Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-11T04:14:40.846Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Generations at Work: Don't Throw the Baby Out With the Bathwater

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 October 2015

Margaret E. Beier  and
Ruth Kanfer
Margaret E. Beier*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Rice University
Ruth Kanfer
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Margaret E. Beier, Department of Psychology, MS-25 Rice University, 6100 Main Street Houston, TX 77005. E-mail: beier@rice.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Costanza and Finkelstein (2015) are correct to highlight the dangers of using generationally based stereotypes in organizations. Although popular, these stereotypes are related to a stigmatization based on group membership that can be pernicious and discriminatory. Costanza and Finkelstein are also correct in their assessment of the state of the literature on generational effects: theory and research is woefully lacking. Indeed, a recent review of research on generations at work characterized this research as descriptive and neither theoretical nor empirical (Lyons & Kuron, 2014). Yet, as pointed out by Costanza and Finkelstein, the idea of a generational identity is salient and even appealing to many people. Why would this be if it were completely devoid of psychological import? People seem to resonate with the idea that, to some extent at least, they are a product of their generation.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , September 2015 , pp. 387 - 390
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2015 

Access options

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

References

Ackerman, P. L., & Beier, M. E. (2006). Determinants of domain knowledge and independent study learning in an adult sample. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98 (2), 366–381. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beier, M. E., & Ackerman, P. L. (2001). Current-events knowledge in adults: An investigation of age, intelligence, and nonability determinants. Psychology and Aging, 16, 615–628. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.16.4.615Google Scholar
Beier, M. E., & Ackerman, P. L. (2003). Determinants of health knowledge: An investigation of age, gender, abilities, personality, and interests. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 439–447. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.2.439CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Costanza, D. P., & Finkelstein, L. M. (2015). Generationally based differences in the workplace: Is there a there there? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 8 (4), 308–323.Google Scholar
Homs, D. B. (2013, May 28). Desperation sets in for Spain's “lost generation.” Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/28/spain-lost-generation_n_3344183.htmlGoogle Scholar
Lyons, S., & Kuron, L. (2014). Generational differences in the workplace: A review of the evidence and directions for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, S139–S157. http://doi.org/10.1002/job.1913Google Scholar
Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Self-concept: Validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46 (3), 407–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar