INFORMATION HANDLING BEHAVIOR OF GENERATION Y1
Information handling behavior Generation Y in new industry conditions
Name
Institution
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.0 Overview
1.1 Study background
1.1.1 Characterization of American working generations
1.1.2 Generational differences
1.2 Research problem
1.3 Significance of the study
1.4 Study originality
1.5 Research Objectives
1.6 Organization of the study
1.7 Chapter summary
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Overview
2.1 Generation theory
2.1.1 Importance of understanding generation in industry 4.0
2.1.2 Generations according to Strauss and Howe
2.1.3 Work-related characteristics across the generations
2.2 Generation Y employees: General characteristics
2.2.1 Cultural acceptance
2.2.2 Entitlement
2.2.3 Volunteerism
2.2.4 Technological impact
2.3 Generation Y in the workplace
2.3.1 Flexibility
2.3.2 Continued learning
2.3.3 Individualism and teamwork
2.4 Information handling behaviour
2.4.1 Information handling before Generation Y
2.4.2 Information handling behaviour in Generation Y
2.5 Consequences of changing information handling behaviour
2.6 Managing information handling behaviour
2.7 Chapter Summary
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
3.0 Overview
3.1 Research philosophy
3.2 Research Approach
3.3 Research Strategy
3.4 Research Purpose
3.5 Sampling, Data Collection and Analysis
3.5.1 Sampling procedure
3.5.2 Data Collection
3.6 Data Analysis
3.7 Credibility of data
3.8 Ethical Considerations
3.9 Chapter Summary
CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALAYSIS
4.0 Overview
4.1 Data Analysis
4.2 Findings
4.3 Chapter Summary
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
5.0 Overview
5.1 Recap
5.2 Discussion
5.3 Conclusion
5.4 Practical Implications
5.5 Implications for research
References
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.0 Overview
The chapter offers background information regarding the topic. In essence, the information related to a general account regarding the different generations present in the modern workplace. The chapter has several sections including the background of the study, the statement of the problem, the significance of the study, the research questions, and the research objectives. The general information offers a foundation for the subsequent chapters.
1.1 Study background
Scientific studies regarding the needs, opinions, characteristics, and values of particular cohorts have increased in recent years. Cohorts are classified demographically as individuals born in a specific period related to a specific demographic event. The first belief of such studies is that the events during that period affect the group. In essence, circumstances such as cultural events, literature, political events, and economic experiences shape the experience of the cohorts (Baláţová, 2011). Consequently, cohorts are expected to share similar cultural, social, economic, and political experiences or beliefs, opinions, and values. In many cases, the experiences may shape the functioning of the society, as well as personality, and group identity.
1.1.1 Characterization of American working generations
As of 2008, working age Americans fell into four main generations: Veterans (traditionalists), Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y. In this case, a generation is defined as a discernable group of people that shares commonalities such as age, birth years, location, and crucial life events at certain developmental stages. The following definition and data from the United States Census (2000) are used in characterizing the four groups. Traditionalists or veterans are the individuals born before 1946 comprising approximately 33 million individuals in the overall American population. Baby Boomers are people who were born between 1946 and 1964 and are approximately 78 million in the American population. GenerationX includes the people born between 1965 and 1980 comprising approximately 59 million of the population. Generation Y comprises of people born between 1981 and 2002 and comprises of approximately 84 million people. According to Zemke, Raines, & Filipczak (1999), shared events define and influence each generation. Consequently, individuals in one generation may be diverse but express similar thoughts, behaviours, and values because of their shared events. Additionally, the values, behaviours, and reactions differ from one generation to another. However, an alternative view is that although variations may occur during an employee’s career, employees may be ultimately “generic” regarding their wants thus trying to divide employees according to generations may be fallacious (Jurkeiwicz & Brown, 1988: Yang & Guy, 2006). An understanding of the different populations or cohorts is essential as a foundation to understand the evolution and functioning of the cohorts.
The traditionalists or veterans make the oldest generation in the current workplaces, although most of them have gone into retirement. Also referred to as Silents, matures, the greatest generation, or the Silent generation, this cohort comprises of people born before 1946 and may go back to 1922. However, some studies classify those born before 1924 differently because they experienced war and economic crisis differently. Fundamentally, the Great Depression and the World War II influenced the generation. The members of this generation are considered to be conservative, disciplined, and fiscal restraint, as well as having a sense of obligation (Niemic 2002). The members as considered as lovers of formality and adherents of a top-down chain of command, needing respect, and making decisions depending on what has been proven in the past (Tolbze, 2008). The effects of political and uneconomical instability led them to be hardworking and cautious. Furthermore, the group is associated with a high degree of organizational loyalty, low risk tolerance, and respect to authority. Additionally, the group tends to lead through a command and control leadership style. The group members have been found to develop a high regard for communication skills (Jenkins, 2007). They often show consistency at work and seek technological advancement whenever possible. Furthermore, they are considered inept with change and ambiguity, uncomfortable with conflict, reluctant to buck the system, and reticent during disagreement (Tolbe, 2008).
While many sources identify Baby Boomers as people born between 1943 and 1965, the U.S Census Bureau identifies them as people born between 1946 and 1964. According to CallananGreenhaus (2008), Baby Boomers are also called “pig-in-the-python.” The name Baby Boomers emanated from the additional seventeen million babies who were born during this period (O’Bannon, 2001). The Baby Boomers are considered to have had the greatest impact on the American society because of its large population.The social turmoil affecting the Baby Boomers included the Vietnam War, Kennedy and King Assassinations, civil rights riots, and sexual revolution (Adams, 20000). Protests against the authorities characterized the active years of the Baby Boomers who are in the leadership positions today. Baby Boomers were raised to revere to authority and learnt not to trust people above the age of 30 (Karp, Fuller & Sirias, 2002). Since they grew in an era of prosperity, they believed they could change the world through their self-worth, personal fulfilment, and contribution to the society (Yang & Guy, 2006). The Baby Boomers generation is expected to reach its retirement age as a whole by 2030 (CallananGreenhaus, 2008).
Boomers are considered as hardworking individuals who have a high regard to sacrifice as the price for success. The generation started as workaholics who believed in paying their dues through gradual promotion (Tolbse, 2008). Furthermore, the group is associated with collaboration, teamwork, and group decision-making, competitiveness, and loyalty towards employees (Zemke et al., 2000; Niemic, 2002; Karp et al., 2002;Tolbze, 2008). The generation is composed of confident task completers who may feel constant feedback as an insult (The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association Office of Diversity, 2006) despite their desire to have their achievement recognized (Glass, 2007). While some studies consider Baby Boomers as goal-oriented, others consider than as more process-oriented than result-oriented (Zemke et al., 2000). Other documented characteristics of Baby Boomers include opportunism, liberal thinking, reverence to job security, and lovers of personal gratification (Rath, 1999; Zemke et al., 2000). The generation has also been described as portraying a high sense of entitlement, reluctant to act against their peers, and will always fight for a cause (Zemke et al., 2000). They also have a high value for hierarchy (Rath, 1999). However, Saba (2013, p. 6) notes that Baby Boomers may experience tensions with other generations because they expect same ethics and working hours.
Generation X comprises of individuals born between 1968 and 1979 according to the U.S Census Bureau, but different studies have considered the lower and upper limits as 1963 to 1982 (Karp et al., 2002; Tolbize, 2008). The generation has also been referred to as the baby bust generation because of its relative smaller size compared to the baby boomers. The members of Generation X grew during a period of financial, societal, and familial insecurity as they witnessed the declining global power of America, limited wage mobility of their parents, corporate downsizing, and a stagnated job market. The period in which they grew was characterized by a high divorce rate leading to the members finding ways of fending for themselves (Tolbize, 2008). As they became acclimatized to competition, they also tended towards an appreciation of instant feedback (O’Bannon, 2001).
According to many studies, Xers strive to achieve a work-life balance and portray autonomy, independence, and self-reliance (Jenkins, 2007, Karp et al., 2002, Zemke et al., 2002, Tolzibe, 2008). However, they do not express excessive loyalty to their employers, but have a high level of loyalty to friends and family (BovaKroth, 2001; Karp et al., 2002). The generation offers strengths such as adaptability, independence, creativity, and authority in the workplace. Furthermore, Xers are considered as result-oriented governed by a sense of accomplishment (Crampton & Hodge, 2006; Tolbize, 2008). Furthermore, the members like receiving constant feedback, despite their creativity, independence, and pragmatism (Karp et al., 2002, The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association Office of Diversity, 2006). However, they have a high level of impatience, inexperience, cynicism, and lack of interpersonal skills.
Of importance to the paper are the members of Generation Y. Although the upper and lower limits vary, most studies agree that Generation Y is comprised of individuals born from 1981 up to about 2002 (Campton & Hodge, 2006; The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association Office of Diversity, 2006; Martin 2005; Kersten, 2002; Saba, 3013). The members of Generation Y have received labels such as Nexters, Millenials, Generation www, Digital generation, Echo boomers, Net generation, and N-Gens among other labels. The generation is shaped by parental excesses and exposure to technology (Bolton et al., 2013, p. 8). While Generation Y shares most characteristics with Generation X, they also tend to be more optimistic, flexible, independent, educated, and technology savvy (Tolzibe, 2008)). The generation is characterized by a high entrepreneurial spirit with a minimal focus on processes (Crampton & Hodge, 2006). A further description of the generation will be provided in the literature review.
1.1.2 Generational differences
A limited number of studies have shown the systematic differences between generations pertinent to working conditions expectations, values, and behaviours, and attitudes towards work (Saba, 2013, p. 4). The differences found have either been contradictory or of low magnitude and indistinguishable from one generation to another. Consequently, some researchers have devised ways of explaining the findings based on other factors rather than generational differences.
Some studies have found differences related to expectations in working conditions. According to those studies, young workers tend to revere career advancement, work-family balance, and employability than their older counterparts. Nevertheless, the expectations regarding autonomy, job security, and recognition remain the same (Saba, 2009; IRC.QUEEN, 5). However, Ng & Feldman (2010) found that older generations had a higher overall job satisfaction than the younger generation. Other studies have also found differences regarding organizational commitment. On this note, the studies assert that older generations have a higher level of organizational commitment than their younger counterparts (Saba, 2013, p 5).
According to Saba (2013), the results are neither surprising nor do they divulge a new phenomenon. For instance, studies examining employees’ career paths have often focused on the aspects of job management by workers within a different generation. According to different studies, employees’ needs vary as they progress through their career paths. The studies have emphasized the importance of concentrating on career – needs that change through career stages – and implementing management practices that respond to the needs (Saba & Dolan, 2013). Additionally, studies on the socialization needs among the members of younger generations highlight the essentiality of incorporating new employees into the workplace.
According to Ng & Feldman (2010),the occupation and chronological age of an individual have a correlation with job satisfaction. The existence of a natural covariance between tenure and age has facilitated the examination and prediction of their effects on job satisfaction (Saba, 2013). However, conflicting evidence has been found regarding the effect of age and tenure on job satisfaction, for example, Bedeian et al. (1992) found a positive correlation while Morrow & McElroy (1987) had found a negative correlation. However, the meta-analysis conducted by Ng & Feldman (2010) concludes that age and tenure explain the differences in the level of job satisfaction notwithstanding the generational membership. According to Saba (2013, p. 5), the differences in organizational commitment cannot be explained or attributed to single generational differences. The meta-analysis conducted by Ng & Feldman (2010) did not bring out the trend indicating the differences attributable to the younger generations. Although conventional knowledge holds that age has a positive correlation with organizational commitment, the results from the meta-analysis suggested that age was not a good indicator of organizational commitment. According to Meyer et al. (2002) and Ng & Feldman (2010), personal characteristics were the best antecedents of organizational commitment. Earlier, Ng & Feldman (2009) confirmed that while chronological age adds insignificant explanatory value in explaining the intention to leave an organization.
Other studies in the context of generational differences have explored work value differences between the generations. Wils, Saba, Waxin & Labelle (2013) showed that employees across the generations had almost similar work values. The study examined the structuring of work values prior to comparing the different generations and controlled for confounding factors while eliminating biases. Consequently, the study concluded that the “clash of generations” projected in speculative literature had no foundation. Additionally, while it is believed that values motivate behaviours, it should be acknowledged that factors such as normative pressure moderate the relationship (Saba, 2013).
1.2 Research problem
Generational conflicts in workplaces are likely to arise because of errors of perception and attribution rather than from valid reasons. Fundamentally, this relates to the ability and methods in which the generations handle information. In essence, this shows that communication plays a crucial role in the management of generational conflicts in modern organizations. While some studies propose aggressive communication in dealing with such issues, they fail to observe the differences in information handling behaviors among the generations. Aggressive communication may lead to passive aggression and hostility based on the information handling behaviour individual cohorts. Likewise, employees need to understand the reasons behind their search for information or asking questions. Generational differences may lead to the assumption that asking questions is a means of causing trouble in the organization or portrayal of disrespect to authority. While many studies have been conducted regarding generational differences, few have examined information handling behaviour among the generations, especially among the members of Generation Y. Consequently, it is essential to assess the information handling the behaviour of the members of Generation Y and its implications on organizational management.
1.3 Significance of the study
Researchers and managers are particularly interested in the members of Generation Y and its handling of information because the cohort will determine the behaviour of organizations in the near future. The paper reviews the information handling behaviour of Generation Y and its implications for firms, individuals, and the society. The paper will use a conceptual framework that will help in the understanding old the generation’s behaviour in handling information, its antecedents, and the consequences of the behaviours. Furthermore, the study will include a research agenda that could address the unanswered questions regarding the generation’s handling and use of information.
1.4 Study originality
The greatest challenge in many generational studies is that they are often cross-sectional in nature and fail to distinguish the effects of age versus the generational cohort. Few studies have used a longitudinal approach to distinguish the effects of the two factors or variables. The studies using the longitudinal approach confirm the existence of generationally enduring traits. Nevertheless, many studies discuss the characteristics of Generation Y in excessively broad and often extensive terms that ignore intra-generational differences. The paper will provide a conceptual framework that considers the antecedents and consequences of the Generation’s information handling behaviour on corporate structure and technology usage. Consequently, this marks its originality in answering questions regarding the generation’s use of information, which would offer appropriate insights to managers.
1.5 Research Objectives
The main objective of the study is to investigate the information handling behaviour of Generation Y members and the consequences it has on corporate structure and technology usage. Based on the research problem and the main objective, the study will seek to fulfil the following.
- To describe the generations based on the generation theory
- To critically analyse the general characteristics of Generation Y employees
- To assess the information handling behaviour before and in Generation Y
- To evaluate the consequences of changing information handling behaviour
- To propose new approaches of managing information handling behaviour in Generation Y employees
1.6 Organization of the study
The study is organized into five sections. The first section (Chapter 1) offers the background of the study with a general overview of the different generations. Additionally, the chapter states the research problem, the significance of the problem, the originality of the study, and the objectives of the study. The second section (Chapter 2) reviews the pertinent literature with a focus on Generation Y. In essence, the chapter focuses on the elements stated in the objectives of the study. The third section (Chapter 3) describes the methodology of used in the collection and analysis of information in the fulfilment of the study objectives. The fourth section (Chapter 4) discusses the results or the insights gathered from the process of data collection chosen. The last section (Chapter 5) concludes the study while also offering practical recommendations relative to the implications of the results on information handling on technology use and corporate image.