The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm
JMP
23,8
878
Received October 2007
Revised January 2008
Accepted February 2008
Journal of Managerial Psychology
Vol. 23 No. 8, 2008
pp. 878-890
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0268-3946
DOI 10.1108/02683940810904376
Generational differences in
personality and motivation
Do they exist and what are the implications for
the workplace?
Melissa Wong
SHL, Melbourne, Australia
Elliroma Gardiner
School of Psychology, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia
Whitney Lang
School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia, and
Leah Coulon
SHL, Brisbane, Australia
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this research is to examine whether personality and motivational driver
differences exist across three generations of working Australians: Baby Boomers, Gen Xs, and Gen Ys.
Design/methodology/approach Using the Occupational Personality Questionnaire and the
Motivation Questionnaire, the study examined cross-sectional differences in personality and
motivational drivers across three generations.
Findings The results are not supportive of the generational stereotypes that have been pervasive in
the management literature and the media. Specifically, few meaningful differences were found
between the three generations. Moreover, even when differences have been observed, these have
related more to age than generation.
Research limitations/implications One of the key limitations is the use of cross-sectional data.
To further explore this issue, it would be interesting to undertake a longitudinal study to assess
personality preferences and motivational drivers of the different generations, when the participants
are at the same age or the same point in their career.
Practical implications The research emphasizes the importance of managing individuals by
focusing on individual differences rather than relying on generational stereotypes, which may not be
as prevalent as the existing literature suggests.
Originality/value Managers and HR professionals may find the lack of differences across
generations interesting and refreshing, in contrast with the popular management literature.
Keywords Age groups, Personality, Motivation (psychology)
Paper type Research paper
There has been a recent proliferation in popular literature focusing on the need to work
with, engage, and manage Generation Y employees differently than Generation X or
Baby Boomer employees (e.g. Howe et al., 2000; Huntley, 2006; Smola and Sutton, 2002).
This is based on the notion that key differences exist in the work values and beliefs of
employees from different generations, and that failure to address these differences can
lead to conflict in the workplace, misunderstanding and miscommunication, lower Differences in
employee productivity, poor employee well being and reduced organisational citizenship personality and
behaviour (Adams, 2000; Bradford, 1993; Fyock, 1990; Jurkievicz, 2000; Kupperschmidt,
2000; Smola and Sutton, 2002; Yu and Miller, 2003). motivation
In contrast to this literature, Jorgensen (2003) questions whether the combination of
Baby Boomers, Gen Xs and Gen Ys values, likes and dislikes actually have the
capacity to disturb common workforce strategies, consume resources and contribute to 879
the wearing away of generational cohesion in the workplace. Instead, he puts
forward the argument that current knowledge around generational characteristics has
predominantly arisen from the qualitative experiences of the authors, with findings
lacking the necessary empirical rigour needed to base workplace strategies and
practices on their conclusions alone.
Given the changing age demographic of the Australian workforce (Hume, n.d.), it is
now possible for up to four different generations of employees to be working together
within one organisation. As such, it is increasingly important for us to better understand
these generational differences, and determine if these differences truly exist.
In light of this, this study focuses specifically on personality and motivation, and
aims to explore whether personal preferences and motivational drivers differ across
individuals from different generations in the Australian working population.

Reviewing the notion of generations

Kupperschmidt (2000) defines a generation as an identifiable group, which shares
years of birth and hence significant life events at critical stages of development. In
general, while researchers differ slightly in the precise years of birth that define the
different generations, most agrees that there are four broad generations of employees:
Veterans (1925-1944), Baby Boomers (1945-1964), Gen X (1965-1981), and Gen Y
(1982-2000) (Hart, 2006; Howe et al., 2000; Yu and Miller, 2003).
A generational group shares historical and social life experiences, which affect the
way people in that generation develop and distinguish one generational group from
another. Smola and Sutton (2002) posit that the social context in which a generational
group develops impacts their personality and a persons feelings towards authority,
their values and beliefs about organisations, their work ethic, why and how they work
and their goals and aspirations for their work life (Smola and Sutton, 2002). It has also
been suggested that each generation is likely to develop distinct preferences or traits
that distinguish their feelings toward work and what they desire from work (Jurkievicz
and Brown, 1998; Kupperschmidt, 2000).

Baby Boomers (born 1945-1964)

Baby Boomers are currently the largest generation cohort in the workforce. A review of
existing literature (e.g. Hart, 2006; Smola and Sutton, 2002; Loomis, 2000) suggests that
employees in this group value on-job security and a stable working environment.
Furthermore, this group has been typified in the literature as most likely to remain
loyal and attached to an organisation, and are idealistic, optimistic and driven (Hart,
2006; Loomis, 2000). Others have described Baby Boomers as more diligent on the job
(Yu and Miller, 2003), and value having a high degree of power within the organisation
(McCrindle and Hooper, 2006). Other stereotypes of Baby Boomers are that they are
JMP more likely to focus on consensus building and are excellent mentors (Hart, 2006;
23,8 Kupperschmidt, 2000).

Generation X (born 1965-1981)

People in Gen X are typically characterised as cynical, pessimistic and individualist
(Kupperschmidt, 2000; Smola and Sutton, 2002). Portrayed as comfortable with change
880 and diversity, some argue that Gen Xs are not likely to display loyalty to a particular
company or organisation, being more independent and self-sufficient than people from
previous generations (Hart, 2006). As a result, they are seen to be more likely to leave
one job and seek out more challenging options, a higher salary, or improved benefits
(Hays, 1999; Loomis, 2000). Compared to Baby Boomers who respect authority, Gen Xs
are seen as sceptical and unimpressed with authority (Hart, 2006), and require
immediate, continuous feedback. Their approach to work has been characterised as one
that values a strong work-life balance (Howe et al., 2000), whereby personal values and
goals are likely to be regarded as more important than work-related goals.

Generation Y (born 1982-2000)

Gen Y has grown up with technology and is used to having technology as a large part
of their life. They are seen to be comfortable with change and are less likely to see job
security as an important factor in the workplace (Hart, 2006). As employees, Gen Ys are
typified as valuing skill development and enjoying the challenge of new opportunities.
Similar to the Baby Boomers, they are viewed as driven and demanding of the work
environment and are also likely to be optimistic (Huntley, 2006; Smola and Sutton,
2002). Displaying a high level of confidence, Gen Ys are described as enjoying
collective action and are highly socialised (Hart, 2006; Smola and Sutton, 2002; Tulgan
and Martin, 2001). Moreover, they are seen to value having responsibility and having
input into decisions and actions (McCrindle and Hooper, 2006).

Generational differences in personality and motivation

A review of the existing literature suggests that while previous research has examined
differences in work values across generations (e.g. Smola and Sutton, 2002; Yu and
Miller, 2003), research findings examining generational differences in personality and
motivational drivers in the workplace have been limited. Specifically, while there have
been research studies examining differences in personality and motivational drivers
across generations (e.g. Twenge, 2000; Twenge 2001a, b), these have tended to focus on
broad differences rather than being specifically focussed on the workplace.
Instead, the research on generational differences at work has tended to focus on
work values. Work values refer to an employees attitudes regarding what is right, as
well as attitudes about what an individual should expect in the workplace (Brown,
1976; George and Jones, 1999). While an individuals personality preferences and
motivational drivers are likely to be related to and influenced by his/her work values
(Ashley et al., 2001), it is important to maintain a distinction between these concepts.

Personality
Personality is defined as an individuals preferred or typical way of behaving, thinking
and feeling (Saville et al., 1984). Hence, while an individuals values are likely to influence
behaviour in the workplace, personality is likely to be more direct measure of actual
behaviour. The importance of understanding personality differences across generations Differences in
in the workplace is highlighted by research indicating that individual differences in personality and
personality affect job performance (Barrick et al., 2002; Tett and Burnett, 2003) and job
satisfaction (Avery et al., 1989). This suggests that, to maintain a high-performing and motivation
satisfied workforce across all three generations of employees, organisations need to
understand the key generational differences across the personality preferences.
While there is limited research conducted specifically with participants from the 881
working population, there have been a number of studies examining generational
differences in personality more broadly. For example, in a study of birth cohort
differences in personality, Twenge (2001b) found that American womens
assertiveness rose and fell with changes in womens social status between 1932 and
1993. Based on these findings, Twenge posited that social change and socio-cultural
environment can be internalised as personality traits. Furthermore, meta-analyses of
American data between 1952 and 1993 indicated a significant increase in levels of
anxiety and neuroticism over this time (Twenge, 2000). These studies illustrate the link
between birth cohort and personality traits, suggesting that the socio-cultural
environment can have an impact on personality development.
In a separate study, Twenge (2001a) also performed a cross-temporal meta-analysis
to investigate the differences in extraversion scores of American college students
across birth cohorts to understand the effects of the larger socio-cultural environment
on a persons personality. The results of Twenges study indicated that 14 to 19 per
cent of variation in extraversion scores could be explained by changes in birth cohort.
In the light of these findings, it is expected that personality differences across
generations are likely to be observed in the workplace.

Motivational drivers
Motivational drivers refer to the factors that energise, direct and sustain behaviour in
the individual. While very closely linked to values (Brown, 1976), motivation is more
specific to the factors that drive actual performance.
The commonly-held perception in the management literature is that the notion of
hard work pays dividends does not apply to Gen X, and that Gen Xs lack of loyalty
towards organisations is due to the fact that they saw their parents being laid off
despite years of loyalty to their job (Adams, 2000; Huntley, 2006). This perception may
be supported by Twenge et al.s (2004) research which indicated birth cohort
differences in locus of control, with the younger generation reporting a significantly
more external locus of control, which is linked to greater cynicism and helpfulness. As
a result, Gen X may seek to retain control over other aspects of their lives, thereby
valuing work-life balance more strongly.
While the popular literature supports the notion that there are intrinsic generational
differences in motivational drivers, there is research contradicting this notion. For
example, Hornblower (1997) posited that large percentages of Gen Xs believe that
progress can be achieved through hard work. Instead, the difference between the
generations is likely to lie in the reasons for working hard.
Similarly, Appelbaum et al. (2004) argue that the lack of motivation to work hard has
been attributed to every other age cohort at the same point in their life stage. Specifically,
Appelbaum et al. (2004) compared common motivational factors across Baby Boomers
and Gen Xs and found that, contrary to common perceptions, four out of the five
JMP motivational factors selected as being most important were identical for both cohorts
23,8 (including a stable and secure future, a high salary, a chance to learn new things, and
variety in work assignments). Their exploratory research suggests that differences in
motivation across generations may not be as marked as popular literature suggests.

Focus of the present study

882 Building on previous research into generational differences at work (McCrindle and
Hooper, 2006; Smola and Sutton, 2002) and the broader research into generational
differences in personality and motivational drivers (Twenge, 2000; Twenge, 2001a, b),
this study aims to examine whether differences in personality and motivational drivers
exist across three generations of the Australian working population. This will be based
on cross-sectional data from an Australian sample. While a cross-sectional study does
not allow a perfect model for examining whether differences (if any) are linked to age or
generational differences, it is useful as an indication of whether there are differences in
the three generations at work, as they currently exist. In particular, two hypotheses
were developed to determine whether the commonly-held beliefs of the three
generations are supported by existing cross-sectional data:
H1. There will be key differences in the personal preferences of Baby Boomers,
Gen Xs and Gen Ys. Specifically, it is expected that:
Baby Boomers will be more optimistic than Gen Xs;
Gen Xs will be less affiliative than Baby Boomers and Gen Ys;
Baby Boomers and Gen Ys will be more career-driven than Gen Xs.
H2. There are key differences in the motivational drivers of Baby Boomers, Gen
Xs and Gen Ys. Specifically, it is expected that:
Baby Boomers are likely to be more strongly motivated by job security
than Gen Xs and Gen Ys;
Baby Boomers and Gen Ys will be more strongly motivated by having
responsibility and power within the organisation than Gen Xs;
Gen Xs are likely to be less motivated than Baby Boomers and Gen Ys by
work that requires their commitment beyond normal working hours.

Method
To test for differences across the three generations, an existing dataset of participants
responses to the Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ32) and the Motivational
Questionnaire (MQ) were used.

Participants
The sample was made up of 3,535 managers and professions who completed the
OPQ32 personality test and 294 professionals who completed the MQ. All participants
were employees of moderate to large Australian organisations. The sample is part of a
wider set of participants who had previously completed the OPQ32 and MQ between
2002 and 2006 as part of a job selection process, a development program, or as part of a
training course. Participants were sampled from all major states in Australia, including
Victoria, New South Wales, Western Australia, South Australia, and the Australian
Capital Territory. As the disclosure of demographic variables was optional when
completing the questionnaire, there is limited information available about the Differences in
demographic background of this group, other than age and state. personality and
Based on reported age, each participant was categorised into Baby Boomers, Gen X or
Gen Y. Those who reported to be over 40 years old were placed in the Baby Boomers motivation
group (N 1; 005 for OPQ; 110 for MQ); those who reported to be between 24 and 40
years old were considered to be Gen X (N 2; 089 for OPQ; 140 for MQ); those who were
23 years old or younger were placed in the Gen Y group (N 441 for OPQ; 44 for MQ). 883

Measures
Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ32): The OPQ32 is a self-report measure
of individuals personality or behavioural preferences. Utilising an ipsative
questionnaire approach, participants are provided with blocks for four statements,
and are forced to choose, within each block of four, one statement, which they feel is
most like them and one statement, which is least like them. Sample items include I
make decisions without consultation, I prefer new ways of working, and I like to
keep busy. Based on their responses to the blocks of questions, their preferences for 32
different personality traits are determined, as compared to a norm group of similar age
and profession. The present study looked specifically at the following scales, as these
personality styles are believed to be most relevant to the comparison of generations:
.
Achieving: the degree to which a person perceives themselves as ambitious and
career-centred and the degree to which they prefer to work to demanding goals
and targets.
.
Affiliative: the degree to which a person enjoys others company, prefers to be
around people, and tends to miss the company of others.
.
Optimistic: the degree to which a person sees themselves as having an optimistic
view of the future and the degree to which they expect things to turn out well and
looks to the positive aspects of a situation.
.
Variety-seeking: the degree to which a person enjoys doing non-routine work.
.
Independent-minded: the degree to which a person tends to have their own
opinions and views, independent of the group consensus.
.
Conscientious: the degree to which a person completes tasks in a timely manner
and sees things through to completion.

Motivation Questionnaire (MQ): The MQ is a self-report measure of an individuals

motivation drivers. Using a five-point Likert scale (strongly disagree, disagree, neutral,
agree, strongly agree), participants are asked to rate the extent to which specific
activities or factors motivate (or de-motivate) them in the workplace. Sample items
include Being required to do several things at once, Working for a profit-making
organisation, and An emphasis on team work on the job. Based on their responses to
the items, their levels of motivation in relations to 18 motivational factors are
determined. The present study looked specifically at the following scales, as these
motivational drivers are believed to be most relevant to the comparison of generations:
.
Power: the extent to which a person is motivated by opportunities for exercising
authority, taking responsibility, negotiating and being in a position to influence
others.
JMP .
Immersion: the extent to which a person is motivated by work that requires
23,8 commitment beyond normal working hours.
.
Ease and security: the extent to which a person is motivated by contextual
factors, such as a pleasant working conditions and job security.
.
Progression: the extent to which a person is motivated by having good promotion
prospects.
884 .
Personal growth: the extent to which a person is motivated by opportunities for
further training and development and the acquisition of new skills.
.
Affiliation: the extent to which a person is motivated by opportunities for
interaction with other people in their work.

Results
One-way ANOVAs were conducted to investigate differences across the three
generations for all the OPQ32 and MQ scales. The results of the analyses provide
support for the existence of generational differences in personality and motivational
drivers in an Australian occupational setting, however many of the relationships are
not in the direction expected.

Generational differences in personality

The results indicate that the greatest differences between the generations were
between the Baby Boomers and Gen Y. The profiles for Gen X seemed to fall in
between the scores for the other two generations. A summary of the results can be
found in Table I, while Table II provides a summary of the mean differences and effect
sizes for the results, which were found to be significantly different.

OPQ32 scale F Mean Boomers SD Mean Gen X SD Mean Gen Y SD

Achieving 111.07 * 15.33 4.09 17.54 4.04 17.77 4.07

Affiliative 17.46 * 11.83 4.11 12.09 4.16 13.21 4.33
Conscientious 4.62 * 18.43 3.75 18.17 3.83 18.73 3.75
Table I. Independent-minded 2.91 10.74 3.70 10.68 3.94 11.17 4.12
Results of generational Optimistic 20.52 * 16.35 4.25 15.59 4.19 14.91 4.10
differences in personality, Variety-seeking 1.86 12.60 4.07 12.81 4.36 12.44 4.26
as measured by the
OPQ32 Notes: * p , 0:01; df (between groups) 2; df (within groups) 3,532

OPQ32 scale Generations Mean difference d

Achieving Gen Y . Baby Boomer 2.44 * 0.60

Achieving Gen X . Baby Boomer 2.21 * 0.54
Table II. Affiliative Gen Y . Gen X 1.118 * 0.27
Mean differences and Affiliative Gen Y . Baby Boomer 1.381 * 0.33
effect sizes for Conscientious Gen Y . Gen X 0.561 * 0.15
generational differences Optimistic Baby Boomer . Gen X 0.758 * 0.18
in personality, as
measured by the OPQ32 Notes: significant at the 0.05 level
As is evident in Table I, of the six scales examined, only four have reflected significant Differences in
generational differences. Specifically, on the personality traits variety seeking and personality and
independent minded, no significant differences were found between the three
generations. On the other hand, there was a significant difference between the motivation
generation groups on the achieving trait (F 68:25, p , 0:001). Post hoc Bonferroni
tests indicated that both Gen X (M 17:77) and Gen Y (M 17:77) were more
ambitious and career centred and had a tendency to enjoy working with demanding 885
roles and targets to a greater degree than Baby Boomers (M 15:33). As shown in
Table II, both of these effect sizes are moderate (where an effect size of d 0:2 is
considered small; d 0:5 is moderate and d 0:8 is large).
There was a significant difference between the generations in levels of self-reported
Optimism (F 20:52, p , 0:01). Post hoc tests indicated that Baby Boomers
(M 16:35) were significantly more optimistic than Gen Ys (M 14:91), although the
effect size is small (d 0:18) A significant difference was also found between the
generations on the trait Conscientiousness (F 4:62, p , 0:01), with Gen Ys
(M 18:73) found to be more conscientious than Gen Xs (M 18:17), albeit with a
small effect size (d 0:15). Finally, there was a significant difference between the
generations on the Affiliative trait (F 17:46, p , 0:01). Post hoc tests indicated that
Gen Y (M 13:21) was significantly more affiliative than the Baby Boomers
(M 11:83) and Gen Xs (12.09).

Generational differences in motivation

Analyses indicated significant generational differences on three of the six
hypothesized motivational drivers. Employees from different generations were found
to be motivated to a different degree by the following factors: affiliation, power and
progression. On motivational drivers such as immersion, ease and security and
personal growth, no significant differences across generations were found. A summary
of these results can be found in Table III, while a summary of the mean differences and
effect sizes can be found in Table IV.
As observed in Table III, significant differences were found in the motivational
drivers affiliation, power, and progression, among the three generations. Post hoc
Bonferroni tests indicated that Gen Xs (M 33:83) and Gen Ys (M 34:50) are
significantly more motivated by progression than Baby Boomers (M 32:84). Both
these effect sizes were moderate. Gen Ys (M 32:68) are more motivated by being in
an affiliative workplace than Baby Boomers (M 31:28), and less motivated by power

MQ Scale F Mean Boomers SD Mean Gen X SD Mean Gen Y SD

Affiliation 3.28 * 31.28 3.35 31.42 2.10 32.68 3.37

Ease and security 0.27 27.37 4.36 27.23 5.07 27.34 6.23
Immersion 0.84 21.89 2.81 21.34 3.85 21.82 3.94
Personal growth 0.32 33.18 2.89 33.11 2.76 33.23 4.57
Power 14.89 * * 32.31 3.19 31.20 3.52 29.00 3.58 Table III.
Progression 5.40 * * 32.84 2.77 33.83 3.41 34.50 3.12 Results of generational
differences in
Notes: * p , 0.05; * * p , 0.01; df (between groups) 2; df (within groups) 291 motivational drivers
JMP (M 29:00) than Gen Xs (M 31:20), who are in turn less motivated by power than
23,8 Baby Boomers (M 32:31). The effect sizes for these differences are moderate to large.

Discussion
While the results of the present study support the general hypothesis that there are
generational differences in personality and motivational drivers among the
886 generations, these differences are typically not in line with popular belief. In
practical interpretation terms, these differences are almost negligible. More
importantly, even where differences exist (even where there are moderate to large
effect sizes), the direction of the differences is often contrary to the differences
suggested in popular management literature.

Differences in personality traits

Contrary to expectations based on previous literature, Baby Boomers were the least
affiliative group. Second, while Baby Boomers were expected to be highly achieving,
they were, in fact, the least focused on career advancement.
The findings of the present study in combination with the findings of Appelbaum
et al. (2004) suggest a greater orientation of younger employees to seek advancement in
their careers. The generational difference on this trait also reflected the largest effect
size, as compared to the other personality traits. This may reflect the life stage of each
generation; relative to Gen X and Gen Y, Baby Boomers are coming to the end of their
working lives and therefore career progression is likely to be less of a priority and less
of a motivator than younger generation employees who are at the beginning of their
career. The hypothesis that this difference may be more related to age rather than birth
cohort differences is further supported by previous research on age differences on the
OPQ32 (Bartram et al., 2006), which found similar age differences in the scale related to
achievement focus. The achievement focus of Gen Xs and Gen Ys compared to Baby
Boomers is likely be to further highlighted by the fact that Gen Xs and Ys are
comfortable with technology. While the difference between their preferences and that
of Baby Boomers may only be slight, given their comfort with a high speed of
communication, they are more likely to be perceived as demanding much more
fast-paced environments than their true preferences reflect.
Different life stages may also serve as the most robust explanation for some of the
other differences observed. For example, Gen Ys were found to be more affiliative than
Baby Boomers. This is likely to be a result of age Baby Boomers are likely to be at a
stage at work where there are fairly senior, and are required to work more independently

MQ scale Generations Mean difference d

Affiliation Gen Y and Baby boomers 1.400 * 0.42

Progression Gen Y and Baby Boomers 1.644 * 0.57
Progression Gen X and Baby Boomers 0.992 * 0.32
Table IV. Power Gen X and Gen Y 2.200 * 0.62
Mean differences and Power Baby Boomers and Gen Y 3.309 * 1.00
effect sizes for Power Baby Boomers and Gen X 1.109 * 0.33
generational differences
on MQ scales Notes: * Significant at the 0.05 level
as they take up senior positions in the organisation. There is less of a need (and less of an Differences in
opportunity) to socialise as freely as the more junior employees. On the other hand, Gen personality and
Ys are likely to be at a stage in life when social networks are particularly important,
being fairly young. Being at the lower end of the hierarchy, networking with others and motivation
building up contacts within the organisation may also be particularly valued. Similar to
the findings for achievement focus, Bartram et al. (2006) also found similar age
differences on this scale, thus providing further support for the argument that age is 887
likely to be the main reason for this difference (rather than birth cohort).
Interestingly, Gen Ys have reported themselves to be the least optimistic of the three
generational cohorts. It may be that this generation has witnessed past generations
(e.g. their parents and grandparents) fail or not meet their goals, and therefore are more
cautious and worried about their own future. Perhaps they are more aware that things
can and sometimes do go wrong, particularly due to the fact that the lives of Gen Ys are
media-saturated. These factors may all contribute to Gen Y taking a more pragmatic
view of life than previous generations.
With the exception of Optimistic, it is interesting to note that there are not as
many generational differences in personality traits as expected. Furthermore, even
when significant differences were detected, these differences are better explained by
age effects than cohort effects.

Differences in motivational drivers

In terms of differences in motivational drivers, a similar pattern of results is observed,
with hypotheses only partially supported. The largest effect size was observed on the
motivational driver related to power, with Gen X and Baby Boomer employees more
likely to be motivated by power and the ability to influence and exercise authority over
others, as compared to Gen Y. Similar to the stage of life explanation of the personality
trait differences, this is likely to be a result of the career stage that Gen Xs and Baby
Boomers are at. Having been in the workforce for a significantly longer period of time
than Gen Ys, Gen Xs and Baby Boomers are likely to be at a stage in their careers where
they are seeking management and reporting responsibilities. This is likely to be a much
lower priority for Gen Ys, who are likely to be relatively new to the workforce.
Along the same lines, Gen Ys also tended to be more motivated by career
progression and advancement than the other generation cohorts. As previously
argued, Baby Boomers are likely to be coming towards the end of their career and
therefore opportunities for advancement no longer act as a motivator for them.
In contrast with what was expected, no differences were found between the
generations in the degree to which job security acted as a motivation driver. It was also
expected that there would be differences between the generations in the degree to
which commitment beyond normal working hours acted as a de-motivator. In fact,
there were no significant differences between the generations in the degree to which
immersion acted as a motivator, suggesting that these factors motivate employees to a
similar degree across generations.

Practical implications
In sum, the findings of the present study are not supportive of the existing generational
stereotypes. In fact, most of the differences observed are better explained by age, rather
than generational differences.
JMP More importantly, while the differences are statistically significant, in practical terms,
23,8 the differences observed are minimal and are unlikely to be interpreted a real differences
when used in a practical context. This suggests that there are likely to be greater
differences between individuals in the same generation, than there are generational
differences. As a result, one outcome of this research is to emphasize the importance for
managers and HR professionals to attend to individual differences, irrespective of
888 generations. Given the hype surrounding Gen Y, the fact that individual differences exist
may be overlooked in favour of stereotyping all Gen Ys with specific personality traits.

Limitations of the present study

One of the key limitations of the present study, and much of the research into
generational differences, is the use of cross-sectional data. In this study, individuals
were allocated into groups according to their age. This makes it difficult to ascertain
whether the differences between the generation groups can be attributed to age effects
or true generational differences. For example, is the need for power a characteristic of
the Baby Boomer generation or a characteristic, which comes with age? Is it possible
that with more time in the workforce, Gen Ys need for power will increase to resemble
Baby Boomers, regardless of the generation in which they were raised? To further
explore this issue, it would be interesting to undertake a longitudinal study to assess
personality preferences and motivational drivers of the different generations, when the
participants are at the same age or the same point in their career.

Conclusion
Despite its limitations, this study provides real-life data and support for de-bunking
some of the generational stereotypes created in the literature around individual
preferences and motivational drivers. However, based on the results observed, two
patterns do emerge that may be worth taking note of. First, the pattern of results
suggests that managers may need to be prepared to manage a group of increasingly
negative and possibly cynical employees, with each generation reporting themselves
as less optimistic than the previous generation. This may be supported by Twenges
(2004) study indicating a greater externalisation of locus of control in younger people.
Second, when managing a younger generation of employees, it may also be worth
ensuring that their preferences for a cooperative and affiliative workplace are met.
Irrespective of whether it relates to generational or age differences, the need to provide
younger workers with challenges remains important.

References
Adams, S.J. (2000), Gen X: how understanding this population leads to better safety programs,
Professional Safety, Vol. 45, pp. 26-9.
Appelbaum, S.H., Serena, M. and Shapiro, B.T. (2004), Gen X and the boomers: organizational
myths and literary realities, Management Research News, Vol. 27 No. 11, pp. 1-28.
Ashley, N., Bartram, D. and Schoonman, W. (2001), Values at work the relationship with
personality, motivation and corporate culture, paper presented at the BPS Occupational
Psychology Conference, Stockholm, October 10-13.
Avery, R.D., Bouchard, T.J. Jr, Segal, N.L. and Abraham, L.M. (1989), Job satisfaction:
environmental and genetic components, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 2,
pp. 187-92.
Barrick, M.R., Stewart, G.L. and Piotrowski, M. (2002), Personality and job performance: test of Differences in
the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 43-51. personality and
Bartram, D., Brown, A., Fleck, S., Inceoglu, I. and Ward, K. (2006), OPQ32 Technical Manual, motivation
SHL, Thames Ditton.
Bradford, F.W. (1993), Understanding Gen X, Marketing Research, Vol. 5, p. 54.
Brown, M.A. (1976), Values a necessary but neglected ingredient of motivation on the job, 889
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 15-21.
Fyock, C.D. (1990), Americas Work Force Is Coming of Age, Lexington Books, Toronto.
George, J.M. and Jones, G.R. (1999), Understanding and Managing Organizational Behavior,
3rd ed., Addison-Wesley, New York, NY.
Hart, K.A. (2006), Generations in the workplace: finding common ground, available online at:
www.mlo-online.com (accessed 14 April 2007).
Hays, S. (1999), Gen X and the art of the reward, Workforce, Vol. 78, pp. 44-7.
Hornblower, M. (1997), Great Xpectations, Time, 9 June, available at: www.time.com/time/
magazine (accessed 26 October 2007).
Howe, N., Strauss, W. and Matson, R.J. (2000), Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation,
Vintage Books, New York, NY.
Hume, D. (n.d.), Preparedness of the APS for the implications of an ageing workforce,
unpublished paper, Hume Consulting Group, available at: info@humeconsulting.com.au
Huntley, R. (2006), The World according to Y: Inside the New Adult Generation, Allen & Unwin,
Sydney.
Jorgense, B. (2003), Baby boomers, Gen X and Gen Y? Policy implications for defense forces in
the modern era, foresight, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 41-9.
Jurkiewicz, C.E. (2000), Gen X and the public employee, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 29,
pp. 55-74.
Kupperschmidt, B.R. (2000), Multigeneration employees: strategies for effective management,
The Health Care Manager, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 65-76.
Loomis, J.E. (2000), Gen X, Rough Notes Co., Indianapolis, IN.
McCrindle, M. and Hooper, D. (2006), Gen Y: attracting, engaging and leading a new generation
at work, white paper, University of Tasmania, Hobart.
Smola, K.W. and Sutton, C.D. (2002), Generational differences: revisiting generational work values
for the new millennium, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 23, SP1, pp. 363-82.
Tett, R.P. and Burnett, D.D. (2003), A personality trait-based interactionist model of job
performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 500-17.
Tulgan, B. and Martin, C. (2001), Managing Gen Y Global Citizens Born in the Late 70s and Early
80s, HRD Press, Amherst, MA.
Twenge, J.M. (2000), The age of anxiety? Birth cohort change in anxiety and neuroticism,
1952-1993, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 6, pp. 1007-21.
Twenge, J.M. (2001a), Birth cohort changes in extraversion: a cross-temporal meta-analysis,
1966-1993, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 735-48.
Twenge, J.M. (2001b), Changes in assertiveness in response to status and roles: a cross-temporal
meta-analysis, 1931-1993, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 1,
pp. 133-45.
JMP Twenge, J.M., Zhang, L. and Im, C. (2004), Its beyond my control: a cross-temporal
meta-analysis of increasing externality in locus of control, 1960-2002, Personality and
23,8 Social Psychology Review, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 308-19.
Yu, H.C. and Miller, P. (2003), The generation gap and cultural influence a Taiwan empirical
investigation, Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 23-41.

890 Further reading

Corporate Leadership Council (1998), Recruiting, Managing and Motivating Gen X, Corporate
Leadership Council, Arlington.
MacKay, H. (1999), Turning Point: Australians Choosing Their Future, Pan Macmillian
Australia, Sydney.
Zemke, R., Raines, C. and Filipczak, B. (2000), Generations at Work: Managing the Clash of Veterans,
Boomers, Xers and Nexters in Your Workplace, 2nd ed., AMACOM, New York, NY.

About the authors

Melissa Wong is completing her Doctorate in Psychology (Industrial and Organisational) at the
University of Melbourne. She is currently a Senior Consultant at SHL, having joined SHL in 2005.
Her focus at SHL has been in the design and implementation of assessment and development
products, and she has assisted a number of clients to implement and embed psychometrics in
various HR processes, from graduate recruitment to leadership development. As part of her role
at SHL, and in previous organisations, she has managed medium to large-scale projects in
various areas of HR consulting. Her research area of interest is in cross-cultural psychology,
particularly in the area of employee satisfaction, which is the focus of her Doctoral thesis. Melissa
Wong is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: melissa.wong@shl.com.au
Elliroma Gardiner is currently undertaking her PhD in Organisational Psychology at The
University of Queensland under the supervision of A/Prof Chris Jackson. Her broad research
interest is personality as related to impulsive behaviour in organisational settings. More
specifically, her PhD thesis is concerned with exploring the role of Neuroticism and Lateral
Preference in the prediction of Disinhibition. Results from her PhD project have been presented
at the International Society for the Study of Individual Differences conference held at Giessen,
Germany. Elliroma is a probationary registered psychologist in Queensland, Australia, and has
worked on projects at a number of organisations such as Mater Health Services, SHL and The
University of Queensland.
Whitney Lang is currently completing her Masters in Psychology (Industrial and
Organisational) at Deakin University. Whitney is registered as a probationary psychologist in
Victoria and currently works at SHL as a placement student. Whitney is in the process of doing a
thesis as part of her Masters degree, investigating the relationship between cultural differences,
procedural justice and ethical behaviour in Australian lawyers. She is expected to complete her
Masters in Psychology in November 2008. Whitneys other research areas of interest include
work/life balance, transformational leadership and ethical climate in the workplace.
Leah Coulon holds a Masters in Applied Psychology from the University of New South Wales.
Since 1996 she has worked for SHL in a variety of roles and is currently a Managing Consultant.
Leah has had extensive experience in all facets of consulting, but has specialised in the design and
delivery of a number of customised questionnaires and tests, co-ordinating consultancy and
technological aspects to deliver total selection and development solutions. In 2006 Leah was
appointed as an Adjunct Lecturer in the School of Psychology for the University of Queensland.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.