Baby Boomers, Generation X and Generation Y

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.
do;jsessi…ction=lnkhtml&contentId=874223 - Database Access - UNSW Library 19/04/09 5:31 PM
Baby Boomers, Generation X and Generation Y?
Policy implications for defence forces in the modern era
The Authors
Bradley Jorgensen, Bradley Jorgensen is Principal Adviser (Research and Innovation), Education Queensland,
Queensland, Australia. E-mail: Bradley.jorgensen@qed.qld.gov.au
Abstract
In recent years there has been discussion in the management and organisational literature on generational differences
and how they may impact on the design of workforce strategies. However, much of the discussion appears to be based
on observation rather than large empirical work. Indeed, I would argue that wider support for the requirement to
manage the workforce around X and Y issues is absent. For example, employers of choice are looking to win talent by
tailoring employment policy to capture the dynamism of the modern era rather than discrete generational values.
Significantly, the bulk of generational data cited by popular writers is subjective, non-representative, makes use of
single-point-of-time data and uses retrospective comparisons. Importantly, scholarly literature does not draw arbitrary
and abrupt lines between generations. In seeking to determine a preferred workforce strategy organisations would be
better served by acknowledging the technical, economic, political and social dynamism of modern life rather than the
flawed conclusions of popular generational literature.
Article Type: Research Paper

Keyword(s): Baby boomer generation; Baby buster generation; Workforce planning; Strategic planning; Literature;
Values.
Journal: foresight
Volume: 5
Number: 4
Year: 2003
pp: 41-49
Copyright © MCB UP Ltd
ISSN: 1463-6689
Introduction
In this paper I begin by introducing the topic of population trends and generationalism. Having done so, I move on to
test the applicability of the hypotheses that generational issues should be accounted for in the design of workplace
policy for the Australian Defence Force (ADF). I then review generational literature followed by a consideration of the
policy implications associated with the modern trends of globalisation, informationalism and the rise of the network
society. Having done so, the applicability of popular “generational” literature in its contribution to the ongoing
development of the ADF workforce policies is tested against academic literature. I conclude with a number of
recommendations for further action.
Population trends and generationalism
Low post-Second World War fertility rates, in combination with other factors will deliver a demographic trough where
competition for skilled workers will become an intense reality (Schindlmayr, 2001). Worldwide, the average fertility rate
for developed countries has fallen from 5.0 per cent to 1.6 per cent in the last 30 years (Centre for Strategic and
International Studies, 2000, p. 2). In Australia, falling fertility rates will continue their slide. In 2016, Australia’s fertility
rate is predicted to be just 0.85 per cent (BIS Shrapnel, 2001, p. 186) and by 2030 Australia will have just two people
of working age for every person aged 65 years of age and over (Commonwealth of Australia, 2002, p. 19). Worse still,
during the decade 2020-2030 only 125,000 new entrants will enter the workforce (Access Economics, 2001, p. 22;
Baltzell, 2000) compared with the current rate of 170,000 new entrants who currently join the labour force each year
(Sheen, 2001). In the coming decades these trends will see the supply of older workers, relative to the supply of
younger workers, increase sharply (BIS Shrapnel, 2001, p. 186; Access Economics, 2001). Given the importance of
skilled people to innovation and competitive advantage (Baltzell, 2000) organisations will, increasingly, be forced to
look to older workers to supplement the skills and knowledge that they need to succeed. At the same time
organisations will also need to find better ways of accommodating the needs of young workers. Popular generational
http://www.library.unsw.edu.au/cgi-bin/Data/db.cgi?db=fulltexttes…7C88ED7AD3?contentType=Article&hdAction=lnkhtml&contentId=874223 Page 1 of 13
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessi…ction=lnkhtml&contentId=874223 - Database Access - UNSW Library 19/04/09 5:31 PM
literature may provide an insight.
Legree (1997), Sharpe (2002), Tulgan (1996), Wong (2000) and Zemke et al. (2000), among others, have argued that
there are distinct generations with sharp differences among them, and that there are large and dramatic differences
among youth cohorts in different generations. For example, popular literature states that veterans work best when there
is personal contact, strong leadership and clear direction. The Baby Boomers, who sacrificed themselves to the ideals
of a materially rich existence, live for “the now”. They want work that will give them recognition, praise and fame
(Kogan, 2001). The so-called members of Generation X are not interested in following the footsteps of their parents
and seek to achieve a work -life balance suited to their individual needs. They learned from their parents that sacrifice
does not guarantee stable family life or long-term employment. They want flexible schedules, independence, interesting
work and professional growth. The members of Generation Y are a culturally and socially diverse group. Like the
Generation X cohort, they are motivated to do well but seek more direction and meaning in their work. They are not
afraid to question authority and will challenge management decisions that they deem unreasonable (Tulgan and Martin,
2001).
In recent years there has been discussion in management and organisational literature on these generational
differences and how they may have an impact on workforce management, employment relations, etc. In particular, the
notion that X and Y generations should be accounted for in employment policy, conditions and management is widely
advocated within popular literature. Much of the discussion however, appears to be based on observation rather than
empirical work. I now turn to an examination of generational literature.
Popular literature – Baby Boomer, Generation X and Generation Y
Generation X
In popular literature, individuals born between 1963 and 1978 are said to belong to the Generation X cohort (Tulgan
and Martin, 2001). Members of this cohort are said to have the following characteristics; they:
value autonomy and independence;

thrive on open communication;
view work from an action-orientation perspective;
seek out the “whys” in issues;
do not believe in “paying dues”;
seek to acquire skills and expertise;
do not have long-term loyalty to a company (but are loyal to individuals);
believe in balancing work-life objectives;
look for a shared crusade (inspirational company vision); and
are reluctant to take on leadership roles (CLC, 1998).
Members of the Generation X cohort also regard personal values and goals as more important than goals related to
work (Accounting Office Management & Administration Report, 2002). They are much more likely than any other
generation to leave for a more challenging job, a higher salary and/or improved benefits such as flexible work
schedules (CLC, 1997; Hays, 1999). Indeed, tenure for Generation X first-time jobs in the USA is thought to be just
one year (CLC, 1998). In fact, by the age 32, many Generation X “members” in the USA would have held, on average,
nine jobs (CLC, 1998).
In Australia, statistics indicate that more than half of 19-24 year olds plan to stay in their jobs for less than two years
(Defence Personnel Executive, 2001). Australian Generation X graduates, according to the Graduate Report (2001),
are looking for jobs that will be fun, interesting and fulfilling (Defence Personnel Executive, 2001). They want their
relationships with managers to be grounded in participative management practices and to be treated as partners
(Defence Personnel Executive, 2001). Generation X members also prefer an equitable salary ahead of other
remuneration options and rate, most highly, the criteria of “boss quality” (CLC, 1999, p. 207; New Focus Research,
2000; Sujansky, 2002). Equally so, Generation X members value development opportunities that involve mentoring,
coaching and cross-functional employment (CLC, 2002).
Stability of core values
Notwithstanding the observed value differences of the Generation X cohort the core values (honesty, responsibility,
ambition and freedom) of Generation X members remain consistent with the values of older workers (CLC, 1999).
Indeed, as the Generation X cohort ages some are noting that their values and those of the Baby Boomer cohort are
becoming, increasingly, coincident (CLC, 1999). Interestingly, the vocational instability of the Generation X cohort may
be more related to educational attainment and job satisfaction rather than a marked values shift (Lowe, 2002). For
example, in a survey by the CLC, the council reported that intention to leave increases markedly in line with
educational attainment (CLC, 1999). Indeed, evidence from research in Canada would suggest that the skills of
university graduates are often underutilised, a factor that contributes to the vocational instability in younger workers
(Lowe, 2002). Interestingly, the research data reported by Lowe (2002) are, in part, supported by ADF Exit Survey
Data (Table I). Job satisfaction (meaningful work) is a high value criterion for young graduates.
Baby Boomers
Members of the Baby Boomer cohort are predominant in senior positions in most well-established organisations and
have been the prevailing influence for the last decade. This trend will continue for the next decade or so, with most
retiring between 2010 and 2020. Baby Boomers have been the people who have stayed with their organisations.
However, Baby Boomers, like the members of the Generation X cohort, are also changing. Now middle-aged and
approaching retirement Baby Boomers are re-evaluating. In the wake of large-scale retrenchments, stock market
fluctuations, war, high levels of divorce and accelerating change, Baby Boomers have discovered a future that they did
not contemplate and do not desire (MacKay, 1999). The Baby Boomer cohort, born in the period 1946-1962 is said to
have the following characteristics; they:
value teamwork and group discussions;

view work from a process-orientated perspective;
believe that achievement comes after “paying dues”;
value company commitment and loyalty;
believe in sacrifice in order to achieve success;
seek long-term employment;
are involved in elder care; and
have older children at home (CLC, 2001, p. 1).
Generation Y
A new group of workers (born between 1977 and 1988) labelled the Net generation/Millennials/Generation Y is also
said to have unique generational characteristics (Tulgan and Martin, 2001). The Generation Y cohort:
is information and “media savvy”;

has a strong work ethic, entrepreneurial spirit and sense of responsibility;
is comfortable with change;
is paving the way to a more open and tolerant society (Tulgan and Martin, 2001);
blends collaboration, networking and interdependence to achieve goals;
has self-confidence and optimism about the future;
values skill development and thrives on mentoring/coaching; and
is well educated (CLC, 2001, p. 1).
Generation Y members have used computers since a young age and are e-learners (Allerton, 2001). They live to be
trained, enjoy the challenge of new opportunities, seek work-life balance and like to be involved in decision making
(Allerton, 2001). Indeed, work-life balance is one of the top priorities of graduating university students (Comeau-
Kirschner and Wah, 1999).
Generational value diversity – implications
This interesting mix of Baby Boomer, Generation X and Generation Y likes and dislikes has the potential to disrupt
generic workforce planning strategies, consume resources and contribute to the erosion of generational solidarity. If
generational differences are the reality, then the effective management of generational diversity will require that
managers develop an understanding of the mind-set of each of the different generations (Kogan, 2001). However,
much of the “generational” data may lack the necessary credentials on which to base workforce policy decisions. I now
turn to a review of generational data.
Popular literature generational data
Much of the Zemke et al. (2000) research, like other popular writers, is based on their experiences in performing their
individual roles as consultants, writers, speakers and trainers. Interviews and group discussions have also been used.
Based on their experiences and observations writers of generational literature claim that the values and culture of each
generation are different to those who have followed. They argue that the modern workforce is “values” diverse (Zemke,
et al., 2000, p. 10). However, “popular” research may lack the necessary rigour on which to base future workforce
policy. If the conclusions and opinions of popular generational writers are to be accepted, greater analysis of their
claims is required. Evidence, collated through a number of defence surveys assists.
ADF survey data
Tables I-III show the top ten reasons for leaving the ADF endorsed by members belonging to the Baby Boomers
generation (i.e. those born between 1946 and 1962), Generation X (i.e. those born between 1963 and 1977) and
Generation Y (i.e. those born between 1978 and 1988), respectively. Survey recipients were asked to score the degree
of influence for noted reasons for leaving. Broadly, analysis of these data indicates a strong values correlation (with
some minor exceptions) shared between the so-called Generations, though rank ordering of these common values
does shift with age (Zambelli, 2002).
The data show that members of the Baby Boomer generation were the only generation to list “too much change” and
“live in my own home” but did not list “job satisfaction”, which was a top-five factor for members of the Generation X
and Y cohorts. Members of the Baby Boomer and Generation X cohorts also listed a “desire to live in one place”, a
no-factor criterion for Generation Y members. However, all groups listed “to make a career change while still young
enough”, “limited promotion prospects”, “insufficient career development opportunities”, “limited reward for what would
be considered overtime in the civilian community” and “desire for less separation from family” as influential factors.
In summary, ADF survey data do not support the notion of sharp and strong generational differences. Further, where
divergence is evident this may be more to do with life-cycle phases rather than divergent generational values. Indeed,
as Ryder (1965) observes, an older person may feel obliged to remain in a situation from which an unencumbered
person would readily move. For example, members of the Baby Boomer and Generation X cohorts would have
experienced several household moves (desire to live in one place) during their careers while Generation Y personnel
would only have experienced the emotion and upheaval of moving home on two (perhaps three) occasions.
Also, as the families of service personnel age one might imagine that the capacity to tolerate further family moves will
diminish over time. Factors, such as education of children and spouse employment/career would, ultimately, become
influential factors for long-serving members. Further, many types of economic and political participation are limited to
later life (Hofstede, 1984). Some members of the so-called Generation X cohort are about to enter the leadership roles
occupied by Baby Boomers. Thus, the career concerns of Generation X members may reflect a general level of
anxiety regarding the next promotion/career move rather than a unique values shift. Equally so, Baby Boomers who
are approaching the end of their careers may be less interested in career management and more interested in their
post-service retirement/career – “live in own home”. I now turn to a review of academic literature.
Academic literature: generational data
Stability of values
While the size of generational cohorts has varied markedly, scholarly literature does not draw arbitrary and abrupt lines
between generations (Sackett, 2002). Indeed, scientific research has shown that most indicators of youth attitudes and
values change slowly and smoothly over time (Sackett, 2002, p. 6). Sackett (2002, p. 6) refers to the research results
from the “Monitoring the future project”, which has been sampling representative youth values since the 1970s. The
research findings show that:
ratings for important life goals show a high degree of stability and in rank ordering;
ratings on important job characteristics remain stable;
the value assigned to the importance of work has been largely stable;
there is a continuing upward trend in the value assigned to education (Sackett, 2002, p. 8).
Reinforcing values
Indeed, Hofstede’s (1984) research reminds us that national cultures have been particularly stable over time. This
consistency is achieved through a system of constant reinforcement – societal norms lead to particular organisational,
intellectual and structural processes which, in turn, lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy which then reinforces societal
norms (Hofstede, 1984). This process has contributed to the “remarkable stability of values” in India and China and the
continuity in the US character (Hofstede, 1984, p. 234). The core principles of national cultures (values) remain
strikingly robust.
Value orientations
Value orientations are the complex and patterned influences that result from the interplay of the three evaluative
elements – cognitive, affective and directive (Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck, 1961). These processes give order to the
stream of human acts and thought (Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck, 1961). The directive tendency of the human value
system provides for order and continuity. Indeed, a degree of stability and predictability is pre-requisite to effective
performance (Ryder, 1965). However, social norms do not exist at a point or at a very narrow band around a point
(Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck, 1961). Change occurs developmentally through the interlocking of dominant and variant
patterns over time (Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck, 1961). New cultural values cannot be introduced quickly (Brislin, 1993).
Values are passed on from generation to generation and are learned during childhood. Mental models are internalised
early and once inculcated shift slowly (Mead, 1970). Indeed, in the absence of a drastic event, new values will take
several generations to emerge (Brislin, 1993). Generationalists, it appears, apply a structure to the transactional
interplay between the evaluative processes and are thereby denying the very nature of the human psyche (Kluckhohn
and Strodtbeck, 1961).
Pre-figurative learning
In the preface to her book Culture and Commitment, Mead noted that in the late 1940s the central problem agitating
young people was identity. Later on, in the late 1960s, Mead believed that that the problem was commitment (Mead,
1970, p. 1). For example, in the 1960s, in the midst of “tremendous and rapid change”, it was becoming harder and
harder for any young individual growing up to find his or her place (Mead, 1970, p. 1). Mead observed the impact of
new technologies, the emergence of a world community, international media, national tragedy, family breakdown and
space travel as influential factors. The question was at that time: “To what past, present or future can the young
commit themselves?” (Mead, 1970, p. 1). Mead claimed that in the late 1960s modern society was based on a pre-
figurative culture (adults learn from children) where the young had taken on a new authority. Because of the rapidity of
change the young could not share the memories of their parents (Mead, 1970). Indeed, Mead (1970) claimed that the
future was so deeply unknown that it could not be handled.
Relentless change
MacKay (1993) also points to the relentless social, cultural, economic, political and technological change associated
with living in the modern era. MacKay (1993) observed rising levels of stress and society’s emerging incapacity in the
face of continuing change. According to MacKay (1993), individuals have increasingly been left with the feeling of
being alone and have had to find new models of behaviour. For many, the model has been that of their
contemporaries, a type of pre-figurative learning. MacKay (1999) echoes Mead’s (1970) theme when he notes that our
lives are so dominated by choice that we must construct our own identities. Davis (1997) also observes that the
physical distance between Baby Boomers and their offspring (parents retreat, extended working hours, day care, etc.)
combined with the fragmentation associated with the rapid uptake of new technologies has forced those who have
followed to find new models of behaviour.
Recurring generational themes
The young people that Mead (1970) observed and commented on in 1969 were the young Baby Boomers. The
similarities with the Generation X cohort are curiously coincident. Generation X members were first described as
commitment phobic, lazy and self-interested (Tulgan, 1996). In 1969 the issue was also a lack of commitment. Indeed,
Mead’s view that pre-figurative cultural learning will produce a short-lived divergence between generations is also
holding true. More recent data now indicate that the Generation X cohort is driven more by traditional and rational
needs than presently accepted. Generation X members now want job security, interesting and challenging tasks, open
and effective workplace communication, and integrity in workplace practices (CLC, 1999). Young people are not empty
of politics and are engaged (Davis, 1997). Indeed, research undertaken by Penn (1977), which measured
intergenerational value differences between parents and their offspring, tends to support the proposition that the
traditional values of honesty, responsibility, ambition and freedom are given high priority by each group. Although
differences between the offspring and their parents occurred in the ordering of values, both groups possessed similar
value orientations with regard to specific traditional values (Penn, 1977).
Generationalism and modernity
In Gangland, Davis (1997) sees the notion of “generationalism” as one taken up by the increasingly conservative Baby
Boomers. As MacKay (1997) observes, the Baby Boomers are reacting to the generation gap that they never
expected. Davis (1997) sees the notion of discrete generations as a construction, a product of incomplete self-
reflectivity. Generationalism is modernistic, a relic of the industrial era that does not belong in the era of knowledge
capitalism, and, according to Davis (1997), is a rejection of pluralism, conservative and white. Generationalism is little
more than a new way of ushering in a whole new raft of products (Davis, 1997). The parallels between the “teenager”
of the 1950s and the modern era are readily apparent (Davis, 1997).
Based on the foregoing, the claims put forward by generational writers regarding the need to manage the modern
workforce through generationally targeted mechanisms lack the necessary rigour on which to base workforce policy
decisions. Rather academic literature appears to support the notion of individualisation and tailored measures rather
than bulk or generic workforce policy approaches.
The rise of self
Brookeman (1984) observed that the pre-war pressures that forced the USA to drift towards a “vital centre” of core and
agreed democratic values gave way, in the post-war years, to a move away from neo-conservatism. The idea of “self”
began to emerge. The values of efficiency, equality, equity and the fulfilment of self were a rejection of the mass
politics of Stalin and Hitler and the censorship of McCarthyism (Brookeman, 1984). Individualism and meritocracy were
egalitarian, anti-communist and were “capitalism’s main device” (Brookeman, 1984). Individualism, however, was not
accompanied by a wholesale abandonment of pre-existing values. Popular generational writers have looked too
narrowly at modern developments. Indeed, the post-modern and post-Fordist influences that have been associated
with rapid change have impacted all of society. The cross-sectional analysis conducted by popular writers denies the
past and fosters the illusion of an immutable structure (Ryder, 1965).
Cohort shifts
As Ryder (1965, p. 847) observes, “rarely are changes so localised that the burden would exclusively fall on one
cohort”. While generational shifts can occur these shifts would normally be associated with a drastic event. Importantly,
most drastic events also have a system-wide effect that impacts on all levels of society regardless of age. More even-
paced change tends to be associated with the processes of maturation and seniority. Indeed, complaints about the
“younger generation” are not new and have been found in ancient Egyptian manuscripts, Greek texts, Roman literature
and in Shakespeare’s plays (Hofstede, 1984). Interestingly, individual preferences are more likely to be skewed by
factors such as employment, educational background and skill level rather than generational influences (Hofstede,
1984).
Ages and stages
While Hofstede (1984) showed that culture changes and develops over time he also observed no lasting generational
effects. People, subject to individual factors, have adjusted through the chronology of their lives. For example,
individualism and self-assertion decrease with age, while security, personal relationships and environment become
more important (Hofstede, 1984). Goals also shift in their importance according to educational attainment. Highly
educated people tend to be more individualistic and tolerant of uncertainty (Hofstede, 1984). Also, as Ryder (1965)
reminds, different subsets within a cohort have different time patterns of development. Each cohort has a life-cycle
within which major transitions occur. Indeed, cohorts can be pulled apart by the “slow grind of evolutionary change”
(Ryder, 1965, p. 851). Members are dispersed through life-cycle changes such as movement into the labour force,
educational attainment and procreation (Ryder, 1965). Thus, while generational commonality may be likely, community
is not (Ryder, 1965). The so-called unique generational values (if valid) would be unlikely to survive the normal
processes of maturation, socialisation and cultural learning (Mead, 1970).
Caricature and fallacy
Sackett (2002, p. 4) characterises popular generational literature, such as Legree (1997), Tulgan (1996), Tulgan and
Martin (2001), Wong (2000) and Zemke et al. (2000) as “engaging, entertaining and buoyantly enthusiastic” but lacking
in scientific rigour. Davis (1997) agrees that the labels used in popular literature are little more than caricature –
exaggerated and distorted to engage popular interest. Sackett (2002) relies on the work of Ryder (1964, 1965) and
Riley et al. (1988), among others. Ryder (1964, p. 459) in his discussion on micro and macro analysis notes that “it is
invalid to transform a proposition about populations into a proposition about individuals”. Moreover, people’s ages and
fixed dates cannot be used to compare cohorts; “one must first specify the events and experiences that are
hypothesised to lead to cohort differences and then systematically test those hypotheses” (Sackett, 2002, p. 4).
Significantly, the samples tested by popular writers are often selective or non-representative, use retrospective
comparisons and/or use single-point-of-time data (Sackett, 2002). Importantly, as Hofstede (1984, p. 20) explains, the
ideological presumptions of researchers affect the way they “observe, describe, classify, understand and predict
reality”. While a research bias is more or less inevitable, properly researched data should be able to be corroborated
by others using other research methods (Hofstede, 1984). However, the provoked behaviour of the popular interviewer
does not appear to have been made subject to any form of “pragmatic validation” (Hofstede, 1984, p. 17). The lack of
corroboration, in best practice models and academic literature for the notion of discrete generations is significant.
When taken as a whole, the evidence supports the development of workforce policy approaches that provide for
tailoring to individual needs rather than bulk or generic (generational) approaches. The employer of choice frame
provides a model for such an approach.
Employers of choice
Evidence from leading US firms further reinforces the argument that popular generational literature lacks the necessary
rigour to warrant the adoption of workforce policies tailored to the needs of discrete generations. Rather, employers of
choice, in recognising the importance of talent as a source of competitive advantage, are looking to win talent by
tailoring employment policy (CLC, 2000) to capture the dynamism of the modern era rather than discrete generational
values. Typical measures include improving career development opportunities, providing challenging, inspiring,
enjoyable and flexible work, providing progressive benefits, improving incentives and encouraging participation and
open communication (CLC, 2000; Hewitt Associates, 2000; Lowe, 2001). These measures appear to be aimed at
dealing with informationalism, the dynamism of the modern era and the growth in individualism rather than specifically
targeting the generational characteristics of members of the Baby Boomer, Generation X and/or Generation Y cohorts.
Informationalism
In the modern era the value-making potential of organisations and labour is very much dependent on the autonomy of
labour to make decisions in real-time (Castells, 2000). Because the traditional disciplinary mode of management does
not enable innovation and stands in the way of knowledge creation, organisations are seeking to invoke more fluid and
process-based approaches (Castells, 2000). Organisational hierarchies are being abandoned in favour of networks and
virtual organisations (Kochan and Foote-Whyte, 1999; Michalski et al., 2002). Indeed, informationalism is becoming the
basis for social organisation, and the action of knowledge on knowledge, the source of productivity (Castells, 2000).
Dynamism of the modern era
The intensification of technology into daily life and the growth of embedded knowledge has seen the capacity to make
and implement choice fundamentally affected. Also, the technological, economic and social dynamism of the modern
era is enhancing the scope of action available to individuals and is breaking down the old ways of doing things
(Michalski et al., 2002). Inevitably, the distribution and exercise of authority is shifting towards individuals (Michalski et
al., 2002). Indeed, under the influence of higher levels of education, sustained economic growth and rising productivity,
individuals (in the developed world) have gradually become more concerned with quality of life issues (Michalski et al.,
2002).
The rise of individualism
Evidence also shows a link between the productivity of high performing companies and the effective satisfaction of
values such as: autonomy, participation in decision making, and participation in job design (Castells, 2000; Kochan
and Foote-Whyte, 1999). In rapidly changing environments, organic organisations that feature less specialisation, flat
hierarchies and less formalisation have been shown to be more appropriate than industrial bureaucracy (Castells,
2000; Hatch, 1997). Accordingly, leading organisations have responded by improving the capacity of individuals to
engage and participate in new ways of making and implementing decisions, to encourage invention rather than passive
following and to create networks that access the tacit (and the explicit) knowledge of employees. Leading
organisations have also begun to accept that the hierarchical relationships, habits and traditions that have been
ingrained need to be overcome, else the potential benefits associated with the technological, economic and social
dynamism of the modern era would be neutralised (Michalski et al., 2002). The role of the individual is central to this
process.
Conclusion
Low post-Second World War fertility rates combined with the influence of ageing populations will lead to an
intensification of competition to attract and retain skilled workers. Popular writers have suggested that part of the
answer to the problem of attracting and retaining employees may reside in the creation of strategies that target the
unique generational characteristics of veteran, Baby Boomer, Generation X and Generation Y cohorts. While this paper
has argued that the close cultural similarities shared between the USA and Australia would facilitate the take-up of US
workforce management practices, popular literature lacks the necessary rigour to justify a change in policy direction.
Indeed, the bulk of generational data are subjective, non-representative, make use of single-point-of-time data and use
retrospective comparisons. Importantly, popular writers have engaged in an ecological fallacy by attempting to convert
propositions about populations to propositions about individuals.
Moreover, data from the Monitoring the Future Project (in the USA) and ADF surveys reject the notion of distinct
generations. Rather, difference appears to be more related to individual life-cycle stages and the spheres of activities
that individuals engage in. Indeed, unique generational characteristics would be unlikely to survive the processes of
socialisation and maturation. Importantly, workforce management best practice in the USA is looking to capitalise on
the technological, economic and social dynamism of the modern era rather than the flawed observations of popular
“generational” writers. Modern employers have acknowledged the increasing democratisation of society, the influence
of ICTs, the need for faster decision making, the value of knowledge creation, the importance of robust external and
internal relationships and the vital role of open communication. Indeed, in rapidly changing environments, organic
organisations have been shown to be more appropriate than industrial bureaucracy. At the same time, higher levels of
education, sustained economic growth and rising productivity have led to individuals gradually becoming more and
more concerned with quality of life issues. Best practice employers have responded by providing individuals with
improved career development opportunities, flexible benefits and challenging, inspiring, enjoyable and flexible work.
In summary, I reject the notion of distinct generations and therefore the need to tailor workforce policy to match
discrete generational needs. Instead, I agree that organisational and societal change associated with the combined
effect of demographic trends, democratisation, globalisation and ICTs have contributed to a rise in the importance of
the individual and the notion of “self”. In turn, society and organisations have begun to move towards models of
employment that emphasise the individual, work-life balance, quality of employment, worker autonomy, openness,
participation, challenging, inspiring and enjoyable work and flexibility – characteristics also advocated by Florida (2002).
Because the USA leads the world in its progress towards a knowledge economy, advances there may provide
valuable clues for future workforce developments in Australian organisations. Indeed, the noted cultural similarities
shared between the USA and Australia underline the importance of considering “best practice” in the USA when
developing workforce policy. Accordingly, this paper recommends that the ADF:
avoids workforce policy developments predicated on the notion of distinct generational differences;
develops workforce strategies that seek to capitalise on the economic, political, technological and social
dynamism of the modern era, namely policy approaches that emphasise flexible work, reward and benefits,
worker participation, individual autonomy, multiple career pathways, streamlined recruitment and selection and
inspiring, challenging and enjoyable work;
considers the adoption of workforce policy developments and best practice models used in the USA.
Table I –-Top ten reasons for leaving for Generation X
Table II –-Top ten reasons for leaving the ADF for Baby Boomers
Table III –-Top ten reasons for leaving for Generation Y
References
Access Economics (2001), Population Ageing and the Economy,

www.health.gov.au/acc/ofoa/documents/pdf/popagefact3.pdf, .
[Manual request] [Infotrieve]
Accounting Office Management & Administration Report (2002), "Generation X staff: what they want and how to
manage it", Accounting Office Management & Administration Report, http://80-
proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.cqu.edu.au:2048/pqdweb?
TS=1024357957&Did=000000115170321&Fmt=3&Deli=1&Mtd=1&Idx=10&Sid=1&RQT=309, Vol. 2 No.5, .
Allerton, H. (2001), "Generation why", Training & Development, http://80-

TS=1024359890&Did=000000089696084&Fmt=4&Deli=1&Mtd=1&Idx=39&Sid=2&RQT=309, Vol. 55 No.11, .
Baltzell, M. (2000), "Implications of an ageing population: the changing future profiles of the workforce in international
organisations", 2000 Fulbright Symposium, Australia, Changing Workforce Profiles,
www.alcoa.com.au/news/speeches/BMBFulbrightspeech.html, .
BIS Shrapnel (2001), Longterm Forecasts Australia 2001-2016, 27th ed., Electronic version, www.bis.com.au/cgi-
bin/public_view.cgi?action=view&param=10&process=report, .
Brislin, R. (1993), Understanding Culture’s Influence on Behavior, Harcourt Brace College Publishers, New York, NY, .
Brookeman, C. (1984), American Culture and Society Since the 1930s, Macmillan Publishers, London, .
Castells, M. (2000), The Rise of the Network Society. The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, 2nd ed.,
Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, Vol. 1.
Centre for Strategic and International Studies (2000), Global Aging. The Challenge of the New Millennium, Centre for
Strategic and International Studies and Watson-Wyatt Worldwide, www.csis.org, .
Comeau-Kirschner, C., Wah, L. (1999), "Holistic management", Management Review, http://80-

Did=000000046827627&Fmt=4&Deli=1&Mtd=1&Idx=12&Sid=2&RQT=309, Vol. 88 No.11, .
Commonwealth of Australia (2002), Intergenerational Report 2002-3, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, Budget
Paper No. 5, .
Corporate Leadership Council (1997), Generation X: Workforce Dynamics in Manufacturing Environments,

www.corporateleadershipcouncil.com, .
Corporate Leadership Council (1998), Recruiting, Managing and Motivating Generation X,

Corporate Leadership Council (1999), Understanding the Career Decisions of Generation X, Executive Board,
Corporate Leadership Council (2000), Workforce and Workplace of the Future, www.corporateleadershipcouncil.com, .
Corporate Leadership Council (2001), Bridging the Generation Gap, www.corporateleadershipcouncil.com, .
Corporate Leadership Council (2002), Leadership Development Programs for Generation X and Y,
Davis, M. (1997), Gangland: Cultural Elites and the New Generationalism, Allen & Unwin, Maryborough, .
Defence Personnel Executive (2001), Graduate Report, Directorate of Strategic Personnel Planning and Research,
Canberra, .
http://www.library.unsw.edu.au/cgi-bin/Data/db.cgi?db=fulltextte…7C88ED7AD3?contentType=Article&hdAction=lnkhtml&contentId=874223 Page 10 of 13
Florida, R. (2002), The Rise of the Creative Class. And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and
Everyday Life, Basic Books, New York, NY, .
Hatch, M.J. (1997), Organization Theory – Modern, Symbolic and Postmodern Perspectives, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, .
Hays, S. (1999), "Generation X and the art of the reward", Workforce; Costa Mesa, http://80-
proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.cqu.edu.au, Vol. 78 No.11, .
Hewitt Associates (2000), Best Employers to Work for in Australia Study 2000. Summary of Findings, Directorate of
Strategic Personnel Planning and Research, Hewitt Associates for Defence Personnel Executive, Canberra, .
Hofstede, G. (1984), Culture’s Consequences, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA, .
Kluckhohn, F., Strodtbeck, F. (1961), Variations in Value Orientations, Row, Peterson and Company, Evanston, IL, .
Kochan, T., Foote-Whyte, W. (1999), "Participatory management and flexible work systems", Industrial Relations,
www.brittannica.com/bcom/eb/article, .
Kogan, M. (2001), "Bridging the gap across the generation divide in the federal workplace", Government Executive,
http://80-proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.cqu.edu.au:2048/pqdweb?
TS=1024967395&Did=000000081115287&Fmt=4&Deli=1&Mtd=1&Idx=2&Sid=6&RQT=309, .
Legree, P.J. (1997), Generation X: motivation, morals, and values, US Army Research Institute Special Report, June, .
Lowe, G. (2001), Employer of Choice? Workplace Innovation in Government. A Synthesis Report, Canadian Policy
Research Networks Inc., www.cprn.org/cprn.html, .
Lowe, G. (2002), "Leveraging the skills of knowledge workers", Isuma, www.isuma.net/v02n01/glaeser/glaeser_e.shtml,

Vol. 2 No.1, .
MacKay, H. (1993), Reinventing Australia: The Mind and Mood of Australia in the 90s, Angus and Robertson, Sydney,
.
MacKay, H. (1997), Generations Baby Boomers Their Parents and Their Children, Pan Macmillan Australia, Sydney, .
MacKay, H. (1999), Turning Point: Australians Choosing their Future, Pan Macmillan Australia, Sydney, .
Mead, M. (1970), Culture and Commitment: A Study of the Generation Gap, Natural History Press/Doubleday & Co.
Inc., Garden City, NY, .
Michalski, W., Miller, W., Stevens, B. (2002), Governance in the 21st Century, OECD Publications, OECD Secretariat,
Advisory Unit to the Secretary-General, Paris, .
New Focus Research Pty Ltd. (2000), Tracking of Community Attitudes Towards Defence Force Careers, ACT,
Canberra, prepared for Defence Force Recruiting Organisation, Defence Personnel Executive, Directorate of Strategic
Personnel Planning and Research, .
Penn, R. (1977), "Measuring intergenerational value differences", Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 58 No.2, .
Riley, M., Foner, A., Waring, J. (1988), "Sociology of age", in Smelser, N.J. (Eds),Handbook of Sociology, Sage
Publications, Newbury Park, CA, .
Ryder, N. (1964), "Notes on the concept of a population", American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 69 pp.447-63.
Ryder, N. (1965), "The cohort as a concept in the study of social change", American Sociological Review, Vol. 30
pp.845-61.
Sackett, P. (2002), Letter Report March 5, 2002, The National Academies, Division of Behavioural and Social Sciences
and Education, Committee on the Youth Population and Military Recruitment, Washington, DC, .
Schindlmayr, T. (2001), Defence Personnel Environment Scan 2020, http://defweb.cbr.defence.gov.au/dpe, .
Sharpe, P. (2002), "Defence strategic workforce planning review", Address to the Defence Personnel Symposium,
Australian War Memorial, Canberra, 20-21 June, .
Sheen, V. (2001), "Challenging convention: Australia’s ageing workforce – the challenge for human resource
management", Council on the Ageing (Australia) presentation to Australian Human Resources Institute Conference, .
Sujansky, J. (2002), "Generation Y critical care and feeding", Workforce; Costa Mesa, http://80-
Did=000000120908741&Fmt=4&Deli=1&Mtd=1&Idx=8&Sid=2&RQT=309, Vol. 81 No.5, .
Tulgan, B. (1996), Managing Generation X, How to Bring out the Best in Young Talent, W.W. Norton and Co., New
York, NY, .
Tulgan, B., Martin, C. (2001), Managing Generation Y Global Citizens Born in the Late 70s and Early 80s, HRD Press,
Amherst, MA, .
Wong, L. (2000), Generations Apart: Xers and Baby Boomers in the Officer Corps, Strategic Studies Institute,
http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usassi/welcome.htm, .
Zambelli, N. (2002), 2001 Australian Defence Force Exit Survey Report – Reasons for Leaving, Directorate of Strategic
Personnel Planning and Research, Canberra, Research Report 4/2002, .
Zemke, R., Raines, C., Filipczak, R. (2000), Generations at Work: Managing the Clash of Veterans, Boomers, Xers
and Nexters in Your Workplace, American Management Association, New York, NY, .

Baby Boomers, Generation X and Generation Y

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Baby Boomers, Generation X and Generation Y

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.

do;jsessi…ction=lnkhtml&contentId=874223 - Database Access - UNSW Library 19/04/09 5:31 PM

Baby Boomers, Generation X and Generation Y?

Policy implications for defence forces in the modern era

Article Type: Research Paper

Population trends and generationalism

literature may provide an insight.

Popular literature – Baby Boomer, Generation X and Generation Y

value autonomy and independence;

Stability of core values

value teamwork and group discussions;

is information and “media savvy”;

Generational value diversity – implications

Popular literature generational data

ADF survey data

Academic literature: generational data

Recurring generational themes

Generationalism and modernity

The rise of self

Ages and stages

Caricature and fallacy

Dynamism of the modern era

The rise of individualism

Table I –-Top ten reasons for leaving for Generation X

Table III –-Top ten reasons for leaving for Generation Y

Access Economics (2001), Population Ageing and the Economy,

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Allerton, H. (2001), "Generation why", Training & Development, http://80-

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Comeau-Kirschner, C., Wah, L. (1999), "Holistic management", Management Review, http://80-

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Corporate Leadership Council (1997), Generation X: Workforce Dynamics in Manufacturing Environments,

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Corporate Leadership Council (1998), Recruiting, Managing and Motivating Generation X,

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Corporate Leadership Council (2001), Bridging the Generation Gap, www.corporateleadershipcouncil.com, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Hofstede, G. (1984), Culture’s Consequences, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Lowe, G. (2002), "Leveraging the skills of knowledge workers", Isuma, www.isuma.net/v02n01/glaeser/glaeser_e.shtml,

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]