The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-8269.htm

A study on generational Generational

differences in
differences in work values work values
and person-organization fit and
its effect on turnover intention 1695

of Generation Y in India Received 31 October 2015

Revised 12 February 2016
Accepted 26 April 2016
Nitya Rani and Anand Samuel
VIT Business School, Vellore Institute of Technology, Chennai, India

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide an insight into differences in work values and
Person–Organisation (P–O) fit of Baby Boomers, Gen X and Gen Y in India and to understand the
relationship between (P–O) fit values and turnover intention of Generation Y employees.
Design/methodology/approach – The work values were measured using an adapted version of
Lyons Work Values scale. The generational differences in work values and P–O fit were studied using
multivariate analysis of variance and relationship between P–O fit values and turnover intention of Gen
Y employees was studied using polynomial regression and response surface methodology.
Findings – Significant differences in work values were observed between Generation Y and older
generations. Generation Y also reported significantly higher discrepancy in P–O fit values than
Generation X and Baby Boomers. This had an effect on their turnover intention.
Research limitations/implications – A cross-sectional design was used to study the generational
differences in work values where the generation effects may have been confounded with age effects.
Practical implications – The differences in work values and P–O fit values of Generation Y and
older generations provide input into designing organisation systems and structures more suitable for
younger generations to manage the high turnover among Generation Y in India.
Originality/value – This is one of the first studies on generational differences in work values and P–O
fit in the Indian context. It is also one of the first to investigate relationship between P–O fit and turnover
intention of Generation Y in India.
Keywords Generation Y, Turnover intention, Work values, Multigenerational workforce
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Managing the dynamics of a multigenerational workplace is a key challenge for
managers today. Most workplaces have three generations of workers – Baby Boomers,
Generation X and Generation Y. Each generation is characterised by unique abilities
and competencies, and leveraging them is key to an organisation’s success (Hernaus and
Vokic, 2014; Culpin et al., 2015; Kultalahti and Viitala, 2015; Rentz, 2014; Reuteman,
2015). With many studies on generational differences, and Generation Y in particular, Management Research Review
being done in Western countries, a question arises about the influence of national culture Vol. 39 No. 12, 2016
pp. 1695-1719
(Yi et al., 2015) and its impact on generational characteristics. With more than half of its © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2040-8269
population of over one billion aged less than 25 years, India is a young country. While DOI 10.1108/MRR-10-2015-0249
MRR many Western countries face the problems associated with an aging population, the
39,12 average age of Indians will be only 29 years by 2020. The IT industry in particular is
overwhelmingly Generation Y, with over 2 million people born after 1980 (NASSCOM,
2013). This large pool of new workers comes with a mindset that is very different from
that of earlier generations (Guillot-Soulez and Soulez, 2014). The difference in
approaches and attitudes to work can result in intergenerational conflict that
1696 compromises organisational performance (McGuire et al., 2007). To further understand
the Generation Y employee and how to manage intergenerational conflict, generational
differences must be considered. The most significant differences among generations are
related to work values (Lancaster and Stillman, 2002). Hence, to foster generational
synergy in the workplace, it is important for Indian managers to understand the
variations in value structures of the different generations. Understanding these
generational differences helps businesses develop policies to suit the needs of each
generation, which results in an inclusive workplace that celebrates individual
differences. This understanding also improves productivity and innovation in young
employees, who will soon fill managerial positions (Kupperschmidt, 2000; Lyons and
Kuron, 2013). Further, most organisations are run by older generations, which could
lead to a potential mismatch between the work values of Generation Y and the values of
the organisations, which could, in turn, lead to high turnover intention. The fit between
individuals and organisations has been shown to be an important factor influencing the
reasons why people are attracted to, are selected by and stay with organisations (Cable
and Judge, 1996, 1997; Chatman, 1991; Kristof, 1996; Schneider, 1987; Schneider et al.,
1998; Turban and Keon, 1993; Van Vianen, 2000). This paper aims to provide insight
into generational differences in work values and the person– organisation (P–O) value fit
of the three generations of workers in India and explore the relationship between the
P–O mismatch and turnover intention of Generation Y.

Theoretical background: generational theory

Generational theory was proposed by Mannheim (1952). According to this theory:
[…] belonging to the same generations or age group endows the individuals sharing in [it] with
a common location in the social and historical process, and thereby limit them to a specific
range of potential experiences, predisposing them for a certain characteristic mode of thought
and experience, and a characteristic type of historically relevant action (p. 291).
Therefore, a generation is defined by both its years of birth and a particular set of shared
social and economic conditions during their formative years. Two important elements
thus contribute to the term “generation”. First, a common location in historical time and,
second, a “distinct consciousness of that historical position shaped by the events and
experiences of that time” (Strauss et al., 1991). These two aspects give rise to a common
generational persona which makes people belonging to a generation similar in their
traits, thinking, values and beliefs. For instance, in the American context, the Generation
X that were born in 1965-1977 were shaped by both their birth years and events such as
Watergate scam and Vietnam War (Strauss et al., 1991).
Although empirical separations of different generations are often done on the basis of
age, generation and age are not conceptual equals. Age effects may be seen as increased
convergence at specific ages (Rhodes, 1983). This implies that age effects make
individual A more similar to B, as he reaches B’s age. In comparison, generational effects
may be seen as the relative divergence separating individuals at any given time or age
(Parry and Urwin, 2011). This means that despite aging, generational effects make Generational
individuals stay “fixed in qualitatively subjective areas” through the course of their differences in
lifetime due to their different outlooks (Scott, 2000, p. 356). Hence, a Baby Boomer and a
Generation Y-er may experience age-related changes, but their generational persona
work values
remains intact. Consequently, they exhibit dissimilar traits, thinking, values and beliefs
when they reach the same life stage. Therefore, a longitudinal and sequential cohort
design is more suitable to separate age and generational effects empirically (Twenge 1697
et al., 2010). Although people born on the cusp of a generation would not be expected to
act entirely different from a person born a mere year on the other side of the generational
divide (Meeks et al., 2013). Generational theory assumes that we can generalise cohort
differences to the mean cohort level of each generation, which allows us to better
understand and make predictions about the tendencies of prototypical individuals
(Twenge and Campbell, 2008).
A number of studies have used the mean cohort level and have found empirical
support for generational differences. Schuman and Scott (1989) examined one of the
underlying assumptions of generational theory that the events that occur during
individuals’ youth have maximum impact. They tested this assumption by asking 1,410
American citizens to name one or two national or world events which had been
especially important. They found consistent support for the hypothesis that the period
stretching from adolescence to early adulthood (Griffin, 2004) had the largest impact on
individuals’ memories (Schuman and Scott, 1989). Arsenault (2004) replicated these
findings adding support to generational theory. Several other studies have also
demonstrated generational differences based on shared social experiences, thus
validating the assumptions of generational theory (Strauss et al., 1991; Lancaster and
Stillman, 2005; Howe and Strauss, 2007; Dries et al., 2008). Even in a longitudinal study
on work values, it was found that work values were more influenced by generational
experiences rather than biological age (Smola and Sutton, 2002).

Formative experiences and characteristics of generations in India

While the influential work on generational theory by (Strauss et al. (1991) has been
validated in Anglo-American countries, recent research has extended this study in
many other non-Anglo-American countries. These include a number of studies in
European, Latin American, South African and Asian countries (Hirschi and Fischer,
2013; Zupan et al., 2015; Macedo, 2012; Chen and Kao, 2012; Lub et al., 2012; de Cooman
and Dries, 2012; Sillerud, 2011; Wils et al., 2011; Mboko, 2011; Infeld et al., 2010; Takase
et al., 2009; Hirschi, 2008; Porto and Tamayo, 2007). Generational theory was proven to
be valid in collectivistic societies such as Taiwan, Japan, China and Malaysia which are
culturally closer to India. (Hofstede, 1980). This gives credence to the applicability of
generational theory in India.
Socio-economically too India is similar to Brazil and China, as it is part of the BRIC
economies. These countries are developing countries with fast-growing economies
similar to India (O’Neill, 2011). Generational theory has been validated in these countries
also. As cultural and socioeconomic factors shape a generation’s personality, we believe
that generational theory can be applied in India.
Very few studies on generational theory exist in the Indian context. A single study by
Singh et al. (2011) explored the meaning of workplace for the Generation Y in India based
on a large-scale survey of 2,158 Millennials across India. Other Indian studies include
MRR corporate research reports that aim to gain insight into the Generation Y. For instance,
39,12 Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) (2014) undertook a survey in 2014-2015 to understand
the digital lifestyle of urban teens. Given the scarcity of research on the
multigenerational workforce in India, one important aim for this investigation is to
cross-validate the generational differences found in the Western countries in the Indian
context.
1698 Generational theory postulates that key historical and social life events influence the
way each generation thinks, acts and lives their lives (Kupperschmidt, 2000; Smola and
Sutton, 2002). Thus, the key formative events that shaped the three generations in India
are discussed below.
The Baby Boomers in India were brought up in times of economic hardship and
limited opportunities. Socio-economic status, including caste and religion, greatly
influenced these individuals’ life and career choices. The country was plagued with
many wars – the Sino-Indian War of 1962, the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 (Second
Kashmir War) and the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 (independence of Bangladesh). The
period was also marked by progress, such as the nationalisation of industries, public
investment in education and the green revolution, which enabled India to become
self-sufficient in feeding its population.
Generation X in India grew up at a slightly better time than Baby Boomers, with the
growth of the telecommunications, aerospace, software and IT industries. The period
was marked by the assassinations of Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi. Although caste
and religion still had influential roles in the people’s lives, education was made available
to the best and brightest. Success was linked with moving out of India, and around 75
per cent of graduates from the Indian Institute of Technology emigrated to the USA.
Generation Y grew up as the country became more prosperous through liberalisation
and reform policies. India became a huge source of IT talent, and by 2008, 34 Indian
companies were listed in the Forbes Global 2000 ranking. The members of this
generation thus have significant economic opportunities, are technologically capable
and have strong entrepreneurial skills. They are well-suited for global interaction
(Erickson, 2009).

Objectives
The purpose of this study is to address the generational differences in work values in
India. The objectives are to:
• reveal the underlying dimensions of Indian work values;
• determine whether there are differences in the work values of the three
generations in the Indian workforce;
• determine whether there are differences in the P–O fit of the three generations in
the Indian workforce; and
• analyse the relationship between the P–O fit and turnover intention of Generation
Y employees.

Generational differences in work values

Schwartz (1999, p. 2) defines values as “desirable states, objects, goals, or behaviors
transcending specific situations and applied as normative standards to judge and
choose among alternative modes of behavior”. Work values have a more specific
connotation. Super (1970) defines work values as the end values, such as satisfaction, Generational
quality or reward, that individuals seek from their work. differences in
Work values affect choices, attitudes and goals (Connor and Becker, 1975; Roe and work values
Ester, 1999) and are closely connected to motivation (Hitlin and Piliavin, 2004; Latham
and Pinder, 2005). Work values are an important consideration in the workplace because
they predict choices and actions (Rokeach, 1973), direct behaviour (Hitlin and Piliavin,
2004) and affect a number of organisation outcomes, such as judgement and 1699
decision-making, work effort, satisfaction, commitment and performance (Connor and
Becker, 1975; Frieze et al., 2006; Meglino and Ravlin, 1998; Meyer et al., 1998; Shapira and
Griffith, 1990; Judge and Bretz, 1992).
Various studies have validated the notion that work values vary across generations.
In their study comparing US work values between 1974 and 1999, Smola and Sutton
(2002) conclude that work values differed by generation. De Hauw and De Vos (2010)
also provide empirical validation of the generational hypothesis by exploring the
relative stability of work values from adulthood. They propose that work value remains
relatively stable from the onset of adulthood, despite life-changing events like an
economic turmoil. They compared two samples of Generation Y graduates (one
surveyed prior to 2006 and one after 2009 – the financial crisis) and found that the impact
of generational influence on work values was greater than the effect of the recession.
These findings thus indicate that generational effects exist and operate to influence
work values.
Socio-economic conditions play a role in influencing generational difference in work
values. Socialisation theory and the scarcity principle are the two phenomena that
explain this influence. First, socialisation theory says that an adult’s basic values reflect
the socioeconomic conditions of his childhood and adolescence. Second, the scarcity
principle says that the greatest subjective value is placed on those socioeconomic factors
that are in short supply during that specific generational cohort’s younger years
(Inglehart, 1997). Thus, each generation is likely to develop a distinct value system
based on the unique socioeconomic condition during their formative years. These value
orientations are said to remain relatively stable across the lifespan of the individual
(Meglino and Ravlin, 1998). This value system distinguishes each generation’s feelings
toward work and what they desire from work (Kupperschmidt, 2000). Subsequently,
individual’s belonging to different generations will hold different work values.
Generational differences in work values have been studied in various countries, as
described below (Lyons et al., 2015; Dries et al., 2008; Howe et al., 2000). However,
Schwartz (1999) examined work values in a cross-cultural study of 49 countries and
found different value profiles to emerge. This suggests that cultural context affects
work values. Hence, the strength and direction of predicted relations may differ in an
Indian setting. This research uses work values as classified by Lyons and Kuron (2013).

Intrinsic work values

Intrinsic values are associated with finding meaning and interest in one’s work. Various
studies have documented significant differences among the generations in terms of
intrinsic work values. Specifically, Generation X and Generation Y placed greater
importance on learning and pride in work knowledge and skills, than Baby Boomers
(Smola and Sutton, 2002; Amato and Herzfeldt, 2008; Real et al., 2010). In other studies,
MRR Baby Boomers were found to be significantly more concerned about learning
39,12 opportunities than Generation X (Jurkiewicz, 2000; Chen and Choi, 2008).

Instrumental and prestige work values

Instrumental work values refer to the materialistic attributes people may achieve from
their jobs. In most studies on generational differences in extrinsic work values,
1700 Generations X and Y rate extrinsic values, such as economic returns, status, prestige,
achievement and advancement opportunities, significantly higher than Baby Boomers
do (Chen and Choi, 2008; Cennamo and Gardner, 2008; Wong et al., 2008; Twenge and
Campbell, 2010; Ng et al., 2010). Members of Generation Y crave prestige and status in
their jobs, are frequently characterised as ambitious and impatient and have been
reported to expect immediate rewards, including praise, promotion and pay (Gursoy
et al., 2008; Ng et al., 2010).

Social work values

Social work values are interpersonal and relate to the need to belong; examples of social
work values include meaningful relationships with colleagues and workplace fun.
According to various studies, Generations X and Y are likely to place greater emphasis
on social work values than Baby Boomers do (Altimier, 2006; Wong et al., 2008; Lamm
and Meeks, 2009; Real et al., 2010; Ng et al., 2010). Therefore, we propose the following:
H1. There will be significant differences between the work values of Generation Y
and older generations in India.

Person– organisation fit

Like generations that hold particular sets of work values, organisations also possess and
communicate values (Miller and Yu, 2003). Kristof (1996) undertook an integrative
review of conceptualisations, measurements and implications of P–O fit, and defines
P–O fit as the “compatibility between people and organisations that occurs when at least
one entity provides what the other needs or they share similar fundamental
characteristics or both” (pp. 4-5) The basic premise of P–O fit is that the relationship
between a person and their work environment influences their attitudes, behaviour and
other person-level outcomes (Westerman and Vanka, 2005). P–O value fit is related to
organisationally relevant outcomes such as job satisfaction, commitment and turnover
(Dawis and Lofquist, 1984; Cooper-Thomas et al., 2004; Westerman and Cyr, 2004).
Kristof (1996) distinguishes between four types of fit: P–O fit, person–vocation fit,
person– group fit and person–job fit. The focus of the present study is on P–O fit. Among
the various dimensions that have been studied in the context of supplementary fit, value
congruence has been found to be the most suitable predictor of important outcomes such
as commitment, organisational identification, job satisfaction, citizenship behaviour
and intention to quit (Schneider, 1987; Chatman, 1991; O’Reilly et al., 1991; Schneider
et al., 1995; Kristof, 1996; Saks and Ashforth, 1997; Werbel and DeMarie, 2005; Cable and
Edwards, 2004; Lara, 2008). This study uses a supplies-values perspective of fit, which
occurs when the organisation supplies values that satisfy an individual’s values
(Edwards, 2002; Kristof, 1996). Most organisations are run by Baby Boomers and
Generation X employees (Rigoni and Adkins, 2015). Usually, they are the most
influential members of any organisation, and the values and culture of the organisation
are set by them (Schein, 1992). This could lead to a mismatch between the values of
Generation Y employees and the values that organisations possess and communicate Generational
(Miller and Yu, 2003). differences in
Most of Generation Y’s values are driven by a sense of entitlement of rewards
irrespective of their actual performance levels. Several studies attest to the fact that
work values
Generation Y have an increased sense of entitlement. Increased narcissism among
members of Generation Y is a major cause of this sense of entitlement (Twenge et al.,
2008). Even Generation Y students demonstrate a sense of entitlement to good grades 1701
that is unrelated to their academic abilities (Greenberger et al., 2008). Ng et al. (2010) also
found that the career goals and expectations of Generation Y were unrealistic and
disconnected between reward and performance. Consequently, heightened levels of
entitlement can be problematic in the workplace, as it leads to conflict, abusive
behaviour, job frustration and low job satisfaction levels (Harvey and Martinko, 2009;
Harvey and Harris, 2010). This sense of entitlement is an important characteristic that
causes Generation Y to perceive a mismatch between their expectations and rewards in
their workplace.
There is also a significant difference between the working styles of Generation Y and
older generations. Baby Boomers are loyal, idealistic and value on-job security and a
stable working environment (Smola and Sutton, 2002). Compared to Baby Boomers who
respect authority, Generation X-ers are sceptical and unimpressed with authority (Hart,
2006). Their approach to work has been characterised as one that values a strong work–
life balance (Howe et al., 2000), whereby personal values and goals are likely to be
regarded as more important than work-related goals. On the other hand, Generation Y
employees are job-hoppers (Twenge and Campbell, 2010). They have come of age in a
digital universe with the internet at the forefront and are digital natives (Feiertag and
Berge, 2008). When compared to older generations, Generation Y are more effective in
some arenas, like multitasking, responding to visual stimulation and filtering
information. However, they are less adept in terms of face-to-face interaction and
deciphering nonverbal cues (Smola and Sutton, 2002). These differences in working
styles may eventually contribute to a misfit between the expectations of Generation Y
and the reality of the workplace run by Baby Boomers and Generation X.
Thus, most organisations are run by older generations who have a conflicting value
system and working styles with Generation Y. Additionally, Generation Y feel entitled
towards organisational benefits which would cause them to perceive a mismatch
between their values/expectations and the rewards that the organisation provides.
Hence, we posit that:
H2. Generation Y will report a significantly higher discrepancy between personal
and organisational work values, compared to Generation X and Baby Boomers.

Generation Y’s work value fit and turnover intention

Work values are important criteria among the different characteristics that individuals
look for in an organisation (Verquer et al., 2003; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). There is high
value-goal congruence when the work values of the organisation match individual
values (Chatman, 1991). This value congruence can be conceptualised in terms of reward
expectations match. The values of an individual determine the kind of rewards an
individual expects from the organisation (Kristof, 1996). Congruently, an organisation
designs its reward system based on its own values (Schein, 1992). Therefore, a
discrepancy between an individual’s expectations and the organisation’s reward
MRR produces dissonance or strain which in turn causes employee turnover (Festinger, 1957;
39,12 Verquer et al., 2003; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). Generation Y employees have greater
expectations than the older generations and are also more likely to leave jobs when their
expectations are not met (Corporate Leadership Council, 2005; Twenge, 2006; Wong
et al., 2008; Howe and Vos, 2010).
The relationship between value congruence and turnover intention can be explained
1702 by the attraction–selection–attrition model. This model explains how individuals are
attracted to organisations which match their individual characteristics and seek
employment with these organisations. Organisations in turn tend to select individuals
who are most similar to them (Schneider, 2001). According to this theory, when
organisations and individuals are attracted to each other, it results in a job offer and job
acceptance (Van Vianen, 2000; Wheeler et al., 2005). The employee remains with the job
as long as the organisation and employee remain mutually attracted. When this
attraction lessens due to work reward discrepancy, then dissonance is introduced
(Schneider, 1987; Schneider et al., 1995) leading to turnover intention.
Current research shows that this dissonance between personal and organisational
work values has a quadratic relationship with turnover intention. Porfeli and Mortimer
(2010) discuss this relationship using the analogy of a rubber band. They show that the
discrepancy between a value and the reward obtained is similar to the extension of a
rubber band, and dissonance is indicated by the strain in the band. While the
discrepancies are small, there is an unnoticeable dissonance. However, there is an
exponential increase in dissonance when discrepancies grow larger. Hence, a quadratic
function best explains the relationship between value-reward discrepancies and
turnover intention. This quadratic model has support in empirical research (Kluger
et al., 1994).
The discrepancy between value and reward may be of two types. First, when a
worker obtains lesser than expected reward, he perceives a work reward deficit. Second,
a work reward surplus may be perceived when rewards exceed expectations. Unlike a
surplus which may bring about greater satisfaction, work reward deficit is usually
detrimental. This detrimental effect holds true for intrinsic, extrinsic and prestige values
(Porfeli and Mortimer, 2010). However, in the case of social values, work reward surplus
can also become aversive (Harrison, 1978). This is because a highly affiliative workplace
may interfere with an individual’s need for privacy.
The relationship between work value discrepancy and turnover intention is
relevant for Generation Y due to their high career mobility. When compared to older
generations, Generation Y employees have significantly lower commitment and
higher turnover intention (Lub et al., 2012; Twenge and Campbell, 2010; Lyons,
2012). One reason for their high career mobility is unmet expectations. When they do
not see the quick rewards at one firm, Millennials will move to an employer that
provides greater opportunities (Twenge, 2006; Lyons, 2012). Therefore, the
discrepancies between personal and organisational work values are expected to
have several implications for turnover intention of Generation Y employees, and it is
thus proposed that:
H3. Turnover intention will be higher when organisational intrinsic rewards are
lesser than personal intrinsic values, as opposed to when organisational
intrinsic values exceed personal intrinsic values.
 H4. Turnover intention will be higher when organisational extrinsic rewards are Generational
lesser than personal extrinsic values, as opposed to when organisational differences in
extrinsic rewards exceed personal extrinsic values.
work values
H5. Turnover intention will be higher when organisational prestige values are
lesser than personal prestige values, as opposed to when organisational prestige
values exceed personal prestige values.
1703
H6. Turnover intention will decrease as organisational social values increase
towards personal social values, and increase as organisational social values
exceed personal social values.

Method
Data were collected from 800 members of various organisations across India. After
deleting the outliers, 779 responses remained. The members were identified using a
snowball sampling technique, and the questionnaire took about 15 min to complete.
Work values were measured using Lyons’ (2003) Work Values Survey (LWVS). This
survey comprised 25 items on a five-point Likert scale. This instrument was chosen
because it reconciles previous theory while reflecting recent developments in the field of
work values and has been validated in a large Canadian sample (Lyons et al., 2010). For
each value, respondents were asked to:
• “Indicate how important each item is to you in deciding whether to accept a job or
remain in a job” (to provide personal values, or P values).
• “Indicate the extent to which your organisation provides you with each item” (a
measure of perceived organisational values, or O values).

Responses were on the same five-point scale. P–O value fit was measured indirectly, and
at the individual level (Kristof, 1996). O values were subtracted from P values to create
discrepancy scores. A positive difference indicated that organisational supplies did not
meet individual values, while a negative score indicated that values supplied by the
organisation exceeded individual values (Verquer et al., 2003). The intention to leave the
organisation was measured by three items, following Mobley’s (1982) definition.
There is a discrepancy in the birth dates of different generations reported by various
studies. For example, Baby Boomers’ birth years are reported to begin anywhere from
1940 to 1946, and end in 1960 through 1964; Generation X-ers’ birth years are reported to
begin somewhere in the early 1960s and end in 1975 through 1982 (Kupperschmidt,
2000; Smola and Sutton, 2002). Based on a review of recent generation-related literature
(Lyons and Kuron, 2013; Laird et al., 2015), this study adopts Smola and Sutton’s (2002)
generation classifications (i.e. Baby Boomers: 1946-1964; Generation X: 1965-1977; and
Generation Y, born after 1977) for the following discussion and analysis.

Results and discussion

Among the participants, 176 were Baby Boomers, 272 belonged to Generation X and 331
to Generation Y. The biggest proportion of the sample worked in the industries in
private sector (58.2 per cent), while 24 per cent worked in government offices, and 17 per
cent were in the education industry. About 73 per cent of the respondents were male, and
the majority of the respondents were married (56 per cent). To ensure the validity of the
LWVS in the Indian context, the underlying structure was analysed using exploratory
MRR factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Data were randomly
39,12 divided into two sub-samples, which were deemed large enough for separate analysis
(Tabachnick and Fidell, 2013). Data from the first sample (N ⫽ 388) were analysed using
the EFA. Principal component analysis using Promax rotation was performed to
explore the underlying dimensions of these 15 work values. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin
measuring of sample adequacy (0.88) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity (sig. 0.000)
1704 supported the use of factor analysis. The factor analysis resulted in a four-dimension
solution with 34.545 per cent of variance explained by the components. Items with
loadings lower than 0.35 and cross-loadings greater than 0.2 were omitted. Based on the
commonality within-item groupings, the four dimensions were labelled: intrinsic,
extrinsic, prestige and social. The four dimensions reported Cronbach’s ␣ scores
(Nunnally, 1978), ranging from 0.615 to 0.78, which were deemed “adequate” (Table I).
CFA was used to examine the goodness of fit of the four-factor structure derived from
the EFA, using data from the second subsample (N ⫽ 391). CFA results indicated that
the 15-item, four-factor model fit the data adequately (CMIN/df ⫽ 2.08; root mean square
error of approximation ⫽ 0.053; CFI ⫽ 0.935) with all items loading above 0.7 on their
work values, thus confirming the content validity of the four-factor solution (Figure 1).
In accordance with Cramer and Bock (1966), to help protect against inflating the
Type 1 error rate in the follow-up analysis of variance (ANOVAs) and post hoc
comparisons, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was first performed on the
means. MANOVA is a dependence technique that measures the differences for two or
more metric dependent variables based on a set of categorical (non-metric) variables
acting as independent variables (Hair, 2010). Pearson correlations were performed
between all of the dependent variables to test the MANOVA assumption that the

Factors
Mean SD Intrinsic Extrinsic Prestige Social Communalities

Continuously learn 3.54 1.16 0.727 0.509

Challenge 3.4 1.07 0.561 0.417
Recognition 3.48 1.1 0.401 0.418
Feedback 3.33 1.08 0.395 0.306
Use abilities 3.34 1.04 0.395 0.318
Job security 3.7 1.18 0.723 0.509
Hours of work 3.47 1.09 0.474 0.286
Salary 3.76 1.03 0.473 0.225
Freedom 3.31 1.06 0.468 0.339
Influence 3.16 1.06 0.694 0.525
Achievement 3.35 1.08 0.585 0.447
Advancement 3.53 1.07 0.487 0.366
Variety 3.15 1.11 0.381 0.295
Fun 3.32 1.16 0.74 0.616
Co-workers 3.43 1.04 0.432 0.258
Eigenvalue 5.255 1.521 1.183 1.029
% of variance 23.162 4.52 2.998 2.201
Table I. Cronbach’s ␣ 0.728 0.618 0.654 0.615
Exploratory factor
analysis (N ⫽ 388) Notes: Extraction method: principal component analysis; rotation method: Promax
 Generational
differences in
work values

1705

Figure 1.
Confirmatory factor
analysis model

dependent variables would be correlated with each other in the moderate range [i.e.
0.20-0.60 (Meyers et al., 2006)]. As can be seen in Table II, a meaningful pattern of
correlations was observed among most of the dependent variables, suggesting the
appropriateness of a MANOVA. Additionally, the Box’s M value of 39.855 was
associated with a p-value of 0.06, which was interpreted as non-significant based on
Huberty and Petoskey’s (2000) guideline (i.e. p ⬍ 0.005). Thus, the covariance matrices
between the groups were assumed to be equal for the purposes of the MANOVA.
As gender and marital status may have an effect on work values, a between-subjects
MANOVA was conducted to test the hypothesis that there would be one or more mean

Cognitive Instrumental Prestige Social Mean SD

Intrinsic 1 3.4539 0.72351 Table II.

Extrinsic 0.517** 1 3.3718 0.7041 Pearson correlations,
Prestige 0.607** 0.452** 1 3.3177 0.72372 means and standard
Social 0.431** 0.337** 0.371** 1 3.3703 0.89658 deviations associated
with the work values
Notes: N ⫽ 779; ** correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) subscales
MRR differences between members of different generations (Generation Y, Generation X and
39,12 Baby Boomers) and work values scores. There were no significant main effects or
interaction effects for gender or marital status. A statistically significant MANOVA
effect was obtained for each generation: Pillai’s Trace ⫽ 0.053, F(8,1548) ⫽ 5.285, p ⬍
0.001. The multivariate effect size was estimated at 0.027, which implies that 2.7 per cent
of the variance in the canonically derived dependent variable was accounted for by
1706 generation group.
Prior to conducting a series of follow-up ANOVAs, the homogeneity of variance
assumption was tested for all four work values subscales. The homogeneity of variance
assumption was considered satisfied using Levene’s F test. A series of one-way
ANOVAs on each of the four dependent variables was conducted as follow-up tests to
the MANOVA. As can be seen in Table III, the ANOVAs associated with all four work
values were statistically significant, with effect sizes (partial ␩2) ranging from 0.008 to
0.036.
Finally, a series of post hoc analyses (Fisher’s LSD) were performed to examine
individual mean difference comparisons across all three generations and all four work
values subscales. The results revealed that all post hoc mean comparisons between
Generation Y and other generations were statistically significant (p ⬍ 0.05), thus
supporting H1; however, there were no statistically significant differences between the
work value preferences of Generation X and Baby Boomers (Table IV).
A statistically significant MANOVA effect was also obtained for discrepancies
between personal and organisational work values by generation: Pillai’s Trace ⫽ 0.023,
F(8, 1,548) ⫽ 2.2225, p ⬍ 0.05. The post hoc tests revealed that the mean comparisons of
discrepancy scores of intrinsic, extrinsic and prestige values of Generation Y and other
generations were statistically significant (p ⬍ 0.05), with the older generations reporting
lower discrepancy on all work values. No significant differences were found on social

Mean Mean Mean

Work values F Baby Boomers SD Generation X SD Generation Y SD
Table III.
Results of Intrinsic 13.99* 3.27 0.689 3.39 0.695 3.6 0.735
generational Extrinsic 3.10* 3.33 0.675 3.37 0.803 3.44 0.72
differences in work Prestige 14.46* 3.32 0.728 3.23 0.714 3.47 0.715
values as measured Social 9.538* 3.15 0.699 3.31 0.699 3.53 0.909
by the lyons work
values survey Notes: * p ⬍ 0.01; df (between groups) ⫽2; df (within groups)⫽ 776

Generation Y Generation X Baby boomers

(n ⫽ 331) (n ⫽ 272) (n ⫽ 176)
Discrepancy scores Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

1. Intrinsic 0.139* 0.81562 0.000 0.77087 0.0091 0.71420

Table IV. 2. Social ⫺0.0559 1.08532 ⫺0.0559 0.94810 ⫺0.0559 1.01312
Mean differences in 3. Prestige 0.1692* 0.79801 0.0009 0.75399 ⫺0.0554 0.77973
P–O values 4. Extrinsic 0.2047* 0.83111 0.0119 0.83517 0.0142 0.72836
discrepancy scores
between groups Note: * Significantly different at p ⬍ 0.05
values. Hence, H2 was partially supported. There were no statistically significant Generational
differences between the discrepancy values of Generation X and Baby Boomers. differences in
Polynomial regression analysis was used to examine the relationship between P–O
fit on work values and turnover intention (Edwards and Parry, 1993). Polynomial
work values
regression analysis tests the complex relationship between personal and organisational
values, as well as the joint effects of such values on employees’ turnover intention. The
general expression for the equation used to test the effects of P–O fit on employee 1707
outcomes is as follows:

Z ⫽ b0 ⫹ b1X ⫹ b2Y ⫹ b3X 2 ⫹ b4XY ⫹ b5 Y 2 ⫹ e

where Z ⫽ turnover intention; X ⫽ individual’s work values; Y ⫽ organisation’s work

values.
The results of the polynomial regression were plotted using response surface
analysis, resulting in a three-dimensional view of the relationships between personal
and organisation work values and turnover intention (Edwards and Parry, 1993;
Shanock et al., 2010) (Figures 2-5) (Table V).
H3 is supported by the upward slope along the P ⫽ ⫺O line (i.e. a positive and
significant value for b1 – b2 ⫽ 0.34, p ⬍ 0.05). This indicates that the direction of the
discrepancy between organisational and personal intrinsic values matters. Specifically,

Figure 2.
P–O fit of intrinsic
work values and
turnover intention

Figure 3.
P–O fit of extrinsic
work values and
turnover intention
MRR turnover intention is higher when the direction of the discrepancy is such that personal
39,12 intrinsic values exceed organisational intrinsic rewards. This implies that people
experience greater intent to leave an organisation when their expectations of intrinsic
rewards are not supplied by the organisation than when the organisation supplies
intrinsic rewards that exceed their expectations. Similar results were obtained for
extrinsic (b1 – b2 ⫽ 0.36, p ⬍ 0.05) and prestige values (b1 – b2 ⫽ 0.38, p ⬍ 0.05). This
1708 implies that people experience greater intent to leave an organisation when their
expectations of extrinsic rewards and prestige values are not met by the organisation,
thus supporting H4 and H5. H6 is supported by a positive (i.e. upward) curvature along
the P ⫽ ⫺O line (b3 – b4 ⫹ b5 ⫽ ⫺0.24, p ⬍ 0.05). To illustrate the finding, Figure 5
shows the estimated surfaces for personal and organisational social values and turnover
intention. Along the P ⫽ ⫺O line, turnover intention has a curvilinear relationship with

Figure 4.
P–O fit of prestige
work values and
turnover intention

Figure 5.
P–O fit of social
work values and
turnover intention

(P ⫽ O line) (P ⫽ ⫺O line)
Work values b1 ⫹ b2 b3 ⫹ b4 ⫹ b5 b1 ⫺ b2 b3 ⫺ b4 ⫹ b5

1. Intrinsic ⫺0.26 ⫺0.09 0.34* 0.16

Table V. 2. Social ⫺0.22* ⫺0.01 0.18 0.24*
Response surface 3. Prestige ⫺0.52* 0.18* 0.38* 0.31
features for P–O fit 4. Extrinsic ⫺0.19 ⫺0.13 0.36* 0.19
and turnover
intention Note: * Significant at p ⬍ 0.05
personal and organisational social values (i.e. U-shaped). Specifically, turnover intention Generational
decreased as social values supplied by the organisation increased towards personal differences in
social values (i.e. the difference between organisational and personal social becomes
smaller), and then increased when social values supplied by the organisation exceeded
work values
personal social values. These results suggest that employees with low social values
working in a highly social organisation, as well as employees with high social values
working in an organisation with low social values, may experience high turnover 1709
intention.

Theoretical implications
Given the scarcity of research on the multigenerational workforce in India, one
important aim for this investigation was to enhance generalisation of the generational
differences found in the Western organisational context to cultures outside of the USA,
and cross-validate the results in an Indian context. This study provides insight into P–O
fit as an explanation for the high turnover of Generation Y employees. Thus, our results
support the findings of Cennamo and Gardner (2008) that older generations report
higher levels of P–O fit than Generation Y employees do. The most important
implication of our findings is the joint effect of personal and organisational work values
on turnover intention, which shows that the fit and mismatch between organisational
and personal work values significantly affect the employees’ turnover intention.
Specifically, we found that as the intrinsic rewards supplied by the organisation
increased more than the expectations of the individual, turnover intention decreased.
The same trend was observed for extrinsic rewards and prestige values. These findings
suggest that the levels of Ps and Os significantly affect turnover intention. Various
studies have documented the high expectation of Generation Y employees regarding
intrinsic, extrinsic and prestige work values. This study also shows that Generation Y
employees rated all work values higher than older generations did, which indicates their
high expectations. Hence, the reward systems in place in organisations may be suitable
for older employees but may cause a significant mismatch, and consequently higher
turnover intention, for generation Y employees. Turnover intention decreases, as
organisational social values increase towards personal social values, and increase as
organisational social values exceed personal social values. This could be explained by
“interference”, whereby excess supplies on one-dimension interfere with needs-supplies
fit on another. Harrison (1978) illustrates this principle using contact with co-workers,
whereby supplies that exceed a person’s need for affiliation can interfere with their need
for privacy.
These results support and extend the current P–O fit research by examining fit
dimensions for a new employee group (i.e. Generation Y). Thus, our study advances the
existing knowledge of Generation Y’s reaction to the values of their organisations.

Managerial implications
This study offers practical implications on three fronts. The first important outcome of
this study was to provide an understanding of generational differences in work values in
India. With 58 per cent of human resource professionals reporting conflict among
employees as a result of generational differences (Society for Human Resources
Management, 2004), this understanding of the generational differences in an Indian
context will help professionals deal with such conflicts. It is recommended that
MRR organisations must be prepared to use generational diversity as an opportunity to
39,12 benefit the business in the long term. This can be done by aligning business goals with
the values of each generation so that employees within each generation are able to work
in synergy. McGuire et al. (2007) states that organisations must seek to optimise the
talents of all age groups by reconcile differences in the workplace. It is thus essential to
educate and develop employees to use this generational diversity for individual and
1710 organisational advantage. This will help create new organisational cultures that value
and optimise generational diversity.
One such tool that helps create cultures of intergenerational understanding is reverse
mentoring. Reverse mentoring is where the protégé shares their technological
knowledge to senior employees, and in return older employees gives administrative and
managerial training to the young employees. This may thus help in opening a dialogue
among members of different generations and promoting understanding of each others’
value system (Koster, 2013) while exchanging skills and knowledge. Further, training
employees on reducing intergenerational conflict and training leaders to effectively lead
younger generation of employees would be useful in managing the dynamics of the
multigenerational workforce.
The second important outcome of this study was to provide an insight into the values
and expectations of the Generation Y employees in India. These expectations were
grouped into four different work values. Results on intrinsic work values show that the
Generation Y employees value regular and consistent feedback and recognition. Thus, it
becomes important for superiors to provide instant feedback honestly and to have a
good rapport with the younger employees (Cennamo and Gardner, 2008; Gibson et al.,
2009; Lowe et al., 2008; Reynolds et al., 2008). Consequently, regular and informal
feedback may prove more beneficial than a traditional yearly performance appraisal
meeting.
Challenging jobs was also found to motivate the Generation Y intrinsically. They
look for jobs that that provide opportunities to use their abilities. It is thus recommended
that organisations look to provide Generation Y with jobs that are challenging and
involve greater responsibility (Plew, 2013). Opportunities for continuous learning and
development were also a part of the expectations of Generation Y. Thus, organisations
must act as a platform for their growth and improvement. Strategies such as Web-based
training, workshops, job shadowing, temporary assignments and functional moves
could help create an environment of continuous learning and development (Terjesen
et al., 2007).
Further, with regards to prestige values, Generation Y indicate the need to be
influential in their workplace. A participative decision-making style where their
opinions are considered is highly valued. Hence, they seek a participative leader who
respects their views, listen to them and is flexible in accepting their opinions (Beck and
Wade, 2004). Consequently, Generation Y’s preferred leadership would be more
consensus than command and more participative than hierarchical (McCrindle, 2010).
While considering the social values of Generation Y, it becomes important to create a
workplace that emphasises social relationships. Thus, organisations must focus on
creating a fun and exciting atmosphere at work (Rai, 2012). Organisations must invest in
facilities such as breakout areas, creative rooms and even sleep rooms which energise
them (Weyland, 2011). The use of technology cannot be overlooked to help Generation Y
maintain social connections. Social media has become a vital source for internal
communication between the employees in an organisation (Rai, 2012). Further, using Generational
tools such as company blogs and internet bulletin boards would not only help in better differences in
communication with the Generation Y but also satisfy their expectations regarding
technology use. It has also been suggested that due to their social nature, they would
work values
prefer to work in teams and collaborate through text messaging, instant messaging and
blogging with their peers (Skiba, 2006).
To cater to Generation Y’s expectations of extrinsic rewards, a quick and 1711
personalised reward system is recommended. Rewards that are easy to deliver, quickly
obtainable, easily customizable and meet individual desires are most effective. For
instance, rewards such as a food delivery service, a spa experience or a charitable
donation would be valuable. Generation Y also expect freedom and flexibility to do their
work in their own way and at their own pace (Martin, 2005). Providing autonomy in their
work to make their choice of when and where to work is critical (Weyland, 2011). Thus,
initiatives such as flexible working conditions result only work environments (ROWE)
and incentives such as extra vacation time would suit the younger generation.
The third outcome of the study was with regards to –P–O fit. Generation Y reported
the highest mismatch between personal and organisational work values. This
discrepancy between an individual’s work values and workplace norms may result in
decreased job satisfaction, withdrawal from work through absenteeism and tardiness
and an increase in employees’ intention to leave (Schneider, 1987; Chatman, 1991;
O’Reilly et al., 1991; Kristof, 1996; Saks and Ashforth, 1997; Werbel and DeMarie, 2005;
Cable and Edwards, 2004; Lara, 2008).
Given the complex patterns of employee reaction to organisational work values,
managers should not assume that more rewards (intrinsic and extrinsic) and higher
prestige and social values will result in higher employee retention. What matters most is
the feature of fit between employees’ individual work values and organisational work
values. Thus, managers should be aware of generational differences in terms of reacting
to organisational work values. In addition, our findings suggest that organisations need
to be strategic while communicating organisational work values to Generation Y
employees. This also means that managers need to be selective in hiring employees for
their organisation in order to ensure that employees actually “fit” with the company
culture.
The role of realistic job previews is especially important in communicating the
organisation’s values and deciding the “fit” of prospective employees. Various methods
may be used to give prospective employees a realistic job preview. These could include
providing a probationary hiring period, a realistic internship, job shadow, etc.
Organisations such as L’Oréal and Disney, use internships as one of the primary ways
of recruiting young talents. The interns are given serious responsibilities and
encouraged to participate in everyday work (Fields, 2008). This helps the interns assess
the organisation and creates realistic expectations regarding the workplace. Past
research also offers suggestions to effectively managing P–O fit, such as altering
communications and management practices, and providing cafeteria-style incentives,
training and mentoring programs (Deal, 2008).
Although value congruence should remain an important practical consideration,
results of study conducted by Edwards and Cable (2009) on the mediators of relationship
between value congruence and organisational outcomes suggest that the potential
benefits of value congruence might be obtained by implementing strategies that directly
MRR impact the key mediators of value congruence effects, as opposed to value congruence
39,12 itself. The outcomes of their research suggest that trust carried much of the relationship
between value congruence and outcomes. Hence, they suggest that managers must
invest in initiatives that focus directly on increasing trust. Such initiatives could include
clarifying reasons behind decisions made in the organisation, holding frequent meetings
between employees and senior management and ensuring that performance
1712 management processes are fair (Mayer and Davis, 1999). Likewise, they found that
communication is partly responsible for value congruence effects. Accordingly,
managers could achieve some of the benefits of value congruence by ensuring that
organisational communication is regular, open and consistent.

Limitations
One of the main limitations of this study is that all data were self-reported and collected
at a single point in time, raising questions about inflated inter-item correlations because
of common method variance, in which variance is attributable to the measurement
source rather than to the constructs that the measures represent (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
To examine this problem, we conducted Harman’s one-factor analysis, in which a
general factor is found if most variables are related. The result shows that variables
differ from one another, which indicates that the common method bias is not serious.
Further, the use of a cross-sectional study in understanding generational differences is
questionable because of the confounding effects of age. A longitudinal study may be
better suited for an in-depth examination of generational differences.

Conclusion
This study provides interesting implications for work values research, as well as
research on a multigenerational workforce. The differences in work values of
Generation Y and other generations, as documented by this study, suggest that
managers must be prepared to deal with a new breed of workers with a range of work
values. By understanding the specific drivers of a generational cohort, human resources
professionals, career counsellors and managers can develop policies aimed at improving
communication, satisfaction, commitment and retention, and advance organisational
knowledge management and productivity. Future studies may focus on industry-
specific patterns of P–O fit and turnover intention. Instead of considering the high
turnover of Generation Y as an unfortunate characteristic of this generation, this study
seeks to probe the underlying cause of such behaviour by examining the implications of
the P–O mismatch between the work values of Generation Y and the organisation.

References
Altimier, L. (2006), “Leading a new generation. Newborn and infant”, Nursing Reviews, Vol. 1,
pp. 7-9.
Amato, A.D. and Herzfeldt, R. (2008), “Learning orientation, organizational commitment and
talent retention across generations”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 8,
pp. 929-953.
Arsenault, P.M. (2004), “Validating generational differences: a legitimate diversity and leadership
issue”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 124-141.
Beck, J.C. and M. Wade (2004), Got Game: How the Gamer Generation is Reshaping Business
Forever, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Cable, D.M. and Edwards, J.R. (2004), “Complementary and supplementary fit: a theoretical and Generational
empirical integration”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89, pp. 822-834.
differences in
Cable, D.M. and Judge, T.A. (1996), “Person– organization fit, job choice decisions, and
organizational entry”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 67,
work values
pp. 294-311.
Cable, D.M. and Judge, T.A. (1997), “Interviewers’ perceptions of person– organization fit and
organizational selection decisions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 4, pp. 546-561. 1713
Cennamo, L. and Gardner, D. (2008), “Generational differences in work values, outcomes and
person-organisation values fit”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 8,
pp. 891-906.
Chatman, J.A. (1991), “Matching people and organizations: selection and socialization in public
accounting firms”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 459-484.
Chen, C.H.V. and Kao, R.H. (2012), “Work values and service-oriented organisational citizenship
behaviours: the mediation of psychological contract and professional commitment: a case of
students in Taiwan Police College”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 107, pp. 149-169.
Chen, P.J. and Choi, Y. (2008), “Generational differences in work values: a study of hospitality
management”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 20
No. 6, pp. 595-615.
Connor, P.E. and Becker, B.W. (1975), “Values and the organization: suggestions for research”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 18, pp. 550-561.
Cooper-Thomas, H.D., van Vianen, A. and Anderson, N. (2004), “Changes in person– organization
fit: the impact of socialization tactics on perceived and actual P–O fit”, European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 52-78.
Cramer, E.M. and Bock, R.D. (1966), “Multivariate analysis”, Review of Educational Research,
Vol. 36, pp. 604-617.
Culpin, V., Millar, C. and Peters, K. (2015), “Multi-generational frames of reference: managerial
challenges of four social generations in the organization”, Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 1.
Dawis, R.V. and Lofquist, L.H. (1984), A Psychological Theory of Work Adjustment: An
Individual-differences Model and its Applications, University of Minnesota Press,
Minneapolis, MN.
De Cooman, R. and Dries, N. (2012), “e-Attracting Generation Y: how work values predict
organizational attraction in graduating students in Belgium”, in Ng, E.S., Lyons, S. and
Schweitzer, L. (Eds), Managing the New Workforce, pp. 44-63.
De Hauw, S. and De Vos, A. (2010), “Millennials’ career perspective and psychological contract
expectations: does the recession lead to lowered expectations?”, Journal of Business and
Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 293-302.
Deal, J.J. (2008), “Retiring the generation gap: how employees young & old can find common
ground”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 202-205.
Dries, N., Pepermans, R. and De Kerpel, E. (2008), “Exploring four generations’ beliefs about
career”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 907-928.
Edwards, J.R. (2002), “Alternatives to difference scores: polynomial regression analysis and
response surface methodology”, in Drasgow, F. and Schmitt, N.W. (Eds), Advances in
Measurement and Data Analysis, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 350-400.
Edwards, J.R. and Cable, D.M. (2009), “The value of value congruence”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 3, pp. 654-677.
MRR Edwards, J.R. and Parry, M.E. (1993), “On the use of polynomial regression equations as an
alternative to difference scores in organizational research”, Academy of Management
39,12 Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 1577-1613.
Erickson, T. (2009), “Generational differences between India and the US”, Harvard Business
Review, available at: https://hbr.org/2009/02/global-generations-focus-on-in (accessed 4
August 2015).
1714 Feiertag, J. and Berge, Z.L. (2008), “Training generation N: how educators should approach the Net
Generation”, Education ⫹ Training, Vol. 50 No. 6, pp. 457-464.
Festinger, L. (1957), A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Fields, B. (2008), “10 strategies for attracting generation Y as employees into your company”,
available at: www.4hoteliers.com/features/article/3465 (accessed 11 February 2016).
Frieze, I., Olson, J., Murrell, A. and Selvan, M. (2006), “Work values and their effect on work
behavior and work outcomes in female and male managers”, Sex Roles, Vol. 54 No. 1,
pp. 83-93.
Gibson, J., Greenwood, R. and Murphy, E. (2009), “Generational differences in the workplace:
personal values, behaviors, and popular beliefs”, Journal of Diversity Management, Vol. 4
No. 3, pp. 1-7.
Greenberger, E., Lessard, J., Chen, C. and Farruggia, S. (2008), “Self-entitled college students:
contributions of personality, parenting, and motivational factors”, Journal of Youth
Adolescence, Vol. 37 No. 10, pp. 1193-1204.
Griffin, L.J. (2004), “Generations and collective memory revisited: race, region, and memory of civil
rights”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 544-557.
Guillot-Soulez, C. and Soulez, S. (2014), “On the heterogeneity of Generation Y job preferences”,
Employee Relations, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 319-332.
Gursoy, D., Maier, T.A. and Chi, C.G. (2008), “Generational differences: an examination of work
values and generational gaps in the hospitality workforce”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 448-458.
Hair, J.F. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice Hall, New York, NY.
Harrison, R.V. (1978), “Person-environment fit and job stress”, in Cooper, C.L. and Payne, R. (Eds),
Stress at Work, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 175-205.
Harvey, P. and Harris, K. (2010), “Frustration-based outcomes of entitlement and the influence of
supervisor communication”, Human Relations, Vol. 63 No. 11, pp. 1639-1660.
Harvey, P. and Martinko, M. (2009), “An empirical examination of the role of attributions in
psychological entitlement and its outcomes”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30
No. 4, pp. 459-476.
Hernaus, T. and Vokic, N.P. (2014), “Work design for different generational cohorts”, Journal of
Organizational Change Management, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 615-641.
Hirschi, A. (2008), “Personality complexes in adolescence: traits, interests, work values, and
self-evaluations”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 45, pp. 716-721.
Hirschi, A. and Fischer, S. (2013), “Work values as predictors of entrepreneurial career intentions:
a longitudinal analysis of gender effects”, Career Development International, Vol. 18,
pp. 216-231.
Hitlin, S. and Piliavin, J.A. (2004), “Values: reviving a dormant concept”, Annual Review of
Sociology, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 359-393.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Howe, N. and Strauss, W. (2007), “The next 20 years: how customer and workforce attitudes will Generational
evolve”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 85 No. 7, pp. 41-52.
differences in
Howe, N., Strauss, W. and Matson, R.J. (2000), Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation,
Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, New York, NY.
work values
Huberty, C.J. and Petoskey, M.D. (2000), “Multivariate analysis of variance and covariance”, in
Tinsley, H. and Brown, S. (Eds), Handbook of Applied Multivariate Statistics and
Mathematical Modeling, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 183-208. 1715
Infeld, D.L., Adams, W.C., Qi, G. and Rosnah, N. (2010), “Career values of public administration
and public policy students in China, Malaysia and the United States”, International Journal
of Public Administration, Vol. 33, pp. 800-815.
Inglehart, R. (1997), Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political
Change in Societies, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Judge, T.A. and Bretz, R.D. (1992), “Effects of work values on job choice decisions”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 3, pp. 261-271.
Jurkiewicz, C.E. (2000), “Generation X and the public employee”, Public Personnel Management,
Vol. 29, pp. 55-74.
Kluger, A.N., Lewinsohn, S. and Aiello, J.R. (1994), “The influence of feedback on mood: linear
effects on pleasantness and curvilinear effects on arousal”, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 276-299.
Koster, K. (2013), “Communication and engagement”, Employee Benefit News.
Kristof, A.L. (1996), “Person– organization fit: an integrative review of its conceptualizations,
measurement, and implications”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 49, pp. 1-49.
Kristof-Brown, A.L., Zimmerman, R.D. and Johnson, E.C. (2005), “Consequences of individuals’ fit
at work: a meta-analysis of person-job, person– organization, person– group, and person–
supervisor fit”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 58, pp. 281-342.
Kultalahti, S. and Viitala, R. (2015), “Generation Y – challenging clients for HRM?”, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 101-114.
Kupperschmidt, B.R. (2000), “Multigeneration employees: strategies for effective management”,
The Health Care Manager, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 65-76.
Laird, M.D., Harvey, P. and Lancaster, J. (2015), “Accountability, entitlement, tenure, and
satisfaction in Generation Y”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 87-100.
Lamm, E. and Meeks, M.D. (2009), “Workplace fun: the moderating effects of generational
differences”, Employee Relations, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 613-631.
Lancaster, L.C. and Stillman, D. (2005), When Generations Collide at Work: Traditionalists, Baby
Boomers, Generation Xers, Millennials. Who They Are. Why They Clash. How to Solve the
Generational Puzzle at Work, HarperCollins Publishers, New York, NY.
Lara, P.Z.M.D. (2008), “Should faith and hope be included in the employees’ agenda? Linking P–O
fit and citizenship behavior”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 73-88.
Latham, G.P. and Pinder, C.C. (2005), “Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the
twenty-first century”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 485-516.
Lowe, D., Levitt, K. and Wilson, T. (2008), “Solutions for retaining Generation Y employees in the
workplace”, Business Renaissance Quarterly, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 43-57.
Lub, X., Bijvank, M.N., Bal, P.M., Blomme, R. and Schalk, R. (2012), “Different or alike?: Exploring
the psychological contract and commitment of different generations of hospitality
workers”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 24 No. 4,
pp. 553-573.
MRR Lyons, S. (2003), “An exploration of generational values in life and at work”, Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON.
39,12
Lyons, S. and Kuron, L. (2013), “Generational differences in the workplace: a review of the evidence
and directions for future research”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 35, pp. 139-157.
Lyons, S.T., Higgins, C.A. and Duxbury, L. (2010), “Work values: development of a new
three-dimensional structure based on confirmatory smallest space analysis”, Journal of
1716 Organizational Behavior, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 969-1002.
Lyons, S.T., Schweitzer, L. and Ng, E.S.W. (2015), “How have careers changed? An investigation
of changing career patterns across four generations”, Journal of Managerial Psychology,
Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 8-21.
McCrindle, M. (2010), “Generation Y at work – Part 2: a snapshot of emerging leaders”, Keeping
Good Companies, October, pp. 566-569.
McGuire, D., By, R.T. and Hutchings, K. (2007), “Towards a model of human resource solutions for
achieving intergenerational interaction in organizations”, Journal of European Industrial
Training, Vol. 31 No. 8, pp. 592-608.
Mannheim, K. (1952), Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge, Routledge and Kegan, London.
Martin, C.A. (2005), “From high maintenance to high productivity: What managers need to know
about Generation Y”, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 39-44.
Mayer, R.C. and Davis, J.H. (1999), “The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust
for management: a field quasi-experiment”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84,
pp. 123-136.
Mboko, S. (2011), “Towards an explanation of the growth in young entrepreneur activities: a cross
country survey of work values of college students”, Journal of Marketing Development and
Competitiveness, Vol. 5, pp. 108-118.
Meeks, M.D., Williams, F., Knotts, T.L. and James, K.D. (2013), “Deep vs surface learning: an
empirical test of generational differences”, International Journal of Education and
Research, Vol. 1 No. 8, pp. 1-15.
Meglino, B.M. and Ravlin, E.C. (1998), “Individual values in organizations: concepts,
controversies, and research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 351-389.
Meyer, J.P., Irving, G.P. and Allen, N.J. (1998), “Examination of the combined effects of work
values and early work experiences on organizational commitment”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 29-52.
Meyers, L.S., Gamst, G. and Guarino, A. (2006), Applied Multivariate Research: Design and
Interpretation, Sage Publishers, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Miller, P. and Yu, H.C. (2003), “Organisational values and generational values: a cross cultural
study”, Australasian Journal of Business & Social Enquiry, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 138-153.
Mobley, W. (1982), Employee Turnover: Causes, Consequences, and Control, Addison-Wesley,
Reading, MA.
NASSCOM (2013), “Managing in a multigenerational workplace: NASSCOM-iPrimed study”,
available at: www.nasscom.in/managing-multigenerational-workplace-nasscomiprimed-
study (accessed 3 August 2015).
Ng, E.S.W., Schweitzer, L. and Lyons, S.T. (2010), “New generation, great expectations: a field
study of the millennial generation”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 281-292.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
O’Neill, J. (2011), The Growth Map: Economic Opportunity in the BRICs and Beyond, Penguin.
O’Reilly, C.A., Chatman, J. and Caldwell, D.F. (1991), “People and organizational culture: a profile Generational
comparison approach to assessing person– organization fit”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 487-516.
differences in
Parry, E. and Urwin, P. (2011), “Generational differences in work values: a review of theory and work values
evidence”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 13, pp. 79-96.
Plew, S. (2013), “Retaining young talent in your organisation”, Business People, September, p. 32.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method bias in 1717
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Porfeli, E.J. and Mortimer, J.T. (2010), “Intrinsic work value-reward dissonance and work
satisfaction during young adulthood”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 76 No. 3,
pp. 507-519.
Porto, J.B. and Tamayo, A. (2007), “Estrutura dos valores pessoais: a relacao entre valores gerais
elaborais”, Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa, Vol. 23, pp. 63-70.
Rai, S. (2012), “Engaging young employees (Gen Y) in a social media dominated world”,
International Conference on Emerging Economies – Prospects and Challenges – Review and
Retrospection, Vol. 37, pp. 257-266.
Real, K., Mitnick, A. and Maloney, W. (2010), “More similar than different: millennials in the US
building trades”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 303-313.
Rentz, K.C. (2014), “Beyond the generational stereotypes: a study of US Generation Y employees in
context”, Business Communication Quarterly, Vol. 77 No. 4, pp. 136-166.
Reuteman, R. (2015), “Generation gaps”, Entrepreneur, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 42-48.
Reynolds, L., Bush, E.C. and Geist, R. (2008), “The Gen Y imperative”, Communication World,
Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 19-22.
Rhodes, S.R. (1983), “Age-related differences in work attitudes and behavior: a review and
conceptual analysis”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 93 No. 2, pp. 328-367.
Rigoni, B. and Adkins, A. (2015), “As baby boomers retire, it’s time to replenish talent”, available
at: www.gallup.com/businessjournal/181295/baby-boomers-retire-time-replenish-talent.
aspx (accessed 11 February 2016).
Roe, R.A. and Ester, P. (1999), “Values and work: empirical findings and theoretical perspective”,
Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 48, pp. 1-21.
Rokeach, M. (1973), The Nature of Human Values, John Wiley, New York, NY.
Saks, A.M. and Ashforth, B.E. (1997), “A longitudinal investigation of the relationships between
job information sources, applicant perceptions of fit, and work outcomes”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 50, pp. 395-426.
Schein, E.H. (1992), Organizational Culture and Leadership, 2nd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,
CA.
Schneider, B. (1987), “The people make the place”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 40, pp. 437-453.
Schneider, B. (2001), “Fits about fit”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 50 No. 1,
pp. 141-152.
Schneider, B., Goldstein, H.W. and Smith, D.B. (1995), “The ASA framework: an update”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48, pp. 747-773.
Schneider, B., Smith, D.B., Taylor, S. and Fleenor, J. (1998), “Personality and organizations: a test
of the homogeneity of personality hypothesis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83,
pp. 462-470.
Schuman, H. and Scott, J. (1989), “Generations and collective memories”, American Sociological
Review, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 359-381.
MRR Schwartz, S.H. (1999), “A theory of cultural values and some implications for work”, Applied
Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 23-47.
39,12
Scott, J. (2000), “Is it a different world to when you were growing up? Generational effects on social
representations and child-rearing values”, The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 51 No. 2,
pp. 355-376.
Shanock, L.R., Baran, B.E., Gentry, W.A., Pattison, S.C. and Heggestad, D.E. (2010), “Erratum to:
1718 polynomial regression with response surface analysis: a powerful approach for examining
moderation and overcoming limitations of difference scores”, Journal of Business and
Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 1, p. 161.
Shapira, Z. and Griffith, T.L. (1990), “Comparing the work values of engineers with managers,
production, and clerical workers: a multivariate analysis”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 281-292.
Sillerud, H. (2011), “Generational differences in employee work values: an explorative study in a
Norwegian work context”, Norwegian School of Management.
Singh, P., Bhandarker, A., Rai, S. and Jain, A.K. (2011), “Relationship between values and
workplace: an exploratory analysis”, Facilities, Vol. 29 Nos 11/12, pp. 499-520.
Skiba, D.J. (2006), “The millennials: have they arrived at your school of nursing?”, Nursing
Education Perspectives, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 370-371.
Smola, K.W. and Sutton, C.D. (2002), “Generational differences: revisiting generational work
values for the new millennium”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 4,
pp. 363-382.
Society for Human Resources Management (2004), Generational Differences Survey, Society for
Human Resources Management, Alexandria, VA.
Strauss, B., Strauss, W. and Howe, N. (1991), Generations: The History of America’s Future, 1584
to 2069, William Morrow and Company, New York, NY.
Super, D.E. (1970), Work Values Inventory, Houghton Mifflin Cm, Boston, MA.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2013), Using Multivariate Statistics, 6th ed., Pearson, Boston,
MA.
Takase, M., Oba, K. and Yamashita, N. (2009), “Generational differences in factors influencing job
turnover among Japanese nurses: an exploratory comparative design”, International
Journal of Nursing Studies, Vol. 46, pp. 957-967.
Tata Consultancy Services (2014), TCS Gen Y Survey 2014-15, Tata Consultancy Services.
Terjesen, S., Vinnicombe, S. and Freeman, C. (2007), “Attracting generation Y graduates”, Career
Development International, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 504-522.
Turban, D.B. and Keon, T.L. (1993), “Organizational attractiveness: an interactionalist
perspective”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78, pp. 184-193.
Twenge, J.M. and Campbell, K.W. (2010), The Narcissism Epidemic: Living In The Age of
Entitlement, Simon and Schuster Adult Publishing Group, New York, NY.
Twenge, J.M. and Campbell, S.M. (2008), “Generational differences in psychological traits and
their impact on the workplace”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 862-877.
Twenge, J.M., Campbell, S.M., Hoffman, B.J. and Lance, C.E. (2010), “Generational differences in
work values: leisure and extrinsic increasing, social and intrinsic values decreasing”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 1117-1142.
Van Vianen, A.E.M. (2000), “Person– organization fit: the match between newcomers’ and
recruiters’ preferences for organizational culture”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 53,
pp. 113-149.
Verquer, M.L., Beehr, T.A. and Wagner, S.H. (2003), “A meta-analysis of relations between Generational
person– organization fit and work attitudes”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 63 No. 3,
pp. 473-489. differences in
Werbel, J.D. and DeMarie, S.M. (2005), “Aligning strategic human resource management and work values
person-environment fit”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 247-262.
Westerman, J.W. and Cyr, L.A. (2004), “An integrative analysis of person– organization fit
theories”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 252-261.
1719
Westerman, J.W. and Vanka, S. (2005), “A cross-cultural empirical analysis of
person– organization fit measures as predictors of student performance in business
education: comparing students in the Unites States and India”, Academy of Management
Learning and Education, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 409-420.
Weyland, A. (2011), “Engagement and talent management of Gen Y”, Industrial and Commercial
Training, Vol. 43 No. 7, pp. 439-445.
Wheeler, A.R., Buckley, M.R., Halbesleben, J.R., Brouer, R.L. and Ferris, G.R. (2005), “‘The elusive
criterion of fit’ revisited: toward an integrative theory of multidimensional fit”, in
Martocchio, J. (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, Vol. 24,
Elsevier/JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 265-304.
Wils, T., Saba, T., Waxin, F.M. and Labelle, C. (2011), “Intergenerational and intercultural
differences in work values in Quebec and the United Arab Emirates”, Relations
Industrielles/Industrial Relations, Vol. 66, pp. 445-469.
Wong, M., Gardiner, E., Lang, W. and Coulon, L. (2008), “Generational differences in personality
and motivation”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 878-890.
Yi, X., Ribbens, B., Fu, L. and Cheng, W. (2015), “Variation in career and workplace attitudes by
generation, gender, and culture differences in career perceptions in the United States and
China”, Employee Relations, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 66-82.
Zupan, N., Kasě, R., Raškovic´, M., Yao, K. and Wang, K. (2015), “Getting ready for the young
generation to join the workforce: a comparative analysis of the work values of Chinese and
Slovenian business students”, Journal for East European Management Studies, Vol. 20
No. 2.

Further reading
Jurkiewicz, C.E. and Brown, R.G. (1998), “GenXers vs boomers vs matures: generational
comparisons of public employee motivation”, Review of Public Personnel Administration,
Vol. 18, pp. 18-37.
Markert, J. (2004), “Demographics of age: generational and cohort confusion”, Journal of Current
Issues & Research in Advertising, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 11-25.
Rotolo, T. and Wilson, J. (2004), “What happened to the ‘long civic generation’? Explaining cohort
differences in volunteerism”, Social Forces, Vol. 82 No. 3, pp. 1091-1121.

Corresponding author
Nitya Rani can be contacted at: nitya.rani@yahoo.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com