Journal of Business and Psychology

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 315–324 | Cite as

Generational Differences in Work Ethic: An Examination of Measurement Equivalence Across Three Cohorts

  • John P. MeriacEmail author
  • David J. Woehr
  • Christina Banister



The purpose of this study was to examine the differences across three generational cohorts (Millennials, Generation X, and Baby Boomers) on dimensions of the work ethic construct using the multidimensional work ethic profile (MWEP).


Data were collected from multiple samples and combined into a large database (N = 1860). Measurement equivalence was examined using Raju et al.’s (1995) differential functioning of items and tests (DFIT) procedure.


Several dimensions of the MWEP were not equivalent across cohorts, indicating that item content may not operate in the same manner across groups. When equivalent, several significant mean differences were detected across cohorts, indicating that respondents do differ in important work-related attitudes and behaviors.


Despite several reviews of generational differences across cohorts, relatively few empirical examinations have been undertaken, and no studies have yet examined the measurement equivalence of constructs across generational cohorts. These findings provide evidence that differences do exist across cohorts on dimensions of work ethic, and some differences may be a result of respondents interpreting content in different ways. Managers of multigenerational employees should consider these differences in managing employees and conflict that may arise as a result.


This is one of the first studies to provide empirical evidence of generational differences in the work ethic construct. In addition, this is the first study to evaluate the measurement equivalence of a work ethic inventory or any other work related individual difference construct across generational cohorts.


Work ethic Generational cohorts Millennials Generation X Baby Boomers 


  1. Baker, F. (1995). EQUATE 2.1: Computer program for equating two metrics in item response theory (version 2.1). Madison: Laboratory of Experimental Design, University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  2. Cennamo, L., & Gardner, D. (2008). Generational differences in work values, outcomes, and person-organization values fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 891–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cherrington, D. J., Condie, S. J., & England, J. L. (1979). Age and work values. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 617–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dries, N., Pepermans, R., & De Kerpel, E. (2008). Exploring four generations’ beliefs about career: Is “satisfied” the new “successful”? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 907–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Duchscher, J. E. B., & Cowin, L. (2004). Multigenerational nurses in the workplace. Journal of Nursing Administration, 34, 493–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.Google Scholar
  7. Erickson, T. (2008, August 25). Don’t treat them like baby boomers. Business Week, p. 64.Google Scholar
  8. Flowers, C. P., Oshima, T. C., & Raju, N. S. (1999). A description and demonstration of the polytomous-DFIT framework. Applied Psychological Measurement, 23, 309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kupperschmidt, B. (2000). Multigeneration employees: Strategies for effective management. Health Care Manager, 19, 65–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Lancaster, L. C., & Stillman, D. (2002). When generations collide: Who they are. Why they clash. How to solve the generational puzzle at work. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
  11. Macky, K., Gardner, D., & Forsyth, S. (2008). Generational differences at work: Introduction and overview. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 857–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Meade, A. W., & Lautenschlager, G. J. (2004). A comparison of item response theory and confirmatory factor analytic methodologies for establishing measurement equivalence/invariance. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 361–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Meriac, J. P., Poling, T. L., & Woehr, D. J. (2009). Are there gender differences in work ethic?: An examination of the measurement equivalence of the multidimensional work ethic profile. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 209–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Miller, M. J., Woehr, D. J., & Hudspeth, N. (2002). The meaning and measurement of work ethic: Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional inventory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 451–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. O’Connell, P. O. (2008, August 25). What’s eating gen X. Business Week, pp. 61–62.Google Scholar
  16. Pham, V. H., Case, J., Miyake, L., & Gil, S. (2008). The gen Y perceptions study. Retrieved from Cal State Fullerton Career Center website
  17. Pogson, C., Cober, A., Doverspike, D., & Rogers, J. (2003). Differences in self-reported work ethic across three career stages. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 189–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Raju, N. S. (1999). DFITPS6: A Fortran program for calculating polytomous DIF/DTF [Computer program]. Chicago: Illinois Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  19. Raju, N. S., van der Linden, W., & Fleer, P. (1995). An IRT-based internal measure of test bias with implications for differential item functioning. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 353–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Reckase, M. D. (1979). Unifactor latent trait models applied to multifactor tests: Results and implications. Journal of Educational Statistics, 4, 207–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a pattern of graded scores [Monograph]. Psychometrika Supplement No. 17.Google Scholar
  22. Smola, K. W., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting generational work values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 363–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stocking, M. L., & Lord, F. M. (1983). Developing a common metric in item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 201–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. ter Bogt, T., Raaijmakers, Q., & van Wel, F. (2005). Socialization and development of the work ethic among adolescents and young adults. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 420–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Thissen, D. (2003). MULTILOG 7.03: A computer program for multiple, categorical item analysis and test scoring using item response theory. Chicago: Scientific Software, Inc.Google Scholar
  26. Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, S. M. (2008). Generational differences in psychological traits and their impact on the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 862–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Weber, M. (1958). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism (T. Parsons, Trans.). New York, NY: Scribners. (Original work published 1904–1905).Google Scholar
  29. Woehr, D. J., Archinega, L., & Lim, D. (2007). Examining work ethic across populations: A comparison of the multidimensional work ethic profile across three diverse cultures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 154–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wong, M., Gardiner, E., Lang, W., & Coulon, L. (2008). Generational differences in personality and motivation: Do they exist and what are the implications for the workplace? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 878–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zemke, R., Raines, C., & Filipczak, B. (1999). Generations at work: Managing the clash of veterans, boomers, xers and nexters in your workplace. New York, NY: Amacom.Google Scholar
  32. Zickar, M., & Broadfoot, A. (2009). The partial revival of a dead horse? Comparing classical test theory and item response theory. In C. E. Lance & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Doctrine, verity and fable in the organizational and social sciences (pp. 37–59). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • John P. Meriac
    • 1
    Email author
  • David J. Woehr
    • 2
  • Christina Banister
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Missouri—St. LouisSt. LouisUSA
  2. 2.Department of ManagementThe University of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations