), external

self-concept (p = .062), intrinsic process (p = .598), and internal self-concept (p =

.141) across general cohorts in the workplace, although trends were observed when

the non-significance was marginal. There was a significant difference in instrumental

104

motivation across generational cohorts, p = .012. Millennials (1983-1997) had

significantly higher instrumental motivation than the Baby Boomers (1946-1964), p =

.012. Millennials (1983-1997) had higher instrumental motivation than the Gen-Exers

(1965-1982), but it was not significantly higher, p = .355. Gen-Exers had higher

instrumental motivation than the Baby Boomers, but it was not significantly higher, p

= .086. The following provides details of the analyses.

Hypothesis 2a

H2a stated that there is a significant difference in goal internalization work

motivation across generational cohorts in the workplace. Group means for goal

internalization motivation by generational cohort by are presented in Table 19.

Table 19

Group Means for Goal Internalization Motivation by Generational Cohort

Generational Cohort M SD

Baby Boomers (1946 – 1964) 4.40 0.77

Gen Xers (1965 – 1982) 4.10 0.90

Millennials (1983 – 1997) 3.87 1.05

There was no significant difference in goal internalization work motivation across

generational cohorts, F(2, 180) = 2.76, p = .066. The null hypothesis was that there

was no significant difference in goal internalization work motivation across

generational cohorts. Each succeeding generation internalized their goals to a lesser

degree, but the effect only trended towards significance. Since there was no

105

significant difference, the null hypothesis was not rejected. The ANOVA Summary

Table for goal internalization motivation by generational cohort is presented in Table

20.

Table 20

ANOVA Summary Table for Goal Internalization Motivation by Generational Cohort

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p

Between Groups 4.75 2 2.37 2.76 .066

Within Groups 154.88 180 0.86

Total 159.62 182

Although the results were not statistically significant, they trended in the direction

that Baby Boomers (1946-1964) had higher goal internalization work motivation than

the Millennials (1983-1997) and the Gen-Exers (1965-1982); the Gen-Exers (1965-

1982) had higher goal internalization work motivation than the Millennials (1983-

1997). This is illustrated in Figure 5.

106

Figure 5. Goal internalization motivation by generational cohort.

Hypothesis 2b

H2b stated that there is a significant difference in external self-concept work

motivation across generational cohorts in the workplace. Group means for external

self-concept work motivation by generational cohort are presented in Table 21.

107

Table 21

Group Means for External Self-Concept Motivation by Generational Cohort

Generational Cohort M SD

Millennials (1983 – 1997) 3.51 1.01

Baby Boomers (1946 – 1964) 3.13 0.92

Gen Xers (1965 – 1982) 3.08 1.12

There was no significant difference in external self-concept work motivation across

generational cohorts, F(2, 179) = 2.82, p = .062. The null hypothesis was that there

was no significant difference in external self-concept work motivation across

generational cohorts. Millennials were motivated by their external self-concept to a

greater degree, while the other groups were roughly equivalent. Since there was no

significant difference, the null hypothesis was not rejected. The ANOVA Summary

Table for external self-concept work motivation by generational cohort is presented in

Table 22.

Table 22

Group Means for External Self-Concept Motivation by Generational Cohort

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p

Between Groups 6.43 2 3.21 2.82 .062

Within Groups 203.94 179 1.14

Although the results were not statistically significant, they trended in the direction

that the Millennials (1983-1997) had higher external self-concept work motivation

108

than the Baby Boomers (1946-1964) and the Gen-Exers (1965-1982). This is

illustrated in Figure 6.

Figure 6. External self-concept motivation by generational cohort.

Hypothesis 2c

H2c stated that there is a significant difference in intrinsic process work

motivation across generational cohorts in the workplace. Group means for intrinsic

process work motivation by generational cohort are presented in Table 23.

109

Table 23

Group Means for Intrinsic Process Motivation by Generational Cohort

Generational Cohort M SD

Baby Boomers (1946 – 1964) 3.37 0.90

Millennials (1983 – 1997) 3.23 0.85

Gen Xers (1965 – 1982) 3.17 0.91

There was no significant difference in intrinsic process work motivation across

generational cohorts, F(2, 180) = 0.52, p = .598. The null hypothesis was that there

was no significant difference in intrinsic process work motivation across generational

cohorts. All means of groups were roughly equivalent. Since there was no significant

difference, the null hypothesis was not rejected. The ANOVA Summary Table for

intrinsic process work motivation by generational cohort is presented in Table 24.

Table 24

ANOVA Summary Table for Intrinsic Process Motivation by Generational Cohort

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p

Between Groups 0.82 2 0.41 0.52 .598

Within Groups 142.97 180 0.79

Hypothesis 2d

H2d stated that there is a significant difference in internal self-concept work

motivation across generational cohorts in the workplace. Group means for internal

self-concept work motivation by generational cohort are presented in Table 25.

110

Table 25

Group Means for Internal Self-Concept Motivation by Generational Cohort

Generational Cohort M SD

Baby Boomers (1946 – 1964) 5.61 0.35

Gen Xers (1965 – 1982) 5.49 0.49

Millennials (1983 – 1997) 5.38 0.51

There was no significant difference in internal self-concept work motivation across

generational cohorts, F(2, 180) = 1.98, p = .141. The null hypothesis was that there

was no significant difference in internal self-concept work motivation across

generational cohorts. There was a small effect of internal self-concept motivation

decreasing with each successive group, but the effect was quite small. Since there was

no significant difference, the null hypothesis was not rejected. The ANOVA

Summary Table for internal self-concept work motivation by generational cohort is

presented in Table 26.

Table 26

ANOVA Summary Table for Internal Self-Concept Motivation by Generational

Cohort

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p

Between Groups .91 2 .45 1.98 .141

Within Groups 41.20 180 .23

111

Hypothesis 2e

H2e stated that there is a significant difference in instrumental motivation

across generational cohorts in the workplace. Group means for instrumental

motivation by generational cohort are presented in Table 27.

Table 27

Group Means for Instrumental Motivation by Generational Cohort

Generational Cohort M SD

Millennials (1983 – 1997) 3.86 0.97

Gen Xers (1965 – 1982) 3.62 0.95

Baby Boomers (1946 – 1964) 3.14 1.02

There was a significant difference in instrumental motivation across generational

cohorts, F(2, 180) = 4.51, p = .012. The null hypothesis was that there was no

significant difference in instrumental motivation across generational cohorts. In

contrast to the other sources of motivation, instrumental motivation increased with

each successive generation. Since there was a significant difference, the null

hypothesis was rejected. The ANOVA Summary Table for instrumental motivation

by generational cohort is presented in Table 28.

Table 28

ANOVA Summary Table for Instrumental Motivation by Generational Cohort

Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p

Between Groups 8.35 2 4.17 4.51 .012

Within Groups 166.53 180 0.93

112

Scheffe post hoc comparisons revealed that the Millennials (1983-1997), had

significantly higher instrumental motivation than the Baby Boomers (1946-1964), p =

.012. Millennials (1983-1997), had higher instrumental motivation than the Gen-

Exers (1965-1982), but it was not significantly higher, p = .355. Gen-Exers had

higher instrumental motivation than the Baby Boomers, but it was not significantly

higher, p = .086. This is illustrated in Figure 7.

Figure 7. Instrumental motivation by generational cohort.

113

Research Question 3

To what extent is there a relationship between each motivation driver (goal

internalization, external self-concept, intrinsic process, internal self-concept, and

instrumental motivation) and overall work engagement? The inter-correlations are

presented in a correlation matrix. See Table 29. Significance was found at the .01

level for Instrumental Mot, Internal Self-concept, and goal internalization although

the relationships were weak at -.30, .27 and .15 respectively. Due to the weak

relationship, the results are not very meaningful.

Table 29

Correlation Matrix

Variable Work

Engagement

Intrinsic Process Motivation (2) 0.05

Instrumental Motivation (3) 0.30***

External Self-Concept Motivation (4) 0.06

Internal Self-Concept Motivation (5) 0.27***

Goal Internalization Motivation (6) 0.15*

Note. ***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05, two-tailed.

For interpretation purposes, Table 30provides the criteria on how the magnitude of

the correlations were interpreted.

114

Table 30

Criteria for Interpreting Magnitude of Correlations

Value of r Magnitude of the Relationship

-1.0 to -0.5 or 1.0 to 0.5 or greater Strong

-0.5 to -0.3 or 0.3 to 0.5 Moderate

-0.3 to -0.1 or 0.3 to 0.1 Weak

-0.1 to 0.1 None or very weak

Hypothesis 3a

H3a stated that there is a significant relationship between goal internalization

work motivation and overall workplace engagement. There was a significant, weak,

positive relationship between goal internalization work motivation and overall

workplace engagement, r(181) = .15, p = .048, two-tailed. The null hypothesis was

that there was no significant relationship between goal internalization work

motivation and overall workplace engagement. Since there was a significant

relationship, the null hypothesis was rejected. As goal internalization work motivation

increased, there was a corresponding increase in overall work engagement. The

coefficient of determination (r2) = .0225, which means that 2.25% of the variance in

overall workplace engagement can be explained by goal internalization work

motivation. A scatterplot of this relationship is illustrated in Figure 8. The

contribution of these variables to work engagement is so minimal it is insignificant.

115

Figure 8. Goal internalization and work engagement.

Hypothesis 3b

H3b stated that there is a significant relationship between external self-concept

work motivation and overall workplace engagement. There was no significant

relationship between external self-concept work motivation and overall workplace

engagement, r(180) = -.06, p = .439, two-tailed. The null hypothesis was that there

was no significant relationship between external self-concept work motivation and

116

overall workplace engagement.

Figure 9. Goal internalization motivation.

Since there was no significant relationship, the null hypothesis was not rejected.

Hypothesis 3c

H3c stated that there is a significant relationship between intrinsic process

work motivation and overall workplace engagement. There was no significant

relationship between intrinsic process work motivation and overall workplace

engagement, r(181) = -.05, p = .539, two-tailed. The null hypothesis was that there

was no significant relationship between intrinsic process work motivation and overall

117

workplace engagement. Since there was no significant relationship, the null

hypothesis was not rejected.

Hypothesis 3d

H3d stated that there is a significant relationship between internal self-concept

work motivation and overall workplace engagement. There was a significant, weak,

positive relationship between internal self-concept work motivation and overall

workplace engagement, r(181) = .27, p < .001 two-tailed. The null hypothesis was

that there was no significant relationship between internal self-concept work

motivation and overall workplace engagement. Since there was a significant

relationship, the null hypothesis was rejected. As internal self-concept work

motivation increased, there was a corresponding increase in overall work

engagement. The coefficient of determination (r2) = .0729, which means that 7.29%

of the variance in overall workplace engagement can be explained by internal self-

concept work motivation. A scatterplot of this relationship is illustrated in Figure 10.

118

Figure 10. Internal self-concept motivation and work engagement.

Hypothesis 3e

H3e stated that there is a significant relationship between instrumental work

motivation and overall workplace engagement. There was a significant, weak,

negative relationship between instrumental motivation and overall workplace

engagement, r(181) = -.30, p < .001 two-tailed. The null hypothesis was that there

was no significant relationship between instrumental motivation and overall

workplace engagement. Since there was a significant relationship, the null hypothesis

was rejected. The null hypothesis is that there is no significant relationship between

119

instrumental work motivation and overall workplace engagement. Since there is a

significant relationship, the null hypothesis is rejected.

As instrumental motivation increased, there was a corresponding decrease in

overall work engagement. The coefficient of determination (r2) = .09, which means

that 9% of the variance in overall workplace engagement can be explained by

instrumental motivation. A scatterplot of this relationship is illustrated in Figure 11

Figure 11. Instrumental motivation and work engagement.

Table 31 provides a summary of all alternative hypotheses tested and their outcomes.

120

Table 31

Summary of Hypotheses and Outcomes

Hypothesis Statistical

Test

Significance Outcome

H1a: There is a significant difference in the work

engagement element of vigor across generational

cohorts.

One Way

ANOVA

p = .018 Supported

H1b: There is a significant difference in the work

engagement element of dedication across

generational cohorts.

One-Way

ANOVA

p = .043 Supported

H2e: There is a significant difference in

instrumental motivation across generational

cohorts in the workplace.

One-Way

ANOVA

p = .012 Supported

H3a: There is a significant relationship between

goal internalization work motivation and overall

workplace engagement.

Pearson r p = .048 Supported

H3d: There is a significant relationship between

internal self-concept work motivation and overall

workplace engagement.

Pearson r p < .001 Supported

H3e: There is a significant relationship between

instrumental motivation work motivation and

overall workplace engagement.

Pearson r p < .001 Supported

Conclusions

Three research questions and 13 associated hypotheses were developed for

investigation. It was determined that Baby Boomers (1946-1964) had significantly

higher vigor and dedication than the Millennials, but not significantly higher

absorption. However, the results for absorption trended in the same direction as the

results for vigor and dedication.

121

It was determined that there were no significant differences in goal internalization,

external self-concept, intrinsic process, and internal self-concept across general

cohorts in the workplace, although trends were observed when the non-significance

was marginal. There was a significant difference in instrumental motivation across

generational cohorts. Specifically, Millennials (1983-1997) had significantly higher

instrumental motivation than the Baby Boomers (1946-1964). Millennials (1983-

1997) had higher instrumental motivation than the Gen-Exers (1965-1982), but it was

not significantly higher. Gen-Exers had higher instrumental motivation than the Baby

Boomers, but it was not significantly higher.

There was a significant, weak, positive relationship between goal

internalization work motivation and overall workplace engagement. There was a

significant, weak, positive relationship between internal self-concept work motivation

and overall workplace engagement. There was a significant, weak, negative

relationship between instrumental motivation and overall workplace engagement.

When results are statistically significant, this means that the probability of them

occurring due to change is less than .05 or five times out of 100. Likewise, if results

are not statistically significant, this means that they are due to chance. Implications

will be discussed in Chapter 5.

122

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose of this research was to determine the differences between

generational cohorts in the workforce relative to work engagement and motivational

sources. A secondary purpose of the study was to determine if and to what extent a

relationship exists between work engagement and motivational sources. Chapter 1

presented a general overview of the study with a brief discussion of the relevant

literature. Chapter 2 focused on a review of current literature on the topic of

workplace engagement and generational cohorts in the current workforce. Chapter 3

addressed research methodology and placed an emphasis on the research questions

and hypotheses as well as the research design of the study. Chapter 4 was a

presentation of the data analysis and study results. Chapter 5 now provides a

summary of the overall research study including the findings, conclusions,

implications, limitations, and recommendations for further research.

As noted in the literature review, there is a widespread belief among corporate

decision-makers that personality and motivation differ between Millennials,

Generation Xers, and Baby Boomers (Constanza et al., 2012). Specifically,

Millennials are seen as more individualistic and less motivated than previous

generations and each younger generation is viewed as progressively less conservative

and hard-working. However, previous research has found little difference between

these groups in terms of organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover

intentions (Constanza et al., 2012), suggesting that chronic trait differences between

123

groups may be either illusory or simply the result of personalities naturally

developing as a person ages. The current research extends these findings to test

whether the relative sameness of these traits across generations replicates for

motivational traits.

The first trait measured across generations was employee engagement.

Employee engagement is a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind

characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2012).

Engagement has been found to be a relatively stable variable with little change across

one’s age (Mauno et al., 2007; Salanova et al., 2000). This is important for the

purposes of the current study because, if any differences between large groups of

people cannot be attributed to within-person differences, it must be the result of

between-person differences. Because there is little within-person variation for

engagement across the lifespan, if there are differences between groups, it is likely

the result of chronic differences between these groups.

For engagement, surveys of corporations (Adkins, 2015) and countries

(BlessingWhite, 2010) have found systemic differences between groups. For instance,

India was found to have the most engaged workforce (North America was second)

and China the least (BlessingWhite, 2010). The current work tests if such differences

exist between groups when generation is the construct of interest. Specifically, it tests

whether vigor, dedication, and absorption sub-dimensions of engagement differ

between Baby Boomers, Gen Xers, and Millennials. Vigor is defined as “high levels

of energy and mental resilience while working, the willingness to invest effort in

124

one’s work and persistent even in the face of difficulties” (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p.

74), dedication as having “a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and

challenge,” and absorption as the “state of being fully concentrated and deeply

engrossed in one’s work, whereby time passes quickly and one has difficulties with

detaching oneself from work” (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 74). These are all important

contributors to employee effort and performance and identifying groups that are more

or less likely to exhibit these qualities is therefore of critical interest to organizations.

Park and Gursoy (2012) suggested that there are features of the engagement

construct that would lead to differences between generations. First, because younger

generations value leisure to a greater degree and work centrality to a lower degree

(Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011), Millennials may simply be less motivated to

become fully immersed in their work. Second, this focus on work-life balance at the

expense of fully committing to one’s job may leave Millennials less able to fulfill job

demands. Parks and Gursoy (2012) position Halbesieben et al’s (2009) conservation

of resources theory arguing that younger employees may be more inclined to expend

their resources in off-hours than during work, leading to reduced development of

strategies to meet job demands. This reduction in availability and quality of strategies

to counter demands could then lead to lower engagement with tasks. Therefore,

diverse generational values could have both the direct and indirect effect of reducing

engagement in the millennial workforce. In support of these hypotheses, a survey

conducted by BlessingWhite, Inc. (2010) found that Boomers were the most engaged

with their work (39%), followed by GenXers at (35%), followed by Millennials at

125

(16%). While it is potentially less useful to classify individuals as dichotomously

engaged or not engaged (as opposed to looking at them across a continuum), these

findings do indicate that succeeding generations have been less engaged with their

work.

In support of these findings, Park and Gursoy (2012) found differences in the

level of engagement and its sub-dimensions across generations. Baby Boomers had

higher levels of both dedication and vigor than Gen Xers and Millennials. Gen Xers

scored significantly higher on dedication than Millennials. Regarding absorption,

Baby Boomers scored significantly higher than Gen Xers and Millennials. Overall,

older generations were found to be more engaged with their work. Thus, preliminary

evidence suggests that there are chronic differences between generational groups in

terms of engagement, and the authors have found that these differences existed even

when controlling for age. However, this study relied solely upon participants from the

U.S. hospitality industry, and it may be the case that these effects do not replicate

across industries. In addition, a deeper understanding of the processes which impact

engagement across generations would increase empirical understanding of both the

engagement construct as well as the different generations.

In the current study, a three-factor ANOVA analysis revealed differences in

mean dedication and vigor, but not absorption, across the generational groups. This

indicates that employees in previous generations were more committed to completing

their work in an optimal manner and expended more energy to do so. However, they

were not more likely to become deeply immersed in their work. Note that these

126

results contradict the study of Park and Gursory (2012) that found differences across

all engagement dimensions. These findings may indicate that the hospitality field is

not representative of the entire workforce in terms of generational differences, and

they underlie the need for studying generations across a wide variety of occupations.

Mean levels of engagement decreased across each successive generation. Engagement

is strongly correlated with work performance (r = .35) (Rich, Lepine, & Crawford,

2010). It is also positively related to organizational outcomes such as satisfaction and

commitment (Meyer, 2008). Thus, it is an important factor in individual and

organizational success, and the current research findings that successive generations

are less engaged with their work is therefore troubling.

It is important to consider societal context when making comparisons between

generations. Generational similarities are the result of shared experiences, such as

wars or advances in technology (Schullery, 2013). As our economy has transitioned

to being service-based instead of production-based, it has become heavily reliant on

multi-tasking and switching schemas when necessary. It may therefore be the case

that employees have found fewer means in which to become engaged with their work

– perhaps they spend more of their time putting out the fires of the workday or

jumping between projects with varying members and goals, allowing for less of an

opportunity to truly engage with work. In addition, as average tenure at companies

has decreased, it is possible that employees have begun to feel less beholden to their

employers and are less likely to fully commit to the work provided by organizations

that do not commit to them. Finally, the increased use of technology may lead to

127

employees feeling less engaged. When one can simply hit backspace to delete a text

error, it is less necessary to fully immerse oneself in the task (Casner-Lotto &

Barrington, 2006).

Causes of Generational Differences in Engagement

In an effort to deepen our understanding of whether younger generations are less

engaged, this research has attempted to parse apart the effects of generations upon

engagement. It supports the findings of Park and Gursoy (2012) that successive

generations have been less engaged, although it did not find a difference in the

engagement dimension of absorption. The Job Demands-Resources Model

(Demerouti et al., 2001) indicates that job resources such as managerial support,

specific and timely feedback, and access to resources necessary to complete a task all

enhance engagement in employees. Conversely, demands such as an unmanageable

workload, role confusion, and a perceived lack of support all contribute to employee

burnout (conceived as the theoretical opposite of engagement) and decrease

engagement. However, the relationship between constructs is slightly more nuanced:

job resources also moderate the relationship between demands and engagement

(Bakker, Hannaken, Demerouti, & Xanthopoulou, 2007). For instance, even if an

employee has a heavy workload, if they feel supported by their supervisor and have

the tools they need to complete their work, they may not feel a reduced sense of

engagement. Thus, external factors can directly impact employee engagement.

However, a wide body of research (Crawford et al., 2010; Schaufeli et al., 2007)

indicated that there is also a strong internal drive for engagement that differs between

128

people and across groups. Therefore, an additional goal of the current research was to

determine if the differences in engagement between generations is the result of

internal and/or external factors, and to what degree.

Twenge and colleagues (2010) measured the importance of work-related

values across generations. They found that Boomers were the most invested in

external rewards, followed by Millennials, followed by GenXers. Note that this does

not follow the patterns of engagement described in Park and Gursoy’s (2012)

research, but rather indicates a plateau of the degree to which rewards such as money

and material possessions were motivational with the GenXs, a group commonly

associated with an emphasis on the accumulating of wealth. In terms of internal

reward motivation, each generation values internal rewards less than the previous

generation. This fits with the patterns of engagement as described above, whereby

each successive generation was less engaged with their work. Self-Determination

Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) suggests that internal rewards may be more motivating

over time than external rewards, however, and thus there is cause to believe that this

may partially be a function of age.

The current research extends previous findings related to internal and external

drivers to include instrumental motivation, external self-concept-based motivation,

internal self-concept-based motivation, and goal internalization motivation across

generations (Barbuto & Scholl, 1998). This framework allows for greater specificity

based on an integrative model of motivation that has been supported by factor

analyses. Thus, to test whether internal and external motivators differentially impact

129

each generation, this study has measured the levels of each of the motivational factors

across the three generations. Results indicate no significant differences in goal

internalization, external self-concept, intrinsic process, and internal self-concept

across generational cohorts in the workplace. However, there was a significant

difference in instrumental motivation across generational cohorts. Specifically,

Millennials had significantly higher instrumental motivation than Baby Boomers.

Average Millennial instrumental motivation also trended higher than it did for the

Gen-Exers, as did average the instrumental motivation of Gen-Exers in comparison to

Baby Boomers. This indicates that generations attach different degrees of motivation

to achieving external rewards. It may be the case that successive generations have

been less likely to see work as valuable in itself and more as a means to an end. This

would align with the findings related to engagement that also indicated that people

are less fulfilled by their work and suggests that this may be a result of later

generations placing more value outside of work and less value on their lives at work.

In support of this reasoning, there was a negative relationship between instrumental

motivation and overall workplace engagement.

Summary

Given the alignment of the current research with previous empirical findings,

it seems clear that each generation has been less engaged with their work. The current

research offers evidence that this may be related to a changing mindset as to what

work is. Previous generations may have viewed employment as one’s life work and

closely tied into their identity. It seems that current generations do not identify with

130

their work to as strong of a degree and instead value pursuits outside the office in

their search for identity and actualization. Combined with tasks that heavily utilize

technology and task-switching, it may be the case that employees are both less

predisposed to being fully engaged with their work and less likely to receive

opportunities to do so.

Future Research and Limitations

There were several limitations to note in the study. The research was

conducted with a cross-sectional survey-based design, and thus causation cannot be

inferred from results. The research also relied upon the use of an online survey to

capture the opinions of individuals in the current works force. Participating in online

surveys can sometimes be done in an uncontrolled environment and there is no way to

guarantee carefully considered responses. Previous research has found that some

individual-level differences in personality and motivation are the result of the normal

aging cycle, as opposed to differences between generations (Costanza et al., 2012).

While there is evidence that differences in terms of engagement are likely to be the

result of actual between-group disparities, future research could measure this effect

longitudinally and test whether engagement stays relatively stable or develops in a

similar manner within individuals. In addition, while utilizing an audience more

diverse than previous studies (Park & Gursoy, 2012), the current study was limited by

size, geographic location, and business sectors; future research could measure the

effects across new and different groups. For instance, the effect of gender on

engagement could differ across generations, as changing women’s roles within the

131

workforce could seemingly enhance their identification and thus their engagement

with their work, which could lead to the opposite of the effect shown in this study.

An additional limitation lies in the defining of generations. Historians and

academicians may use similar but different birth groupings for each generation. The

researcher defined the generational taxonomy (generation birth years) of Sullivan,

Forret, Carraher, and Mainiero (2009) to correlate each survey participant with a

specific generation; Baby Boomers were born between 1946 and 1964; Generation X,

known as Gen Xers, were born between 1965 and 1983; and Generation Y, also

known as Millennial, were born between 1984 and 2002. Results could have been

different if different generation birth year groupings had been used. Future research

could examine different birth year groupings for a more accurate representation of

values, behaviors, and personalities.

A primary takeaway of this research is that younger generations are lower in

engagement than older ones. However, it may be the case that different types of work

not directly measured via current measures are more engaging for Millennials. For

instance, 21st century literature (Casner-Lotto & Barrington, 2006) suggests that using

technology, high-level thinking, and working in teams are the primary skills that are

predictive of success in the modern economy. It may be the case that these types of

tasks are more engaging to the younger generation than more traditional, production-

based work. It would therefore be potentially fruitful to split engagement across

132

different tasks to measure if Millennials are in fact less engaged or are simply more

selective regarding the work they choose to become fully immersed within.

Future research could also measure a theoretical framework in which sources

of motivation mediate the relationship between generational membership and

employee engagement. It may be the case that motivation “explains” the relationship

between generations and engagement; if this were the case, it would provide

important information regarding the generation and engagement relationship. For

instance, it may be the case that Baby Boomers are more engaged as a result of their

higher levels of internal motivation. In addition, a potential moderating effect of

generations upon job demands and resources and engagement could be tested. It may

be, for instance, that older generations are less likely to perceive a large workload as

“too much,” and thus their engagement may suffer less as the result of it. The J D-R

model has been applied as a measure of the impact of organizational outputs on

employee motivation, and including generation as a moderator potentially fleshes out

the model to measure the interaction of the person and the job on the person.

Implications for Practice

Engagement is strongly associated with work performance (Crawford, Lepine,

& Rich, 2010) as well as job satisfaction and commitment (Macey, 2008). Because

older generations are generally more engaged with their work, one key takeaway is

that companies should not refrain from hiring older staff. It may also be the case that

the findings of this study related to motivational sources provide a context for

133

knowing how to motivate each generation. The tendency to attach motivation to

tangible external rewards is negatively related to engagement, and thus should be

used sparingly by organizations. The tendency towards internal motivation is

positively correlated with engagement, however, and taken together these findings

indicate a preference for finding and hiring the right people in comparison to

increasing buy-in through rewards programs. In other words, hiring naturally-

motivated people, and treating them well, should be emphasized over programs

designed to improve employee motivation.

134

References

Adams, S. J. (2000). Generation X: How understanding this population leads to better

safety programs. Professional Safety, 45, 26–29.

Adkins, A. (2015, January 28). Majority of U.S. employees not engaged despite gains

in 2014. Retrieved December 30th

2016 from

http://www.gallup.com/poll/181289/majority-employees-not-engaged-despite-

gains-2014.aspx.

Aggarwal, U., & Bhargave, S. (2009). Reviewing the relationship between human

resource practices and psychological contract and their impact on employee

attitude and behaviors: A conceptual model. Journal of European Industrial

Training 33(1), 4-31.

Bakker, A. B., Hakanen, J. J., Demerouti, E., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2007). Job

resources boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are

high. Journal of educational psychology, 99(2), 274.

Barbuto, J. E. (2001). An alternative scoring method for the motivation sources

inventory: a case for ratio analysis, Psychological Reports, 88, 385-386.

Barbuto, J. E., & Miller, M. L. (2008, October 2-4). Generation gaps in the

workplace: Exploring differences in work motivation between generational

cohorts. Paper presented at the 51st Annual Meeting of the Midwest Academy

of Management, St. Louis, MO.

Barbuto, J. E., & Scholl, R. (1998). Motivation Sources Inventory: Development and

135

validation of new scales to measure an integrative taxonomy of motivation.

Psychological Reports, 82, 1011-1022.

Barbuto, J. E., Brown, L. L., Wheeler, D. W., & Wilhite, M. S. (2003). Motivation,

altruism, and generalized compliance: A field study of organizational

citizenship

behaviors. Psychological Reports, 92, 498-502.

Barbuto, J. E., Fritz, S. M., & Marx, D. (2000). A field study of two measures of

work

motivation for predicting leaders’ transformational behaviors. Psychological

Reports, 86, 295-300. 89

Barbuto, J. E., Trout, S. K., & Brown, L. L. (2004). Identifying sources of motivation

of adult rural workers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 45(3), 11-21.

Barbuto, J. E., Story, J. S., “Relations between locus of control and sources of work

motivation amongst government workers”, 2008.

Bakker, A. B. (2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 20(4), 265-269.

Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work

engagement: The emergence of a new concept in occupational health

psychology. Work & Stress, 22(3), 187-200.

Bakker, A. B. (2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 20(4), 265-269.

136

Barbuto, J. E., & Scholl, R. W. (1998). Motivation Sources Inventory: Development

and Validation of New Scale to Measure an Integrative Taxonomy of

Motivation. Psychological Reports, 82(3), 1011-1022.

Barford, I. N., & Hester, P. T. (2011). Analysis of Generation Y workforce

motivation using multiattribute utility theory. Defense Acquisition Research

Journal: A Publication of the Defense Acquisition University, 18(1), 63-80.

Baumruk, R. (2004). The missing link: The role of employee engagement in business

success. Workspan, 47, 48-52.

Blessing-White, Inc. (2005). Employee Engagement Report 2005. Princeton, NJ:

Author.

Buckingham, M., & Vosburgh, R. (2001). The 21st Century human resources

function: It’s the talent, stupid! Human Resource Planning, 24(4), 17–23.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012). Employment outlook: 2010 - 2020. Retrieved from

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2012/01/art5full.pdf.

Costanza, D. P., Badger, J. M., Fraser, R. L., Severt, J. B., & Gade, P. A. (2012).

Generational differences in work-related attitudes: A meta-analysis. Journal

of Business and Psychology, 27(4), 375-394.

Casner-Lotto, J., & Barrington, L. (2006). Are They Really Ready to Work?

Employers' Perspectives on the Basic Knowledge and Applied Skills of New

Entrants to the 21st Century US Workforce. Partnership for 21st Century

Skills. 1 Massachusetts Avenue NW Suite 700, Washington, DC 20001.

Castellano, S. (2013). Talent retention is a global challenge. T+D, 67(11), 18.

137

Chat-Uthai, M. (2013). Leveraging employee engagement surveys using the turnover

stimulator approach: A case study of automotive enterprises in Thailand.

International Journal of Business & Management, 8(6), 16-21.

Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A

quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual

performance. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 89-136.

Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2003). Business research methods (8th ed.). New

York, NY: McGraw-Hill

Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2006). Business research methods (9th ed.). New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Crawford, E. R., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2010). Linking job demands and

resources to employee engagement and burnout: a theoretical extension and

meta-analytic test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(5), 834

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed method

approaches (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Merrill Prentice-Hall.

Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approach (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Crumpacker, M., & Crumpacker, J.D. (2007). Succession planning and generational

138

stereotypes: Should HR consider age-based values and attitudes a relevant

factor or a passing fad? Public Personnel Management, 36(4), 349-369.

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An

interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874-900.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990) Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New

York: Harper Perennial

De Bruin, G. P., & Henn, C. M. (2013). Dimensionality of the 9-item Utrecht work

engagement scale (UWES-9). Psychological Reports, 112, 788-799.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The" what" and" why" of goal pursuits: Human

needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological inquiry, 11(4),

227-268.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job

demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3),

499–512.

Ellis, T. J., & Levy, Y. (2009). Towards a guide for novice researchers on research

methodology: Review and proposed methods. Issues in Informing Science &

Information Technology, 6, 323-337

Esty, K., Griffin R., & Schorr-Hirsh, M. (1995). Workplace diversity: A manager’s

guide to solving problems and turning diversity into a competitive advantage.

Massachusetts: Adams Media.

139

Freeney, Y., & Tiernan, J. (2006). Employee engagement: An overview of the

literature on the proposed anti-thesis to burnout. The Irish Journal of

Psychology, 27(3-4), 130-141.

Gallup Organization. (2006). Gallup study: Feeling good matters in the workplace.

Retrieved from

http://www.gallup.com/Search/Default.aspx?s=&p=1&q=employee+engagem

ent+as+it+relates+to+motivation+and+performance&b=Go

Glass, A. (2007). Understanding generational differences for competitive success.

Industrial and Commercial Training, 39(2), 98-103.

Halbesleben, J. R., Harvey, J., & Bolino, M. C. (2009). Too engaged? A conservation

of resources view of the relationship between work engagement and work

interference with family. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1452.

Hankin, H. (2004). The new workforce: Five sweeping trends that will shape your

company's future. New York: American Management Association.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (2011). The motivation to work (Vol.

1). Transaction publishers.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B. and Snyderman, B. (1959). The Motivation to Work. New

York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the nature of man. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.

Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: how do you motivate employees? Harvard

Business Review (January-February):53-62.

140

Herzberg, F. (1974). Motivation-hygiene profiles: Pinpointing what ails the

organization. Organizational Dynamics, 3(2), 18-29.

Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (1991). Generations: The history of America's future, 1584

to 2069. New York: William Morrow and Co.

Howe, N. & Strauss, W. (1993). 13th Gen: Abort, Retry, Ignore, Fail? Vintage Books,

New York.

Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation. New

York: Vintage Books.

Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2007). The Next 20 Years: How Customer and Workforce

Attitudes Will Evolve. Harvard Business Review, 85(7/8), 42-52.

Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative,

qualitative, and mixed approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Kahn, W.A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and

disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724.

Kahn, W. A. (1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human

Relations, 45(4), 321-349.

Kanungo, R. N. (1982). Measurement of job and work involvement.

Jourmal of Applied Psychology, 67, pp. 341-349.

Kupperschmidt, R. (2000). Multigenerational employees: strategies for effective

management. Health Care Management, 19(1), 65-76.

141

Lim, B., (1995). Examining the organizational culture and organizational

performance link. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 16(5),

16-21.

Macey, W., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement.

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 3-30.

Markos, S., & Sridevi, M. S. (2010). Employee engagement: The key to improving

performance. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(12), 89.

Martin, C. A., & Tulgan, B. (2001). Managing Generation Y: Global citizens born in

the late seventies and early eighties. Amherst, MA: HRD Press.

Maslach, C., Schaufelli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review

of Psychology, 52, 397-422.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50,

394- 395.

Maslow, A. (1954), Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row.

Mauno, Kinnunen, U., & Ruokolainen, M. (2007). Job demands and resources as

antecedents of work engagement: A longitudinal study. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 70, 149-171.

May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of

meaningfulness, safety, availability and the engagement of the human spirit at

work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 11-34.

142

Meyer, J.P., & Gagne’,M. (2008). Employee Engagement from self-determination

theory perspective. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1 (2008), 60–

62.

Mills, M., Culbertson, S., & Fullagar, C. (2012). Conceptualizing and measuring

engagement: An analysis of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Journal of

Happiness Studies, 13, 519-545.

Neil, S. (2007). Study: More work needed to lure next Gen talent. Managing

Automation, 22(8), 1-74.

Newman, L. (2003). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative

Approaches. (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Neuman, W. L. (2005). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative

Approaches (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Park, J., & Gursoy, D. (2012). Generation effects on work engagement among US

hotel employees. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(4),

1195-1202.

Parker, C. P., Baltes, B. B., Young, S. A., Huff, J. W., Altmann, R. A., Lacost, H. A.,

et al. (2003). Relationships between psychological climate perceptions and

work 134 outcomes: A meta analytic review. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 24(4), 389-416.

Pew Research Center. (2010). Millennials: A portrait of generation next. Retrieved

December 30, 2016 from

143

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/02/24/millennials-confident-connected-

open-to-change/.

Pilcher, J. (1994). Mannheim’s sociology of generations: An undervalued legacy.

BJS, 45(3), 481-494.

Raines, C. (2003). Connecting generations - The sourcebook for a new workplace.

Menlo Park, CA: Crisp Publications.

Rath, T. (2011). Gallup: Well-being is the next employee engagement, T+D, 65(1),

12.

Rath, T., & Harter, J. (2010). Wellbeing. Personal Excellence Essentials, 15(6), 5.

Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents

and effects on job performance. Academy of management journal, 53(3), 617-

635.

Richman, A. (2006). Everyone wants an engaged workforce how can you create it?

Workspan, 49, 36-39.

Robbins, S. P. (2001). Organizational behavior (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Robinson, D., Perryman, S., & Hayday, S. (2004). The drivers of employee

engagement. Brighton: Institute for Employment Studies.

Robson, C, (2002). Real world research: a resource for social scientists and

practitioner-researchers. - 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.

Sackman, S. (1991). Uncovering culture in organizations. Journal of Applied

Behavioural Science, 27(3), pp. 295-317.

144

Salkind, N. J. (2006). Exploring research (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Education.

Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal

of Managerial Psychology, 21(6), 600-619.

Salanova, M., Agut, S., Peiro, J.M., 2005. Linking organizational resources and work

engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: the mediation of

service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (6), 1217–1227.

Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The

measurement of engagement and burnout: A confirmative analytic approach.

Journal of Happiness Studies 3(1), 71-92.

Schaufeli, W. B, & Bakker, A. B. (2003). Utrecht work engagement scale. Retrieved

December 30, 2016 from

http://www.beanmanaged.com/doc/pdf/arnoldbakker/articles/articles_arnold_

bakker_87.pdf

Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources and their

relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 25, 293-315.Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., &

Salanova, M. (2004). The measurement of work engagement with a short

questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 2006(66), 701.

145

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work

engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross national study. Educational

and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701-716.

Schaufeli, W., Taris, T., & Bakker, A. (2006). Dr. Jekyll of Mr. Hyde? On the

differences in work engagement and workaholism. In R. J. Burke (ed.),

Research companion to work time and work addiction, (pp. 193-217).

Cheltenham, Glos, UK: Edward Elgar.

Schaufeli, W., Bakker, A., & Van Rhenen, W. (2009). How changes in job demands

and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 893-917.

Schullery, N. M. (2013). Workplace engagement and generational differences in

values. Business Communication Quarterly, 76(2), 252-265.

Shaw, K. (2005). An engagement strategy process for communicators. Strategic

Communication Management, 9(3), 26-29.

Sullivan, S. E., Forret, M. L., Carraher, S. M., & Mainiero, L. A. (2009). Using the

kaleidoscope career model to examine generational differences in work

attitudes. Career Development International, 14(3), 284-302.

Smola, K., & Sutton, C. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting generational

work values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23,

363-382.

Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (1997). The fourth turning: What the cycles of history tell us

146

about America’s next rendezvous with destiny. New York, NY: Broadway

Books.

Strauss, W., & Howe, H. (1991). Generations: The history of America’s future, 1584

to 2069. New York: William Morrow & Company, Inc.

Schullery, N. M. (2013). Workplace Engagement and Generational Differences in

Values. Business Communication Quarterly, 76(2), 252-265.

doi:10.1177/1080569913476543

Terjesen, S., Vinnicombe, S., & Freeman, C. (2007) Attracting Generation Y

graduates, organizational attributes likelihood to apply and sex differences.

Career Development International, 12(6), 504-522.

Thomas, K. W., (2009). Intrinsic motivation at work: What really drives employee

engagement.

San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Truss, C., Soane, E., Edwards, C., Wisdom, K., Croll, A. and Burnett, J. (2006)

Working Life:Employee Attitudes and Engagement 2006. London, CIPD.

Twenge, J. (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., & Freeman, E. C. (2012). Generational differences

in young adults' life goals, concern for others, and civic orientation, 1966–

2009. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(5), 1045-1062.

doi:10.1037/a0027408

147

Vogt, W. P. (2009). Quantitative research methods for professionals. Boston, MA:

Allyn & Bacon.

Zemke, R. (2001, July 1). Here come the millennials: Hiring nexters and generation

xers. HighBeam Business. Retrieved December 30, 2016 from

https://business.highbeam.com/137618/article-1G1-77010744/here-come-

millennials.

Zemke, R., Raines, C., & Filipczak, B. (2000). Generations at work: Managing the

clash managing automation, of veterans, boomers, xers, and nexters in your

workplace. United States: American Management Association.

148

Appendix A: Online Survey

Directions: Check the box, in each category that best describes you.

The information you provide will be kept completely confidential and only a description of

the group as a whole will be reported.

Profile

1. Indicate your gender:

Male

Female

2. Write your age on line below:

______

3. Indicate the year range in which you were born:

Born in 1943 or earlier

1944 - 1960

1961 - 1981

1982 – 2002

Born after 2002

5. Indicate is your race: (choose one or more)

African American or Black

Hispanic or Latino origin

American Indian or Alaska Native

Asian

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

149

White

Other or prefer not to respond

6. Indicate the highest level of education you have completed:

High School Diploma/ G.E.D.

Associates Degree; Technical School; Some courses after high school

Bachelor’s Degree

Master’s Degree

PhD; MD; JD; DDS; professional degree

Did not complete High School

7. At your current job, indicate your status:

Full-time

Part-time (20 hours or less per week)

8. Indicate how long you have been working at your current place of employment:

Less than 1 year

1 year - 5 years

6 years – 10 years

11 years – 15 years

16 years – 20 years

More than 20 years

9. Indicate your position at your current job:

Top-level/Senior management level; Executive Suite

President, Vice President

150

Middle-level manager; Department head

First-level manager; Supervisor; Front-line manager

Not in a supervisory/leadership position

Contract employee

Other

10. Indicate the industry sector in which you are employed:

Accounting Services

Auto Sales and Service;

Banking; Financial Services; Insurance; Real Estate;

Consumer Packaging Goods

Educational Services

Health Care and Social Assistance

Information Technology; Journalism; Mass Communications; Media

Legal Services

Leisure and Hospitality; Entertainment, Arts, Recreation

Manufacturing and Product Development; Engineering Services; Construction

Public Service; Government

Retail Sales & Wholesale Trade

Transportation, Warehousing, Logistics

Utilities; Energy; Mining

Other

10. Indicate which one of the following organizations did you receive the survey from;

151

Network of Executing Women ~11K members (confirmed 4/14/2016)

Managing a Multigenerational workforce. ~8K members (confirmed 3/2016)

Philadelphia SHRM ~4K (confirmed 11/2015

Penn State Alumni Chapter

Other

Motivation Source Instrument (MSI)

152

153

Work & Well-being Survey (UWES) ©

The following 17 statements are about how you feel at work. Please read each

statement carefully and decide if you ever feel this way about your job. If you have

never had this feeling, cross the “0” (zero) in the space after the statement. If you

have had this feeling, indicate how often you feel it by crossing the number (from 1 to

6) that best describes how frequently you feel that way.

1. ________ At my work, I feel bursting with energy* (VI1)

2. ________ I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose (DE1)

3. ________ Time flies when I'm working (AB1)

4. ________ At my job, I feel strong and vigorous (VI2)*

5. ________ I am enthusiastic about my job (DE2)*

6. ________ When I am working, I forget everything else around me (AB2)

154

7. ________ My job inspires me (DE3)*

8. ________ When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work (VI3)*

9. ________ I feel happy when I am working intensely (AB3)*

10. ________ I am proud on the work that I do (DE4)*

11. ________ I am immersed in my work (AB4)*

12. ________ I can continue working for very long periods at a time (VI4)

13. ________ To me, my job is challenging (DE5)

14. ________ I get carried away when I’m working (AB5)*

15. ________ At my job, I am very resilient, mentally (VI5)

16. ________ It is difficult to detach myself from my job (AB6)

17. ________ At my work I always persevere, even when things do not go well (VI6)

* Shortened version (UWES-9); VI= vigor; DE = dedication; AB = absorption

© Schaufeli & Bakker (2003). The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale is free for use for

non-commercial scientific research. Commercial and/or non-scientific use is

prohibited, unless previous written permission is granted by the authors

155

156