Millennials Manuscript

Human Performance

ee

rP
Fo
Journal:

Manuscript Type:

Draft

Original Article

ie

Keywords:

Human Performance

ev

Manuscript ID:

rR

A Multi-Cohort Examination of Generational Differences in
Competency-based Performance and Engagement

generational differences, employee performance, employee
engagement, Millennial employees

w
ly

On
URL: http:/mc.manuscriptcentral.com/hhup Email: hupeditor@pdri.com

of 31

Generational Differences
Running head: GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES IN COMPETENCY PERFORMANCE

rP
Fo


ee


w

ie

ev

rR
ly

On

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Human Performance


1

Human Performance


2

Abstract
This study investigated potential differences between Millennial-generation and older
employees’ competency-based performance and engagement using both cross-sectional and agedefined cohort samples. Data were obtained from 3766 customer service employees and their
managers in a cross-organizational sample. Ratings of Millennials’ overall performance was

rP
Fo

comparable with their counterparts from previous generations. When examining differences at
the competency level, Millennials outperformed older employees in learning ability and
adaptability but performed lower on a larger number of competencies relating to work ethic, selfmanagement, and interpersonal skills. Our study suggests a complex interplay in the relationship

ee

between performance and generation, with each generation leveraging different strengths to

rR

achieve similar levels of overall performance. We discuss implications of our findings for
coaching, training, and selecting a multi-generational workforce.

w

ie

ev
ly

On

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 2 of 31


of 31


3

Within the context of a strong interest in actively recruiting, managing and leveraging the
skills of a diverse employee workforce, organizations have displayed increasing interest in and
have drawn broader implications from research into potential distinctions among employee

rP
Fo

subgroups, and generational effects have received extensive attention in recent years. This
attention is likely due to the impending retirements of a large Baby Boom generation, which in
turn has created an imbalance between jobs to be filled, and sufficiently-skilled new workforce
entrants to fill them. This degree of imbalance is such that growth in the labor force itself may be

ee

threatened in the forthcoming decades (Toossi, 2007). This excess of employee “demand” may

rR

have expanded the proportion of candidates from the newest generations who are considered
viable for employment. Because of this, organizations may face pressure to be less selective in

ev

who they hire; instead, they must recognize and prepare for a new generation “as is,” including
their strengths and weaknesses in terms of on-the-job performance.

ie

The generation currently entering the workforce, and therefore a primary focus of recent

w

attention, has been defined as the “Millennial” generation, with birth years between 1977 and

On

2000. Similar to prior generations defined using a cohort-based approach to categorization,
Millennials are classified based on the premise that the values and behaviors of individuals

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Human Performance

within this cohort would be similarly shaped by defining events, most notably for this particular
generation the 9/11 attacks and the emergent omnipresence of the Internet (Howe & Strauss,
2007). Although inherent conceptual and methodological risks with a generational perspective on
employee categorization have been noted by numerous authors (e.g., Deal, 2007; Macky,
Gardner, & Forsyth, 2008; Sullivan, 2008), it nonetheless remains a salient area of interest for


Human Performance


4

organizations facing tangible challenges with staffing and retaining the workforces that will
define their future productivity and growth. With organizations seeking detailed guidance on
these issues, it is important for researchers to conduct targeted investigations on this topic to
inform research-guided recommendations, as a counterpoint to the extensive but not peerreviewed publications, many of which are based on anecdotal and/or small-scale examples.

rP
Fo

The popular press frequently asserts that the Millennial generation differs notably from
earlier generations in terms of workplace preferences and performance. Millennial workers
reportedly prefer more collaborative work settings, adapt more quickly to change, are less
engaged in their work, and are more likely to change jobs frequently (e.g., Hulett, 2006).

ee

Other popular publications suggest Millennials prefer time on the job for socializing with friends,

rR

want all processes (e.g., job training) tightly integrated with current technology, and demand
constant praise and recognition for their workplace contributions. The purpose of this paper is to

ev

empirically-investigate these common stereotypes to uncover whether they are
overgeneralizations or whether they accurately reflect some observable differences in behavior

ie

between Millennials and the generations that came before them.

w

A secondary aim of this paper is to provide additional context for interpreting the data. In

On

addition to comparing behaviors of Millennial and older groups within a multi-year sample, we
partitioned the available samples into three timeframes based on when the data were gathered.

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 4 of 31

We then used the age of Millennials in the present day to classify employees from each
timeframe into equivalent age categories. Finally, we compared the magnitude of performance
and engagement effects between these timeframes, in an attempt to disentangle generation
effects from the conflating effects of age. Given that the concept of a “generation gap” did not
arise with the Millennial generation – Deal (2007) provides quotations indicating signs of such


of 31


5

perceived distinctions as early as 400 B.C. – a cohort-based perspective may provide insights
into whether and how current effects differ from effects obtained in prior comparisons.
Job Performance of Millennials
Compared to earlier generations, Millennials are often viewed as more difficult to
manage and retain as employees. While a moderate degree of research has been conducted

rP
Fo

regarding the work preferences and motivations of Millennials (e.g., Rawlins, Indvik, & Johnson,
2008; Taylor, Morin, Parker, Cohn, & Wang, 2009), very little empirical research exists
regarding the relative job performance of younger generations as compared to their predecessors
(Macky et al., 2008). In one of the few empirical studies to investigate this issue for Generation

ee

X, the generation immediately preceding Millennials, Sessa, Kabacoff, Deal, and Brown (2007)

rR

compared multisource feedback ratings of leaders from various generations. Due to the small
sample sizes available for Millennial leaders (based on the small number of individuals

ev

achieving a leadership role early in their career), they were not able to include this group in their
comparisons. However, for Generation X leaders Sessa and her colleagues observed stronger

ie

usage of individualistic rather than collectivist leadership styles. Although either of these styles

w

may be effective in certain employment settings, this finding does suggest that Generation X

On

employees may differ from the preceding generations in terms of how they interact and work
with others.

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Human Performance

In terms of the Millennial generation specifically, but based on survey findings rather
than structured performance information, jobfox (as cited by American Society for Public
Administration, 2008) found that only 20% of corporate recruiters considered Millennials
“generally great performers” and gave much higher ratings to those in other generational
categories (e.g., 58% had highly favorable perceptions of Generation X workers). These


Human Performance


6

perceptions align with many of the anecdotal remarks regarding the job performance of
Millennials found in the popular press and trade journals. For example, Hulett (2006) reported
that Millennials are strong multi-taskers and agile learners, drawing upon their interactions with
technology from an early age. Because the formal literature on generational differences in job
performance is limited, research in the area of age and job performance may also be informative.

rP
Fo

Because Millennials are also currently the youngest generation, our hypotheses will also draw
upon the more developed literature surrounding age differences in job performance, while
recognizing the importance of addressing the conflating nature of age versus generation effects.
Because we are unable to conclusively separate Millennials from younger employees, however,

ee

for our formal hypotheses we use the phrase “Millennial/Younger” to refer to this subgroup.

rR

One approach to partially address the issue of determining which effects are due to
generation and which are due to age is to compare the current Millennials cohort (based on their

ev

current age range within the employee population) with similarly-aged cohorts for whom
performance information was gathered at earlier points in time. Specifically, we compare the

ie

current cohort of Millennials (birth years of 1977 and later or on average, a maximum age of 31

w

in the most recent studies available for our analysis sample) to individuals 31 years of age and

On

younger in datasets gathered between 2002 and 2004 (birth years of 1972 and later) and between
1997 and 1999 (birth years of 1967 and later). The limited research into differences by

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 6 of 31

generation on competency-based job performance does not allow us to hypothesize specific
effects; however, we view it as a potentially informative research question regarding how
“young” employees in the current 2007-2009 workforce (i.e., Millennials) compare to “young”
employees in the workforces of 2002-2004 and 1997-1999. These latter workforces would
include a proportion of Millennials, but they would also include members of the previous


of 31


7

generation, Generation X. The “Older” categorization also varies within these cohorts such that
in the more recent sample this aligns directly with the Generation X/Millennial transition;
however, in the earlier cohorts the transition to “Older” as defined by age includes only the
earlier portion of Generation X rather than that full generation.
Job Performance and Age

rP
Fo

Research into age-related differences in overall job effectiveness (e.g., McEvoy & Cascio,
1989; Ng & Feldman, 2008) has generally detected low-magnitude positive linear relationships
between these variables. In the most recent large-scale investigation of these relationships, a
meta-analysis conducted by Ng and Feldman (2008), the corrected correlation between age and

ee

supervisor-rated core task performance was estimated to be 0.03. However, these authors also

rR

observed substantial variability in this relationship, suggesting that different facets of job
performance may be predicted to varying degrees. Through subsequent moderator analyses, they

ev

observed correlations ranging from -0.04 for performance in training programs to 0.28 for
punctuality (reverse-coded from tardiness). This pattern of findings suggests that exploring age-

ie

performance relationships, as well as generation-performance relationships, at an overall level

w

may obscure a more varied set of linkages existing among sub-elements of job performance
(Cleveland & Lim, 2007).

On

In the current research, we seek to expand upon the potential limitations of an exclusive

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Human Performance

focus on overall performance by utilizing a competency framework to attempt further explication
of the complex age-performance relationship. Competency-based approaches to defining
individual characteristics linked to job success are important foundations for understanding and
addressing differences among employee groups because, in comparison to more traditional taskbased approaches, they are viewed to be superior in informing training and development-oriented


Human Performance


8

HR applications (Schippmann et al., 2000). Drawing upon previous research where applicable
and to a lesser extent, on popular characterizations related to generational issues, we propose
several hypotheses regarding job performance differences among generational categories.
First, we identified Applied Learning, or assimilating and applying new job-related
information in a timely manner, as a competency linked closely to fluid intelligence, which has

rP
Fo

been shown to decrease for older adults (e.g., Horn, 1982) and to reach maximum levels for an
individual in his or her early twenties (e.g., Schaie, 1996). Accordingly, we predicted that
performance in this competency would be higher for Millennial/Younger employees.
Hypothesis 1: Applied Learning performance will be higher for

ee

Millennial/Younger than for Older employees.

rR

Certain competencies are reflective of personality constructs which differ by age, with
Adaptability being one such example. Adaptability is defined in competency terms as

ev

maintaining effectiveness when experiencing major changes in work responsibilities or
environment, and making effective adjustments to new work conditions. We identified Openness

ie

to Experience as a related personality facet which has been shown to decrease for older

w

individuals (e.g., Roberts, Robins, Caspi, & Trzesniewski, 2003), guiding our prediction for this

On

competency.

Hypothesis 2: Adaptability performance will be higher for Millennial/Younger
than for Older employees.

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 8 of 31

Conscientiousness has been shown to increase for older individuals (e.g., Roberts et al.,
2003), which may have implications for work activities drawing heavily upon this attribute. In
addition, the response categories of “Work Ethic” and “Morality/Ethics/Beliefs” were among the
most commonly-cited distinctions between generational categories from a recent survey


of 31


9

conducted on the topic by the Pew Research Center (Taylor et al., 2009). In Deal’s research
(2007), the value of Integrity was also identified as a top ten most important value by only 39%
of “late Generation Xers” (overlapping in birth years with the current characterization of
Millennials) as compared to an average of 68% for the preceding four generational categories.
Based on these findings, we predicted that performance on the competencies of Work Standards

rP
Fo

(defined as setting high standards of performance for oneself and for others and taking
responsibility for work outcomes) and Integrity (defined as adhering to social, ethical, and
organizational norms and to codes of acceptable conduct) would be higher for Older individuals.
Hypothesis 3: Integrity performance will be higher for Older than for

ee

Millennial/Younger employees.

rR

Hypothesis 4: Work Standards performance will be higher for Older than for

ev

Anecdotes and many of the popular press publications cite a high degree of comfort by
Millennials for group-oriented activities and frequent communication with others. However, our

ie

prediction for the competency Collaboration, defined as working effectively and cooperatively

w

with others and establishing and maintaining good working relationships, is guided by the

On

finding of Sessa et al. (2007) that later-generation individuals were more likely to use an
individual rather than a consensual interaction style, as well as by the common characterization

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Human Performance

of the Millennial group as a “me” generation (e.g., Macey & Schneider, 2008). It may be the case
that group interactions in a social setting, often conducted remotely using technology, may not
translate into effectiveness interacting directly with others (of a more varied age range than one’s
peers) for interdependent tasks in a work setting.


Human Performance

Generational Differences 10
Hypothesis 5: Collaboration performance will be higher for Older than for
We also investigated exploratory research questions related to several additional
competencies commonly identified as important for these roles, Communication, Customer
Orientation, Decision Making, Managing Work, and Initiative. For these competencies, we did

rP
Fo

not propose a priori hypotheses due to the limited insight provided by existing research. We also
explored potential differences in Overall Performance – we do agree with authors (e.g.,
Cleveland & Lim, 2007) suggesting that such a level of analysis can obscure more meaningful
and interpretable effects at the competency level. However, we nonetheless included this analysis

ee

facet in order to facilitate comparisons with other research and to explore the possibility that

rR

competency effects may counterbalance in their contribution to overall job effectiveness.
Engagement

ev

Macey and Schneider (2008) proposed a model of employee engagement that
distinguishes three components: a psychological state, a manifestation of behaviors, and a

ie

disposition. The behavioral aspect is the element of engagement perhaps most closely linked to

w

popular press perceptions regarding Millennials. Behaviors such as putting in extra effort on the

On

job, seeking out opportunities to make contributions to the workplace, taking initiative, and
intentions to stay with an organization are all associated with these behavioral aspects of

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 10 of 31

engagement. This view of engagement is shared by most industry approaches to engagement and
is often conceptualized as a combination of satisfaction and involvement (Wefald & Downey,
2008).
The popular press is replete with anecdotal examples stating that Millennials are
disengaged. For example, a Business Week article (Pallavi, 2005) used terms such as spoiled,


of 31

overindulged, disengaged, and self-absorbed to describe this generation. Related to these
conceptions, Millennials are often perceived as job hoppers that do not expect long-term
relationships with a single employer (Alsop, 2008). Alsop contends that these individuals grew
up in an environment that rewarded and catered to individual interests and that they are therefore
more likely to seek out environments that offer flexibility and work life balance. The argument is

rP
Fo

made that because Millennials expect to have their needs catered to, they are not as likely to be
loyal to a single organization, to accept criticism, or to take initiative (Knowledge@W.P.Carey,
2008). The consulting firm BlessingWhite (2008) conducted a global survey of over 7500
employees and reported that a greater percentage of Millennials across a wide range of

ee

geographic regions were disengaged as compared to their counterparts from other generations.

rR

These findings translate into views that Millennials are predisposed to be less engaged
and are therefore more difficult to manage than their colleagues from previous generations. To

ev

counter this perceived effect, managers are often encouraged to adjust their leadership styles to
these so called ‘unique’ aspects of Millennials’ needs (Alsop, 2008) and accordingly,

ie

organizations appear to be continually seeking prescriptions for dealing with this generation.

w

Research on the relationship between employee engagement and tenure and age has been

On

mixed. Following a review of the literature on employee engagement, tenure, and age, a report
by The Conference Board (Gibbons, 2006) found trends indicating that employee engagement

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Human Performance

was linked to length of service and that factors influencing engagement were likely to shift as
employees aged. For example, they reported a frequent finding that employees early in their
tenure with an organization were more likely to be engaged than those with moderate levels of
tenure and that older employees were likely to be employed longer by their current employer
than younger employees. Harris Interactive (2005, as cited in Gibbons, 2006) found that a larger


Human Performance

percentage of employees over the age of 55 agreed with the statement “a great deal of my pride
comes from my work” than did employees under the age of 35. Based on this collective although
not entirely uniform set of prior research, we predict higher engagement levels for Older
employees.
Hypothesis 6: Engagement will be higher for Older than for Millennial/Younger

rP
Fo

employees.

Method

Our research sample includes data gathered from customer service employees
(engagement) and their managers (performance) from 19 organizations. Employees completed a

ee

proprietary measure of employee engagement. Collection of competency-based performance data

rR

followed a consistent approach involving manager rating sessions preceded by frame-ofreference and rater error training. In these sessions, supervisors evaluated employees using 4 to 6

ev

behavioral statements for each of 8 to 12 competencies. These competencies were established
through job analytic activities which included interviews, job observations, focus groups,

ie

surveys, confirmation surveys, and stakeholder reviews. Performance ratings were utilized for

w

research purposes only and were described to participants as such; ratings were not made

On

available to the client organizations and no administrative decisions were possible on the basis of
the information. Within each organization, we standardized ratings such that performance

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 12 of 31

reflected an employee’s performance relative to others within their respective organizations.
Our analysis sample size comprises 3766 employees with age data available; of these
individuals, 1478 (39.2%) were classified as Millennial/Younger employees based on their
birthdates of 1977 or later and 2288 (60.8%) were classified as Older employees based on
birthdates of 1976 or earlier. Although our “Older” group in fact includes individuals from a


of 31

range of preceding generations (e.g., Generation X and Baby Boomers), due to the largely
exploratory nature of our study we wished to focus our analysis on the distinctions between the
Millennial generations and all previous generations as a set. Our study investigates three types of
research questions: first, main effects of competency-based performance by generation; second,
main effects of engagement by generation; and third, changes in the magnitude of these effects

rP
Fo

from the 1997-1999 to the 2002-2004 and to the 2007-2009 timeframe.
Measures

Engagement. The engagement measure used was the E3, a proprietary 17-item
standardized survey developed by the consulting firm Development Dimensions International

ee

(DDI). This survey measures employees’ perceptions of personal meaning and motivation in

rR

their work, positive interpersonal support from their company and work unit, and efficiency
within their work environment.

ev

Competency-Based Job Performance. Competencies used as the basis for employee
performance ratings were drawn from the competency library of DDI. This taxonomy has been

ie

developed and refined for approximately 40 years based on job analyses conducted across a

w

range of organizations, positions, and industries. Competencies were developed to be clearly

On

defined, independent from other competencies, and behaviorally-observable. DDI has evaluated
and observed substantial correspondence between this competency model and generalized

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Human Performance

models such as those developed by the National Skill Standards Board (NSSB; Herman,
Bramucci, Piala, & Litman, 2000) and the Occupational Information Network (O*NET;
Peterson, Mumford, Borman, Jeanneret, & Fleishman, 1999), as well as numerous models from
other consulting firms and individual organizations. For this study, we limited our group
comparisons to the most frequently-observed competencies based on job analyses conducted on


Human Performance

customer-facing positions as listed in Table 1. We also included an index of Overall
Performance, which was calculated by unit-weighting and averaging all individual competencies
included within each study.
Analysis/Results
In order to avoid excessive influence over the findings by a particular organization’s

rP
Fo

sample, we randomly sampled within organization such that no more than 1000 individuals were
included from each. Although this sampling approach reduced our analysis sample sizes, we
viewed it as an appropriate procedure to potentially increase the cross-organizational
generalizability of the Millennial/Younger-Older employee comparative results.

ee

We conducted ANCOVAs comparing competency-based performance and engagement

rR

between Millennial/Younger and Older-generation employees. In these comparisons, in order to
reduce the potentially conflating effects of job tenure, we included this variable, measured in

ev

months, as a covariate in the analyses. The evaluation level for this covariate varied slightly
between competencies based on sample variations, with a minimum value of 22.2 months and a

Competency-based Job Performance

w

maximum value of 27.5 months.

ie

On

Group-level sample sizes for these comparisons ranged between 650 (for
Millennial/Younger employees on Integrity) and 1866 (for Older employees on Building

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 14 of 31

Customer Loyalty and Overall Performance). We converted F-statistics to d-values to compute
standardized effect size differences for all comparisons; positive d-values indicate higher
performance for Millennial/Younger employees as compared to Older employees. Results for our
performance comparisons are presented in Table 1, including significance levels and effect sizes


of 31

for the comparisons—all results discussed below are significant unless otherwise noted. A
graphical display of the mean differences between the two groups is also presented in Figure 1.
For Overall Performance, group differences were not significant and the resulting effect
size was small (d = -0.045). We observed significant performance differences in the expected
direction favoring Millennial/Younger employees for 2 of the competencies included in the

rP
Fo

analyses: Applied Learning (Hypothesis 1) and Adaptability (Hypothesis 2), p < .01. In addition,
for Managing Work (exploratory research question), we found a small trend favoring
Millennial/Younger employees but it fell short of significance (p = .07). We observed
performance differences favoring Older employees for 3 of the competencies hypothesized,

ee

supporting Hypotheses 3, 4, and 5 (i.e., Collaboration, Work Standards, and Integrity). In

rR

addition, Older employees outperformed Millennial/Younger employees on two additional
competencies explored but not directly hypothesized: Customer Orientation and Initiative.

ev

Engagement

For Engagement (Hypothesis 6), we observed significant differences between the groups,

ie

after controlling for job tenure, such that Older employees reported stronger levels than

w

Millennials/Younger workers, F = 6.28, p < 0.01, d = 0.108.
Cross-Cohort Analyses

On

A key challenge when evaluating generational differences is to disentangle these effects

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Human Performance

from effects due to age alone. In an attempt to partially separate these two types of effects and as
a secondary analysis to the overall (across all validation study samples regardless of year
conducted) group differences reported above, we split the sample into three portions based on the
timeframe when the data were gathered, and we classified employees from each timeframe into
Millennial-equivalent age categories. That is, because Millennial employees in our most recent


Human Performance

sample timeframe (2007 to 2009) were 31 years of age or younger, we compared employees of
this age group to older individuals for all three timeframes for which data were available. We
viewed the trend in these differences from the 1997 to 1999 timeframe, to the 2002 to 2004
timeframe, to the 2007 to 2009 timeframe to potentially be indicative of how generational effects
may diverge from age-based effects on competency-based performance.

rP
Fo

Of the analyses conducted on competency-based differences by timeframe, we observed
interpretable trends in two competencies: Collaboration and Applied Learning. For
Collaboration, the trend indicated effect sizes progressively favoring Older employees: in the
1997-1999 cohort, Younger employees performed better on this competency to a very small

ee

degree (d = 0.036); however, Older employees performed better in the 2002-2004 cohort (d = -

rR

0.111) and incrementally so in the 2007-2009 cohort (d = -0.135). For Applied Learning,
conversely, effect sizes favored Younger employees to a slightly larger degree in 2002-2004 (d =

ev

0.240) and 2007-2009 (d = 0.223) as compared to 1997-1999 (d = 0.179). In terms of the
remaining competencies as well as for Overall Performance and engagement, effect size

ie

differences were either stable across the timeframe cohorts or did not indicate a consistent trend.
Discussion

w

On

The competency-level effects we observed for the Millennial generation largely parallel
those expected based on age differences (e.g., in fluid intelligence and the corresponding

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 16 of 31

competency Applied Learning). However, at a broader level it is clear that although both
Millennial and older employees are capable of achieving similar levels of job effectiveness, they
achieve this success in varying ways; the strengths of Millennials in competencies such as
Applied Learning and Adaptability appear to be counteracted by stronger performance levels of


of 31

older employees in competencies such as Collaboration, Work Standards, and Customer
Orientation.
Competency-based Job Performance
Millennial/Younger employees performed significantly better on the competency of
Applied Learning, as compared to Older employees. This finding corresponds with the decline of

rP
Fo

fluid intelligence levels in older adults (e.g., Horn, 1982) and the close relationship of Applied
Learning to this form of cognitive functioning. Millennials often conduct rapid internet searches
for information they subsequently apply to their immediate needs. In this way, Millennials may
commonly practice some of the skills associated with Applied Learning in their non-work lives,

ee

and may be readily able to exercise these same behaviors in a work context.

rR

Millennial/Younger employees also performed better on the competency of Adaptability.
Although this finding converges with the decrease with age of the personality construct

ev

Openness to Experience, it also contradicts some stereotypes drawn from the popular press.
Managers reportedly express frequent frustration with Millennials because they ask “why” so

ie

often, and may question the necessity and rationale for a new policy or procedure (e.g., Buono &

w

Nurick, 2008). However, Millennials as a group have also experienced extraordinary changes

On

during their lifetimes, particularly in the areas of technology and globalization. The
pervasiveness of these changes may have heightened the abilities of this generation to modify

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Human Performance

their behaviors to match the situation in a work as well as a personal environment.
Older employees outperformed Millennial/Younger employees in Collaboration. This is
consistent with the research of Sessa and her colleagues (2007) showing that later-generation
individuals were more likely to use an individualist interaction style characterized by assertively
prioritizing one’s own interests over those of the group. Further, Millennials’ perceived


Human Performance

preferences for electronic communication media such as texting and instant messaging, may not
fit with company expectations or preferred teamwork approaches of older employees. Many have
suggested that their dislike of in-person meetings impedes Millennials’ ability to problem solve
as a group and build strong interpersonal work relationships (Alsop, 2008) as well as to increase
their emotional intelligence at work (Lipkin & Perrymore, 2009).

rP
Fo

Our findings indicate that Older employees performed better on the competency of
Integrity. This is a finding shared by previous survey-based research (e.g., Deal, 2007; Taylor et
al., 2009) and also a frequently cited notion in the popular press. In her book detailing the
psychology of Millennials, Twenge (2006) argued that Millennials as a group care little about

ee

seeking others’ approval. She believes this pervasive attitude has contributed to lower adherence

rR

to social rules and an increase in cheating in schools. Millennials have also witnessed numerous
business scandals (e.g., Enron, WorldCom) and have observed rampant disregard of employees

ev

when companies raided pension funds and invoked massive layoffs. These events may have
influenced Millennials’ own ethical workplace behaviors and attitudes.

ie

Our research also found that Older employees outperformed Millennial/Younger

w

employees on Work Standards and Initiative. These competencies are related to work ethic,

On

which is a value that characterizes Baby Boomers’ parents (Alsop, 2008). Baby Boomers
themselves are often noted for their work ethic though it is said to be driven by motivation for

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 18 of 31

status and titles. Another important consideration is that perceptions of one’s work standards will
be colored by prevailing norms within a given job or organization. While some contend that
Millennials do have strong work ethics, albeit different work ethics (e.g., Lipkin et al., 2009),
characteristics traditionally associated with a strong work ethic may be at odds with Millennials’
stated preferences for setting their own work hours and working their jobs in around their lives.


of 31

In terms of Initiative, it seems Millennials often exhibit some related behaviors, but Older
employees may contribute more meaningful, appropriate, or pragmatic ideas and behaviors than
lower-tenured Millennials. Thus, when Older employees speak up or initiate work on their own,
their thoughts or work products may be viewed by managers and leaders alike as more
acceptable and more valuable.

rP
Fo

Our research indicated that Older employees outperformed Millennial/Younger
employees in Customer Orientation. The first finding is consistent with the notion that
Millennials comprise a “me” generation and are not particularly skilled at taking the perspective
of others. Millennials as a generation have enjoyed more buying power at a younger age than did

ee

previous generations (Tulgan, 2009). As such, they may be more accustomed to playing the

rR

customer role, rather than the customer service role, and may be less able to view work situations
and their own work outcomes through the viewpoint of a customer.

ev

In terms of the competency of Managing Work, although we did not predict this finding a
priori and the difference did not achieve full statistical significance, converging empirical

ie

evidence does exist to support the trend of Millennial/Younger employees outperforming Older

w

employees. Studies have demonstrated lower levels of executive functioning (Rhodes, 2004) and

On

multi-tasking (Verhaeghen Steitz, Sliwinski, & Cerella, 2003) for older adults; both of these
cognitive processes are related to coordinating one’s own multiple work activities effectively
while avoiding or ignoring the influence of potential distractions.

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Human Performance

Overall Performance levels were very similar between Millennial/Younger and Older
workers, consistent from an age perspective with large-scale meta-analyses such as Ng and
Feldman, (2008). This suggests that employees of both groups, Millennials/Younger and Older,
may be capable of the same level of work success but may achieve this success in different ways.


Human Performance

While there were no significant differences in Overall Performance, the observed differences in
individual competencies can potentially be summarized based on the themes of the
competencies. Older employees performed better as a group on interpersonal and self-discipline
competencies (e.g., Collaboration, Integrity, Work Standards) while Millennial employees
performed better as a group on learning and information management competencies (e.g.,

rP
Fo

Applied Learning, Adaptability, and marginally on Managing Work).
Engagement

Older employees reported significantly higher levels of engagement than
Millennial/Younger employees. When engagement is conceptualized as a combination of

ee

satisfaction and involvement (Wefald et al., 2008), it may become evident why Millennial

rR

employees may be perceived as less engaged. Millennials have a reputation for leaving jobs once
they become disenchanted with their current work situation (Lipkin et al., 2009). They are not

ev

likely to make sacrifices for the futuristic promise of promotions or other rewards (Tulgan,
2009). Also, they witnessed their workaholic parents getting laid off in the 1990s as the economy

ie

changed (e.g., Lipkin et al., 2009) so their loyalty to the organization must be earned; it is not a

w

given. Additionally, Millennials are known for having high demands around compensation,

On

flexible work schedules, perceived importance of work tasks, and constant positive performance
feedback. When these attributes on the job fall short of expectations, Millennials’ subjective

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 20 of 31

level of satisfaction will decrease. This attitude may also be captured by the engagement measure
used in this study, specifically the components of satisfaction and perceived managerial and
organizational support.


of 31

Changes in Performance Effects by Cohort
We found linear changes in the magnitude of competency-based performance differences
for Applied Learning and Collaboration. This suggests that Millennial-generation employees
may be progressively advancing/declining as compared to their similarly-aged predecessors.
Regarding Applied Learning, the increasing advantages for this competency of

rP
Fo

Millennial-generation employees over and above what might be expected based only on age,
may be explainable due to continued growth in education levels for this generation. The National
Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97) has tracked a group of individuals with birth
years ranging from 1981 to 1985, and has compared them to a carefully-matched cohort group

ee

with birth years ranging from 1957 to 1965 (NLSY79). The 1997 group, roughly parallel to a

rR

portion of the current Millennials categorization, were found to have stronger educational
backgrounds in terms of their own academic achievement as well as that of their fathers and

ev

mothers (Altonji, Bharadwaj, & Lange, 2008). For example, the NLSY97 cohort had completed
13.17 grades by age 22 as compared to 12.61 for the NLSY79 cohort.

ie

Regarding performance on Collaboration, although Millennial/Younger employees

w

outperformed Older employees to a small degree during the first cohort we examined (1997-

On

1999), Older employees surpassed them on Collaboration performance in the 2002-2004 cohort
and incrementally so in the 2007-2009 cohort. One potential explanation for this finding is that

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Human Performance

younger employees’ performance in this area has decreased as the availability and their usage of
technology has increased. The adoption of and reliance on these communication media may
explain the decline in Collaboration performance compared to older employees during the same
time period. Many organizations and managers alike insist that collaboration is best
accomplished during in-person meetings and phone calls, and reliance on these more impersonal


Human Performance

media causes breakdowns in communication and limits their development of negotiation and
listening skills and better interpersonal connections (Alsop, 2008).
Additional longitudinal or cohort-based research will be beneficial in aligning the
competency differences identified in this study, with broader workplace trends. Because the
work environment and requirements themselves are changing, any differences between

rP
Fo

generations, particularly those that are growing in magnitude, can have particularly impactful
implications under certain scenarios. For example, a trend of increased interdependent and teamoriented roles may lead to challenges for the Millennial generation in capably filling these roles
given their struggles with Collaboration. Conversely, roles requiring a larger degree of

ee

information acquisition and application than in the past may further disadvantage older workers.
Limitations

rR

Because of our exclusive focus on customer-facing positions, further research is

ev

necessary to determine if our results extend to other work roles. One example of a job family
potentially worthy of further investigation is a manufacturing or production role where safety is a

ie

primary consideration, due to previously observed relationships between age and safety

w

behaviors (Ng & Feldman, 2008). Jobs drawing heavily upon technical or professional

On

knowledge may also be useful targets for further study, to examine if increases in crystallized
intelligence based on age (e.g., Salthouse, 1988) translate into higher knowledge levels for older

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 22 of 31

individuals, and if the Millennials generation remains lower in this competency despite their high
and constant levels of information access. Another potential avenue of research that will increase
in relevance regarding Millennial-generation employees would be an expanded focus on leaderlevel roles and leadership/management-related competencies, building upon the research
conducted in this area by Sessa and colleagues (2007).


of 31

Our study also focused exclusively on subjective rather than objective performance.
Although age-based differences in objective performance have been similarly small as for
subjective performance (Cleveland & Lim, 2007), objective performance may also be less
susceptible to potential interactions between supervisor and subordinate age in influencing
performance ratings. Another potential limitation of our study is our partial focus on

rP
Fo

competencies derived from a single consulting firm’s taxonomy. Although we have attempted to
emphasize core competencies that may overlap with other similar frameworks, extension of our
results to alternative competency frameworks will be important for gauging the generalizability
of our conclusions.

ee

In terms of our cohort-based approach to a portion of our research questions, we did

rR

attempt to use this methodology to gain insights into generational and age trends over time.
However, we recognize the limitations in the data that were available to us in terms of cohorts

ev

extending only 10 years into the past; certainly being able to extend this cohort approach to span
an entire generation (that is, 20 years or more) would have been additionally informative. Further

ie

research attempting to disentangle age and generation effects will be warranted, perhaps with a

w

specific focus on competencies such as Customer Orientation, Initiative, and Integrity where we

On

detected generational differences but no consistent trends from a cohort viewpoint.
Practical Implications

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Human Performance

With minimal overall performance differences between younger and older groups, it is
likely worthwhile to invest in understanding and targeting performance differences at the
competency-level and providing structure (e.g., coaching, training) to improve employee
performance in these areas. Given the strain that may result based on Millennials’ approach to
their work differing from the way older workers conduct their work activities, it may be


Human Performance

worthwhile to leverage both Millennials’ and older workers’ preferences and strengths to achieve
overall improved job performance for an organization’s entire workforce. Although we do not
advocate training programs accessible by only one generational group but not by others,
development courses including representatives from all generations and focusing on
competencies exhibiting larger between-generation differences (e.g., Applied Learning,

rP
Fo

Collaboration, Adaptability, Work Standards) may facilitate collective learning, understanding,
and reconciliation of approaches potentially differing between the generations. In addition, our
findings suggest that each generation uses their different profiles of strengths to compensate for
other areas of weakness and reinforces holistic models of selection that evaluate performance

ee

across multiple competencies. With Millennials’ successors already being born (e.g., the

rR

Homeland Generation; Howe & Strauss, 2007), investigation and clarity regarding the
implications of a strong Millennial employee presence may be an important precursor to

ev

additional changes expected when their sons and daughters join them in the workforce.

w

ie
ly

On

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 24 of 31


of 31

References
Alsop, R. (2008). The Trophy Kids Grow Up: How the Millennial Generation is Shaking Up the
Workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
American Society for Public Administration (November, 2008). Poll finds Millennials rated
poorly by corporate recruiters. PA Times, November, 22.

rP
Fo

Altonji, J. G., Bharadwaj, P., & Lange, F. (2008, May). Changes in the characteristics of
American youth: Implications for adult outcomes. Paper presented at the NLSY97 Tenth
Anniversary Conference, Washington, DC.
BlessingWhite (2008). The State of Employee Engagement. BlessingWhite, Press Release.

ee

Retrieved July 9, 2009 from

rR

http://www.blessingwhite.com/docDescription.asp?id=254&pid=6&sid=1
Buono, A. F., & Nurick, A. J. (2008). Reaching your next generation of employees. Federal
Ethics Report, 15, 2-4.

ev

Cleveland, J. N., & Lim, A. S. (2007). Employee age and performance in organizations. In K.

ie

Shultz & G. Adams (Eds.). Aging and work in the 21st century. (pp. 109-137). Mahway,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

w

On

Deal, J. (2006). Retiring the Generation Gap: How Employees Young and Old Can Find
Common Ground. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Human Performance

Gibbons, J. (2006). Employee Engagement: A review of current research and its implications.
The Conference Board. Ottawa ON Canada.
Herman, A. M., Bramucci, R. L., Piala, G. F., & Litman, R. J. (2000). Built to Work: A Common
Framework for Skill Standards. National Skill Standards Board: Washington, DC.


Human Performance

Horn, J. L. (1982). The aging of human abilities. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of
developmental psychology: Research and theory (pp. 847-870). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2007). The next 20 years: How customer and workforce attitudes will
evolve. Harvard Business Review, July/Aug, 41-52.

rP
Fo

Hulett, K. J. (2006). They are here to replace us: Recruiting and retaining Millennials. Journal of
Financial Planning, Nov/Dec, 17.
Knowledge@W.P.Carey (2008). Millennials in the workplace: R U Ready? Retrieved July 9,
2009, from http://knowledge.wpcarey.asu.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1580

ee

Lansky, D. (2008). Money and meaning: Planning for the Next Generation. Journal of Practical

rR

Estate Planning, Feb/Mar, 5-6/

Lipkin, N. A., & Perrymore, A. J. (2009). Y in the Workplace: Managing the “Me First”

ev

Generation. Franklin Lakes, NJ: Career Press.

Macey, W. H. & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and

ie

Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 3-30.

w

Macky, K., Gardner, D., & Forsyth, S. (2008). Generational differences at work: Introduction

On

and overview. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 857-861.

McEvoy, G.M., & Cascio, W.F. (1989). Cumulative evidence of the relationship between

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 26 of 31

employee age and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 11-17.
Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2008). The relationship of age to ten dimensions of job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 392-423.


of 31

Pallavi, G. (2005). Welcome to the Gen Y workplace: Employers listen up: Raised in comfort
and with the Internet, this generation expects work to have deeper personal meaning.
Business Week Online, May 4.
Peterson, N., Mumford, M., Borman, W., Jeanneret, P., & Fleishman, E. (1999). An occupational
information system for the 21st century: The development of O*NET. Washington, DC:

rP
Fo

American Psychological Association.
Rawlins, C., Indvik, J., & Johnson, P. R. (2008). Just wishing and hoping? What the Millennial
cohort absolutely, positively must have at work. Proceedings of the Academy of
Organizational Culture, Communications, and Conflict, 13, 65-69.

ee

Rhodes, M. G. (2004). Age-related differences in performance on the Wisconsin Card-Sorting

rR

Test: A meta-analytic review. Psychology and Aging, 19, 482-494.
Roberts, B. W., Robins, R. W., Caspi, A., Trzesniewski. K. (2003). Personality trait development

ev

in adulthood. In J. Mortimer & M. Shanahan (Ed.). Handbook of the Life Course (pp.
579-598). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic.

ie

Salthouse, T. A. (1988). Initiating the formation of theories of cognitive aging. Psychology and
Aging, 3, 3-16.

w

On

Schaie, K. W. (1996). Intellectual development in adulthood: The Seattle longitudinal study.
New York: Cambridge University Press.

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Human Performance

Schippmann, J. S., Ash, R. A., Battista, M., Carr, L., Eyde, L. D., Hesketh, B., Kehoe, L.,
Pearlman, K., Prien, E. P., & Sanchez, J. (2000) The practice of competency modeling.
Personnel Psychology, 53, 703-740.
Sessa, V. I., Kabacoff, R. I., Deal, J., & Brown, H. (2007). Generational differences in leader
values and leadership behaviors. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 10, 47-74.


Human Performance

Sullivan, J. (2008). A new breed of ageism. Workforce Management, 87 (16), 50.
Taylor, P., Morin, R., Parker, K., Cohn, D., & Wang, W. (2009). Growing Old in America:
Expectations vs. Reality. Retrieved June 29, 2009, from
http://pewsocialtrends.org/assets/pdf/Getting-Old-in-America.pdf.
Toossi, M. (2007). Labor force projections to 2016: More workers in their golden years. Monthly

rP
Fo

Labor Review, 130, 33-52.
Tulgan, B. (2009). Not Everyone Gets a Trophy: How to Manage Generation Y. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Twenge, J. M. (2006). Generation Me: Why Today’s Young Americans are More Confident,

ee

Assertive, Entitled – and More Miserable than Ever Before. New York: Free Press.

rR

Verhaeghen, P., Steitz, D. W., Sliwinski, M. J., & Cerella, J. (2003). Aging and dual-task
performance: A meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging, 18, 443-460.

ev

Wefald, A. J. and Downey, R. G. (2009). Job engagement in organizations: Fad, fashion, or
foderol? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 141-145.

w

ie

ly

On

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 28 of 31


of 31

Table 1
Job Performance Differences: Millennial/Younger as Compared to Older Employees

Millennials/
Performance

Sig.

Older
F

Younger
Competency

d
Level

rP
Fo

Mean1

N

Mean1

N

Overall Performance

-0.007

1279

0.032

1866

1.604

0.205

-0.045

Communication

0.028

1230

0.011

1680

0.214

0.644

0.017

Collaboration

-0.028

1164

0.057

1598

4.703

0.030

-0.083

-0.038

1277

0.063

1866

7.450

0.006

-0.097

Customer Orientation

0.001

1204

0.016

1609

0.168

0.682

-0.015

Applied Learning

0.119

733

-0.048

1253

12.353

0.000

0.158

Adaptability

0.113

744

-0.053

1013

11.370

0.001

0.161

Managing Work

0.066

670

-0.023

3.349

0.067

0.087

Work Standards

-0.028

1123

ie

1088

0.053

1548

4.095

0.043

-0.078

Integrity

-0.079

650

0.078

991

9.346

0.002

-0.151

Initiative

-0.047

962

0.069

1027

0.012

-0.112

On

1

w

Decision Making

ev

rR

ee

6.276

Values represent marginal means after evaluation of job tenure as a covariate.

ly

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Human Performance


Human Performance

Figure Caption
Figure 1. Millennial/Younger and Older Group Means by Competency and Overall Performance

w

ie

ev

rR

ee

rP
Fo
ly

On

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

Page 30 of 31


of 31

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48

Human Performance


Group Means by Competency and Overall Performance
Overall Performance
0.20

Fo

Initiative**

Integrity**

Communication

0.15

rP

0.10
0.05

ee

Collaboration*

0.00

rR
-0.05
-0.10
-0.15

Work Standards*

ev

iew

Managing Work+

Customer Orientation**

On

Decision Making

Adaptability**

Applied Learning**

ly

** p < .01; * p < .05; + p < .10

Millennials/Younger Employees

Older Employees


Millennials Manuscript

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Destaque

Destaque (8)

Semelhante a Millennials Manuscript

Semelhante a Millennials Manuscript (20)

Mais de Meghan Daily

Mais de Meghan Daily (12)

Último

Último (20)

Millennials Manuscript