Generational Differences in Work Ethic: An Examination of Measurement Equivalence Across Three Cohorts
- 4.5k Downloads
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.
KeywordsWork ethic Generational cohorts Millennials Generation X Baby Boomers
- 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
- Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.Google Scholar
- Erickson, T. (2008, August 25). Don’t treat them like baby boomers. Business Week, p. 64.Google Scholar
- 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
- O’Connell, P. O. (2008, August 25). What’s eating gen X. Business Week, pp. 61–62.Google Scholar
- Pham, V. H., Case, J., Miyake, L., & Gil, S. (2008). The gen Y perceptions study. Retrieved from Cal State Fullerton Career Center website http://campusapps2.fullerton.edu/career/pdf/Gen_Y.pdf.
- Raju, N. S. (1999). DFITPS6: A Fortran program for calculating polytomous DIF/DTF [Computer program]. Chicago: Illinois Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
- Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a pattern of graded scores [Monograph]. Psychometrika Supplement No. 17.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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