The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1750-6204.htm

Preparing leaders for the Preparing

leaders
multi-generational workforce
Rocky J. Dwyer
CENTRUM Católica Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú,
Surco, Peru, and
281
Ana Azevedo Received 27 August 2013
Revised 18 November 2014
School of Business, Athabasca University, Athabasca, Canada Accepted 1 April 2015

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to advocate the need for educational leadership to understand and consider
the immediate role and challenges associated with the unique values and characteristics of an
age-diverse population and their impact on teaching and the facilitation of learning.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper draws on the review of the generational and diversity
literatures and related organizational best practices to identify key definitions and empirical findings
and to develop recommendations which can be deployed in future research and practice in different
types of organizational settings.
Findings – This paper provides insights into how organizational leaders can promote a
multicultural environment that leverages multi-generational differences. Also, the present study
offers innovative pedagogical approaches that can help better prepare future business leaders for
these challenges.
Research limitations/implications – The study attempts to reignite the debate through a detailed
review that describes the current understanding of generational differences among four generational
cohorts. Given the research approach, the recommendations may lack generalizability.
Practical implications – This paper advocates the need to understand generational differences to
manage the challenges associated with differences in attitudes, values and preferences regarding
leadership, human resource practices and organizational change initiatives.
Social implications – Organizations which create environments that are value-based and that
support divergent views and values of each of the cohorts, create a positive outcome for both the
organization and its employees.
Originality/value – This paper enhances knowledge and understanding at the theoretical and
practical levels, enabling business leaders and faculty to gain insight regarding the generational
differences and unique characteristics of four organizational workgroups – Veterans, Baby Boomers,
Generation X and Generation Y.
Keywords Management education, Age diversity, Innovative pedagogies,
Multi-generational workforce, Organizational culture and change
Paper type Literature review

In an era of technology enlightenment, almost daily, end users have an extensive array
of widgets to delight even the most ardent consumer. However, in this plethora of Journal of Enterprising
Communities: People and Places in
technological advancement, strife, hunger, environmental disasters and economic crises the Global Economy
remain virtually unchecked in many countries, while governments and their citizens Vol. 10 No. 3, 2016
pp. 281-305
stand by in shock. In spite of advances in global wealth and technological innovation, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1750-6204
many might muse upon whether any factual advancement to what Dwyer (2009, p. 101) DOI 10.1108/JEC-08-2013-0025
JEC denotes as the “Techno-Savvy Age” has actually occurred. The management literature
10,3 is replete with strategies to align innovation and business practices into a happy
marriage; yet, there is continuous research which indicates that technological advances
in support of public sector services, accountability, performance and public trust,
remain unchanged (Kroll, 1984; Potts and Kastelle, 2010).
At the outset, technological advances were viewed as being the primordial factor
282 in providing competitive advantages to different types of organizations. Aside from
the technological aspect of managing diverse organizations, a pivotal challenge for
leadership in various levels of government, for example, is that of managing
multiple generations in the workforce at the same time. Although age-diversity can
bring new perspectives and add significant value to an organization, it also poses
interesting challenges for leadership and the effective management of public sector
institutions (Gursoy et al., 2008). Within the context of higher education, specific
challenges remain regarding the adoption of a truly inclusive curriculum,
organizational policies and climate that encourage diverse student access and
success, as well as the implementation of broader initiatives with assessment
mechanisms that promote diverse faculty and leadership (Aguirre and Martinez,
2002; Epps and Epps, 2010).
Hur et al.’s (2010) research findings vis-à-vis the impact of multi-generational
government workforces are scant. Although data might suggest a greater diversity
within the public sector, as opposed to the private sector, particularly as it pertains
to various age cohorts of workforces within public sector organizations, Choi and
Rainey (2010) believe that the majority of evidence on this particular topic has been
studied mainly in the business management field, within private industry.
Therefore, there is a clear need for additional research on this topic, to address
different types of organizational contexts and to further assess the impact of
age-related diversity on higher education. The present authors wish to contribute to
this debate by examining how management education can better prepare business
leaders to develop a deeper understanding of multi-generational differences in a way
that enhances individual and organizational outcomes. Specifically, this paper has
three primary aims:
(1) to review key definitions and findings from the existing literature on
generational differences and diversity;
(2) to highlight the main recommendations that can help promote future research
and practice within higher education; and
(3) to offer a few pedagogical approaches that can be used to deepen understanding
of diversity, enhance communication and teamwork across multi-generational
groups and potentially foster both creativity and empowerment within
management education (Adler and Gundersen, 2008; Kidwell, 2003).

This research paper is organized in four sections. The first section is a literature review
of research regarding the characteristics of multi-generational workforces, particularly
differences, including research evidence drawn from concepts of diversity. The second
section provides a summary of lessons learned, as well as major recommendations on
three areas: leadership and motivation, organizational culture and change and human
resources tools and practices. These lessons and recommendations can be used as a
means by which organizations may effectively manage a diverse workforce. The third Preparing
section introduces three pedagogical approaches that can be used in management leaders
education to enhance understanding of age-related diversity in the classroom. Finally,
the fourth section brings the authors’ research to conclusion by providing some final
suggestions as to how higher education institutions can use this research to better
prepare their students in not only coping with but also in effectively leveraging and
effectively managing a multi-generational workforce. 283
Background
Research on the topic of generational differences can be traced back to the work of
Mannheim (1953) who defined generations as cohorts of individuals who were born and
raised in the same time period and were thus exposed to similar social and historical
environments (Murphy et al., 2010). Researchers suggest that individuals within the
same generational group or cohort, due to their shared experiences of key social events
at critical life developmental stages, tend to share similar values, attitudes and
behaviors which significantly affect their expectations about work and life in general
(Smola and Sutton, 2002).
Trunk (2007) contends that process management and integration have provided
a newer and fresher perspective in the workplace, coupled with renewed urgency, as
a result of the arrival of Generation Y who will be the driving force of a very different
work environment in the future. Many researchers argue that organizations need to
pay close attention to their multi-generational workforce, including their
corresponding stereotypical behaviors (Salopek, 2000a; Smola and Sutton, 2002;
Tulgan, 2004).
Currently, in North America, four generations share the workforce composition,
thus posing some interesting challenges (Table I). These generations have varied
personal values; differ in their approaches to how they wish to work and have a
plethora of communication styles, diverse languages and different perceptions of
how they see the world. These differences, therefore, may lead to conflict in the
workplace. Thus, organizations need to be perceptive, not only of the differences but
also how each group brings their unique characteristics to bear on their abilities to
perform the work required. Savvy organizations are aware of such diversity and the
inherent differences, enabling them to be more capable of managing a multi-aged
workforce (Knouse, 2011).
While researchers debate the specific age parameters of each generational group,
there seems to be significant agreement regarding the four different age cohorts existing
in today’s workforce (Crampton and Hodge, 2007; Helyer and Lee, 2012), as it can be seen
in Table I.
One purpose of this paper is to highlight the examined generational differences
between four distinctive generational groups: Veterans, Baby Boomers, Generation X
and Generation Y. Each generation presents different challenges in managing their
differences in attitudes and values, preferences regarding leadership and human
resource practices, as well their responses to organizational change initiatives. These
differences need to be understood if employees are to be motivated and challenged to
their maximum capacity. Organizations that understand what motivates each group
can then use their unique competencies and abilities to build stronger engagement and
commitment to ever-changing organizational strategies and goals. Indeed, Salopek
 JEC
10,3

284

Table I.
Description of
generational groups
Veterans Baby Boomers Generation X Generation Y
(Born between 1922 and 1946) (Born between 1946 and 1965) (Born between 1966 and 1979) (Born between 1980-1995)

Patriotic Idealists Skeptical Globally-oriented

Loyal Optimistic workaholics Independent Tech-savvy
Fiscally conservative Competitive Entrepreneurial Creative
Value stability and commitment, rebuilding Value personal health and well-being, Value friends and family, work/life Value meaning and diversity
of their families believe in the equality between sexes balance

At work: At work: At work: At work:

Seek formalized workplace and hierarchical Seek promotion through hard work Seek continual feedback and opportunities Seek feedback and expect consultation on
structure with focused respect for and determination – driven to for autonomy. Expect organizations to issues which affect them. Seek
organizational authority and organizational succeed provide ongoing skills development challenging work environment which
commitment opportunities stimulates a workplace identity and
provide meaning
Highly committed to the organization and Goal-oriented. Seeking to make a Achievement-oriented. Seeking flexible Confident, self-assured and flexible in
its leaders. Seeking to give and receive difference at work and in society. work life in relation to own needs. Lack different tasks. Seeking opportunities to
loyalty and to have long-term job security. High ambition may lead to burnout employer loyalty contribute and grow. Impatient and eager
Risk averse to voice their opinion
Will not challenge the status quo Willing to challenge authority, when Will challenge the hierarchical decision- Will challenge authority when there is
he/she is a non-expert making structure or status quo doubt
(2000a) argues that organizations that create environments which are value-based and Preparing
which support divergent views and values of each of the cohorts, create a positive leaders
outcome for both the organization and its employees.

Understanding veterans
Zemke et al. (2000, p. 16) describe Veterans as the generation born between 1922 and
1946. Critical life events for Veterans included, for example, the Great Depression for 285
Americans and the Second World War for Canadians. Other names and definitions have
been used for Veterans. For example, Lancaster and Stillman (2002) prefer to use the
term Traditionalists in describing the generation from approximately 1900 until 1946.
Other authors such as Foot and Stoffman (1998) delineate this generation further and
categorize them into three distinct groups as follows:
(1) The Roaring Twenties from 1920 until 1929.
(2) The Depression Babies from 1929 until 1939.
(3) The Second World War cohorts from 1940 until 1946.

However, for this paper, the simplified term Veterans will be used to refer to the
generation born prior to the Baby Boomers. Although there are fewer members of this
cohort participating in the workforce today (due to their ages), they are still contributing
and adding value to a number of different organizations in North America. Veterans are
often described as being patriotic, loyal and fiscally conservative (Hatfield, 2002;
Salopek, 2000b).

Understanding Baby Boomers

Statistics Canada (2011, p. 1) defines the Baby Boom generation as those having
been born between 1946 and 1965, when birthrates dramatically increased.
Important events in their lifetime included: The Women’s and Civil Rights
Movements in the USA, the Quebec crisis in Canada and the long period of political
and military tension of the so-called Cold War. Kovary and Buahene (2005, p. 6)
consider that these are the cohorts that seek personal growth, who are ambitious and
who aim to “to put their stamp on things”. Baby Boomers are frequently described
as being idealists, “optimistic workaholics”, competitive and more inclined to
question authority, as compared to their former generation (Hatfield, 2002; Knouse,
2011; Smola and Sutton, 2002).

Understanding Generation X
Generation X, in Foot and Stoffman’s (1998) opinion, does not constitute a separate
generation, but rather consider that they come at the tail end of the Baby Boomers.
However, to remain consistent with current literature, this study considers Generation X
and the Baby-Bust generation as one era; that is those born between 1966 and 1979.
Because of women entering the labor force in greater numbers, and the subsequent
decline in birthrates due to the birth control pill being on the market, Foot and Stoffman
(1998, p. 28) argue that this resulted in small cohorts within this generation at that time.
Zemke et al. (2000, p. 18) credit the life-defining events of Generation X as: The
women’s rights’ movement having evolved, which also became institutionalized;
cultural differences were more emphasized and apparent; an energy crisis emerged; and
personal computers were introduced. In some respects, members of Generation X had an
JEC easier life than those of the preceding Baby Boomer generation. For example, Foot and
10,3 Stoffman (1998, p. 18) suggest that it was relatively easier for Generation Xers to join a
higher education program or find a good job. On the other hand, Generation Xers grew
up experiencing social, economic and political upheavals (e.g. growing financial, social
and family insecurity; rapid social changes and corporate downsizing; greater diversity;
and the beginning of the so-called “Information Age”) (Gursoy et al., 2008; Smola and
286 Sutton, 2002). Therefore, they learned to be skeptical, independent and entrepreneurial
(Salopek, 2000b).

Understanding Generation Y
Generation Y are the children of Baby Boomers, born between 1980 and 1995 (Foot
and Stoffman, 1998). According to Smola and Sutton (2002) and Hatfield (2002),
Generation Y is the first generation to be born into a technologically based world.
Members of Generation Y, also referred in business literature as the “Millennials” or
the “Nexters”, were exposed to high levels of high school violence and scandals that
rocked their world, such as Clinton’s political sex scandal and OJ Simpson’s
controversial murder trial (Lancaster and Stillman, 2002; Zemke et al., 2000).
Moreover, this generational group is defined through other characteristics such as
ethnic and linguistic differences; they are products of non-traditional families and
different sexual preferences, and are bombarded by changes of media which include
reality TV, talk shows and the internet, where everyone, according to Paul (2001,
p. 49), is encouraged to voice their opinions and can become a “superstar”.
Significant impacts in their lives included such events as the September 11 terrorist
attack in the USA and major government scandals (Kovary and Buahene, 2005). In
addition, members of Generation Y have witnessed personal turmoil, due to job
losses in their families. Whereas they grew up with a focus on family and had
relatively scheduled and structured lives, at this point, Dawn (2004) suggests that
the Generation Y is looking for challenges and learning opportunities in their lives.
Aside from being techno-savvy, Generation Y individuals are often described as
being creative, globally oriented and socially active, ambitious but also impatient and
eager to voice their opinions at work (Knouse, 2011; Salopek, 2000b; Zemke et al., 2000).
In addition, industry experts have suggested that Generation Y employees value work–
life balance and place significant importance in finding meaning at work, as well as in
their personal lives (Moritz, 2014; Williams, 2011; Trunk, 2007).

The multi-generational workforce is impacting organizations

Tulgan (2004) interviewed various cohorts in all four generations over a period of 10
years. His study showed that because of the generational differences among the four
groups of cohorts, the face of the workforce is changing drastically. Long-term
employment relationships seem to be passé, as employees in Tulgan’s (2004) study
tended to favor short-term rewards in contrast to former long-term job rewards;
wanted immediate pay increases rather than waiting; and sought incentives which
contributed toward better morale, higher productivity levels and retention of
employees. Moreover, it was found that when supervisors attempted to understand
employees, the supervisor– employee relationship was stronger. One conclusion of
this study was that supervisors today need to have more time and skills and must
attempt to make efforts to understand where employees are coming from to enable
them to deal with employee issues and effectively reflect the changing composition Preparing
and dynamics of their work environments. Supervisors need to understand various leaders
types of employees while carrying out management duties to reflect more varied
needs of employees with different ages.
Zetlin (1992) believes that no matter what the age of supervisors, there will be a
generation gap which organizations will have to address. In this research, the author
found that when supervisors from one generation managed another generation, the 287
generation gap became problematic and needed to be “bridged”. Zetlin (1992) wrote an
influential article which outlined how managers from Generation Y aimed to prove their
capabilities to manage functions of authoritative positions. However, at times, this
caused alienation of older workers, thus increasing the generation gap. Therefore, the
author suggests that Generation Y managers, instead of trying to demonstrate that they
belong in supervisory positions, should attempt to prove themselves first, thus earning
their subordinates’ trust and respect. Proving oneself, in Zetlin’s (1992) view, included
an open and ongoing communication with employees and seeking their feedback and
opinions.
Dychtwald et al. (2004) suggest that the generation gap may last beyond expectations
in the workplace because of Baby Boomers retiring in vast numbers, which may cause
a shortfall of skilled workers and consequently create the need to hire some Baby
Boomers back. Between 2000 and 2010, Dychtwald et al. (2004, p. 49) argue that,
whereas, on the one hand, the anticipated numbers of employees having reached
retirement age will have likely increased by 55 per cent, on the other hand, those entering
the workforce will do so at a much slower pace. This group of younger cohorts (i.e. those
between the ages of 25 and 34 years) will probably increase by approximately 8 per cent,
while the number of workers between the ages of 35 and 44 years will likely decrease by
approximately 10 per cent. Moreover, Fusaro (2001) predicts lack of workers which will
cause a major crisis for organizations, if they do not attract and retain older workers.
Taken together, these researchers support the premise that Baby Boomers will still be
required for their experience and competencies in the workforce of the future. In
addition, recent demographic data denotes that many societies are “aging” (e.g. OECD
countries) and that older workers are likely to continue to participate in the workforce in
the future, because of different reasons such as financial necessity, good health and/or
internal motivation (Goodwin and O’Connor, 2012; Helyer and Lee, 2012). Several large
organizations who traditionally have targeted seniors, such as Walmart and
McDonald’s, are now being joined by large entities such as Days Inn, Disney, Home
Shopping Network and other temporary help companies (e.g. Express Services, Kelly
Services), who are also increasingly using the services of older workers (Goldberg, 2000;
Hickins, 1999; Raphael, 2000).
Furthermore, organizations are recognizing demographic changes in their
markets and are attempting to retain their group of highly skilled and experienced
Baby Boomer employees, to better relate to their customer base (Dychtwald et al.,
2004). While empirical research studies in Canada have not been identified, the US
study above suggests that the generation gaps between Baby Boomers and
Generation Y will continue for some time yet. This finding is supported by recent
studies in Europe (Helyer and Lee, 2012; Silic et al., 2013). As we will explain in the
next sections of this paper, there are a number of potential challenges related to
JEC Baby Boomers managing Generation Y employees and therefore organizations need
10,3 to be fully prepared to address them.

Diversity research: key lessons and recommendations

Lessons learned from diversity research
288 Research on the topic of diversity received significant attention in the business
literature over the past two decades. Although researchers are inclined to focus on
individual differences related to gender, ethnicity and age, a broader definition of
diversity would include “[…] any condition that is varied among individuals, such
as physical attributes, social class, education, religious background, and sexual
orientation” (Azevedo et al., 2001, p. 273). Given the lack of consensus regarding the
definition and measurement of diversity, some authors have suggested a simple way
of understanding diversity, in terms of two general classes: job-related diversity and
demographic diversity (Milliken and Martins, 1996; Svyantek and Bott, 2004).
Job-related diversity addresses differences based on individual characteristics such
as education, functional background, technical skills and abilities, as well as
organizational aspects, for example, tenure or cohort membership. Demographic
diversity includes individual differences that stem from either observable attributes
(e.g. age, gender, race or ethnicity and nationality) or unobservable ones (e.g.
personality characteristics and values).
While it has been possible to verify both positive and negative effects of diversity on
key individual- and group-level variables (e.g. job satisfaction, employee morale,
psychological commitment, interpersonal communication and conflict, workgroup
creativity and innovation and group cohesiveness), it has been more difficult to
determine the real impact of diversity on organizational effectiveness. After a
comprehensive literature review, Svyantek and Bott (2004) concluded that the most
consistent (positive) impact of diversity on either group or organizational performance
comes from job-related diversity. This conclusion was considered by the authors as not
very surprising, given that variables such as education and functional background are
closely related to the knowledge, skills and abilities that are needed to perform well in
any particular job. Regarding demographic diversity (age, gender, racial and general
demographic diversity), the two researchers identified a very mixed picture of research
findings, with studies showing positive, negative and no significant effects on either
workgroup or overall organizational performance.
Nonetheless, Svyantek and Bott (2004) suggested that diversity may be considered
an important goal in itself (i.e. social inclusiveness), or as a key moderator variable
interacting with other critical variables such as organizational culture and business
strategy to potentially affect organizational performance. Furthermore, the authors
underscored the notion that diversity may help organizations achieve the goal of
long-term survival, given the possibility of labor scarcity and talent shortages (Kochan
et al., 2003).
Cox (1991, p. 34) has proposed that, to deal with demographic changes in the
workforce and increasing globalization, organizations should fully embrace an
approach to diversity, that will “[…] capitalize on the benefits and minimize the costs of
worker diversity”. Building on the societal-integration model of Gordon (1964), the
author suggested that organizations move away from their current pluralistic approach
to adopt a multicultural one. Cox (1991, p. 39) described the so-called “multicultural
organization” as having a form of acculturation that recognizes and fully embraces the Preparing
value differences of each distinct “cultural identity group” (i.e. a group of people who leaders
tend to share the same values, norms and behaviors). The “multicultural organization”
is also described as having full structural integration (i.e. culturally diverse presence or
participation at all levels in the organization), full integration of informal networks (i.e.
culturally diverse presence or participation in social activities or events outside the
normal working hours), no cultural bias (i.e. absence of prejudice and discrimination), 289
low levels of intergroup conflict and no existing gaps regarding the degree of
organizational identification (i.e. gaps that can be traced to membership in any
particular cultural identity group).
To promote an organizational culture that embraces this type of multicultural
approach, Cox (1991) recommended the adoption of a number of specific steps such as
the use of diversity and language training, the inclusion of diversity in mission
statements and the development of appropriate new member orientation programs. In
addition, the author proposed the use of other human resources tools in training (e.g.
conflict management, equal opportunity and bias-reduction programs), career
development (e.g. mentoring programs, targeted career development programs),
performance appraisal (e.g. changes in reward and performance appraisal systems) and
compensation (e.g. changes in benefits and other compensation policies). The use of
these specific tools can help to not only promote better understanding of employee
differences in values, attitudes etc., but also encourage an organizational learning
environment that allows everyone to seize opportunities and thrive on the diversity in
thinking (Azevedo et al., 2001; Thomas and Ely, 1998).
Considering some of the key recommendations derived from diversity research, as
well as what we learned from studying generational differences, the present authors will
now examine how organizational culture, leadership and human resources policies can
be used to leverage the diversity of a multi-generational workforce.

Organizational culture, change and conflict

Organizational culture will most likely change with the entry of Generation Y. For
example, Kunreuther (2003) suggests that tensions may result between the Baby
Boomers and members of this newer generation, as Baby Boomers are perceived as
being unwilling to change, whereas Generation Y employees are seen as embracing and
valuing change. To aid in dealing with tensions and challenges that may arise as a result
of the change in organizational make-up, Kidwell (2003) recommends using continuous
quality improvement (CQI), which are programs that emphasize empowerment in
decision-making. Even though Baby Boomers may resist change, for example,
regarding important steps such as education, and communication, cooperation,
participation and negotiation (Kidwell, 2003), implementing CQI may serve to lessen
negative emotional responses, thus permitting managers to be successful through using
positive responses from employees. Generation Y, according to Kunreuther’s (2003)
findings, pays closer attention to work–family conflict, as compared to the previous
Baby Boom generation. Moreover, Gen Y employees may be more willing to accept
organizational changes within its structure. To be successful, Baby Boomers, in
contrast, need to learn how to work well and value the contribution made from their
younger colleagues and, at the same time, learn to share their corporate knowledge and
JEC experiences with others. Baby Boom managers may retain their own values, but they
10,3 also need to support the Generation Y values as well.

Multi-generational diversity training

Baby Boomers, according to Harris (2005), may be resentful toward younger
generations because of their having taken over ownership of positions through feelings
290 of entitlement. Training and education may provide a solution to the contest between
cohorts that resulted from demographic changes in the workplace. The author
furthermore believes that organizations can use various training techniques (e.g.
classroom training, seminars and inter-active and flexible computer-based training
which considers different and varied learning styles), as each of the training programs,
regardless of the format, can provide insight into the values, work ethics, and how each
of the generations is shaped. Training all employees in the workplace about
generational diversity, argues Harris (2005), can result in organizations shaping all
employees, no matter in which generation, thus helping them understand diversity and
making the organization run smoothly through generational integration.
In a recent literature review on the topic of diversity training, Bezrukova et al. (2012)
recommended, among other things, to combine awareness training with behavior-based
training (e.g. practicing communication with different groups), to supplement training
programs with other diversity initiatives (e.g. inclusion of diversity in the strategic
process and in human resources policies) and to assess training outcomes not only in the
short-run (e.g. measurement of short-term reactions, cognitive learning and attitudes
immediately after the training) but also to monitor their long-term effects, especially
regarding the development of new cognitions and behaviors.

Motivating and connecting all generations

Baby Boomer supervisors, according to Hill (2002), face various challenges in the
workplace when managing Generation Y employees. This author considers the major
challenge as being that of having Baby Boomers delineate between the various
differences and similarities between younger work colleagues and themselves.
Moreover, although Generation Y employees are enthusiastic about working as hard as
Baby Boomers, Hill (2002) argues that they aim to balance their work and personal lives,
more so than previous generations. Furthermore, Generation Y employees consider
individual development as the main factor in the criteria by which they should be
considered successful or not through on-the-job performance.
To motivate various generations, Herzberg (1968) considered that using intrinsic
motivational methods such as growth and advancement opportunities, giving
employees more responsibility and recognizing their achievements will result in
increased job satisfaction for everyone, thus leading to a positive outcome for all
generations. Although management originally thought salary increases, improvements
in working conditions and job security led to job satisfaction, Herzberg (1968) considers
that, while the lack of all these hygiene factors will result in job discontent, their
presence will not affect long-term job satisfaction. Herzberg (1968) further argues that
employees who are motivated, tend to increase performance and enjoy their jobs more
which, in turn, results in fewer employees who are absent and higher rates of promotion,
thereby increasing job satisfaction and decreasing turnover rates. The author therefore
proposes that jobs should be carefully re-designed or enriched, to foster positive
individual and organizational outcomes. While Herzberg’s motivation– hygiene theory Preparing
has remained fairly controversial over the past few decades, Sachau (2007, p. 378) leaders
reviewed recent research in the area of positive psychology and suggested that its
findings are “[…] surprisingly consistent with the basic tenets of Herzberg’s theory”,
considering that they reinforce the notion that happiness is more than the absence of
happiness, mental health is more than the absence of mental illness and that satisfaction
is more than the absence of dissatisfaction. 291
Zetlin (1992), however, determined younger managers and older employees have
differing expectations from their jobs: older workers may focus on benefits and job
security, whereas younger employees may be more interested in advancing their
careers, receiving salary increases and possible bonuses. The author further suggested
that younger managers, to glean support from Baby Boomers might need to understand
some motivational differences. According to this author, practical recommendations for
helping the younger generation include advising senior management to permit younger
managers leeway to play a part in recruiting and monitoring older employees and giving
them an opportunity to evaluate older workers’ performance. Older workers can in turn
provide support and assist younger managers, if they have an opportunity to be paired
with an older worker other than their supervisors. Also, employees reporting to younger
managers could be allowed to receive credit for the success of their groups or teams,
ensuring that younger managers would gain the trust and cooperation of employees
(Zetlin, 1992). Finally, organizational leadership, according to Zetlin (1992), should aim
to provide younger managers who have been more recently promoted, with explicit
details about their promotions, particularly in cases where an older Baby Boomer
worker has been overlooked in favor of a younger worker.
Aside from motivational issues, it is also important to identify specific ways to
connect the different generations. Hatfield (2002) considered the generation gap can be
bridged through team sessions that help staff cultivate mutually beneficial work
relationships in the event of a crisis or for planning purposes. To be sure, team meetings
can help bridge generation gaps when employees are urged to share experiences and
question each other, leading to better understanding and enhanced working
relationships. In addition, offering flexible work arrangements, according to Hatfield
(2002), benefits both Boomers who may burnout and feel the need for shorter
workweeks, and Generation Y employees, who are concerned with balancing work and
family and thus would appreciate flexibility in dealing with their lifestyle, which is not
entirely devoted to work. Another way of bridging the gap between the two generations
is offering rewards and encouragement which would not be fulfilled by using only one
reward technique for all, but rather needs to be based on individual values and belief
systems (Hatfield, 2002, p. 74). Different generations value different rewards; therefore,
while one may appreciate time-off, another may prefer a performance bonus or other
rewards. Catering to different rewards by taking into account the differing values is
considered as being essential to retaining employees (Moritz, 2014).
After reviewing the existing literature, the authors of this paper organized the main
recommendations for effectively coping with a multi-generational workforce in three
main areas: leadership and motivation, organizational culture and change and human
resources tools and practices. We present a summary of these recommendations in
Table II.
JEC Leadership and motivation Leaders can expect to spend more time communicating with their
10,3 employees. An open-door policy needs to be promoted and
employees should be encouraged to discuss misunderstandings.
Motivation at work should be intrinsic by offering opportunities
for growth and development and recognition of work well done
and rewards for achievement. Various tools can be used to
292 provide opportunities (e.g., job re-design, training and rewards).
Teamwork needs to be encouraged; coaching and mentoring and
knowledge transfer needs to take place to provide multiple
experiences to different generations of employees. Develop
self-confidence in Generation Y managers permitting them to
“prove themselves” and to have an opportunity to receive advice
from someone other than their supervisors
Organizational culture and Adopt programs such as CQI, and perhaps other initiatives, to
change promote an innovative organizational culture and
decision-making through empowerment; implement various
training and development opportunities that foster creativity; use
regular teamwork sessions to develop further trust; and help
generations better understand each other to achieve mutually
beneficial relationships.
Promote a multicultural environment that leverages differences
experienced within and across various generations; for example,
embracing different values and work ideas within teams, within
strategic development of initiatives, and in the development of
organizational policies.
Reduce the resistance to change, multi-generational biases and
conflicts through the use of good communication techniques;
win–win, negotiations and using various other strategies to
enable full integration of employees
Human resources tools and Structure rewards individually, based on employees’ particular
practices values, preferences and beliefs such as a variety of excellence
awards and recognition, as well as short- or long-term rewards,
as the situation dictates.
Provide awareness and behavior-based diversity training
programs in various formats, to provide an overview of
generational differences, thus deepening understanding and
support for new behaviors and skills.
Tailor and broaden performance assessment criteria to
incorporate concerns of all employees (e.g. work–life balance
Table II. and/or different developmental needs).
Multi-generational Encourage and support flexible work arrangements and targeted
workforce: summary career development initiatives (e.g. tailor career advice and career
of recommendations paths to different types of employees)

Implications for higher education

The recommendations summarized in Table II provide a number of opportunities for
business faculty to modify existing content in key management courses, notably
leadership, organizational behavior and/or theory and human resources management,
to strengthen students’ understanding of how diversity can significantly impact many
important facets of organizational and work life, such as motivation, career Preparing
development and organizational effectiveness. leaders
Considering, however, the perceived lack of in-depth understanding of
multi-generational differences, the authors of this paper suggest three pedagogical
approaches that can be implemented in a program-wide basis. Aside from the need to
emphasize key interpersonal competencies such as communication and teamwork
throughout the entire study program, we believe that the recommendations outlined 293
above underscore the need to promote innovative pedagogies that foster a deeper
understanding of all aspects of diversity in future business leaders. Therefore, in this
section, the authors will discuss three pedagogical approaches that offer a promising
avenue for “lifting up the veils” of diversity, by inviting students of different
generational groups to provide their own perspectives on different work–life issues.
These approaches, in our view, have the potential for truly re-defining management
education by allowing diverse voices to be heard and to be meaningfully incorporated
into the classroom setting. Furthermore, as it has been noted in diversity management
literature (e.g. with respect to diverse teams), the inclusion of multiple perspectives can
not only enhance mutual understanding but also promote creativity and empowerment
(Adler and Gundersen, 2008; Kidwell, 2003).
The first pedagogical approach is the so-called “negotiated curriculum”. The idea of
a negotiated curriculum comes from a growing recognition that students’ desire for
flexibility, inclusiveness, authenticity and relevance can be addressed by using
personalized approaches (Yuksel, 2010, p. 1). In a negotiated curriculum, students are
invited to contribute to and make specific choices concerning important aspects of the
curriculum, such as, the definition of specific course objectives, the inclusion of certain
topics of interest and the freedom to choose among different types of assessment
methods (Davenport et al., 1995; Hodgkin, 2007). To exemplify this approach, Yuksel
(2010) describe how different assessment types have been used in her two postgraduate
marketing classes in Australia. Students are given the choice to write an international
case study (either within a group or individually), prepare a foreign market entry plan
(within a team) or write a scholarly essay on any topic in international marketing
(individually). According to the author, students’ feedback in these courses indicated a
high level of satisfaction with their assignments.
In the context of K-12 education, despite the renewed focus, during the past few
decades, on pedagogy moving toward involving students in negotiating curriculums,
teachers are faced with various constraints as they attempt to move toward being more
collaborative with students rather than being seen as the person who is expected to
transfer knowledge to students. An evaluation by Boomer (1992) postulates that it is
difficult for teachers to move toward involving and engaging students in their own
learning activities stating that “a massive deep-seated inertia […] persists […] It is
devilishly difficult to effect change” (p. 7). Boomer goes on to explain that it is clear that
a fundamental change needs to take place in schools with more open than closed spaces;
with changes to the length of time of the student periods from less than one hour, etc. It
is implied that there needs to be a less stringent curriculum geared to the students’
interest in learning, even though the topics may be the same. For students to be
empowered to seek knowledge and make meaning themselves in an environment more
conducive to in a negotiated curriculum, rather than the teacher being seen as the person
who examines them in a manner set out by school boards or the provincial Ministry of
JEC Education, and the person who evaluates them according to a specified guideline, a
10,3 system needs to be developed in which the teacher is freer to share their power with
students for learning.
Boomer summarizes his perceptions of lack of ability for teachers to share their
powers thus:
I see individual teachers as relatively powerless themselves within the governing frames of
294 society and the education system, so they are often reduced to the status of intermediaries,
translating society’s values and initiating children into these values (Boomer, 1992, p. 7).
On the other side of the coin, is another issue: that of having the students embrace this
model. Traditionally, it was the teacher that was in charge that determined what
students would learn, and that would, subsequently, test them on the materials learned
in class. However, in a negotiated curriculum, teachers’ powers are shared with
students, giving them greatly autonomy. This may be seen by students, parents and
school boards, who may not share the teacher’s philosophy, as it has not been the norm
in both society and in schools, to be a sign of weakness or unpreparedness and lack of
control by the teacher.
One essential drawback may be when attempting to evaluate students who have
negotiated and planned their curriculum designs with the teacher, especially if
students are being evaluated by another body other than the teacher, this may be a
challenge. However, if either the teacher can have the autonomy to test the students
as to the context, content or the skills developed or work with the body developing
the examination materials for testing purposes, this coordination could lead to an
effective means to evaluate the students in a fair and appropriate manner. Also the
ability of the teacher to evaluate throughout the term through a portfolio of student
work rather than having final exams would be conducive to the students being more
open toward contributing to a negotiated curriculum if they know the method of
evaluation, in advance, which can also be negotiated with the teacher if flexibility
permits.
Considering the challenges to implement negotiated curricula within K-12 education,
it may be easier to adopt this pedagogical approach in higher education. Faculty may
have greater autonomy over the content of their courses and students are better
prepared to “[…] meet curriculum requirements and participate fully in the arrangement
of their learning experiences” (Cleveland-Innes and Emes, 2005, p. 86). In addition, the
negotiated curriculum is well supported by recent trends in higher education which
promote flexible and personalized approaches (e.g. online and blended learning and
competency-based learning; Shea and Bidjerano, 2010 and Voorhees, 2001).
Breen and Littlejohn (2000, p. 1) define a negotiated syllabus as “the discussion
between all members of the classroom to decide how learning and teaching are to be
organized” contributes toward the development of a negotiated curriculum. However,
students from different cultural backgrounds may neither be familiar nor comfortable
with this model. Ozturk (2013) mentions that in university English programs, while
there may be advantages to negotiation, there may be some drawbacks as well:
The term “negotiation” for Turkish students who mostly come from a background where
teacher is the source of knowledge and highly respected […] may feel uncomfortable to talk
with the teacher about what should be done in class (p. 38).
This may also be applicable to students of diverse cultural backgrounds. Students may Preparing
need to be taught for several weeks about the negotiation process itself prior to being leaders
able to understand what a negotiated curriculum involves. Nation and Macalister (2010)
actually provide a simple example of how to start slowly with this process after students
are more comfortable with the atmosphere in the class.
In evaluating both strengths and weaknesses of the negotiated curriculum, we
consider it an important pedagogical approach to help prepare future leaders for the 295
multi-generational workforce, as it teaches them to be more open to voice their own
opinions, as well as to be more receptive to the ideas and opinions of others
(Koro-Ljungberg, 2007). In addition, the negotiated curriculum can enable future leaders
to feel more empowered and to learn how to work collaboratively within organizational
settings (Table III). The second pedagogical approach is “photovoice”, which is a type of
community-based, participatory approach that was originally developed within the
context of a Ford Foundation health education project in China (Wang and Burris, 1997,
p. 370). Photovoice can be described as a tool that gives an active voice to students – via
a camera – to communicate what is important to them. Researchers Chio and Fandt
(2007, p. 487) suggest that “photovoice ground-up approach” can be especially useful to
teach students about diversity, as it invites participation, multiplicity (i.e. multiple
voices) and self-reflexivity. The authors describe in detail a photovoice assignment used
in a diversity class, wherein students are presented with a list of five broad topics to
choose from (e.g. My life as a Student, Living Race and/or Ethnicity, The Environment,
Poverty and Organizations and Social Responsibility). The assignment follows specific
steps, including:
• “Identifying a concern” (i.e. topic selection).
• “Taking photographs” (i.e. taking at least six photographs that represent what the
student wants to convey about his/her number one issue of concern).
• “Selecting and presenting a photograph” (i.e. selecting a photograph and
preparing it for presentation to the rest of the class).
• “In-class story-telling and issue consideration” (i.e. discussing photos within
teams and then selecting the best photo to represent the team).
• “Assignment write-up” (i.e. preparing an individual final paper that allows
students to reflect on their experiences) (Chio and Fandt, 2007, pp. 495-497).

Photovoice has been used in sociological contexts to help various marginalized

communities explore their lives, thus permitting the emergence of topics that may be
extremely sensitive. In Harley’s (2011) dissertation on “Perceptions of Hope and
Hopelessness Among Low-Income African American Adolescents”, the information
gleaned from using photovoice techniques that evolved were those of caring
connections, spirituality, education, “basic needs” and “gonna make it mentally”
(Harley, 2011). Photovoice is being used in research presently as a technique which
includes participatory photography to initiate the possibilities for social change.
The developer of the photovoice technique cites many reasons why photography
can be used effectively in helping as a catalyst for change. One reason is a powerful
means to spur others to action. Furthermore, it may lead to being a “catalyst for
change” (PhotoVoice, 2014). Moreover, it is a powerful way for people to converse
and share opinions and experiences and can be used as a starting point for important
JEC Negotiated curriculum Strengths
10,3 Provides greater flexibility, autonomy and empowerment to students
and faculty; allows inclusion of multiple perspectives, which
increases curriculum authenticity and relevance; improves
collaboration between faculty and students; strengthens
peer-learning; and aligns well with recent trends in higher education.
296 Weaknesses
Difficult to implement within stringent curricula; re-definition of
faculty role may be challenging, especially for students with diverse
cultural backgrounds; faculty may require additional time and
training to appropriately manage expectations of key stakeholders
(e.g. students, parents); and student assessment methods may need
to be broadened to include other type of assessment tools
Photovoice Strengths
Improves awareness, communication and empowerment; allows for
the emergence and discussion of sensitive topics; invites creativity,
multiplicity and self-reflexivity; provides structured, step-by-step
process, as well as strong evaluation component; and serves as a
“catalyst for change”, both at the individual and group levels.
Weaknesses
Intense, time-consuming approach, especially in the beginning
stages; faculty and students may require specific training to ensure
its successful implementation; and expected changes may require
additional time, repetition and effort before they can take full effect
Narrative writing Strengths
Personalized and creative approach that is based on “lived
experiences”; encourages the development of both intra- and
interpersonal knowledge; invites multiplicity and meaning-making
regarding the understanding of individual experiences; and is easy to
implement in classroom settings.
Weaknesses
Narratives are subjective and difficult to evaluate; “creative space” of
Table III. stories may encourage students to disregard and/or disconnect with
Pedagogical actual facts; while it is a flexible approach (e.g. it can combine
approaches: key individual and group work), faculty and students may need some
strengths and amount of training in creative writing, to derive full benefit of the
weaknesses learning experience

discourse on the issues at hand. The process of photovoice is quite intense beginning
with the defining and developing the core purpose of the project; next is the planning
and preparation phase outlining activities throughout the project. Workshops are
held which add to empowering participants as they are taught various technical
aspects of how to photograph with various technology and techniques. An
important next step may be that the experiences of participants and photos may be
shared with the public leading to awareness of much-needed continuation of
discourse to possibly effect social or other changes. At the end of it all, there is, as in
other training and development situations, a strong evaluation component where
both “participants and partners can devise plans for any long term provision or
continuing activities” (PhotoVoice, 2014).
 The process does not always develop in a straight line but can be circular in nature, Preparing
with various stages repeating themselves when participants add to, create and share leaders
pictures, in various forms, to increase intercourse about the subject, possibly with
policymakers; those who may have the power to effect much-needed changes; or even
just for the participants themselves to have more of an awareness of themselves and the
world around them. Evaluation is an essential component of the activity, as it can lead to
changing the process and methods of photography used and repeating the activity to 297
determine if the outcomes are the same; the evaluation may aid in establishing for the
individuals involved, whether they have benefitted from the experience through the
findings of this type of research method leading to not only external social changes but
possibly internal changes in the individuals using this poignant method of searching
into themselves and into the lives of others through the use of photovoice. As described
in Table III, photovoice can help prepare future leaders to become catalysts for change
(both at the individual and groups levels), to increase their openness and ability to
communicate and address sensitive topics and to feel more comfortable with engaging
others and collaborating with them to effect organizational change. We therefore believe
that in spite of the demanding, time-consuming process involved in this approach, it can
be a powerful tool to help future leaders better manage a multi-generational workforce.
Finally, the third pedagogical approach is “narrative writing”. Narratives (i.e. stories)
can be described as a pedagogical medium through which both intrapersonal and
interpersonal knowledge may be developed and wherein multiple perspectives,
aspirations and conflicts can be appropriately expressed (Latta and Kim, 2010, p. 139).
While the study and use of narratives has been primarily associated with research
(“narrative inquiry” has been defined as a type of qualitative research methodology that
is centered on human experience; see for example, Clandinin and Huber, 2013), Latta and
Kim (2010, p. 139) suggest that there is an “organic relationship” among narrative,
experience and education, thus making the use of narratives in the classroom an
engaging and creative approach for professional learning and development. In fact,
narratives and “narrative inquiry” have become very popular in the field of education,
drawing on the work of different educational philosophers such as Dewey (1938),
Ricoeur (1991), Carr (2000), Clandinin and Connelly (2000), who agreed that narratives
play an important role in allowing for the projection of lived experiences. Similarly, Jabri
and Pounder (2001, p. 686) recommend the use of narratives in management
development, to help expose multiple experiences, interpretations and meanings and to
invite managers to examine “[…] how they position themselves in relation to others,
particularly others whose voices may be suppressed”. Moreover, indeed various
researchers consider themselves to be narrators through the development of their own
interpretations and believe narratives to be powerful ways individuals make their own
meanings in their studies; yet, they may struggle to find the most appropriate ways for
either presenting or publishing their perceptions of the narratives they study (Denzin,
2000).
Concerning the issue of diversity, Connelly et al. (2003) further propose that narrative
inquiry can significantly contribute to the understanding of multiculturalism in Canada,
as it provides a life-based approach that invites understanding and meaning-making
regarding the individual experience. The present authors also believe that this approach
can be used in management education classes to create deeper understanding, group
sharing and rich discussions on the topic of generational differences. Borrego and
JEC Manning (2007), for example, have used the narrative “Where Am I From” to invite
10,3 undergraduate minority students in the USA (students who were part of the so-called
“Minority Undergraduate Fellows Program”) to express their voices, find meaning and
become more engaged in their learning and growth. The short, unstructured and often
poetic student stories presented in this book reveal how important it is to provide
students with a creative space to explore their own identities. While this narrative
298 project was developed within the context of a university-wide, semi-structured program
in Student Affairs (the program also included mentoring, as well as opportunities to
participate in paid internships, conferences, etc.), it can serve to illustrate the value of a
pedagogical approach that is grounded on students’ lives.
The authors of this paper suggest that a similar type of narrative writing project can
be used to build different assignments in management education courses. For example,
in one course, students may be asked to write a narrative entitled “My Generation:
Growing up in the 19XXs”. In another course, students may be given a different
narrative writing assignment, such as “Being a Leader in a Diverse World”. With
narration, the:
[…] combination of what, how, and where makes the narrator’s voice particular […], when
researchers treat narration as actively creative and the narrator’s voice as particular, they
move away from questions about the factual nature of the narrator’s statements. Instead, they
highlight the versions of self, reality, and experience that the storyteller produces through the
telling (Chase, in Chase, 2005, p. 657).
According to Holstein and Gubrium (2000) and Lincoln (2000), researchers believe that
those who use narratives to tell their stories are credible and believable, as it is the
narrator’s reconstruction of what they believe to be true and what they recall, at the time
they are telling the stories; therefore, it is difficult to evaluate something such as
narrative, as it is the narrator who is telling the story of who accomplishes the narration
for researchers to analyze and recount. As, however, in the case of photovoice, these
projects can be designed initially as an individual assignment and then incorporate a
group discussion and presentation component. This combination of individual and
group work may enhance self-reflection and learning. However, narration and
photovoice both use the element of creativity as to how participants portray their beliefs
using various types of creative ways to either tell their stories narratively, or through
using a technique using photographs and explanations such as in photovoice.
We believe that the use of narratives in management education can better prepare
future leaders to work on multi-generational settings. By encouraging the use of stories
in organizations, future business leaders can help raise understanding and the sharing
of multiple perspectives, values and aspirations; encourage creative and collaborative
meaning-making that is based on the lived experiences of employees; and thus foster
higher engagement of their workforce.
Taken together, these three pedagogical approaches provide business students with
unique opportunities for in-depth understanding of multi-generational differences, as
well as other types of diversity. As Syad and Kramar (2009) suggest, although the
“business case for diversity” has been appropriately presented in academic literature,
there is also significant concern that the narrow and short-term focus on business
benefits may be detrimental to other causes, such as equality outcomes and social
justice, and that diversity initiatives may not even be very effective in terms of
delivering on their stated objectives. This is consistent with our literature review on the
topic (Svyantek and Bott, 2004). While the authors propose a broader, multi-level Preparing
approach to diversity management in organizations, we believe that a good starting leaders
point is to better prepare future business leaders within higher education, so that they
are equipped with greater knowledge and understanding to help them fully embrace and
promote the types of recommendations described in Table II (e.g. supportive leadership,
participatory decision-making, flexible rewards and work arrangements and
comprehensive organizational change initiatives), which require significant levels of 299
trust and collaboration from everyone within an organization. We include a summary of
key strengths and weaknesses associated with each pedagogical approach in Table III.

Conclusion
A review of the diversity literature, particularly as it pertains to the differences across
generations, yielded some common themes, although there was a paucity of research in
this area. According to Smith (2001), during the 1990s, there was a shift of research
interest away from the understanding of generational differences. Unfortunately, over
the past decade, the authors of this paper could also identify only a small number of
scientific studies addressing the topic, especially within the context of the private sector
organizations (Choi and Rainey, 2010). In addition, much of the existing knowledge
regarding key work expectations and values of multi-generational employees is
essentially “atheoretical” (Broadbridge et al., 2007, as cited in Luscombe et al., 2013), and
there are only a few longitudinal studies (Smola and Sutton, 2002; Tulgan, 2004),
wherein it is possible to appropriately disentangle the effects of aging from the effects of
generational differences (Pilcher, 1994).
Therefore, there is a need to further investigate this issue. The present study
attempts to reignite the debate through a detailed review that describes the current
understanding of generational differences among four generational cohorts working
together within organizations. This study also seeks to bridge the existing gap by
adding knowledge regarding the important aspects needing scrutiny to help us better
understand generational differences, as supported in the literature review. Furthermore,
this paper summarizes the main lessons and recommendations encountered in the
generational differences and diversity literatures. To encourage future research, as well
as practical implementation in different types of organizational settings, these
recommendations were organized in three main areas: leadership and motivation,
organizational culture and change and human resources tools and practices. The
authors believe that these recommendations contain important guidelines that can help
inform future research and practice.
Finally, we offer three innovative pedagogical approaches that can be used in
management education to prepare future business leaders to work in highly diverse
organizational settings. Future research can examine the extent to which these
pedagogies may help transform higher education, by creating a more inclusive
curriculum (via for example the use of a “negotiated curriculum”) and promoting a
more diverse learning environment (by incorporating multiple perspectives in the
classroom, via projects such as “photovoice” and “narrative writing”). To encourage
this, the present authors reviewed key strengths and weaknesses related to each
pedagogical approach. We further discussed how each of these three pedagogies can
better equip future business leaders to effectively manage a multi-generational
workforce by, for example, preparing them to become more open to incorporate multiple
JEC perspectives; to act more creatively and more collaboratively; and to be ready to serve as
10,3 a “catalyst for change”. Therefore, we believe that the adoption of these three
approaches in management education can significantly impact the leadership and
management of a multi-generational workforce.
In addition, future research can also identify and evaluate current organizational
initiatives aimed at effectively dealing with a multi-generational workforce. A broader
300 focus within the context of the workplace, taking into consideration current literature on
this subject, should be to develop tools which lead to collaborative interactions between
groups and that are centered around various cohorts of employees, rather than focusing
narrowly on prior organizational paradigms, concerned with specific objectives which
have been pre-determined. Doing so will enable development to take place to effectively
integrate all generations into the workplace.

References
Adler, N. and Gundersen, A. (2008), International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, 5th ed.,
South-Western, Mason, OH.
Aguirre, A. Jr. and Martinez, R. (2002), “Leadership practices and diversity in higher education:
transitional and transformational frameworks”, The Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 8
No. 3, pp. 53-62, doi: 10.1177/107179190200800305.
Azevedo, A., von Glinow, M. and Paul, K. (2001), “Does ethnic diversity mean cultural diversity?
A comparison across two independent samples of Hispanics and Anglos in South Florida”,
International Journal of Value-Based Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 273-291, doi: 10.1023/
A:1017579812083.
Bezrukova, K., Jehn, K.A. and Spell, C.S. (2012), “Reviewing diversity training: where we have
been and where we should go”, The Academy of Management Learning & Education,
Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 207-227.
Boomer, G. (1992), “Negotiating the curriculum”, in Boomer, G., Lester, N., Onore, C. and Cook, J.
(Eds), Negotiating the Curriculum: Educating for the 21st Century, Falmer, London,
pp. 4-13.
Borrego, S.E. and Manning, K. (Eds) (2007), Where I am from: Student Affairs Practice from the
Whole of Students’ Lives, NASPA: Student Affairs Administration in Higher Education,
Washington, DC.
Breen, M.P. and Littlejohn, A. (2000), Classroom Decision Making, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Broadbridge, A.M., Maxwell, G.A. and Ogen, S.M. (2007), “13_2_30: experiences, perceptions and
expectation of retail employment for generation Y”, Career Development International,
Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 523-544, doi: 10.1108/13620430710822001.
Carr, D. (2000), Professionalism and Ethics in Teaching, Routledge, London.
Chase, S.E. (2005), “Narrative inquiry – multiple lenses, approaches, voices”, in Denzin, N.K. and
Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage (3rd Edition),
London, pp. 651-679.
Chio, V.C.M. and Fandt, P.M. (2007), “Photovoice in the diversity classroom: engagement, voice,
and the ‘eye/i’ of the camera”, Journal of Management Education, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 484-504,
doi: 10.1177/1052562906288124.
Choi, S. and Rainey, H.G. (2010), “Managing diversity in US federal agencies: effects of diversity Preparing
and diversity management on employee perceptions of organizational performance”, Public
Administration Review, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 109-121, doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.02115.x.
leaders
Clandinin, D.J. and Connelly, M. (2000), Experience and Story in Qualitative Research, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco.
Clandinin, D.J. and Huber, J. (2013), “Narrative inquiry”, in McGaw, B., Baker, E. and Peterson, P.P.
(Eds), International Encyclopedia of Education, 3rd ed., Elsevier, New York, NY, pp. 1-26, 301
available at: www.mofet.macam.ac.il/amitim/iun/CollaborativeResearch/Documents/
NarrativeInquiry.pdf (accessed 18 January 2013).
Cleveland-Innes, M. and Emes, C. (2005), “Principles of learner-center curriculum: responding to
the call for change in higher education”, The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 35
No. 4, pp. 85-110.
Connelly, F.M., Phillion, J. and He, M.F. (2003), “An exploration of narrative inquiry into
multiculturalism in education: reflecting on two decades of research in an inner-city
Canadian community school”, Curriculum Inquiry, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 363-384, doi: 10.1046/
j.1467-873X.2003.00270.x.
Cox, T. (1991), “The multicultural organization”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 5 No. 2,
pp. 34-47.
Crampton, S.M. and Hodge, J.W. (2007), “Generations in the workplace: understanding age
diversity”, The Business Review, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 16-22.
Davenport, M.R., Jaeger, M. and Lauritzen, C. (1995), “Negotiating curriculum”, The Reading
Teacher, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 60-62.
Dawn, S. (2004), “From one generation to the next”, NZ Business, Vol. 18 No. 1, p. 40.
Denzin, N.K. (2000), “Aesthetics and the practices of qualitative inquiry”, Qualitative Inquiry,
Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 256-265.
Dewey, J. (1938), Experience and Education, McMillan, New York, NY.
Dwyer, R.J. (2009), “Prepare for the impact of the multi-generational workforce”, Transforming
Government: People, Process & Government, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 101-110, doi: 10.1108/
17506160910960513.
Dychtwald, K., Erickson, T. and Morison, B. (2004), “It’s time to retire retirement”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 82 No. 3, pp. 48-57.
Epps, K.K. and Epps, A.L. (2010), “Assessing the level of curriculum and scholarship
diversity in higher education”, Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, Vol. 14
No. 1, pp. 109-119.
Foot, D.K. and Stoffman, D. (1998), Boom, Bust & Echo 2000: Profiting from the Demographic
Shift in The New Millennium, Macfarlane Walter & Ross, Toronto.
Fusaro, R. (2001), “Needed: experienced workers”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 79 No. 4,
pp. 20-21.
Goldberg, B. (2000), Age Works: What Corporate America must Do To Survive the Graying of the
Workforce, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Goodwin, J. and O’Connor, H. (2012), “The impacts of demographic change: younger workers,
older workers and the consequences for education, skills and employment”, Education and
Training, Vol. 54 No. 7, pp. 558-564.
Gordon, M. (1964), Assimilation in American Life, Oxford Press, New York, NY.
JEC Gursoy, D., Maier, T.A. and Chi, C.G. (2008), “Generational differences: an examination of work
values and generational gaps in the hospitality workforce”, International Journal of
10,3 Hospitality Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 448-458, doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2007.11.002.
Harley, D. (2011), “Perceptions of hope and hopelessness among low-income African American
adolescents (Electronic Thesis or Dissertation)”, available at: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/
(accessed 5 October 2014).
302 Harris, P. (2005), “Boomer vs echo boomer: the work war?”, Training & Development, Vol. 59 No. 5,
pp. 44-50.
Hatfield, S.L. (2002), “Understanding the four generations to enhance workplace management”,
AFP Exchange, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 72-74.
Helyer, R. and Lee, D. (2012), “The twenty-first century multiple generation: overlaps and
differences but also challenges and benefits”, Education and Training, Vol. 54 No. 7,
pp. 565-578, doi: 10.1108/00400911211265611.
Herzberg, F. (1968), “One more time: how do you motivate employees?”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 53-62.
Hickins, M. (1999), “The silver solution”, HR Focus, May, p. 1.
Hill, R.P. (2002), “Managing across generations in the 21st century: important lessons from the
ivory trenches”, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 60-66, doi: 10.1177/
1056492602111020.
Hodgkin, M. (2007), “Negotiating change: participatory curriculum design in emergencies”,
Current Issues in Comparative Education, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 33-44.
Holstein, J.A. and Gubrium, J.F. (2000), The Self We Live by: Narrative Identity in A Postmodern
World, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Hur, Y., Strickland, R.A. and Stefanovic, D. (2010), “Managing diversity: does it matter to
municipal governments?”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 23
No. 5, pp. 500-515, doi: 10.1108/09513551011058501.
Jabri, M. and Pounder, J.S. (2001), “The management of change: a narrative perspective on
management development”, The Journal of Management Development, Vol. 20 Nos 7/8,
pp. 682-690, doi: 10.1108/02621710110401400.
Kidwell, R.E., Jr (2003), “Helping older workers cope with continuous quality improvement”,
Journal of Management Development, Vol. 22 No. 10, pp. 890-905, doi: 10.1108/
02621710310505485.
Knouse, S.B. (2011), “Managing generational diversity in the 21st century”, Competition Forum,
Vol. 9 No. 2, 255-260.
Kochan, T., Bezrukova, K., Ely, R., Jackson, S., Joshi, A., Jehn, K., Leonard, J., Levine, D. and
Thomas, D. (2003), “The effects of diversity on business performance: report of the diversity
research network”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 3-21, doi: 10.1002/
hrm.10061.
Koro-Ljungberg, M. (2007), “‘Democracy to come’: a personal narrative of pedagogical practices
and ‘othering’ within a context of higher education and research training”, Teaching in
Higher Education, Vol. 12 Nos 5/6, pp. 735-747.
Kovary, G. and Buahene, A. (2005), “Recruiting the four generations”, Canadian HR Reporter,
May, p. 6.
Kroll, N. (1984), “Technological change and research in public administration: an introduction”,
Southern Review of Public Administration, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 302-314.
Kunreuther, F. (2003), “The changing of the guard: what generational differences tell us about Preparing
social-change organizations”, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 32 No. 3,
pp. 450-457, doi: 10.1177/0899764003254975.
leaders
Lancaster, L.C. and Stillman, D. (2002), When Generations Collide: Who they are, Why they Clash,
How to Solve the Generational Puzzle at Work, Harper Collins Publishers, New York, NY,
p. 23.
Latta, M.M. and Kim, J.H. (2010), “Narrative inquiry invites professional development: educators 303
claim the creative space of praxis”, Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 103 No. 2,
pp. 137-148, doi: 10.1080/00220670903333114.
Lincoln, Y.S. (2000), “Narrative authority vs perjured testimony: courage, vulnerability and truth”,
Qualitative Studies in Education, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 131-138.
Luscombe, J., Lewis, I. and Biggs, H.C. (2013), “Essential elements for recruitment and retention:
generation Y”, Education and Training, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 272-290, doi: 10.1108/
00400911311309323.
Mannheim, K. (1953), Essays on Sociology and Social Psychology, Oxford University Press, New
York, NY.
Milliken, F.J. and Martins, L.L. (1996), “Searching for common threads: understanding the multiple
effects of diversity in organizational groups”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21
No. 2, pp. 402-433.
Moritz, B. (2014), “The US chairman of PwC on keeping Millennials engaged”, HBR Magazine,
available at: http://hbr.org/2014/11/the-us-chairman-of-pwc-on-keeping-millennials-
engaged/ar/1 (accessed 4 November 2014).
Murphy, E.F., Jr, Gibson, J.W. and Greenwood, R.A. (2010), “Analyzing generational values among
managers and non-managers for sustainable organizational effectiveness”, S.A.M
Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 33-43.
Nation, I.S.P. and Macalister, J. (2010), Language Curriculum Design, Routledge, New York,
NY.
Ozturk, G. (2013), “A negotiated syllabus: potential advantages and drawbacks in English
preparatory programs at universities”, International Journal on New Trends in Education
and Their Implications, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 35-40.
Paul, P. (2001), “Getting inside Gen Y”, American Demographics, Vol. 23 No. 9, pp. 42-50.
PhotoVoice (2014), “The PhotoVoice Manual: a guide to designing and running participatory
photography projects”, available at: www.photovoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/
PV_Manual.pdf (accessed 11 November 2014).
Pilcher, J. (1994), “Mannheim’s sociology of generations: an undervalued legacy”, British Journal
of Sociology, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 481-495, doi: 10.2307/591659.
Potts, J. and Kastelle, T. (2010), “Public sector innovation research: what’s next?”, Innovation,
Management, Policy & Practice, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 122-137.
Raphael, T. (2000), “Employers in every industry watch hospitals’ staffing solutions”, Workforce,
available at: www.workforce.com/feature/00/05/47 (accessed 12 September 2006).
Ricoeur, P. (1991), From Text to Action: Essays on Hermeneutics, Northwestern University Press,
Evanston, IL.
Sachau, D.A. (2007), “Resurrecting the motivation-hygiene theory: Herzberg and the positive
psychology movement”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 377-393,
doi: 10.1177/1534484307307546.
JEC Salopek, J. (2000a), “Generations at work: managing the clash of Veterans, Boomers, Xers, and
Nexters in your workplace (book review)”, Training & Development, Vol. 54 No. 1, p. 60.
10,3
Salopek, J. (2000b), “The young and the rest of us”, Training & Development, Vol. 54 No. 2,
pp. 26-30.
Shea, P. and Bidjerano, T. (2010), “Learning presence: towards a theory of self-efficacy,
self-regulation, and the development of a communities if inquiry in online and blended
304 learning environments”, Computers & Education, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 1721-1731.
Silic, I., Dulcic, Z. and Visic, M. (2013), “Values and the value system of the youth, using the
example of student population: comparison of Germany and Croatia”, Journal of
Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 50-59,
doi: 10.1108/17506201311315608.
Smith, G.P. (2001), Here Today, Here Tomorrow: Transforming your Workforce from
High-Turnover to High-Retention, Dearborn Trade Publishing, Chicago, IL.
Smola, K.W. and Sutton, C.D. (2002), “Generational differences: revisiting generational work
values for the new millennium”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 1,
pp. 363-382, doi: 10.1002/job.147.
Statistics Canada (2011), “Generations in Canada: age and sex, 2011 census”, available at:
www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2011/as-sa/98-311-x/98-311-x2011003_2-
eng.pdf (accessed 21 January 2013).
Svyantek, D.J. and Bott, J. (2004), “Received wisdom and the relationship between diversity and
organizational performance”, Organizational Analysis, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 295-317.
Syad, J. and Kramar, R. (2009), “Socially responsible diversity management”, Journal of
Management & Organization, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 639-651, doi: 10.5172/jmo.15.5.639.
Thomas, D.A. and Ely, R.J. (1998), “Making differences matter: a new paradigm for managing
diversity”, in Francesco, A.M. and Gold, B.A. (Eds), International Organizational Behavior:
Text, Readings, Cases, and Skills, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, pp. 401-416.
Trunk, P. (2007), “What generation Y really wants”, Time, available at: www.time.com/time/
magazine/article/0,9171,1640395,00.html (accessed 10 August 2012).
Tulgan, B. (2004), “Trends point to a dramatic generational shift in the future workforce”,
Employment Relations Today, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 23-31, doi: 10.1002/ert.10105.
Voorhees, R. (2001), “Competency-based learning models: a necessary future”, New Directions for
Institutional Research, Vol. 2001 No. 110, pp. 5-13.
Wang, C. and Burris, M.A. (1997), “Photovoice: concept, methodology and use for participatory
needs assessment”, Health Education & Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 369-387, doi: 10.1177/
109019819702400309.
Williams, R. (2011), “Is gen Y changing the workplace?”, Financial Post, available at: http://
business.financialpost.com/2011/05/24/is-gen-y-changing-the-workplace (accessed 10
August 2012).
Yuksel, U. (2010), “Integrating curriculum: developing student autonomy in learning in higher
education”, Journal of College Teaching and Learning, Vol. 7 No. 8, pp. 1-8.
Zemke, R., Raines, C. and Filipczak, B. (2000), Generations at Work: Managing the Clash of
Veterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in your Workplace, AMACOM, Toronto.
Zetlin, M. (1992), “Young managers face a generation gap”, Management Review, Vol. 81 No. 1,
pp. 10-15.
About the authors Preparing
Rocky J. Dwyer, PhD, CMA, is a Professor at CENTRUM Católica Pontificia Universidad Católica
del Perú. He is an award-winning writer, editor and educator, who has consulted and undertaken leaders
research for private, not-for profit and public sector organizations to examine and validate
corporate social responsibility, poverty-reduction initiatives, strategic organizational capacity,
performance management and ethics. His research has been presented and published for
conferences and symposiums in Canada, the USA, South America, Germany, the Russian
Federation and the People’s Republic of China. 305
Ana Azevedo, PhD, MBA, is an Assistant Professor of Entrepreneurship at the Faculty of
Business at Athabasca University, in Alberta, Canada. Prior to her relocation to Canada, Dr
Azevedo has taught at Florida International University (during her doctoral studies), the
University of Texas in El Paso (UTEP), Florida A&M University and the University of Applied
Sciences FH Joanneum (in Austria). Her research interests include management education;
diversity; and cross-cultural management, migration and international entrepreneurship. Ana
Azevedo is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]