Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T05:56:02.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Generation Is a Culture Construct

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 October 2015

Kyle E. Brink*
Affiliation:
Department of Management, Haworth College of Business, Western Michigan University
Marcel M. Zondag
Affiliation:
Department of Management, Haworth College of Business, Western Michigan University
Jeffrey L. Crenshaw
Affiliation:
Centrus Personnel Solutions
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kyle E. Brink, Haworth College of Business, Western Michigan University, 1903 West Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5429. E-mail: [email protected]

Extract

Costanza and Finkelstein (2015) question whether there really are generational differences in the workplace. They argue that the generation construct is not properly operationalized (often confounding age, period, and cohort factors) and that generational research is atheoretical and plagued by methodological problems. We agree that generational research is largely guilty as charged. We also share their concern regarding the generationally based interventions that are being sold to, and adopted by, managers—interventions that are often little more than fads based on popular myths and folklore. We are also in full agreement with the potential significant harm that can be associated with stereotyping groups of individuals.

Type
Commentaries
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Claycamp, H. J., & Massy, W. F. (1968). A theory of market segmentation. Journal of Marketing Research, 5 (4), 388394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costanza, D. P., & Finkelstein, L. M. (2015). Generationally based differences in the workplace: Is there a there there? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 8 (4), 308323.Google Scholar
CoxT., Jr T., Jr. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
Dickson, P. R., & Ginter, J. L. (1987). Market segmentation, product differentiation, and marketing strategy. The Journal of Marketing, 51 (2), 110.Google Scholar
Holbrook, M. B., & Schindler, R. M. (1996). Market segmentation based on age and attitude toward the past: Concepts, methods, and findings concerning nostalgic influences on customer tastes. Journal of Business Research, 37 (1), 2739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huffman, C., & Kahn, B. E. (1998). Variety for sale: Mass customization or mass confusion? Journal of Retailing, 74 (4), 491513.Google Scholar
Inglehart, R. (1977). The silent revolution: Changing values and political styles among Western publics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Inglehart, R. (1981). Post-materialism in an environment of insecurity. The American Political Science Review, 75 (4), 880900. doi:10.2307/1962290Google Scholar
Lyons, S., & Kuron, L. (2014). Generational differences in the workplace: A review of the evidence and directions for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35 (S1), S139–S157. doi:10.1002/job.1913Google Scholar
Parry, E., & Urwin, P. (2011). Generational differences in work values: A review of theory and evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13 (1), 7996. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00285.xGoogle Scholar
Reichers, A. E., & Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and culture: An evolution of constructs. In Schneider, B. (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 539). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Twenge, J. M., Campbell, S. M., Hoffman, B. J., & Lance, C. E. (2010). Generational differences in work values: Leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values decreasing. Journal of Management, 36 (5), 11171142. doi:10.1177/0149206309352246Google Scholar