Introducing a cognitive approach in research about generational differences: the case of motivation

Abstract

Academic reviews on multigenerational work settings reveal fragmented findings in a variety of work-related variables, including work values and motivation. Previous studies about generational differences mainly employed questionnaires and yielded many contradicting findings. A possible explanation may be embedded in the way in which work-related aspects are differently perceived by different generations. Asking respondents belonging to different generations how much they value for example meaningful work, is in a way comparing apples and oranges, since meaningful work may mean different things to different generations. This study focuses on perceptions about motivators. We introduce a cognitive approach whereby the repertory grid technique is employed to tap into different generations’ minds how they perceive various work motivators. Results reveal that the value assigned to various motivators does not significantly differ across generations. However, how several motivators are perceived, shifts across generations. Generational perceptual differences may explain why identical motivators have dissimilar impacts on different generations. We argue that only when perceptual differences about work-related aspects are clarified, we will be able to really measure differences in the value assigned to these aspects. Hence, we further the debate about the way how generations are researched and offer avenues for future generational research.

Keywords:

• Diversity
• generational cohorts
• generations
• motivation
• cognition
• repertory grid technique
• methods

Notes

1 We conducted 5 pilot RGT interviews with the 15 following elements: salary, car, working at home, travel for work, training and formation, progression, autonomy, responsibility, flexible working hours, receiving a laptop and smartphone, social contacts using social media, varied work, being able to help people, recognition, nice work atmosphere. It was concluded that some of the elements were confusing. Working at home, travel for work, helping others and nice work atmosphere were skipped, as these elements were confusing. Responsibility and autonomy were defined as autonomy. We added extra-legal benefits to car. Laptop and smartphone were replaced by access to social media. Working at home and flexible working hours were replaced by ‘flexibility and work-life balance’ (pointing to freedom to choose where and how to work enhancing work-life balance). Social contacts using social media was replaced by social contacts. A new element, feedback was added to the series of elements as during the pilot interviews it was also asked what motivators were missing and all five respondents pointed to feedback.

2 Various levels or transformations (Ordinal tied and Ordinal untied) were computed. We chose the solution that offered the highest variances accounted for (RSQ). The variance accounted for when computing a three-dimensional solution was 51.55% for Generation Y, 66.80% for Generation X, and 57.82% for Baby-boomers. Increasing the model to four dimensions the variance accounted for increased to 68.68% for Generation X, to 57.82% for Baby-boomers, and decreased for Generation Y to 48.80%. For the three-dimensional solutions reported in Figures 3–5 stress is 0.23 for the cognitive map of Generation Y, 0.24 for the cognitive map of generation Y and 0.23 for the cognitive map of Baby-boomers. It must be noted that it is not clear what stress levels are considered acceptable. It is said that stress should be lower than 0.20. However, since acceptable values of stress also depend on the number of objects in the matrix and since our samples are small, one can argue that the stress levels for the three-dimensional solutions are acceptable (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998).