Worklife Balance And Organizational Commitment Of Generation Y Employees

WORKLIFE BALANCE AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT OF
GENERATION Y EMPLOYEES

A Thesis

Presented to the

Faculty of the College of Business and Economics

De La Salle University-Manila

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree in

Bachelor of Science in Commerce

Business Management Major in Applied Corporate Management

by:

Evangelista, Marianne Joyce M.

Lim, Eric Darryl N.

Rocafor, Shirley C.

Teh, Germaine Larisse Y.

December, 2009

Worklife Balance and Organizational Commitment of Generation Y
Employees 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

i. Approval Sheet………………………………………………….... 5

ii. Abstract…………………………………………………………... 6

iii. Acknowledgments………………………………………………... 7

iv. List of Figures……………………………………………………. 8

v. List of Tables…………………………………………………….. 9

Chapter

I. Introduction and Background of the Study……………………… 10

Statement of the Problem………………………………….……... 14

Research Objectives……………………………………….……... 14

Review of Related Literature…………………………………….. 15

Conceptual Framework…………………………………………… 64

Operational Framework………………………………………...... 65

Definition of Terms………………………………………………. 67

Scope and Delimitations…………………………………………. 70

Significance of the Study………………………………………… 72

Employees 3

PAGE

II. Methods

Research Design………………………………………………….. 74

Subjects and Sampling Procedure………………………………… 75

Research Instruments……………………………………………... 76

Procedure……………………………………………………….... 79

Data Analysis…………………………………………………...... 82

Methodological Limitations……………………………………… 83

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

IV. Discussion………………………………………………………… 123

V. Summary, Conclusion and Recommendations

Summary...……………………………………………………….. 151

Conclusion……………………………………………………….. 152

Recommendations………………………………………………… 154

References………………………………………………………………… 158

Employees 4

PAGE

Appendix

A. Letter of Request to the General Manager of a Selected

Organization in Metro Manila……….…………………… 179

B. Interview Guide for Human Resource Representative…………. 180

C. Basic Information……………...……………………………… 182

D. Worklife Balance Scale………………...……………………… 184

E. Organizational Commitment Questionnaire…………………… 185

F. Interview Guide for Generation Y Employees…………………. 187

G Transcribed Interview Responses (HR Representatives)……… 188

H Transcribed Interview Responses (Employee Respondents)…... 241

Employees 5

ABSTRACT

This study examined the worklife balance and organizational commitment

of Generation Y employees in a selected Information Technology firm in Metro

Manila. The IT firm, a small-to-medium enterprise (SME), employs about 94

employees, who were used as the subjects for this study. There were three (3)

instruments used for the study: an interview guide for the semi-structured

interviews with the human resources representatives of the organization; a survey

questionnaire composed of two scales, namely Worklife Balance scale and the

Organizational Commitment questionnaire; and an interview guide for the semi-

structured interviews with the Generation X and Generation Y employees.

Results showed that worklife balance does not affect organizational

commitment of Generation Y employees. This shows that Generation Y

employees do not consider worklife balance as a necessary factor to stay in a

company.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research paper would not have been possible without the assistance of many.

To our Management Research professor and Reader who gave us the basic tools
on how to start our paper, Mr. Raymund Habaradas, thank you for your patience
and willingness to give us guidance whenever we needed it.

We would of course like to thank the IT firm that graciously agreed to be the host
company for our study, particularly its General Manager, Mr. Plaza. Also, to the
HR representatives (Via and Judy) and the participants of this study, we express
our utmost gratitude for your warmest accommodation of us. For without your
help, the foundation of the findings of this study would not be as strong.

For providing us with sustenance and respite in the wee hours of the morning, we
thank the best pizza makers, Shakey’s. For providing us with an outlet to air out
our thesis pains through our many status messages, we thank the makers of
Facebook. To Shirley and Mayan, the designated drivers of the group, for
bringing us to and from everywhere. You have provided direction to the group,
both to our various destinations and our research paper. To Mayan for being the
hostess for our thesis overnight. To Mayan’s sister, Nins, for cooking us dinner
for our thesis overnights. To Eric, for always taking one for the team and going
the extra mile (both figuratively and literally i.e. searching for photocopiers
around Taft), and being the Big Kuya of our group of sisters. To Germaine, for
giving us as much reason to laugh with and at your idiosyncrasies. You and
Mayan have given the group as many reasons to laugh as intellectual input in our
paper. To Jacqueline So, for painstakingly reading and checking this paper for
grammatical errors. Thank you so much! To Natalie Lim and Joee Gamo, who
helped us with the Quanti Part.

To Dr. Laurene Chua-Garcia, the best thesis mentor any group could ever ask for.
For your unwavering understanding and flexibility in adjusting to our complicated
class schedules. For giving us more than reasonable lead time to work on our due
submissions every time. For giving us motherly advice and always looking out for
us. For shining the light when we felt lost and confused. For being as passionate
about our paper as we are.

And lastly, to you, the reader of our research paper, thank you for taking the time
and effort to read through our hard work and pride and allowing us to gain from
your invaluable insights.

Thank you all.

LIST OF FIGURES

PAGE

Figure 1.1 Generation X & Y and the Relationship

Between Worklife Balance and Organizational

Commitment………………………………………… 65

Figure 1.2 Operational Framework…………………………….. 67

LIST OF TABLES

PAGE

Table 1.1 Variations of Birth Years used to define Gen Y……. 48

Table 3.1 IT firm’s Employee Count per Department………… 87

Table 3.2 Interview Respondents’ Profile……………………… 89

Table 3.3 Additional details on the Generation Y and X

Respondents……………………………………….... 90

Table 3.4 Descriptive Statistics of Worklife Balance…………. 91

Table 3.5 Breakdown on Worklife Balance…………………… 96

Table 3.6 Descriptive Statistics of Organizational

Commitment………………………………………… 97

Table 3.7 Breakdown on Organizational Commitment………... 102

Table 3.8 Descriptive Statistics for Worklife Balance Scores on

Organizational Commitment………………………… 105


Organizational Commitment for Generation Y…….. 105


Organizational Commitment for Generation X…….. 106

Table 3.11 Generation Y respondents’ work history…………… 107

Table 3.12 Generation X respondents’ work history…………… 111

Employees 10

Chapter 1

Introduction And Background Of The Study

At the height of globalization, new trends in the workplace have been

surfacing. The flexibility of work and employee turnover has become

commonplace (Anonymous, 2007; Kochanki & Sorensen, 2008). Immediate

resignation after only a few months of training has fast become frequent in

companies today. This can be very costly, especially to the companies. As of

August 2004, a study in the United States showed that net hires to replace those

who retired or quit totalled 27.8 million annually. Of that amount, only 2.9

million were hired to replace those who retired or left due to death, disability or

other reasons and the remaining 24.9 million were hired to replace those who left

voluntarily usually for another job (www.epf.org, 2004). With the total turnover,

voluntary quit rates in industries such as leisure and hospitality (43.9 percent),

retail trade (30.2 percent) and construction (25.6 percent) were relatively above

average, according to a study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the United

States. Further, for large-sized companies with 40,000 employees, differences in

turnover rates can be very costly. Research shows that the difference of a firm

with a fifteen (15) percent turnover and one with twenty-five (25) percent

turnover would even reach approximately $50 million annually (www.epf.org,

2004). Costs of turnover rates also vary between industries. The statistics above

evinced that turnover intentions are indeed affecting today’s

workplace. However, studies show that having worklife balance or companies

Employees 11

who promote worklife balance tend to have a positive impact on increasing

productivity, retention of employees and employee loyalty (Ohio: the State of

perfect balance; Queensland Government, 2009).

In the Philippines, Watti, Watson Wyatt managing consultant, found that

fifty (50) percent of those employees that leave their companies go abroad to seek

work and better standards of living. The other half is pirated by competitors

(Cuevas-Miel, 2008). In addition, the study showed that locally, the Business

Process Outsourcing (BPO) or Outsourcing and Offshoring (O&O) industry has

the highest average turnover rate of twenty-three (23) percent per year (Cuevas-

Miel, 2008). Sometimes, inasmuch as the company provides programs and

various efforts to counter these negative issues, reasons that cause employees to

leave are still unclear. With turnover on the rise, today’s workplace must be

examined.

Today’s workplace consists of four different generations: the Silent

generation, the Baby Boomer generation, Generation X, and Generation Y

(Hammill, 2005). Considered as the latest entrant in the workforce, the Generation

Y has been said to be a generation with a very distinct personality. Because of

this, a number of studies are now focusing their attention on this particular

generation (Terjesen, Vinnicombe, & Freeman, 2007; Broadbridge, Maxwell and

Ogden, 2007; O’Malley, 2000). Born between 1980-2000 (Zemke et al., 2000;

Society for Human Resource Management [SHRM], 2007), Generation Y thrives

in a fast-paced, technologically-advanced, and globalized world. As contrasted

Employees 12

against older generations, this generation is highly efficient, techno-savvy, multi-

tasking, and highly achieving. However, they are also very impatient, demand

more responsibility, and have no sense of loyalty or even commitment to an

organization (Zimmerman, 2008; Fortier, 2007; Martin, 2005). As with any

generation, Generation Y has its own set of distinct characteristics, experiences,

and culture. One of the points of focus in this paper was on how these

characteristics affect the way this generation views work and career.

More than any other generation, Generation Y in particular, stresses on the

importance of worklife balance (Broadbridge, Maxwell & Ogden, 2007 & Anon,

2006). According to Asthana (2008), Generation Y “cares less about salaries, and

more about flexible working, time to travel, and a better worklife balance.”

Generation Y employees aim for worklife balance that corporations may not be

able to offer, thus, leading to one of the biggest challenges corporations have

faced—retention of these employees (Jayson, 2006). Some employers are

realizing just now that Generation Y is different from the previous generations

(Jayson, 2006), and thus currently, a lot of companies are offering ways to help

this generation attain worklife balance through, for instance, the offering of

flexible working hours. This is a plus factor that helps in recruitment.

In addition, Generation Y employees are said to have low levels of

organizational commitment. This is the reason why employers are having a hard

time pleasing them (Fortier, 2007). According to Fortier (2007), this younger

generation is hungry for “development and growth…They can be loyal and give

Employees 13

110 percent, but they are not planning to stay for 10 years.” Employers, on their

part, give relatively attractive benefits to retain these employees but only to some

extent. Generation Y employees expect more (Fortier, 2007). Thus, this affects

both the Generation Y employees and their employers.

As previous generations gradually retire, the organizational commitment

and turnover intentions of this new wave of employees, the Generation Y

employees, have become increasingly important. However, existing literature has

not clearly explained the effect of Generation Y’s perception of worklife balance

and organizational commitment to the turnover phenomenon. Hence, this study

focused on Generation Y employees, their perceptions of worklife balance, and

their organizational commitment.

In order to gain a rich macro and micro perspective of the above issue,

the researchers used two approaches: (a) the management perspective, specifically

of the Human Resources managers of the sample organization and (b) a personal

analysis (i.e. analysis of the individual) of the Generation Y employees

themselves. A research design that utilized a multi-method approach was used.

Then data obtained was subjected to a qualitative data analysis that examined the

worklife balance situation and organizational commitment status of the

Generation Y employees in a selected organization in Metro Manila. A survey

was also conducted on the host organization’s Generation X employees to verify

and compare data gained from Generation Y. Then, to address the relationship of

this ubiquitous turnover trend to this new generation of workers, possible

Employees 14

solutions on abating turnover and increasing commitment was recommended by

the group.

Statement of the Problem

Does worklife balance affect organizational commitment of Generation Y

employees in the selected IT firm in Metro Manila?

Research Objectives

This study aimed to accomplish the following objectives:

1. To determine the worklife balance status and level of organizational

commitment of Generation X employees in the selected IT firm.

2. To determine the worklife balance status and level of organizational

commitment of Generation Y employees in the selected IT firm.

3. To compare the similarities and differences in worklife balance status and

level of organizational commitment between Generation X and Y

employees in the selected IT firm.

4. To identify the effects of worklife balance on organizational commitment

in the selected IT firm.

Employees 15

Review of Related Literature

Introduction

The review of related literature will discuss worklife balance and

organizational commitment, which includes in its scope, turnover intentions in

relation to Generation Y.

To give an overview, a brief background will be given about the different

classifications of the generations. Today’s workplace consists of four different

generations: the Silent generation, the Baby Boomer generation, Generation X,

and Generation Y. In the United States, specifically, the four generations can all

be seen to work together in the workplace (Hammill, 2005). Researchers have

done studies regarding the different generations, their similarities and differences.

Each generation has different sets of values and attitudes towards work.

To understand these differences better, short descriptions of the

generations were given. The Silent generation, also known as the veterans and the

traditionalists, are individuals born from 1922-1945 (Hammill, 2005). They are

those who witnessed World War II, the Great Depression, the Cold War, the

bombing of Pearl Harbor, and other such events during this period (Young, 2007).

This generation experienced some of the more difficult times in history.

According to Hammill (2005), this particular generation is said to be hardworking,

willing to sacrifice, and respectful of authority. The members of this generation

worked hard to obtain their needs. Even though this generation views work as an

Employees 16

obligation (Hammill 2005), Scheef and Thielfoldt (2004) state that giving back to

the society is a distinct characteristic of this generation.

Members of the Baby Boomer generation, born from 1946-1964, are said

to be optimistic, workaholic, and work well together as groups (Hammill, 2005).

According to Hammill, unlike the veterans, baby boomers think of work as an

adventure. This generation was born in the midst of events such as civil rights

movements, the introduction of the birth control pill, rock and roll (Young, 2007).

According to Scheef and Thielfoldt (2004), this is the generation who gets

satisfaction from their jobs and is willing to take risks.

Generation X employees, also known as Generation Xer, Gen Xers or

Xers, are individuals born from 1965-1980 (Hammill, 2005). This is when events

such as the Fall of Berlin, and introduction of punk rock, rap and the personal

computer (Young 2007). This generation, according to Hammill, is skeptical and

self-reliant. This generation watched their parents cope with the difficult

economic times and its consequences such as layoffs and job insecurity (Scheef

and Thielfoldt, 2004). They work hard to look for a life that is different from that

of their parents. For some of them, work is a challenge; for others, it is a contract

(Hammill, 2005).

According to Kupperschmidt (2000), maximizing organizational

effectiveness by acknowledging the differences between generations is an issue

managers cannot avoid. In contrast, the article by Katherine Field (2006)

mentions that in an industry of tremendous turnover, it is hard to find good

Employees 17

employees. The strategy is to combine the generations. Mature employees bring

work and life experience to the company. They are terrific mentors and coaches to

the employees in the company while teens are valuable because they add great

insight by being up to date on what’s current.

Turnover

Defining Turnover

Turnover, as defined in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (2008) is

the “movement (as of goods or people) into, through, and out of a place.”

Turnover is “the proportion of employees leaving an organization during a given

time period (usually one year)” (Newstrom & Davis, 2002, p. 213). Price (1977)

defines turnover as “the degree of individual movement across the membership

boundary of a social system” (p. 4, para. 5). Known as labor mobility, it is an

interfirm movement, from one firm to another or a change of employer, as defined

by Parnes (Price, 1977).

Price (1977) also identifies two types of turnover: voluntary and

involuntary turnover. To differentiate the two, voluntary turnover is movement

initiated by the individual or employee, and not the employer. Involuntary

turnover such as dismissals, layoffs, and retirements are employer-initiated.

In addition, Price (1977) enumerated the various ways one can gauge the

turnover frequency and magnitude in an organization. To compute the average

length of “stayers”, divide the sum of length of service for each member by the

Employees 18

number of members. To know the average length of service of leavers, find the

median length of service of all members who leave during a period.

There are two types of crude turnover rates that are commonly used to

measure turnover (Price, 1977). The accession rate is computed by dividing the

number of new members added during the period by the average number of

members during the period. The other crude rate, the separation rate, is computed

by dividing the number of members who left during the period by the average

number of members during the period. Stability and instability rates are tools that

can also be used in measuring turnover. Stability/instability rate is computed by

dividing the number of beginning members who remain/leave during the period

by the number of members at the beginning of the period. In addition, survival

and wastage rates may be computed. The survival/wastage rate is computed by

dividing the number of new members who remain/leave during a period by the

number of new members (Price, 1977).

Determinants of Turnover

Price (1977) discusses several determinants of turnover. One variable is

pay. It is stated that “successively higher amounts of pay will probably produce

successively lower amounts of turnover” (p. 68, para. 2).This includes fringe

benefits and other benefits with financial value to the employee. According to

Price, professionals are less attracted to pay and benefits than non-professionals

are. Many scholars warn against putting too much importance to pay, even if this

Employees 19

does contribute somehow to decreasing turnover. Another determining variable is

integration. High integration lowers turnover (Price, 1977). Price cited Blau’s

definition of integration which is “the extent of participation in primary and/or

quasi-primary relationships”. (Price, p. 70, para. 4). The next determinant is

communication which is broken down into two types: instrumental and formal

communication. It is proposed that high amounts of these two types of

communication are likely to decrease turnover. As for instrumental

communication, role performance, job requirements and realistic previews of the

job environment including its difficulties result in reduced turnover (Price, 1977).

Formal communication includes training sessions of employees which also limit

turnover occurrences. Another determinant proposed by Price (1977) is

centralization, stating that a high degree of centralization encourages the

likelihood of turnover. Increased participation in decision-making, autonomy,

independence, and freedom will motivate employees to stay with an organization.

According to Sheridan and Abelson (1983), increased levels of job tension

in the current job may lead to the employee quitting to avoid the stressful work

environment. Job tension definition is the number and frequency of different

stressors present at work. It may be a result of role ambiguity, conflict, inter-role

conflict with competing family, social or professional role responsibilities, work

overload, and inadequate resources such as skills to perform the job as expected in

the present work conditions.

Employees 20

Price (1977) further discussed the intervening variables between the

abovementioned determinants and turnover. The two types are: a social

psychological variable known as “satisfaction” and the other, a structural variable

known as “opportunity”. There are dimensions to job satisfaction or morale,

namely, work, supervision, pay, promotion, and co-workers. The assumption is

that “…individuals act to maximize their net balance of satisfactions over

dissatisfactions…The higher the net balance of satisfactions over dissatisfactions,

the more likely it is that individuals will continue as members of organizations”

(Price, 1977, p. 80, para. 4). The second intervening variable, opportunity, is

concerned with the availability of alternative roles or jobs opportunities in the

industry; this involves the supply and demand of labor. Feelings of dissatisfaction

or Bowey’s “labor wastage” (Price, 1977) which is defined as separation from the

organization, is influenced by the many job opportunities available in other

organizations. Further, Price (1977) cites Bowey’s theory that there is a positive

relationship between opportunity and turnover – “the more opportunity, the

greater the turnover” (p. 81, para. 5). It was found that dissatisfaction results in

turnover especially when opportunity for a better job is relatively high.

There is a perception that employees leave their current jobs because of

dissatisfaction. This can come in many forms depending on the employees and

their priorities. Individual differences are very important when employees make

their decisions and that their personality traits do affect turnover intentions and

behaviors (Zimmerman, 2008). Some reasons employees cite for leaving the

Employees 21

company include “’better opportunities,’ scheduling problems, a poor relationship

with their manager, lack of understanding about career opportunities and

misunderstandings about compensation (Kochanski and Sorensen, 2008).” Since

reasons vary, organizations, if they want to prevent high turnover rates must

research for the causes of it in their organizations. This can be done by conducting

surveys, focus group discussions, and interviews (Kochanski and Sorensen, 2008).

Once organizations locate the source of the problem, they can create the solution

for it. Solutions for high turnover rates in companies are different but they may

also have some similarities.

Sheridan and Abelson (1983) cited Mobley in his 1979 study to suggest

that there are two factors related to employee turnover. First, the employee’s

evaluation of the organization’s future expected value with respect to his or her

work aspirations. Termination represents employee’s decision to accept a more

attractive job opportunity. Second, the tension associated with the employee’s

present work conditions. Termination represents the employee’s decision to leave

a stressful work environment.

According to Matuson (2008) in her article The Blame Game: Passing the

Buck on Employee Turnover, some organizations seem to think of the following

as the causes to their high turnover rates. The first is that they consider these

employees as “simply a bad bunch of new hires and the best of the bunch”

(Matuson, 2008). Their allowable pay range is also something that they consider.

For some companies they believe that “these are only entry-level positions, so

Employees 22

who cares?” (Matuson, 2008). Because of this, companies feel that they could

simply hire new employees. Other companies believe that “our turnover has

always been high” (Matuson, 2008). Even if this is the case, some companies with

high turnover rates do not seem to be bothered because even if it is so, “we are

still below the industry average” (Matuson, 2008). Another reason they responded

was that they did not have people who could take care of this problem (Matuson,

2008).

Because of the many effects the turnover rate bring to the organizations,

numerous studies regarding different turnover rate trends, how high or low it is in

different countries and industries have been studied for the past few years. In line

with the effects, researches have also been done on the causes or the factors that

lead to a certain trend of turnover rate and what can be done with the problem.

There are several reasons why an employee would leave the company they work

for or even think of leaving. Kochanski and Sorensen (2008) states that the

concept of turnover can be connected to the organizations employee value

proposition (EVP). This “explains why employees should want to work for the

organization and why it should want them to work there (Kochanski and Sorensen,

2008. p30).” The EVP according to them consists of five components: affiliation,

work content, career, benefits and compensation. These factors may vary

depending on the employees and their varying cultures and priorities.

There are some indicators to which turnover are related (Price, 1977). The

correlates with strong support are low length of service, young age, and low level

Employees 23

of employment. Correlates with medium support are: unskilled blue-collar

members and the country’s overall turnover rate. Correlates with weak support are

high educational attainment, non-managerial roles, and non-governmental jobs.

In Powell and Meyer’s study (2004), the research instrument utilized to

measure turnover intention focused on questions asking the participants about the

likelihood that they would remain with their current organization for the next year,

three years, and five years or longer. “Responses were made on a 7-point scale

(not at all likely; almost certain). Responses to these three items were reverse

coded to provide a measure of turnover intention” (Measures Section, p. 166).

Casper and Harris (2008) used a five point Likert scale to measure turnover

intentions (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). A sample question given

is ‘‘I will probably look for a new job in the near future’’ (Measures Section, p.

99).

Consequences of Turnover

Based on the article of Matuson (2008), turnover rate affects customer

satisfaction, employee retention and profitability. Also, turnover in organizations

can never really be totally extinguished. “All organizations experience turnover.

Although many know their overall turnover rate, or even their overall cost of

turnover, they often do not know whether their turnover is acceptable or

undesirable, which can hurt both the bottom and the top line (Kochanski &

Sorensen, 2008, p.31)”

Employees 24

According to Kochanski and Sorensen (2008), personnel turnover is

normal in any organization; however, it becomes “toxic” when it already affects

the financial results of the company. Besides from the usual costs of recruiting

and replacing employees, indirect costs such as “lost of productivity, capacity,

and even customers” are incurred all at the same time (Kochanski & Sorensen,

2008, p.28). Moreover, the organization would have a bigger problem if there is a

talent gap in those roles that are critical for the company to execute its business

strategy. According to the authors, the problem of turnover not only specifically

affects big organizations but also those who are experiencing downsizing since

they have to face the exit of their best people.

Worklife Balance

Defining Worklife Balance.

Worklife balance is said to be a “universal good” as it concerns activities

that are of social and moral importance. Moreover, having balance between work

and family or life outside work is encouraged because it reinforces “social values

and inclusion and effective functioning of people” (Yeandle, 2005; Millward,

2005).

By maintaining healthy worklife balance, companies are able to promote a

positive working environment and at the same time, retain good employees

(Pillinger, 2007). One of the most common worklife balance activities that top

companies provide are flexible working patterns. Some companies do not require

Employees 25

their employees to work in fixed hours; employees could just come to work

anytime they please and do the hours to get the job done. A number of companies

also consider providing mobile and web-based technologies to give employees

opportunities to work outside the office. Flexibility in the realm of staff

sabbaticals is also common in some top companies. In some instances, employees

have the choice of how and when they can use their sabbatical privilege; however,

most companies today still limit this privilege (Pillinger, 2007).

There are five main descriptive models of people’s work-life balance

(www.workdesignsolutions.biz, 2005).

“The segmentation model states that work and life outside of work

are mutually exclusive such that one sphere does not impact the

other. The spillover model states that work and life are

interdependent and therefore influence each other. The

compensation model states that where a person has growing

frustration in one life domain (e.g., family) they will reduce time

and energy spent in that role. This leads to an increase in time and

energy dedicated to a second life domain (e.g., work) in an effort

to compensate for the lack of rewards or for disagreeable

experiences in the first life domain (e.g., family). The instrumental

model states that one sphere of influence puts emphasis on the

other. The conflict model states that each sphere has multiple

demands, thus requiring individuals to prioritize and make choices

Employees 26

that can lead to conflict” (www.workdesignsolutions.biz, 2005, p.

1)

Fisher-McAuley, Stanton, Jolton and Gavin (2003) updated a scale to

assess the three dimensions of worklife balance namely: work interference with

personal life (WIPL), personal life interference with work (PLIW), and

work/personal life enhancement (WPLE). This scale was updated from the earlier

scale that was made by Fisher (2001) in his article Work/Personal Life Balance: A

construct development study. According to Fisher (2001), the content items for

work interference with personal life (WIPL) reflected the extent to which work

interferes with personal life. On the other hand, personal life interference with

work (PLIW) reflected the extent to which one’s personal life interferes with

work. Lastly, work/personal life enhancement (WPLE) refers to the extent where

one’s personal life enhances work. To get the overall worklife balance

measurement, lower levels of interference (WIPL and PLIW) will be interpreted

as higher levels of worklife balance while higher levels of work/personal life

enhancement (WPLE) is to be associated with higher levels of worklife balance.

Worklife Benefits.

According to Casper and Harris (2008), work-life benefits affect

organizational commitment. “Organizations often offer WLBs with the goal of

facilitating positive outcomes (Osterman, 1995), so understanding whether they

actually do so is important” (p. 2). Casper and Harris’(2008) study examined

Employees 27

dependent care assistance (DC) and schedule flexibility (SF), two commonly

explored WLBs. Casper and Harries (2008) cited studies that found that worklife

benefits relate to important outcomes, including increased affective commitment

and decreased turnover intention and increased organizational commitment; some

of these proponents are Auerbach, 1988; Youngblood and Chambers-Cook, 1984,

Goldberg, Greenberg, Koch-Jones, O’Neil, and Hamill, 1989; Kossek and Nichol,

1992. Further, Casper and Harris (2008) discussed how family leaves, flextime,

and compressed work schedules has been linked to higher commitment and lower

turnover intentions; this is aligned with other proponents’ studies such as those of

Thompson et al., 1999, Allen, 2001, Baltes, Briggs, Huff, Wright, and

Neuman,1999. The findings of this study resulted in the following conclusion:

“Finally, availability of DC and SF interacted in predicting

attachment such that availability of one WLB was more strongly

related to attachment when the availability of the other WLB was

low. This suggests that organizations may enhance attachment

more when an initial WLB program is implemented than when pre-

existing WLBs are supplemented. Thus, the return-on investment

from WLB program growth may be smaller than the return-on-

investment for WLB program implementation” (Casper & Harris,

2008, Conclusion Section, p. 13)

Employees 28

benefits of worklife balance. According to CIPD.com (2008), the

following are what organizations that have good worklife balance

programs benefit from:

a) “higher productivity and competitiveness

b) increased flexibility and customer service, for example to cover for

absence and holidays

c) raised morale, motivation, commitment and engagement

d) reduced absenteeism

e) improved recruitment and retention of a diverse workforce

f) wanting to become an ‘employer of choice’

g) meeting legal requirements. “ (http://www.cipd.co.uk, 2008, p.1)

Organizational Commitment

Defining Organizational Commitment.

Feldman and Ng (2008) cited Meyer & Herscovitch’s (2001) definition of

organizational commitment as a “stabilizing force that binds individuals to

organizations” (Theory section, p. 2).

Today’s workplace calls for a certain kind of leadership from managers in

order for them to retain their employees. According to Richards (2004),

“leadership means inspiring others to commit their energy to a common purpose.”

(p.6, para. 2) “A leader sounds a call to summon others. The call is a plea for

commitment to a purpose that is defined, embodied, and symbolized by who that

leader is and by what he says and does. The commitment that is summoned is

Employees 29

often a transformational power, a force that can create substance out of mere

dreams and promises through the dedication, involvement, and persistence of

those who offer it. The commitment of others is the fulfillment of the leader’s art;

without the commitment of others, a leader is just a voice. (p. 11, para 1)

According to O’Malley (2000), there are antecedents of commitment:

a) “Fit and belonging, or the extent to which employees’ interests and

values are congruent with the company’s (and with other

employees’)

b) Status and identity, or the extent to which the employees think of

themselves as belonging to the organization (as part of a group)

and derive value from their membership

c) Trust and reciprocity, the extent to which the company engenders a

sense of mutual obligation and indebtedness together with its

workforce

d) Emotional reward, the extent to which employees’ find the work to

be satisfying and the work environment to be free of obstacles to

and/or supportive of that satisfaction

e) Economic interdependence, the extent to which employees believe

they are engaged in a fair economic exchange” (p. 35)

Employees 30

According to Richards (2004), commitment for a leader or employer

organization is four-fold and is illustrated in an inverted triangle which

symbolizes:

a) “Political—commitment to something in order to gain something

else; lowest level and bottom tier of the triangle

b) Intellectual—commitment of the mind to a good idea

c) Emotional—commitment that arises out of strong feelings

d) Spiritual—commitment to a higher purpose; highest level and top

tier of the inverted triangle” (p. 12)

Political commitment is at the lowest level of committed human energy

(Richards, 2004) as it is the least profound. “It involves committing to ideas or

actions when we have little or no driver to follow through because our motives

have less to do with the object of our commitment, and more to do with what we

might gain or avoid by offering the commitment itself” (Richards, 2004, p. 13,

para. 1). Some examples of these political benefits are good salary, great benefits

and opportunities for career advancement. This level of “half-hearted and short-

lived commitment” is usually sufficient when workers need only a “small amount

of new learning” and when the workers expect “an honest day’s work for an

honest day’s pay” but nothing more than that, sometimes less (Richards, 2004, p.

13).

Employees 31

Intellectual commitment is the next higher level of commitment.

Intellectual commitment deals with leaders’ or employers’ stories which are

concerned with a vision of the future or an ideal state of the organization, and how

to convince employees to join in this quest towards this common vision (Richards,

2004). These stories are about the leader, which in the context of our study could

be the employer company or a manager or supervisor, and his followers pursuing

a common goal. “Stories are primarily about identity—who the leader is and who

the followers might become” (Richards, 2004, p. 15). Richards (2004) also

prescribes several strategies to win intellectual commitment. These have to do

with stimulating insight, creating a vision, storytelling, and mobilizing followers

into action.

Emotional commitment is the third highest level of commitment. This

level of commitment deals with “how to move people”, “manage one’s emotions”,

motivation, “recognizing emotions in others”, and “handling relationships”

(Richards, 2004, p. 16). Employees who are uplifted and inspired will engage

their commitment towards management’s desired direction. The strategies

prescribed to gain emotional commitment are: self-awareness, spurring emotional

engagement, and fostering hope of success (Richards, 2004).

Differentiating intellectual and emotional commitment, the former

concerns a “sophisticated understanding of the broader significance of the

purpose”, and the latter is more on employees’ “motivation to get involved—to

act on the purpose” (Richards, 2004, p. 18).

Employees 32

Spiritual commitment is at the highest level and has the greatest amount of

committed human energy, given the same about of followers (Richards, 2004) or

employees. However, Richards (2004) stated that this kind of leadership is rarely

seen in organizational life unless the core business of the organization is spiritual

itself. “Spiritually committed people give of themselves selflessly and with

fervor…It comes from a deeper source than most people bring to their day-to-day

work” (Richards, 2004, p. 18). The strategies prescribed to achieve spiritual

commitment are: rendering significance of the employer’s vision to the

employees’ lives, enacting beliefs and principles into activities, and centering of

the three components of commitment (Richards, 2004).

O’Malley (2000) states that organizational commitment goes with other

elements such as: (a) a desire to act or commitment, (b) an ability to act or

requisite behavioral repertoires, and (c) an objective or goal state. O’Malley (2000)

says that if any one of these is missing, organizational commitment will not take

effect. First, it is contended that “great commitment and goals will be lost on an

inferior workforce and/or on an obstructionist work environment” (p. 14, para. 2).

If the employees do not have the skills needed to accomplish the tasks, the goals

of the organization will not be achieved, no matter how much management

rewards the employees. Aside from a deficient workforce, factors such as

bureaucratic hindrances and insufficient resources will also hinder organizational

commitment.

Employees 33

Second, O’Malley (2000) states that “generating great goals without the

attendant commitment is futile” (p. 15, para. 2). Goals are described as sterile if it

lacks the passion and conviction of the organizational members. It is not enough

that managers involve employees in goal-setting. As explained by O’Malley

(2000), “the real differences do not lie on who made up the goal or what the

specific goal is, but on how deeply once cares about, and is committed to, the

enterprise in which the goal is embedded” (p. 15, para. 2). O’Malley (2000)

suggests the analogy of the difference between a mountain climber and a tourist,

both having the common goal to reach the mountain’s summit. The climber

chooses the more challenging route because he/she is filled with passion; while

the tourist will take only the easiest route possible.

Third, “instilling commitment without establishing direction squanders

employees’ ardor” (O’Malley, 2000, p. 15, para. 4). Essentially, it is stated that

even as committed employees have some freedom or autonomy on how they

accomplish their day-to-day tasks, a clear direction from management is still

needed.

Previous research done by Sheridan and Abelson (1983) cited that

commitment implies that the employee has made an implicit comparison of the

expected job benefits with alternative job opportunities and is satisfied with the

present job offer’s benefits that are as attractive as any other alternative.

Commitment is also defined as the employee’s behavior intention to continually

Employees 34

work for the organization rather than accepting another job that may offer

potentially better socioeconomic benefits.

Powell & Meyer (2004) made mention of the stand of other theorists on

organizational commitment. “Other theorists (e.g., Mowday, Porter, & Steers,

1982) tended to view commitment as an emotional attachment to the organization.

Still others conceptualized commitment as a sense of moral obligation to comply

with behavioral norms (e.g., Wiener, 1982)” (p. 159)

theories on organizational commitment. This study will focus on the

application of Allen and Meyer’s (1990) three-component model of

organizational commitment. Becker’s Side-Bet theory (1960) is included for

reference.

Powell and Meyer (2004) who made a study on organizational

commitment and turnover, cited Allen and Meyer’s study (1990), the three-

component model of organizational commitment. The three components of

organizational commitment are continuance, affective, and normative

commitment. Powell and Meyer (2004) described Allen & Meyer’s components

of commitment develop in different ways and have different implications for job

behavior. Powell and Meyer (2004) explains the three-components of Allen &

Meyer’s model:

Employees 35

a) “continuance commitment was expected to develop in response

to conditions (e.g., side bets) that increase the cost of leaving,

whereas

b) affective commitment was expected to be particularly sensitive

to work experiences (e.g., job scope; organizational support).

c) Normative commitment was believed to develop in response to

social pressure. On the consequence side, affective

commitment was expected to have the strongest positive effect

on desirable work behaviors (e.g., attendance, performance,

organizational citizenship behavior), followed by normative

commitment. Continuance commitment was expected to have

little, or even a negative, impact on these behaviors” (Meyer

and Allen’s three-component model Section, p. 159).

To further expound on these definitions, Feldman and Ng (2008) also

utilized Allen and Meyer’s three component model (1990), following the

definitions of the proponents: “affective commitment refers to employees’

emotional attachment to, involvement in, and identification with their employers.

Normative commitment is the perceived obligation to stay, with some

connotations of moral imperatives to do so. Continuance commitment is “the

extent to which employees perceive that they have to stay with their employers

because the costs of leaving are too high” (Theory section, p. 2).

Employees 36

According to the study of Lee, Allen and Meyer (2001), the three

component model of Meyer all have significant correlations with turnover

intention wherein normative commitment was found to have an independent

contribution to the prediction of turnover intention over and above affective and

continuance commitment.

Feldman and Ng (2008) stated a primary difference about older generation

employees and Generation Y employees when it comes to organizational

commitment. Older workers who have had years of full-time work experience are

particularly more likely to react positively when they perceive that their current

employers are treating them well with unreplicable deals, since they are keenly

aware how hard it will be to find replacement jobs with similar pay and benefits,

also because as individuals gained work experience, their perceptions of the work

world would become more realistic and that individuals would react less strongly

to disappointments on the job. (Mallinckrodt, 1990; Wanous, 1981). “Thus, we

predict that, compared to younger workers, older workers who view their

contracts as unreplicable are likely to have higher organizational commitment”

(Theory section, p. 3). This assumption led to the hypotheses to be investigated in

the study that age and work experience moderate the relationships of contract

unreplicability with affective commitment and normative commitment such that

these relationships are stronger for older employees than for younger employees

(Theory section, p. 3). Results showed that normative commitment and affective

commitment has a stronger relationship with employees age 40 and older than

Employees 37

those aged below 40 (Feldman & Ng, 2008). In relation to age and work

experience, Feldman and Ng (2008) tested the relationship of organizational

commitment with career stages of older and younger employees. The results

showed that the difference was statistically significant. Consistent with the

proponents’ predictions, commitment is stronger with the veteran group than in

the career starter group (Feldman & Ng, 2008).

D'Amato and Herzfeldt (2008) found in the results of their study that

“younger generations are less willing to remain in the same organization and have

lower organizational commitment. The youngest generations (Early and Late Xers,

born 1960 and after) show stronger learning orientation and lower organizational

commitment than older generations (Early and Late Boomers, born 1946-1959)”

(D'Amato & Herzfeldt, 2008). The results of this study contend that job-related

learning is an important variable for the intention to stay/leave one's current

organization.

Even as Feldman and Ng’s (2008) study provided significant information

on the variables affecting organizational commitment, further research could be

done regarding continuance commitment of Generation Y employees. The

researchers will focus on Generation Y employees aged below 30 years old as

contrasted with the 40 years old and below ‘young employees’ used in the study

of Feldman and Ng (2008).

To measure organizational commitment, Powell and Meyer (2004) utilized

a modified version of Allen and Meyer’s Affective (ACS), Continuance (CCS),

Employees 38

and Normative (NCS) Organizational Commitment Scales. “Responses were

made on a 7-point scale (strongly disagree and strongly agree). The ACS and

NCS each contained six items, and reliabilities (coefficient a) were .87 and .89,

respectively. The CCS included three items measuring perceived lack of

alternatives (CC:LoAlt), and six items measuring personal sacrifice (CC:Hi:Sac)”

(Powell & Meyer, 2004, Measures Section, p. 165).

Feldman and Ng (2008) operationalized age as the chronological age of.

Work experience was operationalized as number of years in the industry

(Quinones, Ford, & Teachout, 1995; Feldman & Ng (2008). Career stage was

assessed through employees’ global perceptions of which career stages they

perceived themselves to be in: early-career, mid-career, or late-career. Brief

descriptions of each of these three career stages were indicated so that

respondents could more readily identify their current career stage. “We described

early career as the period in which an individual’s career has just begun and the

individual is still exploring different alternatives. Mid-career was described as the

period in which a career has been progressing for some time and several

important career goals have been accomplished, while late career was described

as the period in which an individual’s career is winding down and getting close to

its end…We found that age was related to work experience at .78 and career stage

at .73, while work experience was related to career stage at .69” (Feldman & Ng,

2008, Measures section, p. 4).

Employees 39

To measure employees’ perceptions of contract replicability, or “the extent

to which respondents perceived that their current psychological contracts would

be readily attainable in other firms” (Feldman & Ng, 2008), Robinson, Kraatz,

and Rousseau’s (1994) measure included the following seven key elements:

opportunities for advancement, level of pay, pay based on current level of

performance (merit pay), training, job security, career development, and support

with personal problems. Feldman and Ng (2008) included the following items: “(1)

this organization promises me a level of pay that other organizations are unlikely

to provide; (2) this organization promises me advancement opportunities that

other organizations are unlikely to provide; (3) this organization promises me skill

training that other organizations are unlikely to provide; (4) this organization

promises me career development opportunities that other organizations are

unlikely to provide; (5) this organization promises me a level of job security that

other organizations are unlikely to provide; (6) this organization promises me

support for personal problems that other organizations are unlikely to provide.

The coefficient alpha for this scale was .90, with higher scores indicating that

contracts are unlikely to be replicable elsewhere” (Feldman & Ng, 2008,

Measures section, p. 5). This measure was pre-tested using an exploratory factor

analysis (EFA) with “one factor that accounted for 52% of the variance, with

factor loadings ranging from .64 to .81. The coefficient alpha in this sample

was .81. Based on this information, it seems the 6-item measure is

psychometrically acceptable” (Feldman & Ng, 2008, Measures section, p. 5).

Employees 40

Feldman and Ng (2008) utilized Meyer, Allen, and Smith’s (1993) 18-item

scale to measure the three components of organizational commitment. “A sample

item of the affective commitment scale is: ‘‘I feel emotionally attached to this

organization.” (a = .94). A sample item of the normative commitment is: ‘‘I feel

the obligation to remain with my current employer.” (a = .91). A sample item of

the continuance commitment is: ‘‘Too much of my life would be disrupted if I

decided I wanted to leave my organization now.” (a = .81).” (Feldman & Ng,

2008, Measures section, p. 5)

In Casper and Harris (2008) study on organizational attachment, Meyer

and Allen’s eight items were used to measure affective organizational

commitment. An example of a question that was included in the research

instrument was “’I would be happy to spend the rest of my career at my

organization.’ Responses were on a five point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree

to 5 = strongly agree)” (Measures Section, p. 99). To measure perceived

organizational support, a five point Likert scale was also used (1 = strongly

disagree to 5 = strongly agree). An example item on the research instrument is

‘‘My organization cares about my opinions” (Casper & Harris, 2008, Methods

Section, p. 99).

Powell and Meyer (2004) also made mention of Becker’s (1960) side-bet

theory. Powell and Meyer (2004) explained that Becker’s theory was that

commitment was accompanied by an awareness of the costs of discontinuing a

course of action. Becker’s (1960) theory on organizational commitment is that

Employees 41

‘‘commitments come into being when a person, by making a side bet, links

extraneous interests with a consistent line of activity’’ (Becker, 1960, p. 32;

Powell & Meyer, 2004, p. 158). Powell & Meyer (2004) enumerated several

categories of side bets:

a) “Generalized cultural expectations refer to the expectations of

important reference groups regarding what constitutes

responsible behavior (e.g., how long one should stay at a job).

Violating these expectations could lead to real, or imagined,

negative consequences.

b) Self-presentation concerns arise when a person attempts to

present a consistent public image that requires behaving in a

particular fashion. Failure to do so could tarnish the image.

c) Impersonal bureaucratic arrangements are rules or policies put

in place by the organization to encourage or reward long-term

employment (e.g., a seniority-based compensation system).

d) Individual adjustments to social positions refer to efforts made

by an individual to adapt to a situation, but that make him or

her less fit for other situations (e.g., investment of time and

effort to acquire organization-specific skills).

e) Non-work concerns refer to side bets made outside the

organization itself, as when an employee establishes roots in a

community that would be disrupted if he or she were to leave

Employees 42

the organization and be forced to seek employment in another

geographic location.” (p. 159-159)

The findings of Powell and Meyer’s (2004) study provide strong support

for side-bet theory. Measures of all five of Becker’s (1960) side-bet categories

correlated significantly with high-sacrifice continuance commitment and with

turnover intention. However, “the partial correlation was .21 (p < .01), suggesting

that side bets account for some, but not all, of the variance shared by continuance

and normative commitment” (Results section, p. 21).

Fostering organizational commitment to prevent turnover

Branham (2001) describes a culture that fosters organizational

commitment which results in a high-performing, innovative, confident and

committed workforce and overall success of the company:

a) “Views employees as partners

b) Recognizes human needs of all employees

c) Invests in people as the primary source of competitive

advantage

d) Communicates clear corporate mission, vision, strategy,

goals, and objectives.

e) Commits to long-term strategy and the people needed to

carry it out.

Employees 43

f) Reward system and management styles support the mission

and strategy

g) Focuses on “managing the performance contract,” not

controlling the people

h) Puts a premium on employee involvement in new ideas and

innovation

i) Focuses on results, not on who gets credit

j) Trusts employees enough to delegate

k) Tolerates “intelligent error” and experimentation” (p. 26)

Half’s survey (2005) explored the top three (3) reasons why Generation Y

employees would leave a company. In descending order, the percentages were:

“no opportunities for career development (51%), not satisfied with salary (39%),

work/life not in balance (12%)” (Half, 2005, p. 7)

Conversely, Half (2005) explored the factors that are most likely to lure

Generation Y employees to another firm and the responses are aligned with

existing literature. These were: “greater opportunities for career development,

higher pay, better work/life balance, benefits” (Half, 2005, p. 14).

Alexander & James (2009) describe the kind of commitment that

Generation Y has. As contrasted against Generation X’s loyalty to the

organization, Generation Y’s loyalty is to individual managers. They are more

committed to the idealistic corporate vision and values than the organization itself.

Employees 44

Generation Y employees are willing to do their due diligence and hard work with

their work output, but in return there must be immediate reward and recognition

(Alexander & James, 2009). They have an insatiable need for mental stimulation

(Mitman & Wiegand, 2009).

O’Malley (2000) enumerates fifteen (15) myths and misconceptions about

commitment and turnover: First is that “employees who stay with a company are

committed” (p. 16, para. 4); in other words, retention does not equal commitment.

Managers must differentiate employees who stay in the company because they

have no other better options in other companies or if they are just in it for the

benefits. Second, “when a company does something to increase commitment, it

should see the results to the business right away” (p. 17, para. 2); O’Malley

emphasizes that commitment takes time to build, conversely, it takes time to

destroy as well. Third is “turnover and absenteeism are entirely different subjects”

(p. 17, para. 4). As for the similarities of the two, they are seen as similar

responses (e.g. escaping or avoiding) to a lack of commitment to the organization.

On the other hand, these two have different cost structures, policies and

procedures related to them from the company’s perspective (O’Malley, 2000).

Fourth, “employees, by nature, aren’t as committed as they used to be” (p.

18, para. 3); the issue of job security aside, employees still derive commitment

and security in their jobs even without the clear promise or guarantee of

permanence from other facets of the organizational climate. Fifth is “the people

who are most likely to leave a company are new hires fresh out of school who

Employees 45

have not yet developed a work ethic” (p. 18, para. 5); as fresh graduates are beset

with other prospects or job opportunities outside of the company, they are deemed

to be the most uncommitted to an organization. However, O’Malley (2000)

contends that new hires, fresh graduates or not, look at how long the existing

employees stay in the company and then the new hires generally follow suit. Sixth

is “most employees leave because of money, not lack of commitment” (p. 19, para.

2); bottom line, employees who leave for money “have not been enriched by the

company in other ways” (p. 19, para. 3). However, most employees have other

underlying reasons for leaving a company such as abuse of power, broken

promises for career advancement, and other emotion-laden reasons (O’Malley,

2000).

Seventh, “doing something to increase commitment is better than doing

nothing” (p. 19, para. 4); investing in programs that are intended to increase

commitment but do not address the right issues can be costly. For instance,

quality circles that are intended to empower employees might be discouraged

because this is time-consuming and interferes with accomplishing formal work

tasks. Eighth, “there is really no use in trying to create commitment within certain

industries (e.g. retail), because the jobs aren’t that good and that reality can’t

changed” (p. 20, para. 2); employees who are at the bottom of the hierarchy, such

as clerks, representatives, cleaning and maintenance staffs, still need to feel that

they and their work are meaning full and are being valued by the company, no

matter how menial or seemingly remote their role is within the company. Ninth is

Employees 46

“companies should address low commitment where it results in the biggest

organizational returns” (p. 21, para. 2); O’Malley (2000) states that “the

magnitude of potential results tend to be correlated with the scope and effort of

change that is required” (p. 21, para. 3). Tenth is “turnover is a binary effect” (p.

21, para. 4); oftentimes, not one thing but many factors, elements, and

experiences cause an employee to quit his job. O’Malley (2000) contends that

“turnover is an evolutionary process by which employees gradually discover

(some more quickly than others) what the organization is like and what kind of

relationship they are in—and they make a choice accordingly to stay or leave” (p.

21, para. 4).

Eleventh is that “very low turnover is bad” (p. 22, para. 3); there is an

implicit assumption that goes with this particular state (i.e. involuntary turnover)

in an organization, and that is that the company might be too comfortable and

have grown complacent and unmotivated. Further, when it comes to zero or

voluntary turnover, O’Malley (2000) advises that a company must leave room in

the system for employees to be able to leave the company voluntarily so that the

company retains only those who really want to work in the company. Twelfth is

that “there is only one reason for high or low commitment” (p. 23, para. 2);

commitment is affected by “corporate wide influences, group (e.g. departmental,

workgroup, job class) influences, and individual differences” (p. 23, para. 2) such

as attitudes and personal opinions or perceptions. There is no one thing that

causes low or high commitment.

Employees 47

Thirteenth is “to understand commitment, we can just ask employees” (p.

23, para. 2). The input of employees is indisputably significant; however, the

responses of employees of one workgroup to another will most likely be different

and should be contrasted against each other. Further, the responses of employees

who wish to stay in the company and those who wish to leave will differ greatly.

Fourteenth is that “happy employees are productive employees” (p. 24, para. 2);

O’Malley (2000) states that employees who are happy or cheerful do not equal

productive, motivated and committed employees. Last is that “positive behavior

change implies positive change in commitment” (p. 24; para. 3). Even as

managers impose sanctions or reprimands intended to thwart negative behavior of

employees, the existence of these sanctions and how these affect the relationship

of employees with their managers prove to have negative effects on their

commitment in the long-run.

Generation Y

Who are they? Statistics and Trends

Earlier, a brief general overview was given about the Silent generation, the

Baby Boomers, and the Generation X. This section will be solely dedicated to

development, trends and characteristics of the Generation Y. Some literature on

Generation Y that is related to worklife balance, organizational commitment, and

turnover intentions will be discussed as well.

Employees 48

NAS Recruitment Communications (2006) indicated in the article

Generation Y: The Millenials that Generation Y makes up to around 70 million

(20%) of the population of the United States.

There are also a lot of assumptions regarding the range to which this

generation belongs to in terms of birth years. Patalano (2008) conveniently

compiled most of the common variations of birth years that are used to describe

Generation Y. Table 1.1 below shows the different variations.

Table 1.1
Variations of Birth Years used to define Gen Y
Birth Years Author(s), Date of Publication
1975-1984 Cheng (1999); Janoff (1999); Stapinski (1999); Wellner (1999)
1977-1994 Bakewell & Mitchell (2003); Cui, Matiru, Sullivan, & Trent
(2003); Gill (1999)
1970-1995 Crispell (1993); Hira (2007)
1978-1984 Chester (2001); Martin & Tulgan (2001)
1978-1997 Alch (2000)
1979-1994 Duff (1999); Kapner (1997); Neuborne & Kerwin (1999)
1980-1999 Allen (2004)
1980-2000 Zemke et al. (2000); SHRM (2007)
1981-1999 Lancaster & Stillman (2002)
1981-1988 Pew Research Center For the People & the Press (2007)
1982-2002 Howe, Strauss, & Matson (2000)
Note. From A study of the relationship between generational group identification
and organizational commitment: Generation X vs. Generation Y of Patalano, 2008,
(Table 1).

Employees 49

Considering the table above, this paper will employ the age range of 1980-

2000 as the basis for defining Generation Y since the period somehow

encompasses all the other variations given.

“The Millenial generation brings together the “can do” ethic of the Silents,

the teamwork approach of the Boomers, and an even greater tech savvy than that

of the Generation Xers” (Scheef & Thielfoldt, 2004, p.10). People born between

the years 1980-2000 (Zimmerman, 2008) are the ‘Generation Y’ of today or the

so-called the ‘Millennials’ (Huggins, 2008). This is the period of when the

internet, instant messaging, other technology and hip hop are prevalent (Young,

2007). Zimmerman (2008) described this generation as a generation that is

techno-literate, ‘self-confident, success-driven and community-minded.’ They

‘thrive on flexibility, value guidance, and expect respect’ (Zimmerman, 2008).

Aside from being busy and stressed, this generation has this mentality of ‘instant

gratification’ in everything that they do (Huggins, 2008).

Salt (2007), in his article Beyond the baby boomers: The rise of

Generation Y, gives a description of Generation Y, explaining why how its

characteristics are as observed in relation to other generations:

“Gen Y are the children of the Baby Boomers. Some see the Ys as

the children of rich and indulgent baby boomer parents. The

boomers were the first generation to deliver two incomes to the

household and have been inclined to indulge their children as a

consequence… Generation Y are less likely to make commitments

Employees 50

to marriage, to mortgage, to children or to career until late in their

20s. This generation is more likely to live at home or, in the case of

the U.S., to continue to draw upon parental income support after

leaving home. Some have labeled this phenomenon as Generation

Y having access to the “Bank of Mom & Dad”. This generation is

highly educated, generally entrepreneurial (in comparison with

previous generations) and global in their thinking. All of this

makes Generation Y focused on the here and now and, from an

employer’s perspective, it also makes this generation especially

difficult to retain in the office.” (p. 15)

Shown below are statistics and trends regarding the behavior of

Generation Y employees. Researchers often characterize them as self confident,

technologically savvy, collaborative, entrepreneurial and impatient (Grossman,

2006). Furthermore, Fortier (2007) cited findings of a survey by CareerBuilder

released in October 2007 found that 87 per cent of all hiring managers and HR

professionals said Generation Y workers feel more entitled, as contrasted against

older generations, in terms of compensation, benefits and career advancement.

Fleschner (n.d.) says that Baby Boomers and Generation X parents are

enablers in that they encourage rewards and recognition for their Generation Y

children for menial effort and accomplishments. According to Fleschner (n.d.)

this culture of our society celebrating mediocrity has set up an “unrealistic

Employees 51

scenario of adult life” for Generation Y. This has caused members of Generation

Y to graduate with a sense of entitlement, “a feeling that they deserve largely as

they have been constantly rewarded for often small, trivial successes” (Fleschner,

n.d., p. 144).

Levine in Fleschner (n.d.) further extends the reasoning to the high

turnover trends with Generation Y: “Having been used to being well-rewarded for

often little effort, many members of Generation Y move from job to job seeking

this immediate satisfaction” (Levine in Fleschner, n.d., p. 144).

Half (2005) also mentions that Generation Y has been characterized as “an

overstimulated, high-maintenance generation hooked on instant gratification.

Generation Y employees also been accused of having a sense of entitlement and

unreasonable expectations about work” (Half, 2005, p. 13).

“The CareerBuilder results show that when dealing with young

employees:

a) 74 per cent of employers say Gen Y workers expect to be

paid more

b) 61 per cent say Gen Y workers expect to have flexible

work schedules

c) 56 per cent say Gen Y workers expect to be promoted

within a year

d) 50 per cent say Gen Y workers expect to have more

vacation or personal time

Employees 52

e) 37 per cent say Gen Y workers expect to have access to

state-of-the-art technology” (Fortier, 2007, Human

Resources Section, p. 10)

In 2000, the highest level of new hires were between the ages 31 to 40,

while the highest number of quits occurred with the employees in their early 30s

(Colleen O'Hara, 2001).

As contended by Amar (2004), Generation Y draw three sources of work

motivation (as opposed to other generations): the nature of the job; the outcomes

of the job which include rewards and sanctions; and the organizational system and

its attributes such as mission-vision, goals, policies, practices, image, and culture.

Characteristics at Work.

Below are some typical characteristics of Generation Y employees at

work.

commitment to the organization. In the article Busting the myths of Gen

Ys by Fortier (2007) cited Helen Handfield-Jones research on Generation Y

workers that although their seemingly lack of commitment to their employer

companies in terms of stay in the company, they are committed to doing well at

their jobs. One of the reasons for the lack of commitment might be an adaptation

of the dynamic marketplace. "These young people have grown up in the age when

commitments between people and organizations are much more short term. They

know their company isn't going to keep them on the payroll forever," she

Employees 53

explained. "Our research has found that younger generations are incredibly

hungry for development and growth, more than we were at that age…They can be

loyal and give 110 per cent, but they are not planning to stay for 10 years."

(Fortier, 2007, Human Resources Section, p. 10).

impatience/sense of immediacy. Another evident characteristic of

Generation Y is their urgent sense of immediacy (Martin, 2005). The proponent

states, “A year is long-term to a Generation Y employee and three years is just a

mirage.” (p. 41) Furthermore, these workers are not attracted by promises of

climbing ladders, paying dues, and cashing out at retirement, as Generation X

workers do. They are more concerned with what they can learn and gain (in terms

of rewards) today. “Generation Y is self-confident, outspoken, passionate,

opinionated, loyal and impatient. They are easily bored and happily move on to

other things and interests. They are ambitious, and in a hurry…” (Henry, 2006,

p.1). When it comes to career advancement, Generation Y is known to be

impatient in the time they have to wait to receive a job promotion. Fleschner

(n.d.) states that this generation is “opposed to working many years before job

advancement if they are seemingly qualified” (Fleschner, n.d., p. 142). Half’s

survey (2005) of Generation Y employees showed that “more than half of those

surveyed believe they should spend just one to two years “paying their dues” in

entry-level positions” (Half, 2005, p. 7).

demand for responsibility. Another characteristic that is distinct to

Generation Y is the desire or demand for more responsibility at work. When they

Employees 54

are left with menial tasks, they tend to get bored easily. Also, they do not like

being micromanaged. This generation has a need to feel that their bosses trust

them with real and more important tasks so that they will gain professional

growth. Generation Y people are highly motivated. For Martin (2005), the

managers should “position increasing responsibilities as rewards for their Gen Y-

er’s accomplishments” (p. 42). The reason for this could be related to Sheahan’s

(2005) observation that “Generation Y have been played up to their entire life,

often with money and material things ... they know their value, and they know

they have options” (2005, p. 28). Also, Hill and Stephens (2005) noted that

“Generation Y has been raised to believe that their private agendas drive their

public performance” and will clearly need to be ‘managed’ in a much more

sophisticated way than previous generations. As stated by Broadbridge, Maxwell

and Ogden (2007), job security is not a motivator for Generation Y and they do

not expect nor desire long-term employment. This claim is supported by Baruch

(2004b), who suggests that Generation Y employees are more attracted to

challenging and meaningful task assignments for their self-development and their

careers. According to Kupperschmidt (2000), Generation Y would want the same

things from a job. The only difference is they expect it, and more than that, they

demand it.

flexibility of work. According to Martin (2005), Generation Y employees

desire flexibility of work. “They are looking for work places where they can move

from project to project, position to position, department to department, location to

Employees 55

location” (p. 42). The reason for this is that flexibility provides opportunities

where they can continue to learn different marketable skills and gather experience

that will serve their career in the future. As a solution, managers should invest in

on-going education and flexibility within the organization to make it the “hub of

energy” of the Generation Y workers.

preferences on organizational attributes. According to the research study

Attracting Generation Y graduates: Organizational attributes, likelihood to apply

and sex differences (Terjesen, Vinnicombe, & Freeman, 2007), it was found that

with the sample, which consisted of university students about to graduate, there

was be a positive relationship between the attractiveness of organizational

attributes and likelihood to apply. Some of the characteristics of Generation Y

employees, such as being respectful of learning, socially conscious and, diverse

are shown (Grossman, 2006), and the organizational attributes identified were:

a) “invest heavily in the training and development of their

employees”

b) “care about their employees as individuals”

c) “clear opportunities for long-term career progression”

d) “variety in daily work” and

e) “dynamic, forward-looking approach to their business” (p. 517)

Employees 56

Terjesen, Vinnicombe, and Freeman (2007) were able to identify the most

important predictor of likelihood to apply to a company. In descending order of

important attributes are:

a) “employs people with whom you feel you will have things in

common”.

b) “offer the opportunity for international travel”

c) “really care about their employees as people”

d) “friendly, informal culture”

e) “a very high starting salary”

f) “use your degree skills”

g) “scope for creativity in your work”

h) “a dynamic, forward-looking approach to their business” (p. 514)

However, some organizational attributes are disliked by Generation Y workers.

These are: “an internationally diverse mix of colleagues” and “require you to

work standard working hours only” (Terjesen, Vinnicombe, & Freeman, 2007, p.

514). Interestingly, the proponents also identified some attributes that were not at

all mentioned by the sample. This information indicates to some extent that

Generation Y is looking for slightly different qualities in their employers. The

missing attributes, which are greatly prominent with Generation X, are:

a) “absence of students’ mention of benefits (e.g. medical, life

insurance),

Employees 57

b) job security,

c) physical work environment,

d) solitude,

e) easy commute,

f) geographical location and

g) feedback” (p. 515)

nature of job and industry preference. With regard to the type of job or

industry that Generation Y prefers, Terjesen, Vinnicombe, and Freeman (2007)

found through their sample companies, a management consultancy, an investment

bank and a media corporation. The findings were that Generation Y students

perceive the “media corporation to offer more scope for creativity at work and a

relatively stress-free working environment than the management consultancy or

the investment bank” (p. 511), which indicates that Generation Y students prefer

creative and stress-free work. This also evinces that students are able to

differentiate between employers and the nature of work involved very early stages

of the job search process.

clearer expectations based on previous work experience. For

Broadbridge, Maxwell and Ogden (2007), Generation Y may already have work

experience from several jobs while still being students (i.e. undergraduate

internships) before entering into a full-time employment. In general, this

generation of workers has clearer expectations as to what they want and what they

Employees 58

not what for their careers. Furthermore, according to Martin (2005), Generation Y

workers “want to play meaningful roles, doing meaningful work on teams of

highly committed, motivated coworkers. They also had every intention of making

lots of money while building their ideal career and personal life. And with three to

four part-time job experiences or internships under their belts before they enter

the workplace full-time, they were emphatic about the type of manager they

wanted to work with.” (p. 40)

career planning. Ye (2006) in Coping with the “Millenials”, found that

fresh college graduates of today use their first few companies as spring boards to

gain experience so that they can quickly move to a next job which usually pays

more. They accept authority and view work as “a means to an end” and a

“fulfillment” (Hammill, 2005). These Generation Y graduates also expect career

advancement in six months to one year. More importantly, according to

Publishers Weekly (as cited in Alsop, 2008), Generation Y employees value

greatly career success; however, they are also persistent job-hoppers. Their

commitment is not on the company per se but on themselves by acquiring as

much skills as possible before pursuing their dream jobs.

With the characteristics of Generation Y employees identified previously

by different researchers, such as being self confident, independent,

technologically savvy, etc., they seek to find jobs that are meaningful, high-

paying, and flexible (Grossman, 2006). As discussed in Ye (2006), Generation Y

employees go from one job to the other and expecting higher pay every time.

Employees 59

They seem unafraid of not being able to get a job unlike other generations. This

can be because of all the identified characteristics and skills they possess. They

believe they can do anything (Grossman, 2006).

Characteristics at Play.

desire to be independent. Even as this generation is commonly

characterized as being independent because they are said to be able to take care of

themselves, they are also described to be dependent because they grew up in a

very child-centric environment unlike the other generations (Grossman, 2006).

They work well in teams but still maintain a sense of individualism within the

group (Huggins, 2008; Zimmerman, 2008).

techno-savvy. As mentioned by Martin (2005), members of Generation Y

are techno-savvy as technology has fundamentally shaped their lives in how they

learn and how they process information. More than using the technology,

Generation Y workers want to “create with it – from their own web sites to

teaching their teachers how to use technology in the curriculum. They’re

continually customizing how they gather and share information.” (p. 41) Martin

(2005) then proposed that the challenge for managers is to make sure that the

company’s technology is up-to-date and competitive with other businesses in the

same industry as these are big factors that Generation Y considers. The

technological advancement of a company reflects how competitive the company

in contrast to the rest of the world in terms of how it can support its mission and

Employees 60

goals through its available tools. Having outdated technology will turn Generation

Y recruits off and frustrate them.

worklife balance. According to Broadbridge, Maxwell and Ogden (2007)

and Anon (2006), Generation Y workers generally seek a work-life balance and

have differing expectations and perceptions about work from Generation X.

Generation Y is enthusiastic with work, but they are not workaholics; they do not

let it dominate their lives. Moreover, they give high regard for the presence of

diversity, equality, and tolerance in both professional and personal aspects of their

lives (Morton, 2002). “…expect work and life to co-exist harmoniously, even

though they are not sure how to make it work yet…” (Henry, 2006, p.1). Trunk

(2007) in an article for Time Magazine stated that Generation Y perceives work-

life balance differently from other generations. “With 85 million baby boomers

and 50 million Generation X, there is already a yawning generation gap among

American workers--particularly in their ideas of work-life balance. For baby

boomers, it's the juggling act between job and family. For Generation X, it means

moving in and out of the workforce to accommodate kids and outside interests.

Now along come the 76 million members of Generation Y. For these new 20-

something workers, the line between work and home doesn't really exist. They

just want to spend their time in meaningful and useful ways, no matter where they

are” (Trunk, 2007, p. 1).

An article from OnlineRecruiter.com

(http://www.onrec.com/newsstories/22305.asp, 2008) reported on an international

Employees 61

panel of some of today’s brightest 18 year olds at the seminar ‘Kids Today,

Leaders Tomorrow’ held at the London Business School on July 8th 2008. In this

seminar, some of the career requirements of these youth were discussed. “A

common theme throughout was the students’ belief that their parents’ generation

worked too hard and that a work-life balance and the ability to start a family

without one’s career being affected were important prerequisites in determining

the paths they would pursue” (www.onrec.com, 2008, p.1). Asthana (2008) states

that Generation Y employees “care less about salaries, and more about flexible

working, time to travel and a better work-life balance. And employers are having

to meet their demands” (p. 1)

Faller, Jones, & Morgan (2008) stated in their article Generation Y takes

on Work-Life Balance that Generation Y employees, compared with other

generations, are most likely to be successful in alternative work schedules and

working remotely because they grew up in the Internet Age. “Having grown up in

the Internet age, we are sophisticated consumers of technology and are highly

skilled at keeping our colleagues up to date. Because of our facility with the latest

technological advances, we are, arguably, the best-positioned to succeed at

working remotely or on an alternative work schedule. As a result, not only do

many of us look for firms with work-life balance initiatives but we also want the

firms to back up such initiatives with a proven track record of helping lawyers

achieve balance” (Faller, Jones, & Morgan, 2008, p. 1).

Worklife Balance And Organizational Commitment Of Generation Y Employees

Worklife Balance And Organizational Commitment Of Generation Y Employees

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Destaque

Destaque (20)

Semelhante a Worklife Balance And Organizational Commitment Of Generation Y Employees

Semelhante a Worklife Balance And Organizational Commitment Of Generation Y Employees (20)

Último

Último (20)

Worklife Balance And Organizational Commitment Of Generation Y Employees