Generational Cohorts and Managerial Motivation Essay

Managerial Motivation of Generational CohortsTable of ContentsLiterature Review 3The Strauss and Howe generational theory 3Motivational differences of different generational cohorts 4Workforce motivation theories 5Performance management strategies in the workplace 9Job characteristics for different generational cohorts 10Generational differences in work values 12Relationship between the topic (Managerial Motivation of Generational Cohorts) and literature theory 15References 16Bibliography 18Literature ReviewThe Strauss and Howe generational theoryCommended by Newt Gingrich, ex-house speaker, Al Gore, ex-Vice President of the United States, and an assortment of other national leaders, Howe and Strausss work titled Generations (1991) has received acclaim as a splendid, though slightly alarming, review of the direction the nation is headed towards. The authors suggest that the countrys history may be considered in the form of a string of generational profiles, commencing from the year 1584 and including every single era until the present-day children. The two boldly theorize that all generations may be regarded as belonging to any one out of four kinds which are sequentially repeated in a set pattern. Their vision enables one to chart a recurrent cycle within the nations history one characterized by secular challenges and religious revivals from the colonial age till the 21st century. The book is an uplifting historical account as well as an exciting insightful leap which reorders history books, in addition to peoples expectations with regard to the current century.The aforementioned book covers what came to be known as the StraussHowe generational theory, which delineates a theorized repetitive generational cycle within the history of the nation. The theorists established the basis for their hypothesis within their book which presents US history in the form of a succession of generational profiles dating back to the year 1584. A newer work titled The Fourth Turning (1997) expands the generational theory paying attention to the nations traditional fourfold generational kind cycle and repetitive mood periods. Since then, the theorists have utilized various publications for expanding further on their idea.Howe and Strauss's (1991) efforts constitute a combination of prediction and actual historical facts. They offered historical details on prior and current generations in addition to making several predictions a large number of which pertained to the Millennials (who, at the time of commencement of the authors efforts, were little children); consequently, the authors lacked adequate historical data concerning this generation. The theorists first work titled Generations (1991) explains American history as being a progression of generational profiles of Anglo-Americans between 1584 and the current period. A hypothesized repetitive generational cycle within the history of the nation has been outlined. They hypothesize a trend of four repetitive stages, generational forms and a repetitive cycle of secular challenges and religious revivals, from the colonial age till the 21st century.According to the authors, the term social generation may be defined as the sum total of all individuals born across approximately two decades or across the duration of a single stage of life out of 4 stages childhood, youth, midlife, and later life. They have identified generations (between the year of birth and the last) by seeking cohorts of this duration which have the following conditions in common: Firstly, people belonging to a generation have a common age location within history: that is, they experience important social developments/movements and historical occurrences when going through the same stage of life. According to this perspective, individuals belonging to a given generation are permanently molded by the age they are in during their childhood and youth, making them share particular behaviors and views. Cognizant of these shared characteristics and life experiences, individuals belonging to a given generation would display a feeling of perceived belongingness with their generation as well (Strauss & Howe, 1991).Howe and Strauss claim that their description of generations is grounded in the efforts of a number of social theorists and authors, including Ibn Khaldun, Polybius and other earliest authors and contemporary social theorists like Jos Ortega y Gasset, John Stuart Mill, Karl Mannheim, Franois Mentr, mile Littr, and Auguste Comte.Given the above theory, one generic strategy to motivate workforce across generations could be to celebrate their secular and/or religious values and build company values and performance-packages around them. In short, individual religious and secular values can be used to motivate the all generational cohorts. For instance, religious festivities can be celebrated by announcing company holidays etc. In a corporate setting, the managers can further design motivational packages that are based around historical events that were influential for the generational cohorts and celebrate history in the form of themed office parties. This can allow one generation to understand the perspectives of a social event that matters to a different generation instigating a certain level of respect and understanding between the two. Similar approaches can be used for social events especially when dealing with generation X and the millennials. These two generations while being closely linked and with the least age gap can have very different values for different social events. So using a strategy that allows different social events and opinions to be openly discussed can form comrade and understanding across the generations. Care should be taken though that this is done in a positive framework otherwise it could create further differences and a larger gap between the two in a workplace.Motivational differences of different generational cohortsApplying prior studies dealing with inter-generational gaps, Katarzyna (2014) aimed at examining whether or not distinctions in motivational elements were, in fact, extant across different generations within Irish organizations. By employing facts assimilated via a Motivational Factors Questionnaire to serve as motivation measures, the researcher scrutinized cross-sectional gaps among three clusters of the US workforce from Irish descent: Baby Boomers, Gen X and Gen Y (Katarzyna, 2014). The authors findings do not absolutely support the generational stereotypes exhibited by popular media and works on the management discipline. This examination revealed the existence of a few deep-seated differences between numerous generational drivers. But age may account for these differences instead of generation, on the whole. Despite highly statistically significant distinctions being apparent, they may practically not present such challenges in management strategy on the whole (Katarzyna, 2014). Moreover, a review of existing works published on the topic reveals a few incongruities, demonstrating that current studies, in certain instances, do not display identical outcomes.For acquiring improved insights into the determinants and profiles motivating Gen Y, Gen X and Baby Boomers, the author examined the 3 generations against five inspirational elements, namely, idle time, compensation, increased responsibility, ability to advance, and work atmosphere. Differences discovered, though statistically significant, do not appreciably affect the organization; this is perhaps owing to the many stages of life exhibited by an age group. But this doesnt eliminate the truth that different age groups possess different thinking owing to the distinct climate they were raised in and the diversity of situations they experienced within their lives (Katarzyna, 2014). This may imply that while they are dissimilar as individuals, they are rather identical within the workplace setting. Current analysis is marked by several limitations, with additional studies recommended within the field. Katarzyna (2014) acknowledges that companies must cultivate an atmosphere of attentivenes and respect for creating a bridge that links every age group towards developing and maintaining an industrious workforce.Tan, Rajah and Wan (2014) discuss the mediator of corporate justice between generational diversification and motivation. But as a majority of empirical proofs and literature support the variation for generational preferences with regard to motivation and additionally support package tailoring for better fitting in both generations, awareness is needed of the fact that corporate justice might continue impacting the end result. Improved grasps of motivation models and generational problems might still not suffice when it comes to improving personnel productivity since motivation packages received out of or for their contributions traverse societal interactions in which they are compared for equity. The conclusion arrived at by the scholars was: motivation packages favorability typically decides subsequent performance.Wong, Lang, Coulon, and Gardiner (2008) performed a study aimed at gauging whether motivational factor and personality gaps are evident across Gen Y, Gen X and Baby Boomers in the workforce. The Motivation and Occupational Personality Questionnaires were employed for studying cross-sectional motivational and personality factor-related disparities over three generations. Study findings did not support generational stereotypes widely cited by media and management related literature. In particular, not many meaningful distinctions were evident among the three studied generations. Additionally, despite differences being noted, they were associated more with age as compared to generation. A major limitation of Wong and colleagues (2008) study was their utilization of cross?sectional information. For an additional examination of the problem, undertaking a longitudinal research for evaluating motivational drivers and personality preferences of diverse generations in which respondents share a common career stage or age group would prove interesting. The studys practical consequences included its highlighting of the significance of dealing with people by paying attention to personal differences instead of being dependent on generation-based stereotypes; this might fail to be as predominant as indicated by available literature (Wong et al., 2008). Human resource personnel and management might be interested in the absence of generational dissimilarities, against the claims of popular literature on the management discipline.Workforce motivation theoriesPalliam and Anklis (2012) efforts reveal SDT (self-determination model/theory) to be successful in motivating companies workforce; SDT is recommended as an inclusive motivational theory. Thus, motivation takes on another dimension, making it essential to take into account problems linked to controlled motivation, independent motivation, and the concept of motivation as being a performance determinant. The authors attempted to tackle the problem by first identifying fundamental assumptions concerning motivation, including: individuals possess the ability to undertake responsible action, wish to achieve success at play and work, and naturally aspire to learn and understand things. Further, they progress towards dealing with numerous key facets linked to SDT, including cognitive, psycho-motor and affective development. They conclude by taking into consideration self-perception, individual emotional/psychological requirements, culture, dynamism, wishes and aims, and social environmental effects as major issues guiding individuals self-actualization capability. Study findings exhibit SDT's applicability to corporate behavior related discussions. They indicate extrinsic motivations adverse impacts on intrinsic motivation. Job satisfaction is attained when personality is employed as a contributor to motivation, for satisfying a mutually meaningful goal. A person is most creative and inventive when inspired chiefly due to personal interest, internal satisfaction, and task-related challenges rather than incentives or external pressure.Palliam and Anklis (2012) work has the practical consequence that HR workers and management must take into consideration issues linked to controlled motivation, independent motivation, and the concept of motivation as being a performance determinant. Diverse play-work-connected attitudinal linkages require diverse kinds of motivation. If the two become homogeneous, HR managements defining contribution to motivation requires reexamination (especially SDT). The authors contribute to motivation-based scholarly literature slightly differently by deeming independence, relatedness and proficiency in SDT to be vital to psychological development, health and optimal working in all disciplines. The researchers reveal that extrinsic rewards mostly undermine intrinsic motivation.Oudejans (2007) masters thesis revealed a negative correlation between extrinsic and intrinsic motivations. Furthermore, the former is associated negatively with job satisfaction whereas the latter displays a positive association (Oudejans, 2007). For instance, call center workers exhibit greater extrinsic motivation and lesser intrinsic motivation as compared to nursing staff. In addition, they exhibit lower satisfaction levels as compared to nursing staff. With regard to the impacts of one group on the link of job satisfaction with extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, the author revealed that people holding call center jobs more strongly influence the link of job satisfaction with both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. But job satisfactions relationship with extrinsic motivation proved not to be significant. Lastly, the scholar discovered that nearly every theory was associated with, at least, extrinsic or intrinsic motivation. Equity theory has a positive link with extrinsic motivation. It was concluded that the expectancy theory has a positive link to intrinsic as well as extrinsic motivation, thereby being more applicable to workers in call centers.Earlier, Walker and Smithers (2000) refer to studies indicating that personnel motivation in every industry is impacted by work culture or climate. Their construction site-based study aimed at investigating impacts of workplace atmosphere on demotivation or motivation of construction workforce. Information gathered supported the theory that construction site atmosphere indeed impacts employees demotivation levels. The scholars discovered numerous variables (e.g., lengthy work hours, an aggressive leadership approach, chaos and non-recognition of efforts) related appreciably to this outcome. The outcomes offer a useful foundation to indicate the construction sectors ability to cultivate a more appealing workplace atmosphere for personnel.Martinus and Ramadanty (2012) assert that motivation essentially guides all human tasks. It is a force which propels workers towards accomplishing corporate objectives. Currently, corporate communication development saw communication as being among the most salient and prominent corporate activities capable of motivating personnel. The authors aimed at revealing how personnel motivation is influenced by organizational communication. The research problem identified was the link of personnel motivation and communication facets including interpersonal communication, nonverbal communication, communication climate and leadership. A descriptive qualitative technique was utilized with data acquisition conducted via literature analysis. Authors discovered that interpersonal communication, leadership, communication climate and nonverbal communication contribute greatly to cultivating personnel motivation (Ramadanty & Martinus, 2012). The latter contributes somewhat more profoundly to shaping positive personnel motivation. Contributing elements include facial expression, eye contact and body language. The authors are of the view that leaders interpersonal communication quality is evaluated on the basis of degree of satisfaction with information shared between the workforce and managers. Style of…

Some parts of this document are missing

Click here to view full document

…for all generations, and that, popular beliefs aboutgenerational diversity shouldnt be generalized excessively.According to Twenge et al. (2010), many organizations have to deal with the retirement of many of their older staff. They are, consequently, also faced with the challenge of hiring younger staff and retaining them. Few studies have; however, shown evidence of practical differences in the work values of the two sets. Twenge et al. (2010) studied the work values of a sample that was nationally representative of US seniors in a high school in 1976, 91 and 2006 (N=16507), which represented Babyboomers, Gen X, and Y. The analyses separated the differences in the generational cohorts from age-related ones. This was markedly different from studies that are conducted once, and cannot separate the two factors (Twenge et al., 2010). Further, the findings showed that values related to leisure increased fast across the generations (Gen Y and Babyboomers =.57) while centrality of work reduced. Extrinsic values such as money and status were higher with Gen X, but were even higher with Gen. Y compared to Babyboomers (.26). Notably, contrary to popular belief, Gen Y does not show an affinity for altruistic work values such as societal worth or helping, compared to earlier generations. Such social traits as making friends in a results-based job that is interesting were ranked lower by Gen Y, compared to Babyboomers (Twenge et al., 2010). The findings come with implications that are practical for the management and even recruitment of a new workforce.How the topic of motivation of Generational Management Cohorts relates with literature reviewThe literature featured will help in the comprehension of the various generational cohorts and how it relates to the workforce. Given that the theories of motivation have also been discussed; these theories will provide a reference for the deeper understanding of the varying factors affecting performance at the workplace. Notably, some researchers have significantly differed with the idea that generational cohorts relate to motivational workplace factors. For instance, Wong et al. (2008), opined that motivational driver differences and personality are non-existent among three generations of the Australian workforce. In his view, Wong et al. (2008), the differences that were noted related more to age than generation. Similarly, Katarzyna (2014) also discovered that motivational aspects about generational groups are not fully supportive of the stereotypes of generational differences in management circles, media, and related literature.Likewise, Smithers and Walker (2000) also make another finding that is interesting. They presented the supported hypothesis that the surroundings of a construction site affect the motivation levels of the workers at the site. Such factors are beyond the generational cohort differences. The research will try to internalize the validity of the claim that generational groups are motivated by separate and distinct factors. It also seeks to examine the various approaches applied in motivating, the different generational groups.Lastly, Ankli and Palliam (2012), Frederick Herzbeg (1959) and Wesley (2013) provide theories of motivation that will help to build a strong basis for motivational aspects that are appropriate for each generational cohort. The varying work values and job characteristics among the general groups will shed light on the study by making the researcher to understand the factors to take into consideration when deciding the motivational aspects that are needed for each cohort.ReferencesAnkli, R. E., & Palliam, R. (2012). Enabling a motivated workforce: exploring the sources of motivation. Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, 26(2), 710.Beck, R. C. (2004). Motivation: Theories and principles. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson Education.Cennamo, L., & Gardner, D. (2013). Generational differences in work values, outcomes, and person-organization values fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(7), 891906.Chen, J., & Lian, R. (2015). Generational Differences in Work Values in China. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 43(4), 567578.Chen, P., & Choi, Y. (2008). Generational differences in work values: a study of hospitality management. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20(6), 595615.Ehiobuche, C., & Luing, L. L. (2013). Reading Through Motivational Theories. International Journal of Research in Commerce and Management2, 4(11), 2328.Hernaus, T., & Poloki Vokic, N. (2014). Work design for different generational cohorts. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 27(4), 615641.Herzberg, F. (1959). Two-Factor Theory of Motivation. In Motivation theory. (pp. 13).Jurkiewicz, C. L., & Brown, R. G. (1998). Generational Comparisons of Public Employee Motivation. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 18(4), 1837.Katarzyna, R.G., (2014). Comparative empirical analysis of motivational differences of various generational cohorts in the Irish workplace. Dublin Business School.Kowalik, G. (2011). Performance Management Policy. In Performance management (pp. 1 11). Johannesburg: LabourNet Solutions.Lebas, M. J. (1995). Performance measurement and performance management. Performance Management.Mcreynolds, J. (2012). Motivational Theories & Psychology. New Delhi: World Technologies.Murray, K., Toulson, P., & Legg, S. (2011). Generational cohorts expectations in the workplace: A study of New Zealanders. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 49(4), 476493.Oudejans, R. (2007). Linking extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to job satisfaction and to motivational theories. Master Thesis.Pardee, R. (1990). Motivation Theories of Maslow, Herzberg, McGregor & McClelland. A Literature Review of Selected Theories Dealing with Job Satisfaction and Motivation. Synopsis of Selected Motivational Theories, 124.Parry, E., & Urwin, P. (2011). Generational Differences in Work Values: A Review of Theory and Evidence: Generational Differences in Work Values. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(1), 7996Parry., (2014). New perspectives on generational diversity at work: Introduction. Generational Diversity at Work: New Research Perspectives. Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group.Ramadanty, S., & Martinus, H. (2012). Organizational Communication: Communication and Motivation in the Workplace. Organizational Communication. (Sari Ramadanty; Handy Martinus), 7(1), 7786.Rani, N., Bouzdine, T., & Samuel, C. A. A. (2016). Generational differences in work values of Indian employees. International Business Management, 10(18), 43584364.Risher, H., & Management, P. (2003). Refocusing Performance Management for High Performance. Compensation & Benefits Review, 35, 2030 STManagement for High.Sanzotta, D. (1977). Motivational theories & applications for managers. New York, N.Y: ANACOM.Shea, C. E., & San Jose? State University. (2012). Generational differences in intrinsic and extrinsic workplace motivation. San Jose, Calif: San Jose State University.Smithers, G. L., & Walker, D. H. T. (2000). The effect of the workplace on motivation and demotivation of construction professionals. Construction Management and Economics, 18(7), 833841.Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (1991). Generations: The history of America's future, 1584 to 2069. New York: MorrowTan, S. K., Wan Yusoff, W. F., & Rajah, S. (2014). The motivation for Generations Cohorts: An organizational justice perspective. International Journal of Management Sciences, 2(11), 536542.Twenge, J. M., Campbell, S. M., Hoffman, B. J., & Lance, C. E. (2010). Generational Differences in Work Values: Leisure and Extrinsic Values Increasing, Social and Intrinsic Values Decreasing. Journal of Management, 36(5), 11171142.Walter, H., Patek, K., & Lesch, O. (2012). Motivation strategies. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 36, 142A.Wesley, K. R. (2013). A motivated workforce: A mixed methods study of worker motivation at a Nebraska manufacturing company.…