Generation Me and the Changing World
of Work
Jean M. Twenge and Stacy M. Campbell
Today's workplace is constantly changing. New
technologies, the globalization of markets, and the
changing needs and values of today's employees
require organizations to adapt to remain competitive. For many organizations, the changes associated
with the employee pool can be the most problematic. New technology comes with an owner's
manual, whereas the new generation of employees
does not.
Many of the changes in today's workforce stem
from generational diversity. The 22-year-old born in
the 1980s and the 70-year-old born in the 1930s will
have very different perspectives as a result of the time
period in which they grew up. Growing up in the
1990s, for example, was a fundamentally different
experience than growing up in the 1940s or 1950s.
Each generation is influenced by broad forces (i.e.,
parents, peers, media, critical economic and social
events, and popular culture) that create different
value systems. In the 2000s, there are four different
generations working side by side at organizations
across the United States: (1) the Traditionalists
(aka the Veterans, the Silent Generation) born
before 1945, who grew up during World War II
and the 1950s; (2) the Baby Boomers, born 19461964, who grew up during the Vietnam War and
Watergate; (3) Generation X, born 1965-1980,
who grew up with televisions, microwaves, computers, and MTV; and (4) Generation Me
(aka Generation Y, Millennials, or iGen) born
1980-2000, who grew up with the Internet, iPods,
and the threat of global terrorism. While this mix of
generations adds valuable diversity to the workforce,
it also adds complexity for organizations. The generations view career development, benefits, and
work-life balance very differently. Obviously not
every Traditionalist, Baby Boomer, GenXer or
GenMe' er fits within their generational stereotype;
however, acknowledging these generational differences is critical for the recruitment, development,
25
retention, and overall satisfaction of employees and
is thus a vital link to understanding changing workplace practices. Even if the generations are more
similar than they are different, it is the differences
that cause problems within organizations.
But what are these generational differences? How
are Baby Boomers different from GenX? What is
different about GenMe? Until recently, information
on how the generations differ psychologically was
difficult to come by. Some authors, like William
Strauss and Neil Howe, theorized that generations
came in cycles. They supported this theory with data
on larger trends in society, such as crime rates, birth
rates, and divorce rates (e.g., Strauss & Howe,
1991). For example, they noted that GenXers (in
their calculation, born 1961-1981) were more likely
to have experienced their parents' divorce; thus, they
should be more cynical, alienated, and depressed.
However, no psychological data on cynicism, alienation, or depression was presented. They also argued
that the generation born 1982-1999, whom they
labeled Millennials, will cycle back to the "Greatest
Generation" personality of the youth of World
War II and will be dutiful, group-oriented, and
anti-individualistic (Howe & Strauss, 2000).
Again, however, no psychological data was supplied. ,
Other authors have specifically addressed the
problem of generations in the workplace. Books
such as When Generations Collide (Lancaster &
Stillman, 2003), Generations at Work (Zemke,
Raines, & Filipczak, 1999), and Managing Generation X (Tulgan, 2003) relied on case studies, interviews, anecdotal stories, and qualitative surveys.
Although these books provided an intriguing picture
of how generational differences might impact the
workplace, they were hindered by the dearth of
empirical, quantitative data on how the generations
differ-particularly whether they differ in their
underlying psychology.
In this chapter, we review the data from studies of
generational differences in psychological traits and
attitudes, and discuss how these empirical results
translate into understanding generations at work
and changing workplace practices. These studies
employ a unique method that one of us labeled
cross-temporal meta-analysis (e.g., Twenge, Zhang,
& Im, 2004). This method gathers journal articles
and dissertations that administered a psychological
scale (e.g., the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, the
Narcissistic Personality Inventory) and analyzes
how average scores change over decades. Most of
these studies examine college students, the population most likely to enter the professional
workforce; some also confirm the changes in more
demographically representative samples of children
or high school students (Twenge et al., 2004;
Twenge & Campbell, 2008). The database includes
2 million people who completed at least one personality, attitude, or behavior scale between the 1940s
and the present. This method allows the analysis of
generational effects because the samples are the same
age and filled out the same questionnaire but did so
at different points in historical time. In contrast, a
study that collects data at only one time (known as a
cross-sectional study) cannot determine if differences are due to age or to generation. Most workplace interviews and surveys, for example, cannot
determine if young employees' high expectations
are due to a generational shift or the idealism of
youth that all generations have displayed to an
extent. Thus, the method used here separates the
influences of age and generation. The analyses on
college students control for changes in these populations (e.g., gender composition); changes in other
demographies (race, income) have been surprisingly
small.
The studies reviewed in this article describe
changes in averages across the generations, so there
will always be exceptions. These are not stereotypes,
but descriptions of how the average member of the
young generation compares in personality traits to
the average members of earlier generations. For the
most part, these studies find steady, linear change
rather than the cycles or sudden generational shifts
suggested by others (e.g., Howe & Strauss, 2000).
The changes in generations, just like the changes in
society's culture, occur gradually and take time to
appear in individuals' personality traits and attitudes. For example, many generational studies find
increases in individualism. Baby Boomers were certainly an individualistic generation, but they did not
become so until young adulthood, and did so in
moderation. Their upbringing in the 1950s and
early 1960s grounded them in non-individualistic
attitudes, which may explain why they took the
ironic step of exploring the self in groups and
teams (e.g., protest groups, est seminars). The generations who followed, GenX and GenMe, continued the emphasis on the individual that grew
year after year as more young people took it for
granted that one should focus on the self (for a
more extensive treatment of this issue, see Twenge,
2006). GenMe is more individualistic than GenX
because they have continued the trend. For most
traits, generational change is steadily moving in
one direction and not reversing. This might occur
GENERATION ME AND THE CHANGING WORLD OF WORK
partially because parents pass on their values to their
children. The Baby B.oomers may be individualistic,
but their GenMe children (those born in the 1970s,
1980s, and 1990s) have taken it to the nextlevel. On
average, the generational changes are about .20 standard deviations for each 10-year differencein birth
year. Thus, employees 25 years apart in age will, on
average, differ on many personality traits by .50
standard deviations, a moderate effect size in psychology. Employees 50 years apart will, on average,
differ by a full standard deviation, considered a large
effect size. In the rest of the chapter, we outline
the key psychological differences among the generations and note how these differences affect the
workplace.
Change in Self-Focused Traits and High
Expectations
Self-esteem, unrealistically positive self-views,
assertiveness, individualistic traits, and narcissism
are up in college student and high school samples
(Twenge, 1997, 2001; Twenge & Campbell, 2001,
2008; Twenge, Konrath, Foster, Campbell, &
Bushman, 2008). More recent generations are
more likely to agree with self-esteem items such as
"I take a positive attitude toward myself' and "On
the whole, I am satisfied with mysel£" Younger
generations, particularly young women, score
higher on measures of assertiveness than previous
generations did and describe themselves with more
individualistic adjectives such as "independent,"
"forceful," "competitive," and "have leadership
ability." GenMe is also more confident of their
future performance. While two-thirds of Boomers
(high school students in the mid- l 970s) agreed that
they would be "very good" workers on a job someday
(the highest rating), three-fourths of 2006 high
school graduates expected this stellar outcome.
Thus the sizable majority of young people
now expect to be in the top 20 percent for
performance.
Younger generations are also more likely to agree
with narcissism items such as "Ifl ruled the world it
would be a better place," "I think I am a special
person," and "I can live my life any way I want to."
Narcissists are not just confident but over-confident,
believing that they are special and that their skills are
above average even when they are not. Perhaps as a
result, narcissism does not lead to better performance in the long run, and often leads to actions
that negatively impact others and the organization
(Judge, LePine, & Rich, 2006; Penney & Spector,
2002). Narcissists also have trouble in interpersonal
relationships, as they have a difficult time taking
someone else's perspective. In the long run, narcissists are less successful as they take more for themselves and deplete common resources (Campbell,
Bush, Brunell, & Shelton, 2005).
Why are younger generations higher in selfesteem and narcissism? Looking at the environment
in which the younger generation was raised provides
some insight. Many people born since 1970 and
especially since 1980 have been raised to place themselves first, often with the reasoning that "it's an
increasingly competitive world, and you have to
look out for yourself." Television, schools, and the
media promoted core cultural values expressed in
aphorisms like "Believe in yourself and anything is
possible" and "You can be anything you want to be"
(Twenge, 2006). Preschoolers were taught to sing
"I am special" and kids on youth sports teams all got
trophies whether their team won or not.
The increase in self-esteem, individualism, and
narcissism may be part of the reason why the gap
between expectations and reality~ has widened over
the generations. For example, 51 percent of high
school students in 2000 expected to earn a graduate
degree, even though only 9 percent are likely to
actually do so. In 1976, only half as many high
school students (27%) predicted this outcome
(Reynolds, Stewart, Sischo, & MacDonafd, 2006).
In a USA Today poll a few years ago, teens predicted
that they would be earning, on average, $75,000 a
year by the time they were 30, even though the
average income of a 30-year-old that year was
$27,000, or about a third of the teens' aspirations.
Young workers expect a very different workplace
than the one where their parents worked. As a
September 2007 Business Week article explained,
this generation has "high expectations and demand
meaningful work, constructive feedback, and positions of influence within their organizations"
(Gerdes, 2007). Today's employees expect to be
excited by the vision of the company, its management, and the opportunities they will have to make
contributions. They want to make suggestions right
away and expect to be promoted quickly. In their
book The Xers and the Boomers (2000), Claire Raines
and Jim Hunt relate the story of a young man who
met with his manager and declared that he expected
to be a vice president at the company within three
years. When the manager told him this was not
realistic, as most vice presidents were in their 60s,
the young man got angry with him and said, "You
should encourage me and help me fulfill my
expectations."
TWENGE, CAMPBELL
27
Many managers have noticed that the younger
generation expects more praise for their work. This is
consistent with the rise in self-esteem and narcissism;
in fact, both trends may have a common base in the
education philosophy of the 1980s and 1990s
emphasizing self-esteem and good feelings. As documented in a recent Wall Street journal article
(Zaslow, 2007), some companies have hired "celebration assistants" to administer reward programs.
Other managers have less formal programs, realizing
that the young generation needs more, and more
frequent, feedback than previous generations
expected. The article interviewed David Foster, 60,
a partner at a Washington, D.C., law firm. Foster
and his partners realized a few years ago that their
young associates needed to hear more often that they
were valued and had done a good job. They have
made a concerted effort to do so even though this
represents a radical shift from the atmosphere they
recall from their young adulthood. When he was a
young lawyer, Foster says, "If you weren't getting
yelled at, you felt like that was praise."
While World War II taught people to make
sacrifices and be patient, the Information Age has
taught a generation that you never have to wait for
anything. GenMe is looking for opportunities to
gain twenty years of experience in two years.
Furthermore, the young generation does not view
age, seniority, and rank as measures of accomplishment or expertise. Unlike an earlier time when
people admired their elders and followed them to
victory, this generation does not see age as a dominant characteristic for leadership. For GenX and
GenMe, the old command and control leadership
is a thing of the past. The top-down leadership style
based on the military is not effective in today's world
of rapid change. Today's young leaders act first and
evaluate later, because a leader cannot afford to carefully evaluate first in the high-speed environment of
today. The Internet and instantaneous access to
news and information has made knowledge much
more available at an earlier age. In an era of complexity and change, young people look for managers
who work with employees as competent allies rather
than passive subordinates. They want managers who
will develop relationships that show trust and respect
for them, their abilities, and their ideas. Research has
increasingly focused on this increasing need for competence, as well as belongingness and autonomy.
According to self-determination theoty (Deci &
Ryan, 2000), satisfying these human needs is essential for the personal well-being and social development among today's employees.
As just one illustration of this viewpoint, Ryan
Healy (born in the mid-1980s) wrote on the website
Employee Evolution,
Today, I regularly use technology such as Wikipedia
and Facebook which gives me the freedom to create the
content I want to see and erase the content I don't. Is it
any wonder that the insane bureaucracy that the
corporate world thrives on is incredibly difficult for me
to adapt to? A;; our generation enters the workforce,
strict, top-down corporations will face a huge problem
trying to retain [young] talent. Companies will
eventually have to adapt and change their fundamental
structure from one of command and contn;>l to one of
communication, trust, and knowledge sharing.
How much corporations can afford to adapt to this
generation is an open question, but it is clear that
many young people are entering organizations with
the expectation of relative equality and the belief that
they are just as competent as someone who has years
of experience. Some of this is based on skill with
technology such as web pages and texting. Although
technological skill is a major advantage of this generation, some managers point out that other skills
and knowledge are also necessary for success in
organizations.
In addition to rapid growth, young employees
also expect fulfillment and meaning in their work.
Financial Times writer Thomas Barlow (1999) noted
that "The idea has grown up, in recent years, that
work should not be just ... a way to make money,
support a family, or gain social prestige but should
provide a rich and fulfilling experience in and of
itself. Jobs are no longer just jobs; they are lifestyle
options." Many twentysomethings interviewed in
Quarterlife Crisis (Robbins & Wilner, 2001)
agreed, like one young woman, that if "she wasn't
both proud of and fulfilled by her job, then it was
not a job worth having." Several young interviewees
were looking to quit their jobs, including one young
man who wanted to quit his "dream" job working on
Capitol Hill because, "it's not fulfilling." Some of
this fulfillment comes from having an impact and
understanding why work matters. Instead of emphasizing duty like some previous generations, GenMe
wants to know why they are doing what they' re
doing. Many managers have found that they get
better results from young employees if they explain
exactly why their task or assignment is important.
Researchers have recently begun to focus on the
idea of work engagement and how it relates to the
meaningful work expected by the younger generation. Kahn (1990) introduced the concept of
GENERATION ME AND THE CHANGING WORLD OF WORK
personal engagement with work as "the harnessing of
organizational members' selves to their work roles; in
engagement, people employ and express themselves
physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role
performances" (p. 694). Employee engagement captures the willingness and readiness of employees to
devote personal energy resources to the fulfillment of
their work roles (Maslach & Leiter, 1997). It has
gained momentum as a research topic as more and
more of today's workers express their need to be
fulfilled by their job, the desire to gain a sense of
significance from one's work, and want to devote
energies to work-related endeavors.
Work engagement goes beyond satisfaction or
commitment and has been linked to beneficial
outcomes for both individuals and organizations
(Gubman, 2004; Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes,
2002; Kahn, 1992; Stairs & Galpin, Chapter
13, this volume). Recent academic research has
linked engagement to various positive outcomes,
including aiding individuals in deriving benefits
from stressful work, developing organizational
commitment and reducing turnover intentions,
and fostering good health and positive affect
among workers (Britt, Adler, & Bartone, 2001;
Crabtree, 2005; Harter et al., 2002; Sonnentag,
2003). Additionally, engagement is expected to
influence employee performance (Crabtree,
2005). Thus, finding ways to engage all generations would be beneficial.
In addition to the growth and meaningfulness of
work, the younger generation expects to achieve this
while maintaining a work-life balance. The idea of
"balance" is a fundamental value in the younger generations [at least in qualitative data such as that presented in When Generations Collide (Lancaster &
Stillman, 2003)]. This value may also be explained
by the individualism, self-focus, and antihierarchical bent of this generation shown in quantitative data (Twenge, 2006). GenMe views time commitments and career advances very systematically and
has different perceptions of what makes an employee
dedicated. Whereas older generations see long hours
and punctuality as signs of dedication, the younger
generation focuses on quality and quantity of work
completed (Burke, 2004). GenMe doesn't understand why they have to stay at work if they've finished
all that was expected of them. This generation is also
more open about their parenting obligations and
commitments, and expects time off for family functions. It is not an aversion to work that prompts their
actions, but a difference in the perception of what it
means to be a "good" worker and the value placed on
the commitment to having a balanced life in which
work is only one segment of a full life.
The need for work-life balance is not a new issue
(see Baltes, Clark, & Chakrabarti, Chapter 16, this
volume). Since the 1980s, researchers have been
calling for family-responsive workplaces. During
the 1990s, with more Baby Boomer women
climbing the corporate ladder, work-life conflict
increased (Duxbury & Higgins, 2001). With the
American population aging, a strong economy, and
low unemployment, work-life balance continues to
be an issue for organizations. But among GenMe,
work-life balance is almost equally important to both
men and women. As a result, organizations are
forced to rethink policies and practices aimed at
securing this work-life balance. Today's work/life
programs are less gender-specific. In addition to the
traditional practices of flextime and on-site daycare,
many of today's companies (e.g. SAS, Google,
Cisco) offer workers a slew of benefits (e.g., on-site
dental care and dry cleaning) billed as "balance
enhancers" for their young employees. These companies have realized that positive work-life outcomes
for employees are key factors in retaining both male
and female employees and thus ingredients for successful business strategy.
Change in the Need for Social Approval
and Formality of the Workplace
Younger generations also score lower on a trait
called need for social approval, or the concern with
others' viewpoints and impressions (Crowne &
Marlowe, 1960; Twenge & Im, 2007). Thus younger
employees will be more likely to question authority
and challenge the status quo. Today's younger generation is also less likely to dress formally. The
informal attire they favored in college is making its
way into the workplace as many organizations have
extended "business casual" to more than just Fridays.
A creative, fun culture which includes casual day every
day and foosball (a game of table football) during
lunch and breaks is an attraction for young
employees.
The younger generation is also informal in their
methods of communication. Whereas older generations see long hours, professionalism, and punctuality as signs of dedication, the younger generation
questions the idea of "face time." Different generations also prefer different methods of communication. Whereas the older generation prefers face to
face, the younger generation uses text messaging,
IM, MySpace pages, and other electronic forms
(though the youngest of them sometimes disdain
TWENGE, CAMPBELL
29
e-mail as too slow). The decrease in social approval
can also be seen in e-mail messages of the younger
generation, which are often so informal that they use
texting shorthand. One implication is that organizations should communicate significant information
in more than one way, increasing the likelihood that
all employees get the message in a way that makes
them comfortable regardless of generation.
Change in Locus of Control and Its Impact
on Beliefs About Work
Locus of control is an important personal trait for
describing individual differences and predicting behavior in organizational settings (Rotter, 1966). People
with an internal locus of control (internals) have high
expectancies of their ability to control events, whereas
those with an external locus of control (externals) have
a low expectancy of their ability to control events and
outcomes associated with their lives (Rotter, 1966).
Over the last few decades, college students have
become increasingly external in their control beliefs
(Twenge et al., 2004). That is, GenMe employees are
more likely than older generations to agree that "The
world is run by the few people in power, and there is
not much the little guy can do about it," "Getting a
good job depends mainly on being in the right place
at the right time," and "Who gets to be boss often
depends upon who was lucky enough to be in
the right place first." Although it seems counterintuitive that a highly individualistic generation would
have an external locus of control, it may be a
mechanism for preserving treasured self-esteem
when things go wrong. Individualism also promotes
the idea that collective action (e.g., in politics) is likely
to be fruitless.
The increase in external locus of control has
implications for attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors in work settings. First, externals are more
likely to blame others and luck when things go
wrong, and less likely to take responsibility for failures. Blau (1987) showed that internals exert greater
efforts to personally control their environment.
Externals take a more passive role and are more
likely to want to be pushed by their organizations
before doing certain things (Blau, 1987). They view
themselves as powerless to control day-to-day life
and attribute outcomes to external variables such as
company policies, procedures, and relationships
among colleagues. However, research has also
shown that externals are more strongly affected by
job satisfaction than internals (Griffeth & Hom,
1988). Additionally, externals are more sensitive to
organizational support and report stronger job
30
satisfaction and organizational commitment whenever they do perceive support from the organization.
Thus, there is some opportunity here for organizations to use this increase in external locus of control
to their benefit by increasing perceived organizational support.
So what influences employees' beliefs that the
organization cares about their well-being and supports them? How do employees, especially externals
(individuals who believe that behavior is guided by
fate, luck, or other external factors; Rotter, 1966),
know that the organization values their individual
contributions and that they make a difference?
According to researchers, perceived organizational
(POS;
Eisenberger,
Huntington,
support
Hutchinson, & Sowa, 1986) is inferred from organizational policies, practice, and treatment. Strong
POS is positively linked to organizational commitment and in-role and extra-role performance and
negatively related to withdrawal behaviors such as
absenteeism and turnover (Rhodes & Eisenberger,
2002). A recent study found that after managers
listened to needs of externals and tried to offer support, externals responded with significant increases
in satisfaction and organizational commitment
(Chiu, Chien, Lin, & Hsiao 2005). Thus, human
resource practices such as personalized counseling
and development programs that focus on individual
perception of work and promote an employeefriendly environment and organizational support
may modify externals' negative reactions.
Team projects may also benefit workers with an
external locus of control, as externals believe that
their performance is due in part to factors unrelated
to ability or effort. Externals may prefer to work
collectively because the probability of success may
be higher due to more individuals contributing (Eby
& Dobbins, 1997). Organizations continue to use
work teams to streamline processes, enhance
employee participation, and improve quality. Organizations' use of teams helps shift the emphasis of
individual orientation to team-based work. Working
in teams sets up this shared accountability so that
employees are held accountable but share in
resulting rewards and losses. On the other hand,
employees high in narcissism may not perform well
in groups, so the decision to emphasize individual
versus teamwork should reflect the traits of a particular employee and the needs of the organization.
Changes in Anxiety and Depression
The available evidence suggests that anxiety and
depression are now more common even apart from
GENERATION ME AND THE CHANGING WORLD OF WORK
1997). When employees do become depressed,
more frequent diagnosis and treatment. Only 1% to
active intervention seems to work the best. Wang
2% of Americans born before 1915 experienced a
et al. (2007) found that depressed employees whose
major depressive episode during their lifetimes, even
companies provided a case manager who helped
though they lived through the Great Depression and
them navigate treatment optio'ns worked two more
two world wars. Today, the lifetime rate of major
weeks per year than those who were simply told they
depression is ten times higher, between 15% and
might want to see a clinician. The program, which
20% (for a review, see Klerman & Weissman,
was administered through telephone calls dt_Iring
1989). College students' and children's anxiety
non-work hours, cost $100 to $400 per worker,
increased a full standard deviation between the
but saved about $1,800 in work hours. The workers
1950s and the 1990s (Twenge, 2000), and college
who received the intervention were also niore likely
students showed increases in psychopathology on
to be employed by the company a year later, thus
the scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory (Twenge, Gentile, DeWall, Ma,
saving the companies the cost of recruiting and
training a new worker.
Lacefield, & Schurtz, 2008).
In some cases, financial worries may be the cause
Much of the data on anxiety is based on college
of
young
employees' anxiety. The financial realities
student and child samples, who are not yet in the
of
being
young
are much more difficult than they
workforce. However, the studies documenting an
once
were.
College
tuition has far outpaced inflation,
increase in depression have been conducted with
and
grants
and
scholarships
have not kept pac~.
adult samples. In fact, depression affects about 6
A
few
generations
ago,
the
University
of California
percent ofAmerican workers each year, costing comfree
to
state
residents.
By
the 1970s,
campuses
were
panies more than $30 billion in lost yearly productuition
was
charged
but
could
be
covered
through
tivity. This suggests that the problem does not go •
grants
and
part-time
jobs.
Today,
loans
are
often
the
away after young adulthood, and that workplace
only
solution,
so
the
average
college
student
graduissues may play an important role in employee
ates with tens of thousands in debt, often hundreds
well-being [defined as "the overall quality of an
of thousands if he or she also attended graduate or
employee's experience and functioning at work"
(Grant, Christianson, & Price, 2007), including
professional school. In addition, the cost of housing
has
increased at three times the pace of inflation.
psychological, physical, and social dimensions].
Even
with the recent downturn in the housing
Managerial practices often help employee wellbeing on one dimension but have potential ill effects
market, rent and mortgage payments are a much
on another dimension. For example, the enriched
larger proportion of young people's income than
jobs that are providing growth opportunities for "'they were just ten years ago. (This varies from one
region to the next, of course; but even after the
younger workers may also cause them more stress.
recent downturn in prices, housing is still considerComplex and demanding jobs often lead to strain,
ably
more expensive than it was a decade ago). Other
fatigue, and overload (Campion & McClelland,
financial
necessities are also more expensive,
is
the
high
incentive
com1993). Another example
including health care (more of which now comes
pensation that has become commonplace in today's
out of the employee's pocket) and child care
competitive workforce. Giving employees higher
expenses
(which can easily top $} ,000 a month for
pay and rewards for hard work increases job satisfaceach
child).
tion. However, it can also harm interpersonal relaThus, despite their narcissism and the over-indultionships at work because such a competitive
gences of their childhood, it is not accurate to say
environment undermines social well-being (Bloom,
that the young generation "has it easy" or is
1999). Overwork can also strain personal relation"spoiled." The gap between expectations and reality
ships and upset work-life balance.
has
never been larger. A boss who understands this
Organizations that foster employee well-being
will have a much easier time connecting with young
are recognized as desirable places to work. The
American Psychological Association now offers
employees.
awards and rewards (Carlson, 2004) to organizations
that are "psychologically healthy." Why care about
Changes in Women's Roles and
employee well-being? Making employees happier
Personalities
and healthier increases their effort and productivity
Finally, there has been a fundamental shift in
(Fisher, 2003). In addition, the costs associated with
women's roles. Not only are more women working,
illness, absenteeism, and turnover are large (Spector,
but their personalities have shifted in a way that has
TWENGE, CAMPBELL
31
made them more successful in the workplace. When
Sandra Bern wrote the Bern Se:&-Rolelnventory in
the early 1970s (Bern, 1974), stereotypically feminine traits included nurturance, warmth, and compassion and stereotypically masculine uaits included
assertiveness, leadership, and self-reliance. By the
1990s, there was no longer a sex difference among
college students on the measure of stereotypically
masculine traits (Twenge, 1997; differences
persisted on feminine traits, perhaps because there
has not been as much change in gender roles at
home). College women also increased in assertiveness on four different measures between the 1970s
and the 1990s (Twenge, 2001); there is also no longer
a significant sex difference in assertiveness. Among
adult samples, the correlation between self-esteem
and socioeconomic status indicators like income,
education, and occupation has decreased over the
generations for men but increased for women
(Twenge & Campbell, 2002). Thus, surprisingly,
jobs are now more central to women's self-esteem
than they are to men's.
Today, women fill more than half of all U.S. jobs.
It is estimated that by 2010 women will represent 62
percent of the total U.S. workforce. Women live
longer than men and finish college at higher
rates-57 percent of college degrees now go to
women, and women are more goal-oriented than
men are in college (National Center for
Educational Statistics, 1996). As women continue
to enter the workforce, they are taking on leadership
roles in greater numbers than ever before. Women
now occupy more than 40 percent of all managerial
positions in the United States (Eagly & Carli, 2007).
Women's perceptions of their own roles have also
changed; as early as the 1980s, women saw as much
similarity between "female" and "manager" as they
did between "male" and "manager" (Brenner,
Tomkiewicz, & Schein, 1989).
However, gender ideals, or beliefs about how
men and women should think, feel, and behave,
still exist (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Fiske & Stevens,
1993; Rudman & Glick, 2001). This is especially
true at the executive level within organizations. In
particular, sex stereotypes have shaped workers'
expectations for female versus male leaders.
Americans have been conditioned to expect that
there is a feminine versus a masculine style ofleadership. The feminine style is perceived as an outgrowth
of the team-oriented approach: better listeners, more
empathetic, more people oriented and less aggressive
in pursuit of goals. However, researchers found no
statistically significant differences between men's
32
and women's leadership styles. Strong female leaders
were just as assertive and just as analytical (Eagly &
Karau, 2002; Powell, 1990). Unfortunately, the
stereotypes about masculine and feminine leadership
styles can hinder opportunities for the leadership
development of women. Organizations will need to
continue to increase people's awareness and dispel
the perception that there are key differences between
male and female leaders (Eagly & Carli, 2007).
As mentioned above, many young women are
searching for work-life balance. Although more
fathers are now taking on greater domestic responsibilities, the work-family conflict has not eased for
women (Eagly & Carli, 2007). There are increasing
pressures for intensive parenting (for a review, see
Warner, 2005) as well as increasing time demands in
high-level careers. Many men and young employees
without children are also demanding flexible schedules and rebelling against long hours. This can put
organizations in a difficult position as they must
balance business goals with the employee's personal
goals. As more young women stay in the workforce
after they have children-a likely outcome given
current economic realities and women's greater college completion-better daycare solutions will need
to be found. Organizations will need to retain
talented employees by establishing family-friendly
human resource practices such as flextime, job
sharing, telecommuting, assistance in finding daycare or providing onsite daycare (Eagly & Carli,
2007).
Changes in Work Values
A new study examined generational differences in
work values using a nationally representative sample
of high school seniors (Twenge, Campbell, &
Hoffman, 2008). The largest change appeared in
valuing leisure. Almost twice as many young
people in 2006 rated having a job with more than
two weeks vacation as "very important" than did in
1976, and almost twice as many wanted a job at
which they could work slowly. Nearly half now want
a job "which leaves a lot of time for other things in
your life." GenMe is less likely to want to work
overtime and is more likely to say they would stop
working if they had enough money. While only 23
percent ofBoomers agreed that "work is just making
a living," 34 percent of GenMe'ers agreed. Threefourths of Boomers said they expected work to be a
central part of their lives, compared to 63 percent of
GenMe' ers. Smaller changes appeared in other
values, with younger generations placing less value
on intrinsic, altruistic, and social rewards at work
GENERATION ME AND THE CHANGING WORLD OF WORK
Boomers did at the same age. GenMe is less
likely to value work that is interesting, helps others,
or allows them to make friends on the job. The value
placed on extrinsic rewards such as money and status
peaked with GenX, but was still high for GenMe.
Overall, these results are consistent with the personality changes, demonstrating that younger generations desire work-life balance and leisure while still
expecting a good salary.
Conclusion
At base, all employees face the same challenges:
Developing skills, enjoying one's job, being successful, and balancing work with family and a personal life. Yet the way employees approach these
challenges is likely to vary by generation as a result
of the gradual changes in personality traits and work
attitudes that have occurred from one generation to
the next. Among the younger generation, whom we
label GenMe, there has been an increase in selfesteem and narcissism, an increase in external locus
of control, a decrease in the need for social approval,
an increase in anxiety and depression, and an
increase in the importance of time outside of work.
As a result, GenMe is likely to focus on developing
skills that can be transferred from job to job, expect
work to be fulfilling and to be promoted quickly,
and favor flexibility and even more work-life balance
than previous generations.
As older workers continue to leave the workplace,
today's organizations will be confronted with the
significant task of retaining young employees. Step
one will be to identify the gap between the high
expectations of GenMe and the realities of the workplace and step two will be to identify ways it can be
bridged through the implementation of new policies
and practices and management style. Helping
GenMe find work-life balance, as well as fostering
an environment that acknowledges and appreciates
the generational differences among employees, will
be one of the biggest challenges of doing business in
the 21st century.
Directions for Research
• Given the increase in self-esteem and
narc1ss1sm, we expect to see these younger
generations
having unrealistic expectations.
Research should investigate if the perceived
psychological contracts that younger generations
have with employers are now different and how.
• The desire for work-life balance is not new, but
younger employees want to do a better job of
"balancing" than previous generations. Although
organizations have started to implement flex-time
and job sharing policies, it is not clear whether
GenMe is using these options and/or is satisfied
with them. Research should investigate whether
existing policies are successful in meeting GenMe's
desire for work-life balance.
• With younger generations higher in external
locus of control, organizations will need to discover
ways to motivate these employees. Further research
should determine if this externality extends to work
domains.
• With the increase in anxiety and depression
among the younger generation, organizations will
need to have a better understanding of the factors
driving this increase so as to introduce successful
programs to help mitigate the associated risks.
Implications for Practice
• As Baby Boomers retire and Generation Me
begins to enter the workforce, generational
differences will be a important aspect of diversity in
today's workplace and this will have immediate
consequences for managers.
• Leadership styles may need to become more
democratic.
• Younger generations expect flexibility.
Managers should find ways to focus on results
rather than hours worked on a certain schedule.
• Generation Me may require more guidance
and mentoring to help them discover the best
career path.
• Work-life balance will become an increasingly
important issue, even for young employees without
families. To retain talent, businesses should
continue to implement policies that allow for
work-life balance but also consider the business
goals of the organization.
References
Barlow, T. (1999). Tribal workers. The Financial Times, July 24,
1999.
Bern, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 15 5-162.
Blau, G. J. (1987). Locus of control as a potential moderator of
the turnover process. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 60,
21-29.
Bloom, M. (1999). The performance effects of pay dispersion on
individuals and organizations. Academy of Management
Journal, 42, 25-40.
Brenner, 0. C., Tomkiewicz, J., & Schein, V. E. (1989). Research
notes: The relationship between sex role stereotypes and
requisite management characteristics revisited. Academy of
Management journal 32, 662-669.
Britt, T. W., Adler, A. B., & Bartone, P. T. (2001). Deriving
benefits from stressful events: The role of engagement in
TWENGE, CAMPBELL
33
meaningful work and hardiness. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 6, 53-63.
Burke, M. E. (2004). Generational Differences Survey report.
Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource
Management.
Campbell, W. K., Bush, C. P., Brunell, A. B., & Shelton, J.
(2005). Understanding the social costs of narcissism: The
case of the tragedy of the commons. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1358-1368.
Campion, M.A., & McClelland, C. L. (1993). Interdisciplinary
examination of the costs and benefits of enlarged jobs: A job
design quasi-experiment. journal of Applied Psychology, 76,
186-198.
Carlson, L. (2004). Employers reap awards and rewards for psychologically healthy workplaces. Employee Benefit News.
Caspi, A. (1987). Personality in the life course. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1203-1213.
Chiu, C-K, Chien C-S., Lin, C. P., & Hsiao, C. Y. (2005).
Understanding hospital employee job stress and turnover
intentions in a practical setting: The moderating role of
locus of control. Journal of Management Development, 24,
837-855.
Crabtree, S. (2005). Gallup study: Unhappy workers are
unhealthy too. The Gallup Management journal. http://
gmj.gallup.com
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social
desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of
Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354.
Crowne, D. P., &Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal
pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychologicallnquiry, 11, 227-268.
Duxbury, L., & Higgin5, C. (2001) Work-life balance in the new
millennium: Where are we? Where do we need to go? In
F. Green, Demanding work: The paradox ofjob quality in the
affluent economy. Princeton, University Press. 2006.
Eagly, A.H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Women and the labyrinth of
leadership. Harvard Business Review, September issue, 63-71.
Eagly, A.H., & Karau, S. J. (1991). Gender and the emergence of
leaders: A meta-analysis. journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 60, 685-710.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of
prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological &view, 109,
573-598.
Eby, L. T., & Dobbins, G. H. (1997). Collectivistic orientation in
teams: An individual and group-level analysis. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 18, 275-295.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S., & Sowa, D.
(1986). Perceived organizational suppott. Journal ofApplied
Psychology, 71, 500-507.
Fisher, C. D. (2003). Why do lay people believe that satisfaction
and performance are correlated? Possible sources of a commonsense theory. journal of Organizational Behavior, 24,
753-777.
Fiske, S.T., & Stevens, L. E. (1993). What's so special about sex?
Gender stereotyping and discrimination. In S. Oskamp, M.
Costanzo (Eds.), Gender issues in contemporary society (pp.
173-196). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Grant, A. M., Christianson, M. K., & Price, R. H. (2007).
Happiness, health, or relationships? Managerial practices
and employee well-being tradeoffs. Academy ofManagement
Perspectives, 21, 51-63.
34
Griffeth, R. W., & Hom, P. W. (1988). A comparison of different
conceptualizations of perceived alternatives in turnover
research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9, 103-111.
Gerdes, L. (2007). The best places to launch a career. Business
Week, Septemberl3.
Gubman, E. (2004). From engagement to passion for work: The
search for the missing person. Human Resource P/,anning, 27
(3), 42-46.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002).
Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes:
A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
268-279.
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The nextgreat
generation. New York: Vintage.
Judge, T. A., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2006). Loving yourself
abundantly: Relationship of the narcissistic personality to selfand other perceptions of workplace deviance, leadership, and
taSk and contexrual performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91, 762-776.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management
journal 33, 692-724.
Kahn, W. A. (1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at
work. Human Rekitions, 45, 321-349.
Klerman, G. L., & Weissman, M. M. (1989). Increasing rates of
depression. Journal of the American Medical Association, 261,
2229-2235.
Lancaster, L. C., & Stillman, D. (2003). When generations collide.
New York: Harper Business.
Lewinsohn, P., Rohde, P., Seeley, J., & Fischer, S. (1993). Agecohott changes in the lifetime occurrence of depression and
other mental disorders. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology, 102,
110-120.
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (1997). The truth about burnout:
How organizations cause personal stress and what to do about it.
San Francisco, Cali£: Jossey-Bass.
Morrison, E.W. & Robinson, S. L. (1997). When employees feel
betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation
develops. Academy ofManagement Review, 22, 226-256.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1996). Statistics in
brief Revenues and expenditures for public elementary and
secondary education: School year 1993-94. (NCES 96-303).
Washington, D.C.: Author.
Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. (2002). Narcissism and counterproductive behavior: Do bigger egos mean bigger problems? International Journal of Selection and Assessment,
10, 126-134.
Powell, W.W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network
forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior,
12, 295-336.
Raines, C., & Hunt, J. (2000). The Xers and the Boomers: From
adversaries to allier-A diplomat's guide. New York: Thomson
Crisp Learning.
Reynolds, J., Stewart, M., Sischo, L., & MacDonald. R. (2006).
Have adolescents become too ambitious? High school seniors'
educational and occupational plans, 1976 to 2000. Social
Problems, 53, 186-206.
Rhodes, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational
support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87, 698-714.
Robbins, A., & Wilner, A. (2001). Quarterlife crisis: The unique
challenges oflife in your twenties. New York: Penguin Putnam.
GENERATION ME AND THE CHANGING WORLD OF WORK
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus
external locus of control of reinforcement. Psychological
Monographs, 80, 1-28.
Rudman, L.A., & Glick, P. (2001). Feminized management and
backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to women
of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1004-1010.
Sonnentag, S. (2003). Recovery, work engagement, and proactive
behavior: A new look at the interface between nonwork and
work.journal ofApplied Psychology, 88, 518-528.
Soyer, R. B., Rovenpor, J. L., & Kopelman, R. E. (1999).
Narcissism and achievement motivation as related to three
facets of the sales role: Attraction, satisfaction, and performance. Journal ofBusiness and Psychology, 14, 285-304.
Spector, P. (1997). job sati.ifaction: Applications, assessment, causes,
and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Stewart, A. J., & Healy, J.M. (1989). Linking individual development and social changes. American Psychologist, 44, 30-42.
Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (1991). Generations: The history
ofAmerica'sfoture, 1584-2069. New York: William Morrow.
Tulgan, B. (2003). Managing GenerationX New York: Capstone.
Twenge, J.M. (1997). Changes in masculine and feminine traits
over time: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 36, 305-325.
Twenge, J.M. (2000). The age of anxiety? Birth cohort change in
anxiety and neuroticism, 1952-1993. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 79, 1007-1021.
Twenge, J. M. (2001). Changes in women's assertiveness in
response to status and roles: A cross-tempotal meta-analysis,
1931-1993. journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81,
133-145.
Twenge, J. M. (2006). Generation Me: Wiry today's young
Americans are more confident, assertive, entitled-and more
miserable than ever before. New York: Free Press.
Twenge, J. M., Campbell, S. M., & Hoffinan, B. J. (2008).
Generational differences in work values: Leisure and extrinsic
values increasing, social and intrinsic values decreasing.
Unpublished manuscript.
Twenge, J.M., & Campbell, W. K. (2001). Age and birth cohort
differences in self-esteem: A cross-temporal meta-analysis.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 321-344.
Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2002). Self-esteem and
socioeconomic status: A meta-analytic review. Personality
and Social Psychology Review, 6, 59-71.
Twenge, J.M., & Campbell, W. K. (2008). Increases in positive
self-views among high school students: Birth cohort changes
in anticipated performance, self-satisfaction, self-liking, and
self-competence. Psychological Science, 19, 1082-1086.
Twenge,J. M., Gentile, B., DeWall, C. N., Ma, D., Lacefield, K., &
Schurtz, D. R. (2008). Changes in psychopathology, 19422007: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Unpublished manuscript.
Twenge, J. M., & Im, C. (2007). Changes in the need for social
approval, 1958-2001. Journal of Research in Personality, 41,
171-189.
Twenge, J. M., Konrath, S., Foster, J. D., Campbell, W. K., &
Bushman, B. J. (2008). Egos inflating over time: A crosstemporal meta-analysis of the Narcissistic Personality
Inventory. Journal ofPersonality, 76, 875-901.
Twenge, J. M., Zhang, L., & Im, C. (2004). It's beyond my
control: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of increasing externality in locus of control, 1960-2002. Personality and Social
Psychology &view, 8, 308-319.
United States Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics. (2005). Postsecondary institutions in the
United States: Fall 2003 and degrees and other awards conferred:
2002-03.
Wang, P. S., Simon, G. E., Avorn, J., Azocar, F., Ludman, E. J.,
McCulloch, J., Petukhova, M. Z., & Kessler, R. C. (2007).
Telephone screening, outreach, and care management for
depressed workers and impact on clinical and work productivity outcomes: A tandomized controlled trial. Journal ofthe
American Medical Association, 298, 1401-1411.
Warner, J. (2005). Perfect madness: Motherhood in the age of
anxiety. New York: Riverhead.
Zaslow, J. (2007). The most praised generation goes to worl6\Wall
Street journal April 20.
Zemke, R., Raines, C., & Filipczak, B. (1999). Generations at
work: Managing the ckish of Veterans, Boomers, Xers, and
Nexters in your workpkice. New York: AMACOM/American
Management Association.
TWENGE, CAMPBELL
35
Oxford Handbook of
OXFORD LIBRARY OF PSYCHOLOGY
Positive Psychology
Editor-in-Chief
and Work
Peter E. Nathan
Edited by
P. Alex Linley
Susan Harrington
Nicola Garcea
OXFORD
UNIVERSITY PRESS
2010
OXFORD
UNIVERSITY PRESS
Oxford University Press, Inc., publishes works that further
Oxford University's objective of excellence
in research, scholarship, and education.
Oxford NewYork
Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi
New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
With offices in
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
Copyright© 2010 by Oxford University Press, Inc.
Oxford Library of Psychology vii
About the Editors ix
Contributors xi
Contents xv
Chapters 1-334
Index 335
Published by Oxford University Press, Inc.
198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016
www.oup.com
Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior permission of Oxford University Press.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Oxford handbook of positive psychology and work I edited by P. Alex Linley,
Susan Harringron, Nicola Garcea.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-19-533544-6 (hardcover:alk. paper)
1. Positive psychology. 2. Leadership. I. Linley, P. Alex.
IL Harrington, Susan, 1962- III. Garcea, Nicola.
BF204.6.0954 2010
150.19'88-dc22
2009011022
9 8 7 6 5 4
3 2
Printed in the United States of America
on acid-free paper
v