Paper Title: What Challenges Face HR in Managing a Multi-generational Workforce?

Word Count: 2958

Due to the effects of globalisation, organisations are operating in an increasingly competitive
landscape. This not only affects financial resources and constraints on raw materials, but also
sources of human capital. Human capital is a key component of an organisation’s competitive
advantage, as it is an intangible asset which cannot be easily replicated by competitors.
According to Story (1995), HR involves “a distinctive approach to employment management
which seeks to achieve competitive advantage through the strategic deployment of a highly
committed and capable workforce, using an integrated array of cultural, structural and
personnel techniques”.
As employees are embracing global mobility, the talent pool from which organisations are
recruiting is gradually consolidating. Consequently, organisations now face a greater challenge
in recruiting and retaining top-talent than in previous years. To avoid high attrition rates,
organisations must ensure employees’ needs and expectations are met, if not exceeded. The
current workforce is comprised of four generations, all of whom have different values formed
throughout their lifetimes. Thus, fostering a culture which caters to these diverse needs is a
complex task, which creates many challenges for the HR function.
In this essay, I will discuss the challenges that may arise in managing a multi-generational
workforce, and propose appropriate HR policies to mitigate generational conflicts. In doing
this, organisations can harness the collective skills and knowledge of each cohort to achieve
sustainable competitive advantage.

The people who make up the current workforce are those born before 1946 to those born in
1994. This infers a possible age gap of up to 48 years between certain employees. The world
has undergone significant changes during this period, which has shaped and influenced
attitudes and beliefs across these generations. The age categories break down as follows: The
Silent Generation, born 1922-1945; Baby Boomers, born 1946-1964; Generation-X, born
1965-1980 and Millennials, born 1981-1994. Research from the OECD (2015) has found that
the labour force participation rate for the Silent Generation is 5.8% in OECD countries. As this
is a relatively small proportion of the workforce, I will focus on analysing the other cohorts for
this essay.

The baby boom phenomenon occurred after the second world war, and this group is noted as
the largest generation to date. Boomers were defined by radical events such as the civil rights
movements and the Suffragette’s campaign for women’s rights. The assassinations of Martin
Luther King and JFK were also meaningful political events for this cohort. Glass suggests “that
these events shaped their personality, which tends to be optimistic, idealistic and driven” (2007,
p.99).
Those who are categorised as Generation X, grew up in very different circumstances to
Boomers. They are a much smaller group, as contraception became more easily accessible
during this time and couples exercised family planning. Defining historical moments for this
cohort include the collapse of the Soviet Union, the AIDS epidemic and economic hardship.
Due to economic uncertainty, many in Generation X experienced their parents’ redundancy
and even divorce, as divorce rates were particularly high for this period. Glass (2007, p. 100)
notes that this generation is less committed and are extremely independent. Moreover, they
emphasise the importance of work-life balance, which they do not believe was a priority for
their Boomer parents.
The youngest generation in today’s workforce are the Millennials. The topic of Millennials has
been of broad and current interest in both academic and popular literature, as this cohort now
accounts for more than half the workforce (Deloitte, 2016). This group have grown up with
technology integrated into their everyday life and are the most culturally diverse generation
due to the effects of globalisation. Eddy, Lyons and Schweitzer (2010, p. 282) state that
“Millennials “want it all” and “want it now” in terms of good pay and benefits, rapid
advancement, work/life balance, interesting and challenging work…”. However, Millennials
have also been found to possess positive qualities which previous generations did not. Myers
and Sadaghiani (2010, p. 226) noted that Millennials are “more accepting of diversity than
were past generations, have capabilities with advanced communication and information
technologies, have the ability to see problems from fresh-perspectives, and are more
comfortable working in teams than were past generations”.

As outlined above, each generation brings with it a unique set of expectations and needs. To
demonstrate the variety of expectations exhibited by the current workforce, I will compare each
cohort in relation to the following headings: work-life balance, career advancement and work
socialisation.

The notion of work-life balance was never a prevalent concept for Boomers. When they entered
the working world, there was a widespread culture of presenteeism. In order to progress in their
careers, Boomers had to sacrifice their leisure time and prove their loyalty to the organisation.
“They are the original workaholics who, even as young adults, had little notion of work-life
balance” (Myers and Sadaghiani, 2010, p. 227).
This perspective starkly contrasts with that of Generation X. Work-life balance takes
precedence for this generation, as they have witnessed first-hand the ill-effects of prioritising
workplace commitments over family responsibilities. Glass (2007, p. 101) details that
“Generation X, however, will pick a lower paying job if it offers less stringent work hours to
allow for greater work/life balance”.
Contrary to the beliefs of previous generations, Millennials believe that they should be able to
maintain a good work-life balance, while also earning a good wage. This perhaps perpetuates
the perception of entitlement amongst this cohort. Marston (2007) identifies that work is a less
important part of a Millennial’s self-concept, rather a means to support their desired standard
of living.
This can lead to conflict and misunderstanding between generations. According to Marston
(2007) “… senior workers believe that Millennial newcomers should have to “pay their dues”
as they did when they were younger workers”. Therefore, younger employees may be
inaccurately labelled “lazy” or “arrogant” by older workers, who question their dedication to
the organisation. This lack of mutual understanding can negatively affect cross-generational
relationships.

As previously mentioned, Boomers grew up in a corporate culture where employees had to

work overtime and exhibit self-sacrificing behaviours to gradually gain progress within a firm.
Therefore, gaining status and increases in salary proved to be an arduous process for this cohort.
This experience is comparable with that of Generation X. This group also had to “pay their
dues” to advance in the organisation. However, this group focus on achieving individual
outcomes rather than organisational outcomes. Miller and Yu (2005, p.36) note that “Xers
emphasise personal satisfaction rather than just working hard”. Subsequently, they suggest that
this may influence Generation X to accept an unwanted promotion if it will enhance their
lifestyle whilst maintaining their work-life balance.
Contrary to this, Millennials believe that they should quickly gain responsibility and status in
the organisation. Employees in this cohort aim to maximise their experience in their current
role, before promptly moving on to another organisation. Recent employment trends have
noted an increase in “job hopping” and a decrease in the notion of a “job for life”. Eddy et al.
(2010, p.282) state that “When they do not see the quick rewards at one firm, Millennials will
move to an employer that provides greater opportunities.”
Boomers may not understand this need for rapid advancement. Similarly, a Millennial may not
understand that Boomers value experience over productivity. If a Boomer is overseeing the
career development of a Millennial, they may not consider their need for rapid advancement.
Myers and Sadaghiani (2010, p. 230) suggest that “Millennials have not fully appreciated that
time on the job and “time in rank” can be crucial to perceptions of them as reliable by Boomer
and Generation X co-workers”. This miscommunication may reduce a Millennial engagement
and motivation, as they may believe their efforts are going unrewarded.

Millennials seek socialisation in many aspects of their work life. Myers and Sadaghiani (2010,
p.229) suggest three key areas where Millennials value workplace interaction: teamwork, open
communication and feedback from superiors. As previously mentioned, Millennials are better
than previous generations at working in teams. This provides social satisfaction and learning
opportunities for employees. Millennials enjoy collaborating with, and learning from,
colleagues and managers and hope to form friendships in the workplace (Corporate Leadership
Council, 2005). Millennials also value open channels of communication from senior
management, not only in relation to instructional details, but also important information such
as business strategy. Additionally, Millennials require much more frequent feedback from their
supervisors than previous generations. It is believed this stems from close monitoring from
their Boomer parents. Alsop (2008) suggests that this “helicopter parenting” has influenced
Millennials to desire close relationships with their supervisors, whom they may consider to be
their “work parents”.
However, supervisors may find this constant need for communication to be onerous.
Additionally, senior staff may be offended by Millennials’ expectation to be privy to
information which is usually only shared with experienced employees. According to Myers
and Sadaghiani (2010, p. 229) “Millennials’ expectation for frequent, supportive, and open
communication, as well as their lack of formality regarding status … may cause senior level
workers to feel disrespected by young workers whom they believe have not yet earned these
considerations.”
Contrary to this, Boomers and Generation X require much less social gratification in the
workplace. Generation X have been noted to be highly independent and enjoy autonomous
work. Miller and Yu (2005, p.48) state that “…Xers place high value on the importance of
participative decision-making and prefer to have independence and autonomy in their job”.
Furthermore, they have been observed to reject traditional notions of authority and thus, do not
desire the close relationships with superiors that Millennials seek.
In terms of feedback, Boomers’ needs are much less demanding than Millennials’, and are
satisfied with receiving an annual performance appraisal. However, Boomers value face to face
communication much more than their younger counterparts. While younger employees may be
satisfied by communicating with their co-workers via email or instant message, this will not be
sufficient for Boomers. Glass (2007, p.100) observes that “Baby boomers high value face-to-
face communication, and have no problem getting up to walk to another office location to ask
a colleague a question.” Therefore, conflict can arise between the generations if these needs
are not met. Generation X and Millennials will avail of the most efficient means of
communicating (Glass 2007). Boomers, however, may find this to be an abrupt and impersonal
way of interacting. Moreover, as lean forms of communication reduce social cues, this may
cause messages between generations to be unclear or misunderstood. Myers and Sadaghiani
(2010, p. 227) observe that “… [working relationships] can be stifled when interaction reveals
important differences in attitudes and behaviours”.

As outlined above, there are many challenges that may arise when managing a multi-
generational workforce. These challenges mainly relate to communication, retention and
engagement, and arise due to differences in generational expectations. Employee expectations
play a vital role in the employment relationship. These intrinsic expectations of employees
make up the psychological contract. Schein (1978) explained that the psychological contract is
an unwritten set of reciprocal expectations between the employee and the employer. Robinson
and Rousseau (1994) have noted that if the psychological contract is breached (i.e. expectations
are not met) it can negatively affect employee behaviour, by reducing motivation or prompting
the employee to exit the employment relationship entirely. Therefore, it is imperative that
organisations are aware of these expectations and how to satisfy them. The main challenge
facing HR professionals today, is finding an approach to overcome these differences and create
policies and practices to facilitate all needs, both generational and individual. If the HR
function fails to manage this process effectively, it can lead to much more significant issues
i.e. where organisations fail to retain their employees, they may soon face issues in relation to
succession planning, knowledge management and gaps in the talent pipeline.

The initial stage in overcoming these challenges is to make each cohort aware of their
differences. Cennamo and Gardner (2008, p.904) state that “Understanding differences
between generations at work is a useful first step in meeting diverse employee needs”. HR
managers can do this by initiating conversations amongst employees across the generations.
By doing this, managers can begin to decompose the negative connotations associated with
each cohort, to achieve a level of mutual understanding. Once employees have an appreciation
of the different experiences and perspectives associated with each generation, they can adjust
their approach to improve relations. Establishing this common ground provides a platform for
multi-generational collaboration which can increase an organisation’s competitive advantage.
A report by the CIPD (2008, p.5) stated that “There are clear opportunities to harness the
engagement and performance of each generation”.

One effective way of catering to multi-generational needs is to implement a career development

programme. This involves planning precise training courses to enhance an employee’s personal
and professional development. This in turn increases the employee’s value proposition to the
firm. McCann and Giles (2006) suggest that rather than focusing on generational stereotypes,
it is more productive to focus on what each generation can offer to organisational performance.
The type of training facilitated is dependent on the employee’s career path and is adapted
relative to their career stage. This approach is particularly effective for all three cohorts. It is
an effective means of motivating Boomers, as it caters to their need for recognition and
promotion. Cennamo and Gardner (2008, p.892) state that “Baby Boomers have been found to
rate the chance to learn new skills, personal improvement… as important”. It motivates
Generation X by providing opportunities for upskilling and job enrichment. A study by
Feyerheim and Vick (2005) identified that Generation X feel the need to prove their worth to
themselves and others, and do so by pursuing tangible signs of success. Finally, is it also useful
in motivating Millennials, as they can identify a clear path for advancement. Myers and
Sadaghiani (2010, p.234) note that “… Millennials place a high value on and expect personal
achievement”. Thus, it is a valuable means of sustaining engagement across the generations.

Another way to manage the multi-generational workforce is to introduce a mentoring role as

part of a career development plan for Boomers. As previously mentioned, Millennials require
immediate and frequent feedback and seek close working relationships with their superiors,
and this can be achieved in implementing a mentoring programme. This process provides a
platform to facilitate a close working relationship between the mentor and the mentee. In
addition to providing guidance for the younger employee on how to improve their workplace
performance, this initiative also facilitates the Boomer’s need for face to face interaction. Life-
cycle models have found that those in middle adulthood (46-60 years old, i.e. Boomers) seek
ways to continue to make a valuable contribution to the organisation. It states that those plotted
in this life-cycle stage take satisfaction in acting as a role model for younger generations.
Erikson’s life stages theory (1950) observes that those in the in the adulthood stage show
concern with establishing and guiding the next generation. Therefore, this programme allows
Boomers to make a positive contribution to the organisation by shaping the talent pipeline. This
initiative also has positive implications for retention and knowledge management. Myers and
Sadaghiani (2010, p.230) suggest that “Enhanced interactions may lead to closer supervisor-
subordinate working relationships, which also may be important for Millennials’ long-term
relationship with the organisation.” Furthermore, Marston (2007) has noted that Millennials
who have close working relationships with their supervisors display increased commitments to
this individual. Thus, fostering this relationship may aid in retaining Millennial employees,
who are notorious for their lack of commitment to the organisation. In their role as a mentor,
experienced staff will indirectly facilitate a knowledge transfer between themselves and their
subordinates, which increases the retention and management of tacit knowledge in the
organisation. This knowledge transfer can serve as a competitive advantage for firms, in
maintaining economies of learning which have been accumulated through years of
experience.

Recent trends have observed that organisational structures are changing, as firms become less
hierarchical and adopt a flatter structure. This new paradigm promotes the use of small dynamic
teams. As outlined above, Millennials have been noted excel at working in teams. As
organisations adopt this new approach they can harness this Millennial skill, to create learning
opportunities for other members of the organisation and facilitate structural change. This may
help Generation X to become more comfortable in working as part of a team, as opposed to
their preference for autonomous work. Additionally, this will satisfy the face to face
communication valued by Boomers and the personal contact desired by Millennials.

Being informed of the challenges that can arise when managing a multi-generational workforce
aids HR in forming organisational policies and practices. However, it is important to be
cognisant of the limitations of this approach. Firstly, there is the danger of over generalising
the needs of each cohort. In doing so, HR managers may neglect to attend to individual needs
and expectations which may not be captured in their demographic. Furthermore, this approach
may perpetuate generational stereotyping within organisations, which increase segregation
within the workforce. Finally, unless HR managers are involved in the strategic decision
making processes, their proposals may struggle to gain traction from senior members of the
organisation. Many of the aforementioned initiatives may require significant investment in
terms of time and money from the organisation and its stakeholders. If the HR function is not
recognised for its strategic importance and contribution to competitive advantage, these
initiatives may fail due to lack of support, or even be rejected entirely.

In conclusion, there are many challenges which may face HR in managing the multi-
generational workforce. However, if these challenges are handled in a strategic manner, they
can serve as opportunities for the organisation to harness the unique skills of each generation
to increase the organisation’s competitive advantage.
References
Alsop, R., 2008. The Trophy Kids Grow Up: How the Millennial Generation is Shaping Up
the Workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cennamo, L. & Gardner, D., 2008. Generational Differences in Work Values, Outcomes and
Person-Organisational Values Fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), pp. 891-906.
CIPD, 2008. Gen Up: How the Four Generations Work, London: CIPD.
Corporate Leadership Council, 2005. HR Considerations for Engaging Generation Y
Employees, Washington DC: Corporate Executive Board`.
Deloitte, 2016. Global Human Capital Trends , s.l.: Deloitte.
Eddy, S. W. N., Schweitzer, L. & Lyons, S. T., 2010. New Generation, Great Expectations: A
Field Study of the Millennial Generation. Journal of Business and Psychology , 25(2), pp.
281-292.
Erikson, E. H., 1963. Childhood and Society. 2nd ed. New York: Norton.
Feyerheim, A. & Wick, Y. H., 2005. Generation X Women in High Technology: Overcoming
Gender and Generational Challenges to Succeed in the Corporate Environment. Career
Development Journal, 10(3), pp. 216-227.
Glass, A., 2007. Understanding Generational Differences for Competitive Success. Industrial
and Commercial Training, Volume 39, pp. 98-103.
Marston, C., 2007. Motivating the "What's in it for me?" workforce: Manage across the
generational divide and increase profits.. Hoboken: Wiley.
McCann, R. M. & Giles, H., 2006. Communication with People from Different Ages in the
Workplace: Thai and American Data. Human Communication Research, 32(1), pp. 74-108.
Miller, P. & Yu, H.-C., 2005. Leadership Style: The X Generation and Baby Boomers
Compared in Different Cultural Contexts. Leadership & Organizational Development
Journal , 26(1), pp. 35-50.
Myers, K. & Sadaghiani, K., 2010. Millennials in the Workplace: A Communication
Perspective on Millennials' Organizational Relationship and Performance. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 25(2), pp. 225-238.
OECD, 2015. OECD: LFS by sex and age - indicators. [Online]
Available at: https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=LFS_SEXAGE_I_R
[Accessed 15 11 2016].
Robinson, S. L. & Rousseau, D. M., 1994. Violating the Psychological Contract: Not the
Exception but the Norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Volume 15, pp. 245-259.
Schein, E. H., 1978. Career Dynamics: Matching Individual and Organisational Needs.
Reading: Addison-Wesley .
Storey, J., 1995. Human Resource Management: A Critical Text. London: Routledge.