<%BANNER%>

Motivating Generations in the Workplace

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0044244/00001

Material Information

Title: Motivating Generations in the Workplace A Look at Hope and Organizational Commitment
Physical Description: 1 online resource (116 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Cain, Holly Kendall Reed
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: commitment -- differences -- generations -- hope -- motivation -- organizations
Agricultural Education and Communication -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Agricultural Education and Communication thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Today's workplace has received much attention from the media and in social science research regarding generational differences. Today's workplace is comprised of four generations: Veterans, Baby Boomers, Generation Xers, and Millennials. This research sought to examine if any differences existed between generations regarding workplace motivation, hope and organizational commitment. The theoretical frameworks used in this study were Leonard, Beauvais, and Scholl's (1999) Self Concept - Based Work Motivation model, Snyder's et al. (1991) hope theory, and Meyer and Allen's (1991) Three-Component Model of Organizational Commitment. A convenience sample was taken of a financial institution in the southeast region of the United States (n=130). A web-based survey was utilized and the research design was descriptive. The study found that the primary source of workplace motivation for each generation was internal self-concept and the secondary source of workplace motivation for each generation was goal internalization, with the exception of Millennials. Millennials secondary source of workplace motivation was external self-concept. Each generation was found to have high hope and scored close to ideal on the organizational commitment scale. Statistical analysis revealed that there were no significant differences between generations regarding workplace motivation, hope, and organizational commitment. However, correlational analysis revealed that normative commitment and continuance commitment were positively related to goal internalization. The results indicate that the media has falsely stereotyped generations in this workplace and that generational differences may be context bound.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Holly Kendall Reed Cain.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Stedman, Nicole Lamee Perez.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0044244:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0044244/00001

Material Information

Title: Motivating Generations in the Workplace A Look at Hope and Organizational Commitment
Physical Description: 1 online resource (116 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Cain, Holly Kendall Reed
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: commitment -- differences -- generations -- hope -- motivation -- organizations
Agricultural Education and Communication -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Agricultural Education and Communication thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Today's workplace has received much attention from the media and in social science research regarding generational differences. Today's workplace is comprised of four generations: Veterans, Baby Boomers, Generation Xers, and Millennials. This research sought to examine if any differences existed between generations regarding workplace motivation, hope and organizational commitment. The theoretical frameworks used in this study were Leonard, Beauvais, and Scholl's (1999) Self Concept - Based Work Motivation model, Snyder's et al. (1991) hope theory, and Meyer and Allen's (1991) Three-Component Model of Organizational Commitment. A convenience sample was taken of a financial institution in the southeast region of the United States (n=130). A web-based survey was utilized and the research design was descriptive. The study found that the primary source of workplace motivation for each generation was internal self-concept and the secondary source of workplace motivation for each generation was goal internalization, with the exception of Millennials. Millennials secondary source of workplace motivation was external self-concept. Each generation was found to have high hope and scored close to ideal on the organizational commitment scale. Statistical analysis revealed that there were no significant differences between generations regarding workplace motivation, hope, and organizational commitment. However, correlational analysis revealed that normative commitment and continuance commitment were positively related to goal internalization. The results indicate that the media has falsely stereotyped generations in this workplace and that generational differences may be context bound.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Holly Kendall Reed Cain.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Stedman, Nicole Lamee Perez.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0044244:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 MOTIVATING GENERATIONS I N THE WORKPLACE: A LOOK AT HOPE AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT By HOLLY REED CAIN A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FO R THE DE GREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012

PAGE 2

2 2012 Holly Reed Cain

PAGE 3

3 To my mom for teaching me work ethic and my da d for being my spiritual leader

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank Jesus Christ for giving me the strength, guidance, and opportunity to pursue an education, and for the success and growth I have experienced. In everything give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you ( 1 Thessalonians 5:18 ). To my husband Andrew, you have been instrumental in helping me succeed in graduate school. Your unfailing love and support has pushed me through m an y obstacles that I would not have been able to conquer alone. I know everyone says the first year of marriage is the hardest, but we added graduate school to that equation and came out on top. I love you and thank God for you every day. To my mom you are an amazing woman, with great confi dence, determination and success. I have admired you since I was a little girl, and if I achieve half the things you have, then I will be an amazing mother and a hard worker with the utmost integrity. Thank you for teaching me the importance of high values and morals from a young girl to this very day Next, I would like to thank my Grandma Brannon and my Nannie. Both of you have shown and taught me how to be a godly woman and for this I will always be grateful. To my Dad and Papa you may not be here on t his earth any longer, but you are forever in my heart. I cherish the love we ha d for each other and every memory. A special thanks goes to my committee members for helping me conquer what I never thought possible. To Dr. Gifford for capturing my interest i n leadership development and helping me establish a clear direction for research and a solid knowledge of theory. To Dr. Stedman, it has been such a pleasure to experience your creativity and passion for leadership education. You are an incredible educator mentor, and you have a special ability to make everything about education fun. To Dr. Carter for

PAGE 5

5 being a great support in times of need and by helping answer challenging research questions. Your encouragement and compliments helped me jump many hurdles. To Dr. Osborne for giving me the opportunity to study at the number one and most noble AEC department in the nation This experience has truly been a blessing and joy from day one. Thank you for taking a personal interest in me and my study. Your challeng ing questions and suggestions helped make my study important and practical. To Charlotte and Becky for being two awesome mentors. I cannot thank both of you enough for the guidance you have provided me from such a young age. Thank you for holding me to hi gh standards, pushing me through hard tim es, and spending countless hours providing professional and personal advice and being two of the best proof readers! I love you both and your families. I cannot wait to see how our relationships grow in the years to come. Finally, to my colleagues that went through this journey with me. Your encouragement on stressful days saved me more than once. Thank you for helping me whe n I was weak, celebrating successes, and being great people and friends. I wish you all the best in your future endeavors. We may be come separated by distance, but we will always share the memories of graduate school.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 9 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 10 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 13 Background of Generation Studies ................................ ................................ ......... 15 Generations in the Workplace ................................ ................................ ................. 16 Generational Differences ................................ ................................ ........................ 17 Statement of the Problem ................................ ................................ ....................... 18 Purpose and Objectives ................................ ................................ .......................... 22 Significance of the Problem ................................ ................................ .................... 22 Definition of Terms ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 24 Limitations of the Study ................................ ................................ ........................... 25 Assumptions of the Study ................................ ................................ ....................... 25 Chapter Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 25 2 REVIEW OF LITER ATURE ................................ ................................ .................... 27 Generational Theory ................................ ................................ ............................... 27 Motivation Theory ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 30 Theoretical Framework ................................ ................................ ........................... 32 Hope ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 35 Organizational Commitment ................................ ................................ ............. 37 Conceptual Fr amework ................................ ................................ ........................... 40 Generations in the Workplace ................................ ................................ .......... 41 Motivating Generations ................................ ................................ ..................... 43 Hope ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 45 Organizational Commitment ................................ ................................ ............. 46 Conceptual Model ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 47 3 RESEARCH METHODS ................................ ................................ ......................... 49 Research Design ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 49 Population and Sample ................................ ................................ ........................... 50 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 51 Instrumentation ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 53 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 56

PAGE 7

7 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 57 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 58 Demographics ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 60 Sex ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 60 Marital Status ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 60 Generational Cohort ................................ ................................ ......................... 60 Race/Ethnicity ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 61 Education ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 61 Yearly Household Income ................................ ................................ ................ 62 Objective 1 ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 63 Veterans ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 63 Baby Boomers ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 63 Generation X ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 64 Millennials ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 64 Objective 2 ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 65 Objective 3 ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 67 Objective 4 ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 69 Objective 5 ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 70 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 73 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDA TIONS ................................ .. 74 Objectives ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 74 Methodology ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 75 Summary of Findings ................................ ................................ .............................. 75 Demographics ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 75 Objective 1: Identify dominant and secondary sources of work motivation of generational cohorts ................................ ................................ ...................... 76 Objective 2: Determine differences in the state of hope by generational cohort ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 76 Objective 3: Determine differences in organizational commitmen t by generational cohort ................................ ................................ ....................... 77 Objective 4: Describe the relationship between sources of work motivation, hope, and organizational commitment ................................ .......................... 77 Objective 5: Predict hope and organizational commitment based on work motivation with selected demographics. ................................ ........................ 77 Conclusions ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 78 Objective 1: Identify dominant and secondary sources of work motivation of generational cohorts ................................ ................................ ...................... 78 Objective 2: Determine differences in the state of hope by generational cohort ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 79 Objective 3: Determine differences in organizational commitment by generational cohort ................................ ................................ ....................... 79 Objective 4: Describe the relationsh ip between sources of work motivation, hope, and organizational commitment ................................ .......................... 79

PAGE 8

8 Objective 5: Predict hope and organizational commitment based on work motivation with selected demographics. ................................ ........................ 80 Discussion and Implications ................................ ................................ .................... 80 National Research Agenda ................................ ................................ ..................... 89 Recomme ndations ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 90 Recommendations for Practice ................................ ................................ ........ 90 Recommendations for Research ................................ ................................ ...... 91 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 91 APPENDIX A INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL ................................ .................... 92 B S URVEY COMPLETION REQUESTS ................................ ................................ .... 94 Initial Contact Email ................................ ................................ ................................ 95 First Follow Up Email ................................ ................................ .............................. 96 Second Follow Up Email ................................ ................................ ......................... 97 Third Follow Up Email ................................ ................................ ............................. 98 Fourth Follow Up Email ................................ ................................ .......................... 99 Fifth Follow Up Email ................................ ................................ ............................ 100 Final Contact Email ................................ ................................ ............................... 101 C I NSTRUMENTATION ................................ ................................ ........................... 102 Motivation Sources In ventory ................................ ................................ ................ 102 State Hope Scale ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 104 Organizational Commitment Scale ................................ ................................ ....... 105 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 107 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 116

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 1 Generational Cohorts in the 2010 labor force ................................ ........................ 14 4 1 Participants by sex ................................ ................................ ................................ 60 4 2 Participants by marital status ................................ ................................ ................. 60 4 3 Participants by generational cohort ................................ ................................ ........ 61 4 4 Participants by race/ethnicity ................................ ................................ ................. 61 4 5 Participants by education ................................ ................................ ....................... 62 4 6 Participants by yearly household income ................................ ............................... 62 4 7 MSI scores for Veterans ................................ ................................ ......................... 63 4 8 MSI scores for Baby Boomers ................................ ................................ ............... 63 4 9 MSI scores for Generation X ................................ ................................ .................. 64 4 10 MSI scores for Millennials ................................ ................................ .................... 64 4 11 Hope scale scores by generational cohort ................................ ........................... 66 4 12 One way analysis of variance between generational cohort and hope ................ 67 4 13 Organizational commitment scores by generational cohort ................................ .. 68 4 14 One way analysis of vari ance bet ween generational cohort and organizational commitment ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 69 4 1 5 Relationship between work motivation, hope, and organizational commitment ... 70 4 16 Backward Regression Analysis of Agency (Hope) ................................ ............... 71 4 17 Backward Regression Analysis of Pathway (Hope) ................................ ............. 71 4 18 Backward Regression Analysis of Normative Commitment ................................ 72 4 19 Backward Regression Analysis of Continuance Commitment .............................. 73

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure pag e 2 1 Conceptual model of the relationship between generational sources of motivation, hope and organizational commitment. ................................ .................. 48

PAGE 11

11 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science MOTIVATING GENERATIONS I N THE WORKPLACE: A LOOK AT HOPE AND ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT By Holly Re ed Cain May 2012 Chair: Nicole Stedman Major: Agricultural Education and Communication social science four generations: Veterans, Baby Boomers, Generation Xers, and Millennials. This research sought to examine if any differences existed between generations regarding workplace motivation, hope and organizational commitment. The theoretical frameworks used in th is study were Self Concept Based Work Motivation model (1991) Three Component Model of Organizational Commitment. A convenience sample was taken of an institu tion in the southeast region of the United States (n=130) A web based survey was utilized and the research design was descriptive. The study found that the primary source of workplace motivation for each generation was self concept internal and the second ary source of workplace motivation for each generation was goal internalization, with the exception of Millennials. Millennials secondary source of workplace motivation was self concept external Each generation was found to have high hope and scored close to ideal on the organizational

PAGE 12

12 commitment scale. Statistical analysis revealed that there were no significant differences between generations regarding workplace motivation, hope, and organizational commitment. However, correlational analysis revealed tha t normative commitment and continuance commitment were positively related to goal internalization. The results indicate that the media has falsely stereotyped generations in this workplace and that generational differences may be context bound

PAGE 13

13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The United States has been facing a major shift in demographics. Current research shows the workforce has been both aging (process of growing older) and shrinking (reducing in size) (Meister & Willyerd, 2010). Due to the 2008 economic crisis, older workers merely cannot afford to retire and many are expected to enter second careers in the workforc e (Meister & Willyerd, 2010). According to the Pew Research rends in 2009, half of all working adults in the United St ates between the ages of 50 and 64 say they will delay retiremen t and another 16% reported they never expect to stop working (Tapscott, 2009) In addition to the lingering of older workers, the youngest workers, those born between 1977 and 1997 are rapidly entering the workforce (Tapscott, 2009) According to Tapscott (2009), in 2009 younger workers represent ed only 22 % of all workers, but are expected to represent 47 % of all workers by 2014 (Tapscott, 2009). According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (201 0), in 2010 Millennials (the youngest workers) represented 23.4% of employed workers, Generation X represented 32.7%, Baby Boomers represented 39.4%, and Veterans represented 4.5%. Table 1 1 reports the generational cohorts that were employed, unemployed, and not in labor force in 2010 Considering these trends, age diversity has become the most recent problem facing organizations today (Meister & Willyerd, 2010; Eisn er, 2005). Despite workforce diversity in the past pertaining to gender, race and ethnicity age diversity distinguishes (Zemke, Raines, & Filipczak, 2000). As a result of age diversity, employees are likely to engage in workplace conflict caused by differing values,

PAGE 14

14 Table 1 1. Generational Cohorts in the 2010 labor force Note. Numbers in thousands Adapted from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. ( 2010 ). Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population by age, sex, and r ace [Household data annual averages]. R etrieved from http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat3.pdf Employed Unemployed Not in labor force Population Genera tional Cohort Total Percent Total Percent Total Total Veteran 6,268 4.5 449 3.0 31,988 38,705 Baby Boomer 54,827 39.4 4,429 30.0 20,926 80,182 Generation X 45,474 32.7 4,205 28.0 10,213 59,892 Millennial 32,494 23.4 5,741 39.0 20,814 59,049 T otal 139,063 14,824 83,941 237,828

PAGE 15

15 perspectives and reactions (Martin & Tulgan, 2002 ; Dwyer, 2009 ). The response to age trend s and concerns in the workplace by researchers, managers and other practi tioners is heavily focused on understanding generational differences Background of Generation Studies The notion of generations has been commonly used in everyday language to differentiate age groups in society. However, generational research can be trace d back four thousand years ago (Braungart and Braungart, 1984; Lauer, 1973). The focus of generational research began by the influence of the nineteenth century French positivists and the German romantic historical movement of the nineteenth and early twen tieth centuries (Carpini, 1989) The French positivists believed that generations were connected by the biological process of aging and the process of generational replacement every century. On the other hand, the German romantic historical movement made t 1989). Carpini (1989) explains that an age cohort is a group of people who fall into the same age group in a specific time period. For example, an age cohort is all individuals between t he ages of eighteen and twenty eight in the year 1982. This example implies nothing specific about this age group other than age similarity. Conversely, a generation as Mannheim (1972) elucidated nces, some common bond that is on a particular age cohort within a population (pg. 303). According to Mann may or may not develop n this transformation depends on whether a common bond is formed. Therefore, one should not assume that people of similar ages belong to the same generation, but if people of

PAGE 16

16 similar ages share cultural, social or economic experiences or any defining movements in history then perhaps the y are a part of the same generation. Since the nineteenth century, generational research has mostly evolved around the views of the German romantic historical movement. In 1923, Karl Mannheim wrote, idespread interpretation believed among researchers because of its systemic nature and due to it being a fully developed treatment of generations from a sociological perspective (Pilcher, 1994). Since 1923, researchers have continued to study generations i n the context of the workforce and covering a multitude of areas including: personalities, core value s, defining cultural, economic and social events, as well as leadership prefer ences, and generational gap s in the workplace (Kogan, 2001; Ansoorian, Good & Samuelson, 2003; Hammill, 2005; Martin & Tulgan, 2002; Dulin, 2008) Generations in the Workplace today being more unique than any other time in history (Zemke, Raines, & Filipcz ak, 2000). For the first time ever four generations ( Arsenault, 2004; Glass, 2007 ; Macky, Gardner & Forsyth, 2008; Dwyer, 2009 ). Most research has been consistent on the four generations found in the workplace today: Veter ans (core values: hard work, dedication, respect for authority), Baby Boomers (core values: optimism, personal gratification and growth) Generation X (core values: diversity, technoliteracy, fun and informality), and Millennials (also referred to as Gen Y ; core values: optimism, civic duty, confidence, achievement), (Dwyer, 2009; Zemke et al., 2000; Arsenault, 2003) However, only a general consensus is known in defining the birth years of each generation. According to Dwyer (2009) the following define th e birth

PAGE 17

17 years: Veterans (1915 1945), Baby Boomers (1946 1964), Generation X (1965 1980) and Millennials (1980 present) (Dwyer, 2009). The age range of employees has progressively widened as Baby Boomers are resistant to exit the work force (Dencker, Aparna & Martocchio, 2007) and Millennials enter the workforce Veterans and Millennials comprise the smallest percentage of workers, while Baby Boomers and Generation X comprise the largest percentage of workers (Glass, 2007 ; Howe & Strauss, 2000 ). According t o a poll in 2004 by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), human resource professionals reported that on average their workplace consisted of approx imately 10 percent Veterans, 44% Baby Boomers, 34 % Generation X and 12 % Millennials (Burke, 2004) Predominantly, Veterans are phasing out of the workforce and Millennials are making a vastly increasing appearance (Glass, 2007 ; Dwyer, 2009 ). With changes in age demographics as well as gender, ethnic, religious, and racial diversity (Murphy, Gibson & G reenwood, 2010) the workplace is experiencing a severe transformation (Meister & Willyerd, 2010). Therefore many researchers would agree that research in this area will be just as important today as it was in past years Generational Differences Many scho lars have acknowledged the existence of g enerational differences in the workplace (Zemke, 2001; Ansoorian, Good, & Samuelson, 2003; Dulin, 2008; Dwyer, 2009, Salahuddin, 2010). Thus, there has been an emergent awareness that misinterpretations and bitterne ss among the older and younger generations has been on the rise and problematic (Zemke, Raines, & Filipczak, 2000). Differences in values, ambitions, views, mind sets, goals, experiences, expectations and demographics are many of the problems that managers are facing in the workplace (Zemke et al., 2000;

PAGE 18

18 onflicting voices and country has known since our great grea t grandparents vacated field and farm for factory and office (p.10). Many potential effects of generational differences in the workplace have been identified. According to Smola and Sutton (2002) and Hammill (2005), ignoring generational differences will cause miscommunication, high employee turnover, and challenges when attracting employees and increasing motivation and commitment. Fu rthermore, Dulin (2008) stated that organizations with an understand ing of generational differences will have a competitive edge, increased recruitment and retention, thereby creating a steadfast organization. Arsenault (2004) stated that failure to understand generational differences prevents organizations from capitalizing on the strengths of generational cohorts. Statement of the Problem According to Tulgan (2004), in the midst of a powerful demographic shift, managers are being pressured to increase productivity and product quality. Therefore, a problem manifests as to where managers should focus their attention, on divers ity issues or on technical processes. Managers who neglect to supervise their employees will spend more time reconciling employee conflicts, correcting employee errors, recovering lost resources and resolving vendor and customer complaints (Tulgan, 2004). However, when managers learn to focus their attention on employees they will generate higher productivity, quality, moral and retention (Tulgan, 2004). Therefore, as Eis n er (2005) warned, managers should be weary of oversimplifying workplace

PAGE 19

19 differences, and should view generational differences as one important aspect of diversity that requires attention. In addition to the pressures of productivity, managers have already faced challenges with multiple generations in the workforce. For example, since the arrival of Generation X in the workplace, Baby Boomers have been unable to master their management (Howe & Strauss, 2000). Furthermore, w ith the addition of Millennials in the workplace, managing generations will merely become more complex; especially when all four generations are managing each other. In fact, 85 % of respondents to a poll by the SHRM in April 2011 (n=263) stated that employees in their organizations were reporting to managers of younger generations (SHRM, 2011). In the same study, the SHRM found that one problem with older generations reporting to younger generations was that older generations disliked the management style of younger generations (SHRM, 2004). With these challenges in workplace dynamics, managers and leaders must be able to e mbrace the differences and similarities among generations by understand ing critical life experiences and resulting beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes that shape each generation (Hill, 2002). Furthermore, managers and leaders should understand motivational differences among generations, because Tulgan (2004), makes it apparent that managing a workplace with a one size fits all approach will no longer work and traditional management tactics will need to be replaced Hatfield (2002) also claims that one reward system in a workplace of four generations is unlikely to satisfy everyone. Therefore, rewards and encouragement must be structured to align with the values and beliefs among each generation (Hatfield, 2002). Work must be enriched (satisfying) for

PAGE 20

20 all gene rations to be motivated (Herzberg, 1968) According to Herzberg (1968) when employees are motivated, performance levels and job satisfaction will increase, which results in lower absenteeism and turnover. Therefore, determining what the sources of work mo tivation are for each generation will further explain what managers can do to keep an engaged workplace. The meta theory of work motivation (Leonard, Beauvais & Scholl, 1999) provides tangible ways for managers in workplace settings to adjust tasks and res ponsibilities to align more fully with a motivation. In order to embrace the age diversity in the workplace and maintain productivity, understanding sources of work motivation among varying generations must be known (Barbuto & Mi ller, 2008). Consequently, the problem under investigation was to determine the sources of work motivation for the four generations in the workplace. M otivating employees to do what those with formal power want them to do has been said by Maccoby (1988) t o be a longstanding work motivation sources, such as interests, values, and beliefs will be one way that organizations will be able to successfully compete and survive (Maccoby, 1988). Along w ith identifying sources of work motivation, hope and organizational commitment were two additional constructs under investigation. With knowledge of the existing levels of hope and organizational commitment among generations, managers can use motivation t actics to increase levels of both constructs. When levels of hope are high, employees can take on long term goals that are more complex in nature (Snyder, 1995). Employees with higher levels of hope are also more motivated to accomplish goals, because they can visualize and describe their goals (Snyder, 1995). Managers can also

PAGE 21

21 use motivation tactics to influence organizational commitment. When an employee is highly committed to an organization, they are embedded in the mission and vision of the organizatio n, often working harder and better at their jobs when compared to employees with weaker levels of commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1997). For managers to fully utilize the talents of their workers, they must first identify and adapt to the era shaped needs of em ployees who will not become fully engaged until their most urgent needs are met (Dulin, 2008). Understanding the sources of work motivation, along with levels of hope and organizational commitment among generations, will provide managers with knowledge for meeting the needs of their employees. Limited educational research on generations in the 1990s shows a gap in the discussion of generations and suggests that the discussion of generations has been period bound and lacking perspective (Smith, 2001). Theref ore, further research on generations will provide depth and perspective in understanding the multiple generations co existing in the workplace, particularly with regards to differences. Although p ast research has acknowledge d that generational differences exist, most of this research has been qualitative and focused on differing values, attitudes, and behaviors (Murphy, Gibson, & Greenwood, 2010). Looking beyond the behaviors of employees to understanding what drives them, will provide managers and leaders with advantages on effectively motivating and influencing employees (Lipkin & Perrymore, 2009). Without specific knowledge of generational differences managers will be unable to embrace these differences and utilize existing talent. According to Arsenault (2004), the principal reason for generational misunderstandings is the limited empirical research to validate generational differences (Arsenault, 2004). The lack of knowledge regarding

PAGE 22

22 the implications of work motivation, hope and organizational commitmen t in the workplace established the need for this research. Purpose and Objectives The purpose of this study was to ascertain if differences exist between generations with regards to sources of work motivation and to determine the impact of work motivation on hope and organizational commitment. Dominant and secondary sources of work motivation were identified for Veterans, Baby Boomers, Generation X and Millennials. The following were the objectives for this study : To identify dominant and secondary sources of work motivation of generational cohorts Determine differences in the state of hope by generational cohort Determine differences in organizational commitment by generational cohort To describe the relationship between sources of work motivation, hope an d organizational commitment To predict hope and organizational commitment based on motivation with selected demographics Significance of the Problem Human resource policies and employee development plans are affected in two major ways with the existence of multiple generations in the workplace, retention and motivation (Glass, 2007). Each generation reacts differently to these plans and partly due to differing expectations (Glass, 2007). Understanding the needs, desires, and expectations of each generation wil l give human resource professionals and managers an advantage in evaluating existing programs and designing new programs. Management must find ways to utilize the strengths of all generations and make decisions with each cohort in mind (Glass, 2007).

PAGE 23

23 A ccording to Meister and Willyerd ( 2010 ), human resource professionals and managers are not the only people concerned with generational differences; Veterans and Baby Boomers are concerned about working for a manager in a workplace of four generations. Both Veterans and Boomers want to work for a manager who understands how to deal with age diversity in the workplace ( Meister & Willyerd, 2010 ). Employers who adapt to a multigenerational workforce the fastest, by understanding each generation, will be equippe d to attract the highest quality of talent in a competitive workforce (Meister & Willyerd, 2010). Emphasizi ng and centering research on understanding generational differences and recognizing the types of conflic ts that could potentially arise allows manage rs to have a better understanding of generational preferences in a workplace setting. When a manager has an awareness of generational differences, they are more prepared to regulate the differences in order to enhance team and organizational success (Glass 2007). In addition, this study was an effort to further the body of knowledge regarding generational differences in the workplace for the benefit of researchers, leaders, managers, management consultants and human resource professionals. This study will provide stakeholders with generation specific knowledge that will aid when designing incentive programs, workplace policies and benefits, communicating with employees, managing for diversity, strategizing recruitment efforts, conducting job matching and de sign, as well as designing training programs and conducting future research. Furthermore, this study sought to address the National Research Agenda for Agricultural Education and Communication (Osborne, n.d). This agenda provided

PAGE 24

24 research priority areas an d key outcomes for 2011. This research specifically addressed priority area 3. Priority 3: Sufficient scientific and professional workforce that addresses the challenges of the 21 st century. Key Outcome: A sufficient supply of well prepared agricultural s cientists and professionals will drive sustainable growth, scientific discovery, and innovation in public, private, and academic settings. Definition of Terms For the purpose of this research, the following terms were operationally defined. 1. Generation: a group also referred to as a cohort that shares birth years, age location, and significant life events at critical develo pmental stages, divided by five to seven years into the first wave, core group, and last wave (Kupperschmidt, 2000). 2. Veteran: people bo rn between the years of 1915 and 1945 Core values: dedication, hard work and respect for authority (Dwyer, 2009) 3. Baby Boomer: people born between the years of 1946 and 1964 Core values: optimism, personal gratification and growth (Dwyer, 2009) 4. Generation X ers : people born between the years of 1965 and 1979 Core values: diversity, technoliteracy, fun and informality (Dwyer, 2009) 5. Millennial: people born from 1980 to present Core values: optimism, civic duty, confidence and achievement (Dwyer, 2009) 6. Work Motivation: energetic forces that originates both within as well as beyond related behavior, and to determine its form, direction, intensity, and duration (Pinder, 1998). In this study work motivation was defined as Inventory (Barbuto & Scholl, 1998). 7. Hope: a unidimensional construct involving an overall perception that goals can be m et (Snyder & et al, 1991). It is along with (Snyder, 1995). State Hope Scale (Snyder & et al., 1996). 8. Organizational Commitment: the strength of an identificatio n with and involvement in a particular o rganization ( Mowday Steers, & Porter 1979).

PAGE 25

25 the Organizational Commitment Scale (Allen & Meyer, 1997). Limitations of the Study As wit h any study there were certain limitations that exist ed within the gen eralizability of this study. This study sampled employees at a mid sized, multi branch institution in the southeast region of the United States. T herefore the findings of this study ar e limited in generalizability to other organizations due to the purposive sampling method The second limitation was encountered due to the use of a purposive sampling technique, which limits the ability to account for sampling error. In addition, control ling for social desirability was an important limitation for this study Stereotypes associated with generational cohorts could influence the way a study participant responded to survey questions. Assumptions of the Study There was one basic assumption f or the purpose of this study. The assumption was that the study participants were truthful abo ut their age and were placed in the appropriate generational cohort. Chapter Summary The purpose of this study was to address the lack of understanding regarding the existence of generational differences with respect to work motivation. In addition, hope and organizational commitment were analyzed to determine if sources of work motivation impacted the level of either construct. With a workforce comprised of four generations, managers, human resource professionals and consultants who are cognizant of the different behaviors, attitudes, and needs of each generation stand in a

PAGE 26

26 are m (pg.4). The findings of this research will be useful for managers, leaders, human resources pr ofessionals and consultants who strive to create a workplace where employees can reach their ultimate potential and feel valued.

PAGE 27

27 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE The purpose of this study was to ascertain if differences exist between generations with reg ards to sources of work motivation and to determine the relationship between work motivation, hope and organizational commitment. The objectives of this study were to: 1) identify dominant and secondary sources of work motivation of generational cohorts, 2 ) determine differences in the state of hope by generational cohort 3) d etermine differences in organizational commitment by generational cohort 4) describe the relationship between sources of work motivation, hope and organizational commitment and 5) p redict hope and organizational commitment based on work motivation with selected demographics This chapter presents a review of the salient literature and research relevant to this study. The review of literature was concerned with generational cohorts an d generational differences in the workplace, as well as theories of generations, work motivation, hope and organizational commitment. The literature review begins with a comprehensive outline of the theoretical framework used to conduct this research and d evelops into a conceptual framework. Through an understanding of both the theoretical foundation, as well as previous research, the gap in the current knowledge base and the need for future research will become more perceptible. Generational Theory The un derlying principle of studying a workforce by generation affiliation can be based on social identity theory, which states that people tend to find their identity by pla cing themselves in a social category (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Through this process,

PAGE 28

28 individuals adopt characteristics and behaviors that reflect the group in which they categorized themselves. Therefore, according to Howe & Strauss (1991), a generation can be seen as a subset of the social identity theory where a group of people seeks self identification through their generational cohort. Furthermore, a generational cohort is comprised of people who share life experiences, such as historical or social exp eriences. These experiences have a propensity to distinguish one generation from another (Jurkiewicz & Brown, 1998). Accordingly, Howe and Strauss (1991) stated that each generation has its own ality was shaped and subsequently, how its personality shapes other generations. In addition, a generation persona recognized and determined by (1) common age location; (2) common beliefs personality helps distinguish one generation from the next based on those three areas. According to Coomes and DeBard (2004), the third area should be viewe d with highest importance, because in order for a generation to form, the members of the generation must see themselves as being distinct from other generations. At the core of generational theory lies the strong link between age and societal events, whic A cohort group is a group of people born within a specific span of years. Thus, Howe approximately m atches that of a basic phase of life, or about twenty two years over the

PAGE 29

29 diverse lifestyles that continue to move forward in time as generations grow older. For that reason, Howe and Strauss (1991) visualized age location along a generational diagonal that allows a connection between an event, an age and the behavior of a certain generation over a period of time. Additionally, generational theory posits that generatio ns shape history as much as history shapes generations. Therefore, a second principal of generational theory reasons that as social moments affect people in different phases of life, these moments define their generation. However, different phases of life can also trigger social moments, and this circumstance allows generations to shape and define history (Howe & Strauss, 1991). Furthermore, generational theory includes what Howe and Strauss (1991) referred to as dominant and recessive generations. Generat ions become dominant when they must respond to crises during their progression to adulthood (ages 22 43). In contrast, other generations become recessive when they do not experience crises as they mature into adulthood. Howe and Strauss (1991) gave the exa mple of the GI generation (born 1901 1924) being a dominant generation in response to the Great Depression and World War II. However, the Veteran generation has been coined as recessive due to growing up during a period of postwar peace and prosperity. The final concept of generation theory describes the four diagonal life cycles that generations pass through in a fixed order, as long as society rebounds from any given crisis with reasonable success. The four stages include: idealist, reactive, civic and ad aptive. According to Howe and Strauss (1991), the passage of four generations from idealist through adaptive completes one full generation cycle, occurring over the course

PAGE 30

30 of ninety years. The four life cycles were described as follows by Howe and Strauss (1991), where spiritual awakening refers to a society focused on changing world values and behavior, and secular crises refer to a society focused on reordering outer world institutions and public behavior: fixated Idealist Generation gr ows up as increasingly indulged youths after a secular crisis; comes to age inspiring a spiritual awakening; fragments into a narcissistic rising adults; cultivates principle as moralistic midlifers; and emerges as visionary elders guiding the next secular youths during a spiritual awakening; matures into risk taking, alienated rising adults; mellows into pragmatic midlife leaders during a secular crisis; and maintain fixated Civic Generation grows up as increasingly protected youths after a spiritual awakening; comes of age overcoming a secular crisis; unities into a heroic and achieving cad re of rising adults; sustains that image while building institutions as powerful midlifers; and emerges as busy elders attacked by youths during a secular crisis; matures into risk averse, conformist rising adults; produces indecisive midlife arbitrator leaders during a spiritual awakening; and Motivation Theory eory of Human Motivation posits that human needs arrange themselves in hierarchies of dominance, where each need builds off the satisfaction of the prior dominant need. Five areas of basic human needs are identified in hierarchical order by the Theory of H uman Motivation: psychological needs, safety needs, love needs, esteem needs, and the need for self actualization. People are motivated to achieve certain levels of desire within each need or maintain certain conditions of each need. However, when each nee d has been met, motivation to actively seek resources to satisfy hunger ceases (Maslow, 1943). In addition, psychological threats develop when

PAGE 31

31 any thwarting interferes with basic human needs, where emergency reactions generally result (Maslow, 1943). Certa in conditions must exists before need satisfaction occurs, such as freedom to speak, freedom to do what one wishes as long as others are not f. Justice, fairness, honesty and orderliness are examples of prerequisites for basic need satisfactions (Maslow, 1943). practical and applicable to the meaning of work life (Haasen & Shea, 1997). The Factors has been referred to as a two factor theory (Haasen & Shea, 1997) that helps two independent sets of factors as job satisfiers (motivators) and job dissatisfiers (hygiene factors). The satisfiers consist of five components: achieve ment, recognition, the work itself, responsibility, and advancement. The dissatisfiers are working conditions, supervision, interpersonal relations, pay, and company policy (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). The satisfiers have been found to produce l ong term impacts, while the dissatisfiers have produced short term impacts (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). Vroom (1964) developed the Theory of Work Motivation by coalescing theories of individual behavior is derived from conscious choices amid alternatives that are systematically related to psychological processes primarily resulting from beliefs and attitudes (Pinder, 1984).

PAGE 32

32 Vroom placed emphasis on the level of motivation and the outc ome of performance, defining performance as the degree to which an individual believes a certain level of performance will lead to a desired outcome (Vroom, 1964; Ramlall, 2004). Vroom identified three components that initiate and direct behavior: valence, instrumentality, and expectancy. Valence encompasses the emotional attachment, strength, and preference or value an individual holds towards outcomes (Vroom, 1964). Vroom (1964) described instrumentality as a probability that a certain outcome will lead t o other outcomes. Additionally, expectancy is the belief an individual holds regarding the actuality that certain outcomes are possible (Vroom, 1964). Theoretical Framework As a result of early motivational theories focusing on basic human needs and studi es thereafter becoming replete in literature, the foundation of this study was built on Self Concept Based Work Motivation model. t heories together for the purpose of developing a unifying framework for motivation in an organizational setting (Leonard, Beauvais, & Scholl, 1999). Many of the sources of motivation included in this model have been discussed in extant literature and gener ally accepted among researchers as valid. However, Leonard et al. (1999) discovered that the existing sources of motivation lacked the ability to account for a variety of employee behaviors. Consequently, Leonard et al. (1999) included self concept as a va lid source of explaining motivation and behavior in their theory. Leonard et al. (1999) proposed that individuals have perceptions of traits, competencies, and values. Traits describe relatively permanent patterns of behavior or reaction tendencies. Compe tencies include the skills, abilities, talents, and knowledge

PAGE 33

33 individuals believe of themselves. Values refer to concepts and beliefs an individual holds toward a desirable end state. Such values rise above situations, events and evaluations of behavior an & Bilsky, 1990; Leonard et al., 1999). Leonard et al. (1999) contextualized traits, competencies and values into three interrelated self perceptions: the perceived self, the ideal self, and a set o f social identities. The perceived self expresses the set of perceptions individuals hold about their actual traits, competencies, and values. Through the interaction with the environment and the formation of attitudes, the perceived self is developed. However, the ideal self describes the traits, competencies and values an individual desires to possess. The ideal self is developed through the association with a reference group that provides positive or negative feedback. Positive feedback elicits one to internalize the traits, competencies, and values important to the reference group. Conversely, amidst negative feedback from the reference group, one may partially internalize the accepted traits, competencies and values or not internalize any. Continuin g to social identities, individuals will place themselves into a social category where they perceive themselves to belong (Tajfel & Turner, 1985; Leonard et al., 1999). Social identities are developed through reference group participation and interactions (Leonard et al., 1999). Furthermore, in an organizational setting once a social identity has been established, an employee acts based on behavioral options, sets and accepts goals, engages in projects, and typically exerts behavior for social feedback tha t aligns with concept. Over time, the self concept develops into a source of

PAGE 34

34 internalized perception of self (Leonard et al., 1999). Therefore, Leonard, Beauvais, and Scholl (1999) offered five propositions for unifying sources of work motivation. Proposition one suggested that there are five basic sources of work motivation: intrinsic process, extrinsic/instrumental rewards, self concept external self co ncept internal and goal internalization. Proposition two suggested that motivational profiles can characterize individuals based on strengths of each source. Proposition three suggested that every individual has a dominant source of motivation that stands as a basis for decision making and behavior. Proposition four two or more sources of motivation conflict. Proposition five suggested that motivation source profiles di ffer for individuals when situations or identity change (Leonard, Beauvais, & Scholl, 1999). A comprehensive description of each motivation source was provided by Leonard et al. (1999) as projected in proposition one. The first source, i ntrinsic process mo tivation is possessed by employees who are motivated to perform work or certain types of behavior for the pure fun of doing Intrinsically motivated employees are unconcerned with feedback on performance and regularly deflect from job tasks leading to goa l attainment, in order to purse more enjoyable tasks. Second, employees dominant in i nstrumental motivation see goal attainment linked to higher levels of extrinsic rewards, such as pay or promotions. Employees motivated instrumentally will solve conflict by seeking alternatives leading to goal attainment. The third source, s elf concept external identifies employees that are motivated by meet ing the expectations

PAGE 35

35 of others and, therefore, employees behave in ways that elicit social feedback con sistent with their self concept. Fourth, self concept internal dominant employees are motivated to engage in behaviors that are consisten t with their internal standards and that lead to higher competencies. Employees will overcome conflicting plans by remaining commit ted to the plan that results in feedback linked to internal values. Although self concept internal employees will not take credit for success, they must believe success was a result of their involvement. The last source of motivation, goal internalization is unlike all the other sources, due to the removal of self interest (Barbuto & Scholl, 1998). Thus attitudes and behaviors are based solely on an personal value system (Barbuto & Scholl, 1998). Social feedback provides employees with reassura nce that they are progressing toward goal attainment (Leonard, Beauvais, & Scholl, 1999). Hope Although many scholars have defined hope as a unidimensional construct of the overall perception that goals can be met (Snyder et al., 1991), few have develo ped theories. Stotland (1969) present, some level of importance must be placed on goal achievement (Snyder 1995). Similarly, Averill, Catlin, and Chon (1990) believed hope to be an emotion managed by a set of rules and meaningful when goals are important. Both theories lend challenges for measure, and for that reason, this study adopted hope theory, the most widely accepted theory posited by Snyder et al. (1991). Hope theory defines hope as a bidimensional construct including two postulations. The first postulation states that hope is driven by the acuity of successful agencies related to goals. Here, agency r efers to an

PAGE 36

36 individual feeling capable of successful determination in meeting goals in the past, present and future. Agency thinking encompasses the perceived ability to use a pathway in order to attain a desired goal. The desire of the goal is the motivat ional component of hope theory (Snyder, 2002). The second postulation states that hope is influenced by the alleged accessibility to successful pathways related to goals. Pathway refers to an individual feeling capable of accomplishing successful plans an d meeting goals (Snyder et al., 1991). Craig (1943) declared that individuals approach goal setting by generating possible routes, reasoning that individuals always think of ways to get from point A to point B. Furthermore, Snyder et al. (1991) offered a m ore comprehensive view of both postulations, when saying, agency and the way represents the pathway. However, Snyder et al. (1991) made it clear that the agency pathway relationship cannot be viewed with such simplicity. Rather, the agency develop agency pathway thinking over the course of their childhood. Therefore, low levels of hope often result from individuals not being taught to think positively as children or from certain social events in childhood that combine to eradicate hopeful thoughts. Nevertheless, hope can be learned through the influence of other individuals (Snyder, 2002). Moreover Snyder et al. (1991) argue d that emotions in a goal setting environment will analyze goa ls as positive challenges that can be accomplished. On the other hand,

PAGE 37

37 an individual with low hope analyzes goals from a negative perspective sensing a low probability of goal attainment (Snyder et al., 1991). Hope theory assumes that over time and across environments, hope remains established. Therefore, individuals with high hope should accomplish a greater number of goals compared to low hope individuals and be capable of achieving more difficult goals covering diverse areas of their life, such as their working life and personal life. Furthermore, as goal difficulty increases, high hope individuals maintain their demeanor of agency and pathways, finding alternatives paths to goal attainment. By contrast, low hope individuals are more likely to lose sight of their agency and pathways during goal impediments (Snyder et al., 1991). Both agency and pathway must be operative in order for an individual to maintain consistent movement towards a goal (Snyder et al., 1991). In addition, hope has been theoretic ally and psychometrically identified as being both dispositional (traitlike) and situational (statelike) (Luthans & Jensen, 2002). The dispositional aspect of hope helps explain general coping skills of individuals and the situational aspect of hope explai ns a temporal state that relates to ongoing events in an Sympson, Ybasco, et al., (1996), explain dispositional hope as remaining relatively stable across situations and times. Conversely, situational hope relates to proximal directed thinking. Organizational Commitment According to Meyer, Becker and Vandenberghe (2004), organizational commitment has been as difficu lt to define as the concept of motivation. Definitions of organizational commitment have been found to vary considerably but most are de scribed in terms of either behaviors or attitudes (Mowday, Steers & Porter, 1979).

PAGE 38

38 Mowday, Steers & Porter (1979), i n t erms of definitions focused on commitment related behaviors, described individual s as becoming bound by actions or displaying behaviors that exceed formal expectations ( Mowday, St eers & Porter, 1979). Mowday, Steers & Porter (1979), argued that a ttitude fo cused organizational commitment occurs when the identity (or goals) of the individual become congruent or inte grated within the organization (Mowday, Steers & Porter, 1979) Over the past two decades, two significant developments in organizational commitme nt have been recognized by Meyer et al. (2004). First, organizational commitment can take different forms, and secondly, organizational commitment can be directed toward various targets (Meyer et al., 2004). Meyer and Allen (1991) identified three basic t hemes from the extant literature on organizational commitment: affective attachment to the organization, perceived costs associated with leaving the organization, and obligation to remain with the organization. In the Three Component Model of Organizationa l Commitment, Meyer and Allen (1991) articulated these three common themes as affective, continuance, and normative commitment. Further, Meyer and Allen (1991) identified organizational commitment as a ionship with an organization and three components of organizational commitment can be experienced by one employee to varying degrees. Therefore, the three components ar e not types of commitment, but rather components that develop as a function of different antecedents that influence workplace behavior (Meyer & Allen, 1991). The antecedents associated with the different forms of organizational commitment directed the deve lopment of the three component model. Meyer and Allen (1991)

PAGE 39

39 identified the antecedents of affective commitment as personal characteristics, organizational structure, and work experiences. Antecedents of continuance commitment have been identified as side bets or investments, with availability of alternatives playing a role. Lastly, normative commitment has been found to develop from individual pressures experienced before or after organizational membership. Pressures could include things such as family con nections or when employees accept offers in advance, such as paid college tuition (Allen & Meyer, 1991). Furthermore, Meyer and Allen (1991) described affective commitment as an ization. Strong affective commitment means that employees will continue working for an organization because the employees desire to do so, mainly as a result of work experiences. When employees are aware of the costs associated with leaving an organization Meyer and Allen (1991) refer to this as continuance commitment. Anything work related that increases the cost related to leaving an organization, such as accepting job tasks that require skills training, creates continuance commitment. Therefore, when em ployees have strong continuance commitment, they will stay with an organization because they feel the need to do so. Lastly, normative commitment refers to internal pressures that result when feeling obligated to remain at an organization. When employees h ave strong normative commitment, they feel as though they must remain with an organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Obligated feelings may develop as a result of social experiences, such as the observation of role models (Meyer & Allen, 1991).

PAGE 40

40 Conceptual Fra mework Many scholars (Dawn, 2004; Rowh, 2007; Smola & Sutton, 2002; Tulgan, 2004 Dwyer, 2008 ) have argued that acknowledging the presence of different generations in the workplace has become increasingly important. However, Dulin (2008) warned that stereo typing of generations should be avoided because members of a generation are not going to think and act exactly alike. H owever, each generation has attitudes, ambitions, and world views that have emerged from living within a common set of historical and so cial events. Dwyer (2008) recognized that in the new world of work, older, middle aged, and young er workers may shar e similar work responsibilities but differ greatly in regards to personal values, approaches to work duties, communication styles, language, and even perceptions of each other. Dwyer (2 008) continued that with the presence of such differences, conflict in the workplace is highly likely. Therefore, in order for organizations to effectively manage and recruit multiple generations, they should be conscious of differences and unique characteristics of each cohort (Dwyer, 2008). Lisa Krouse, vice president of human resources at a Sarasota based Insurance Group in Florida, stated understand them. on to say that each generational cohort is shaped by its own strengths, challenges, motivations and leadership expectations and managers that understand these differences will be able to meet the needs of employees (Barnett, 2009). Stu dies on generational differences have mainly evolved around the study of value differences (Christenson, 1977). According to Arsenault (2004), the misunderstanding among generational differences began with the flawed belief of early researchers that indivi duals change their values, attitudes and preferences as a result of age. However,

PAGE 41

41 overtime (Schewe & Meredith, 1994; Rentz & Reynolds, 1991). More recently, Barbuto, Bryant, and Pennisi (2010) claimed that supplemental research on psychological traits, such as personalities, attitudes and motives, should be studied to gain a better understanding of generational differences as they apply in the organizational setting. Therefore differences can be identified or disproved by researchers in order to advance the discussion of generations and provide practical implications for managers in a mixed generational setting (Barbuto, Bryant, Pennisi, 2010). Generations in the Workplace Due to differing definitions of birth years among research scholars for each generational cohort, a general consensus was used for the purpose of this research The consensus was researched by analyzing the definitions of birth years and gathering the most fr equently defined years. Therefore, Veterans were defined as those born from 1915 1945, Baby Boomers 1946 1964, Gen X 1965 1979, and Millennials 1980 present (Dwyer, 2008; Zemke, Raines & Filipczak 2000; Aldisert 1999). However, diminutive academic resear ch exists to verify or disprove the popular profiling of each generation (Lyons, Duxbury, & Higgin, 2007). Therefore, the following profiles have been adopted from the most notable scholars on generational research (Dwyer, 2008; Zemke, Raines & Filipczak 2000; Aldisert 1999; Loomis, 2000; Howe & Strauss, 1991). Th e Veteran generation those born from 1915 to 1945, are also referred to as the Traditionalists, Matures, or the Silent Generation. They lived through the Great Depression and World War II. They tend to be dedicated, stable, hard working, patient, past oriented, have respect for rules, and believe duty comes before pleasure. Eisner (2005) described Veterans as loyal and self sacrificing in their relationship with an

PAGE 42

42 organization. They are also kn own to be conservative spenders, loyal to buying American and traditional products. The generation born from 1946 to 1964 has been commonly known as Baby Boomers or Boomers, primarily because they were born during a time of consistently high birth rates, which has given them a large presence in the workplace. Defining even ts for this generation included the Ci vil Rights Movement, the Cold War, assassinations, Vietnam, and t elevision. Unlike their parents, baby boomers did not endure economic hardships and often focuse d their time on themselves, becoming known by some as the Being raised during a time when parenting was viewed as enjoyable instead of a biological necessity, Boomers have grown to expect prosperity and satisfaction in life. Bo omers value optimism, teamwork, personal growth, work and involvement. Although, Boomers believe they have changed the world unlike anyone else could, they dislike conflict and are very sensitive to feedback. Being described as idealistic, optimistic, and driven, Boomers are likely to remain loyal to an organization (Loomis, 2000). In addition, Boomers have been seen as diligent workers, valuing a high degree of power in the workplace (McCringle and Hooper, 2006). Mostly referred to as Generation X Gen X o r Xers, some would call those born from 1965 to 1979 the baby bust generation. Defining events and trends that shaped this generation include the Wall Street Frenzy, the Challenger, the space shuttle explosion, the Fall of Berlin Wall, latchkey kids, singl e parents, Watergate, first personal computers, energy crisis, and the new feminism. Xers grew up in a time where family dynamics were changing such that both parents worked away from home, leaving Xers

PAGE 43

43 2011). Xers value diversity, global thinking, work life balance, informality, fun, and entrepreneurial spirit (Dencker et al., 2007). However, Xers have been found to invest in their own personal development over an organi zation reason Xers are not likely to remain committed to one organization, because they are more independent and self sufficient than older generations (Loomis, 2000). Xers are likely to leave one job in search for new challe nges, higher salaries or improved benefits (Hays, 1999; Loomis, 2000). Xers like to manage their own problems but often seek feedback. Others have described Xers as cynical, pessimistic and individualistic (Kupperschmidt, 2000; Smola and Sutton, 2002). Fi nally, the Millennial generation individuals born from 1980 to present, are often referred to as the Baby boom echo, Nexters, and Generation Y but most commonly as Millennials They grew up influence d by an increase in diverse families, reality televisio n, terrorist attacks (9/11, government scandals) and celebrity scandals (OJ, Clinton). This has become the most technology savvy generation yet. Millennials value confidence, civic duty, achievement, sociability, diversity, and street smarts. However, t his generation needs supervision and structure to perform well at work. Millennials do not have much experience dealing with people issues or workplace conflict because they are so young. However, Millennials are rapidly entering the workforce beyond fast foo d, lawn mowing, and part time Web page design jobs. Motivating Generations Few research studies have contributed to the body of knowledge on motivation and generations (Wong, Gardiner, Lang, & Coulon, 2008). Montana and Lenaghan (1999) compared generati on groups and found that Gen X and Millennials were predominantly motivated by steady employment and promotional advancements. Wong,

PAGE 44

44 Gardiner, Lang and Coulon (2008) also found Gen X and Millennials to be appreciably motivated by promotional advancement op portunities. However, Millennials were more significantly motivated by advancement opportunities than Baby Boomers or Xers. Baby Boomers and Xers were motivated by power and authority over coworkers, when compared to Millennials. Wong et al. (2008) reasone d that Millennials are more likely to be motivated by advancement opportunities, due to their recent entrance into the workplace, whereas Baby Boomers are entering retirement age, and therefore, are not as motivated by advancement opportunities. Interestin gly, Wong et al. (2008) concluded differences are so minimal that a workplace would not be disturbed. However, Wong et al. (2008) recommended that managers prepare fo r higher levels of cynicism, negativity and less optimism in younger generations. Barbuto and Miller (2008) conducted a study utilizing Leonard (1999) motivational sources inventory to determine sources of work motivation among Veterans, Baby Bo omers, Generation X and Millennials working in a nonprofit organization. Results indicated Baby Boomers scored higher in goal internalization than Generation X, signifying Boomers are more motivated when job tasks are connected to moral obligations or pers onal values. Additionally, Generation X scored higher on instrumental sources when compared to baby boomers, suggesting that Generation X is more likely to seek tangible rewards in the workplace, such as bonuses, increased salary or time off (Barbuto & Mi ller, 2008). Barbuto and Miller (2008) concluded that a relationship among self concept external self concept internal and intrinsic process motivation sources were not found. However, future research should continue to study

PAGE 45

45 generations utilizing content based theories, as opposed to process based theories, which only allow an explanation of the motivation inducement process. In addition, Andrews (2011) study on undergraduate students in colleges of Agriculture holding ambassador positions and found that female ambassadors scored highest on intrinsic process motivation and male ambassadors scored highest in instrumental motivation. Majority of the ambassadors were Millennials between the ages of 18 24 with 3 identifying as 25+. Hope Even thoug h hope has not been as broadly analyzed as other positive psychological constructs, or even applied in the workplace, Luthans, Luthans, & Luthans (2004) claim ed some studies have provided positive support for workplace implications. Adams et al. (2002) found in an ongoing survey that organizations with employees having higher self reported levels of hope tended to be more successful than organizations with employees who have lower levels of hope. L uthans, Avolio, Walumbwa, and Li (2005) studied a cross sectional analysis of Chinese workers and found that supervisor performance ratings and merit salary increases were related to higher levels of hope. In addition, Peterson and Luthans (2003) found fin ancial performance, employee retention and job satisfaction were linked with higher levels of hope in managers of fast food restaurants. More recently, a study on production employees by Larson and Luthans (2006) found hope levels were associated with job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Further, Youssef and Luthans (2007), in a study of 135 midwestern organizations, in

PAGE 46

46 related to job satisfaction and work happ iness. In the same study, out of hope, optimism and resiliency, hope was found to be the only construct showing a unique variance in regards to job satisfaction, work happiness, and organizational commitment (Youssef & Luthans, 2007). In addition, Luthans et al. (2008) also found that hope was positively related to performance, satisfaction, and commitment. Organizational Commitment Steinhaus and Perry (1996) claimed committed and satisfied employees are normally highly productive workers, because they ide ntify with organizational goals and values, making them unlikely to perform at low levels. Samad (2011) conducted a study in a manufacturing organization in Malaysia and found that organizational commitment was positively related to job performance, where job satisfaction played a moderating role in the relationship. According to Robbins (2001), employees accrue high levels of organizational commitment through organization involvement, such as participating in projects or decision making. When employees hav e a strong identification with an organization, they will have great loyalty that transforms into hard work (Robbins, 2001). In addition, employees with high organizational commitment show the best task performance, such as proactive task involvement and a chievement by striving to reach organizational goals (Steers, 1977). Furthermore, Carver, Candela, and Gutierrez (2011) conducted a study with nursing faculty that supported the existence of generational differences with regard to organization commitment. These researchers concluded that each generation has a unique profile and suggested that further research should seek to determine the wants Herzfeldt (2008) conducted a study on managers in Europe and found that Gen Xers

PAGE 47

47 were less committed than Baby boomers, validating popular opinion. Furthermore, Patalano (2008), in a large Internet services organization, found Gen Xers to have significantly higher scores on normative commitment and affective commitment when compared to Millennials. However, Millennials scored higher on continuance commitment than Gen X, leaving Patalano (2008) to conclude that significant differences in the levels of organizational commitment exist bet ween generations. Interestingly, Ozag (2006) found in the context of an organizational merger, that Scale, were a strong predictive variable for normative commitment. However a relationship was not found between hope and continuance commitment. According to Ozag (2006), many researchers (Brockner et al., 1997; Cascio, 1993; Schweigner & DeNisi, 1991) have alluded that hope may be an antecedent of organizational commitment. H owever this relationship in entirety remains relatively unclear. Conceptual Model The previous literature has illustrated that a potential relationship between work motivation and hope, as well as work motivation and organization al commitment may exist. Therefore, the conceptual m odel (F igure 2 1) at the end of this chapter illustrates this relationship. In addition, this study analyzed factors that may influence a genera specifically gender, race/ethnicity, marital status income and education. Chapter Summary Theories presented in this chapter have given an overview of the literature with respect to generations and work motivation hope and organizational commitment In addition theories foundational to this study were presented. The concept of work

PAGE 48

48 motivation has been seen as a common thread among both hope theory and the three component model of organizational commitment. In addition, literature has shown that hope may be an antecedent of organizational commitment, le ading to an unexpected relationship. The lack of understanding regarding generational differences has caused organizations to overlook the significance of the issue, causing an inability to capitalize on generational strengths (Arsenault, 2004). Therefore, this research sought to uncover the relationship between work motivation, hope and organizational commitment as they apply to generational cohorts. Figure 2 1 Conceptual model of the relationship between generational sources of motivation, hope and organizational commitment Generations Veterans (1915 1945) Baby Boomers (1946 1964) Gen X (1965 1979) Millennials (1980 present) Motivation Sources Intrinsic Self concept Internal Goal Internalization Self concept External Instrumental Hope Organizational Commitment Gender Race/Ethnicity Marital Status Household Income Education

PAGE 49

49 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODS The purpose of this quantitative study was to determine if generational cohorts are motivated differently and to examine the relationship between work motivation, hope and organ izational commitment. This chapter describes the methodology utilized to accomplish the objectives of this study. The objectives for the study were to: 1) identify dominant and secondary sources of work motivation of generational cohorts, 2) determine differences in the state of hope b y generational cohort 3) d etermine differences in organizational commitment by generational cohort 4) describe the relationship between sources of work motivation, hope and organizational commitment and 5) pr edict hope and organizational commitment based on work motivation with selected demographics Add itionally, this chapter explained the research design, population and sample, instrumentation, and how data were collected and analyzed. Research Design The q uantitative research design in this study utilized descriptive survey methodology. A descriptive design provides a synopsis 22). In addition, d escriptive designs explain traits of study participants such as, attitudes or behaviors (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010). Errors associated with descriptive surveys include measurement error, sampling error, and non response error. Several strategies helped e liminate the sources of error in this study. Measurement error occurs Therefore, measurement error was addressed by utilizing existing instruments. V alidity and reliability for wo rk motivation (Barbuto & Scholl, 1998), hope (Snyder & et al.,

PAGE 50

50 1996), and organizational commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1997) were previously confirmed by a panel of experts and empirical ly tested prior to conducting this research Sampling error results from surveying only a portion of a population, rather than all members of a population (Dillman, Smyth & Christian, 2009). Therefore, sampling error exists in any sample survey and was addressed in this study by ensuring all branches of the institution in the s outheast region of the United States participated. Furthermore non response error occurs when not every participant responds to the survey request (Dillman, Smyth & Christian, 2009). T he researcher made every effort to reduce the non response error, acco rding to the social exchange theory (Dillman, Smyth & Christian, 2009). In addition, non response error was addressed by contacting each financial branch to encourage participation and by offering a written report or workshop to present the findings and im plications of this study. Population and Sample The population under investigation in this study were employees in a mid sized, mul ti branch institution based in the United States. For the purpose of this study, a purposive sample was taken of an institut ion comprised of 1 headquartered location and 10 other branche s located in the southeast region of the United States, employing a total of 130 employees across all 11 offices In purposive sampling, study participants are selected based on certain characte ristics (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010). This institution was selected due to membership in an industry which has been underrepresented in generational research. The industry selected was unlike many other industries due to the unified purpose from the found ation of American needs and the high volume of family owned businesses and operations. Furthermore, a s a result of purposive sampling, coverage error existed in this study; therefore, the generalizability

PAGE 51

51 of the findings beyond the data sample was not appr opriate (Dillman, Smyth & Christian, 2009). However, because the primary purpose of this study sought to examine relationships, as opposed to generalizing a population, purposive sampling was deemed appropriate (McMillan & Schumacher, 2010). Data Collecti on Prior to collecting the primary data for this study, a pilot test was conducted. The purpose of the pilot test was to establish reliability of the measurement instruments used in this study. However, all of the scales in this study had been used in mana gement and leadership literature and previously determined to be valid and reliable. The pilot study was conducted on September 21, 2011 and closed on September 28, 2011 for data analysis. The pilot was conducted with 20 graduate students studying agricul tural education and communication at the University of Florida. The convenience sample consisted of 15 female (75%) and 5 male (25%) graduate students. Of all the respondents, 95% (n= 19) were White and 5% (n= 1) were of Hispanic or Latino origin. Majority of respondents were Millennials (n= 14), but there were 5 respondents from Generation X and 1 Baby Boomer. Results of the pilot study and further explanation of each scale are presented later in this chapter. At the conclusion of the pilot, data collect ion procedures for the main study began. First a proposal for approval to conduct this study was submitted to the University of Florida Institutional Review Board (IRB) for non medical projects (IRB 02). Once approval was granted (Appendix A), a meeting w as scheduled with the Chief Lending Officer at the institution to introduce the study, provide documentation of the process, and attain approval to continue with this study

PAGE 52

52 Following all necessary approval, d ata were collected using a web based s urvey fo tailored design method (Dillman, Smyth & Christian, 2009) beginning September 2011 All communication with research participants was sent through email from a contact person at the headquarter office to employees at each branch of the in stitution. This step was necessary to ensure privacy protection of the study participants, according to the policies of the institution. The first correspondence with participants prior to sending the questionnaire, according to Dillman (2009), should be a pre notice letter. Therefore, an email (Appendix B) was sent to participants on September 22, 2011 informing them that a web based survey instrument would be emailed to them and their participation would be appreciated. The second email contact was made O ctober 4, 2011 containing the web based questionnaire (Appen dix C). O n October 10 2011, a third contact was made thanking the participants that had completed the survey and reminding the other participants that the survey was still available. A fourth con tact was sent on October 18, 2011 informing participants of the proper way to follow the survey link due to reported difficulties. As a result of significant increases in participation following contacts, a fifth email reminder was sent October 26, 2011. A reminder contact was sent on November 2, 2011 informing of the survey deadline and encouraging participation. A seventh contact was made due to technical difficulties on November 8, 2011 and informed participants that the survey deadline would be extended as a result. The web based questionn aire closed on November 30 2011, and data analysis began. According to Dillman (200 6 ), nonresponse error should be addressed in survey based research studies because nonresponse error exists within all types of surv ey

PAGE 53

53 research. Therefore, a comparison of early respondents to late respondents was conducted to address nonresponse error as recommended by Dillman (200 6 ). Following the recommendations of Lindner, Murphy, and Briers (2001), early respondents were defined a s the first 50% of respondents and late respondents were defined as the last 50% of respondents. Early respondents were compared to late responde nts in regards to key variables and no significant differences were found. Instrumentation Three existing ques tionnaires were used to collect the necessary data to sources of work motivation and was employed to determine work motivation sources of generational cohorts. Five sources of work motivation were initially proposed by Leonard, Beauvais, and Scholl (1999) and integrated into the MSI: Intrinsic Process, Instrumental, Self Concept Extern al, Self Concept Internal, and Goal Internalization. The MSI consisted of 30 statements on a seven point Likert type scale, with 6 statements specifically measuring each of the five motivational sources. Study participants were asked to describe the thing s that best motivated them by rating their level of agreement to the 30 statements provided (1= Strongly Disagree, 2= Mostly Disagree, 3= Somewhat Disagree, 4= Neutral, 5= Somewhat Agree, 6= Mostly Agree, 7= Strongly Agree). Example statements measuring ea ch motivation source included: on a project if public recognition is at

PAGE 54

54 Scholl, 1998). In post hoc analysis of the pilot study data (n= 20) the alpha estimate was .407 for Intrinsic Process .625 for Instrumental .653 for Self Concept External .734 for Self Concept Internal and .653 for Goal Internalization The pilot study had an alpha estimat e of .695 for the instrument. In the post hoc analysis of the main study (n= 59) the alpha estimate was .443 for Intrinsic Process, .595 for Instrumental, .682 for Self Concept External, .704 for Self Concept Internal, and .578 for Goal Internalization. Th e main study had an alpha estimate of .727 for the instrument drawn from the assumption th at people are goal directed. However, Snyder et al. (1996) expanded earlier theories into a goal setting framework, seeking to explain the ways goals are pursued. Therefore, Snyder et al. (1996) proposed two major components of hope: agencies (determinatio n in meeting goals) and pathways (successful plans to meet goals). The SHS (1996) was utilized to describe the hope levels of generational cohorts. The SHS (1996) consisted of 8 statements rated on a four point Likert type scale, with 4 statements that mea sured pathways and 4 statements that measured agencies. Study participants were asked to select the number that best described them (1= Definitely False, 2= Mostly False, 3= Mostly True, 4= Definitely True). An example (Snyd er et al., 1996). In post hoc analysis of the pilot study data (n= 20) the alpha estimate for each scale was .762 for Agency and .807 for Pathway. The pilot study

PAGE 55

55 alpha estimate was .843 for the instrument In the post hoc analysis of the main study (n= 59) the alpha estimate was .839 for Agency and .669 for Pathway. The main study had an alpha estimate of .819 for th e instrumen t. Commitment Scale (OCS). Meyer & Allen (1991) identified organizational commitment as being a multidimensional construct composed of affective, continuance, and normative commitme nt. All three approaches share the belief that Meyer & Allen (1991) with the organization and (b) has implications for the decision to continue or discontinue membership a seven point Likert type scale, with 6 statements that measured normative commitment, 9 statements that measured continuance commitment, and 8 statements that measured affective c ommitment. Study participants were asked to select the number that best described them (1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Mostly Disagree, 3= Somewhat Disagree, 4= Neutral, 5= Somewhat Agree, 6= Mostly Agree, 7= Strongly Agree ). An example statement measuring norma so much of myself into this organization, I might con In post hoc analysis of the pilot study data (n= 20) the alpha estimate was .349 for Normative Commitment .249 for Continuance Commitment, and 1.024 for Affective Commitment The pilot study

PAGE 56

56 alpha estimate was .381 for the instrument In post hoc analysis of the main study (n= 59) the alpha estimate was .454 for Normative Commit ment, .41 for Continuance Commitment, and .418 for Affective Commitment. The main study had an alpha estimate of .4 for the instrument In addition, researcher developed questions were used to determine generational cohort, gender, ethnicity, yearly house hold income, marital status, and educational experience. The final questionnaire included 67 items. Data Analysis The data collected were analyzed using the Statistical Pa ckage for the Social Sciences 20 .0 (SPSS) to identify measures of statistical signifi cance. Measures of central tendency, such as means, standard deviations, and frequencies were used to describe the following variables: generational cohort gender, ethnicity, yearly household income marital status, education and work motivation sources The independent variable was generational cohorts, and the dependent variable was motivation, with hope and organizational commitment being moderating variables The State Hope Scale was analyzed by summing scores for each generation and analyzing the mea n Low hope scores were identified as 6 18, moderately low hope was 19 23, moderate hope was 24 30, moderately high hope was 31 35, and high hope was 36 48. Score ranges were defined based on the six point Likert type scale. The Organizational Commitment S cale was analyzed by summing the scores on each of the three scales (affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment) and analyzing the mean for each generation. Score ranges for each scale were: affective commitment, 8 56, continuan ce commitment, 9 63, and normative commitment, 6 42. According to Meyer and Allen (1991) and Meyer and Herscovitch (2001), the optimum

PAGE 57

57 profile for organizational commitment should be a high affective commitment score (i e above the scale midpoint) and a low continuance commitment score (i e below the scale midpoint). T o further analyze data, analysis of variance was executed between generational cohorts on the outcome varia bles Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients were utilized to determine if a relationship existed between work motivation, hope, and organizational commitment Effect sizes were interpreted as small, medium or large at .10, .25, and .40, respectively (Cohen, 1992) A regression model was also utilized with work motivation and demographics as explanatory variables and hope and organizational commitment as dependent variable s The regression model was used to explain or predict the amount of variance in regards to work motivation, hope, and organizational commitment with respect to each of the four generational cohorts described in this study. Summary The evaluation of generational cohorts, the independent variable in this study, at an institution in the southeast region of the United States provided a basis for understanding t he relationship between work motivation, the dependent variable, and the moderating variables of hope and organizational commitment. This chapter identified the research design as utilizing descriptive survey methodology. The questionnaire included Barbuto Commitment Scale. Each of these scales has established validity and reliability. Furthermore, data were collected followin analyses were conducted using analysis of variance and regression models.

PAGE 58

58 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The purpose of this study was to determine if differences exist between generations with regards to sources of work mo tivation and to determine the relationship between work motivation, hope and organizationa l commitment at a mid sized institution in the southeast region of the United States. Chapter 1 explained the challenges that organizations are facing, or are predic ted to face as a result of the widening age diversity in the 21 st century workplace and established the importance of organizations being aware of how age diversity effects the workplace. In addition, the following objectives were established: Identify dom inant and secondary sources of work motivation of generational cohorts Determine differences in the state of hope b y generational cohort Determine differences in organizational commitment by generational cohort Describe the relationship between sources of work motivation, hope and organizational commitment and Predict hope and organizational commitment based on work motivation with selected demographics Chapter 2 provided the theoretical and conceptual frameworks employed i n this study. The beginning of C hapter 2 presented foundational literature that helped of Work Motivation. Furthermore, the theoretical Based Work three component model of organizational c ommitment. A review of literature was also

PAGE 59

59 framework and model included current literature on generational differences, coupled with literature alluding to a relationship between wo rk motivation, hope, and organizational commitment. Chapter 3 described the methodological approach used to conduct this study, including the research design, population, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis procedures. Through this data pro cedure, the study was able to meet the established objectives. Chapter 4 will present the findings of this study beginning with a description of the respondent demographics and following with the findings for each of the five objectives established in C hap ter 1. The population of this study was comprised of all employees at a mid sized, multi branch institution in the southeast region of the United States. Followi ng the procedures described in C hapter 3, a purposive sample was taken of all the employees a t this institution which covered 11 offices and employed a staff of 130 employees at the time of data collection. Responses were obtained from 59 of the 130 employees, for an overall response rate of 45%. This response rate was deemed appropriate based on previous studies with similar populations (Strickland, 2008: Windham, 2009) and because Kittleson (1997) stated that rate from e mail survey when no follow up takes place. Follow up reminders will approximately double the response rate for e (p. 196, as cited in Cook, Heath, & Thompson, 2000).

PAGE 60

60 Demographics s ex marital status, generational cohort race/ ethnicity, education, and yearly household income. Sex When asked to report gender, participants responded as shown in Table 4 1. Of all respondents, 49.5% ( n = 29) were male and 44.1 % ( n = 26) were female. Table 4 1. P articipants by sex Sex n Percent Female 26 44.1 Male 29 49.5 Total 55 Note. n= 55 ; Missing= 4 Marital Status Participants also reported their marital status. Of all respondents, 11.9% ( n = 7) were single and never married, 64.4% ( n = 38) were married, 1.7% ( n = 1) were separated, 11.9% ( n = 7) were divorced, and 3.4% ( n = 2) were widowed. Table 4 2 displays the marital status of respondents. Table 4 2 P articipants by marital status Marital Status n Percent Single, never married 7 11.9 Married 38 64.4 Separated 1 1.7 Divorced 7 11.9 Widowed 2 3.4 Total 55 Note. n =55; Missing=4 Generational Cohort Participants were also asked to report the year they were born. This demographic variable allowed this study to identify which generational cohort each

PAGE 61

61 respondent belonged. Of all respondents, 1 .7% ( n = 1) were born from 1915 to 1945, 61% ( n = 36) were born from 1946 to 1964, 15.3% ( n = 9) were born from 1965 to 1979, and 15.3% ( n = 9) were born from 1980 to present. Table 4 3 displays the generational cohort of all respondents. Table 4 3 P articipan ts by generational cohort Generational Cohort n Percent Veteran (1915 1945) 1 1.7 Baby Boomer (1946 1964) 36 61 Generation X (1965 1979) 9 15.3 Millennial (1980 present) 9 15.3 Total 55 Note. n =55; Missing=4 Race/Ethnicity Of all respondents, 86.4% ( n = 51) reported a race/ethnicity of White, 1.7% ( n = 1) were Black or African Americ an, 5.1% ( n = 3) were Hispanic/ Latino Origin, 1.7% ( n = 1) identified as Other. None of the respondents reported a race/ethnicity of Asian, American Indian and Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. Table 4 4 displays the race/ethnicity of all respondents. Table 4 4 Participants by race/ethnicity Race/ethnicity n Percent White 51 86.4 Black/African American 1 1.7 Hispanic/Latino Origin 3 5.1 Other 1 1.7 Total 56 Note. n =56; Missing=3 Education Respondents also reported their level of educ ation. Of a ll respondents, 8.5% ( n = 5) were high school graduates or had received a GED 11.9% ( n = 7) had some college but no degree, 5.1% ( n = 3) h ad an Associates degree 39% ( n = 23) had a Bachelors

PAGE 62

62 degree and 27.1% ( n = 16) had a graduate or professional degree Table 4 5 displays the education of respondents. Table 4 5. Participants by education Education n Percent High school graduate/GED 5 8. 5 Some college, no degree 7 11.9 Associate degree 3 5.1 Bachelor degree 23 39 Graduate or professional degree 16 27.1 Total 54 Note. n = 54 ; Missing= 5 Yearly Household Income The last demographic variable collected was the yearly ho usehold incom e of participants. 5.1% ( n = 3) earn ed $20,000 $39,000 15.3% ( n = 9) earned $40,000 $59,000 16.9% ( n = 10) earned $60,000 $79,000 8.5% ( n = 5) earned $80,000 $99,000 6.8% ( n = 4) earned $100,000 $119,000 13.6% ( n = 8) earned $120,000 $139,000 8.5% ( n = 5) earned $140,000 $159,000 3.4% ( n = 2) earned $160,000 $179,000 1.7% ( n = 1) earned $180,000 $199,000 and 8.5% ( n = 5) earned more than $200,000 a year Table 4 6 displays the yearly household income of all respondents. Table 4 6 Participants by yearly hou sehold income Income n Percent $20,000 $39,000 3 5.1 $40,000 $59,000 9 15.3 $60,000 $79,000 10 16.9 $80,000 $99,000 5 8.5 $100,000 $119,000 4 6.8 $120,000 $139,000 8 13.6 $140,000 $159, 000 5 8.5 $160,000 $179,000 2 3.4 $180,000 $199,000 1 1.7 More than $200,000 5 8.5 Total 52 Note. n =5 2 ; Missing= 7

PAGE 63

63 Objective 1 Objective: Identify dominant and secondary sources of work motivation of genera tional cohorts Veterans Veterans are those born between 1915 to 1945. Of all the respondents, 1.7% ( n = 1) w ere Veteran s and scored highest in s elf concept internal ( M = 35) with the second highest score being goal i nternalization ( M = 28). Table 4 7 displ ays all the scores on the MSI from highest to lowest for the Veteran. Table 4 7 MSI scores for Veterans Work Motivation Source n M Self concept Internal 1 35 Goal Internalization 1 28 Instrumental 1 24 Self concept External 1 24 Intrinsic Proce ss 1 23 Baby Boomers Baby Boomers were born between 1946 to 1964 Of all the respondents, 61% ( n = 36) were Baby Boomers. The highest motivat ion source of Baby Boomers was s elf concept internal ( n = 35, M = 37.57, SD= 3.40 ). The second highes t score among Baby Boomers was goal i nternalization ( n = 35, M = 26.54, SD= 4.48). Table 4 7 reports all MSI scores for Baby Boomers from highest to lowest. Table 4 8 MSI scores for Baby Boomers Work Motivation Source n M SD Self concept Internal 35 37.57 3.40 Goal I nternalization 35 26.54 4.48 Instrumental 35 24.09 5.33 Self concept External 35 22.51 5.52 Intrinsic Process 35 21.94 3.87

PAGE 64

64 Generation X Generation X was born between 19 65 to 1979. Of all respondents, 15.3% ( n = 9) were a part of this generation. The h ighest motivation score among Generation X was s elf concept internal ( n = 9, M = 38.22, SD= 3.15). The second highest motivation score was goal i nternalization ( n = 9, M = 25.67, SD= 8.26). Table 4 8 displays all MSI scores from highest to lowest. Table 4 9 MSI scores for Generation X Work Motivation Source n M SD Self concept Internal 9 38.22 3.15 Goal Internalization 9 25.67 8.26 Instrumental 9 23.22 5.65 Self concept External 9 22.78 7.29 Intrinsic Process 9 21.11 5.04 Millennials Millennials are those born between 1980 to present. Of all respondents, 15.3% ( n = 9) were Millennials. The highest motivation score of Millennials was s elf concept internal ( n = 9, M = 38.11, SD= 2.6 7). The second highest score of motivation was s elf concept external ( n = 2 9.22, M = 29.2 2, SD= 3.67). Table 4 9 displays all the MSI scores for Millennials from highest to lowest Table 4 10 MSI scores for Millennials Work Motivation Source n M SD Self concept Internal 9 38.11 2.67 Self concept External 9 29.22 3.67 Goal Int ernalization 9 28.90 3.76 Intrinsic Process 9 27.11 4.83 Instrumental 9 25.89 4.20

PAGE 65

65 Objective 2 Objective: Determine differences in the state of hope by generational cohort In order to determine the state of hope of each generation, participants comple ted the State Hope Scale. The State Hope Scale measures the ways goals are pursued. Generation X scored the highest on the State Hope Scale with M = 41.44, followed by Baby Boomer s M = 37.33, Millennial s M = 34.33, and last Veteran s M = 34.00. Table 4 10 displ ays the results from the State Hope Scale.

PAGE 66

66 Table 4 11 Hope scale scores by generational cohort M SD n Agency Pathway Total M Agency Pathway Total SD Veteran 1 19.00 15.00 34.00 Baby Boomer 36 18.69 18.64 37.33 3.88 3.67 6.62 Generati on X 9 20.78 20.67 41.44 .97 1.58 1.94 Millennial 9 16.33 18.00 34.33 5.10 4.85 9.73 Note: State Hope Scale scores range from 6 to 48.

PAGE 67

67 The researcher used a one way analysis of variance t o determine if differences existed between generations and sta te of hope To establish significance, the p value was set at .05 a priori at a 95% confidence interval. A statistically significant difference was not found between generational cohort and state of hope. The agency scale was F = 2.06, p > 05 and the pathw ay scale was F = 1.31, p > .05. Table 4 11 displays the one way analysis of variance between generational cohort and hope Table 4 12 One way analysis of variance between generational cohort and hope F Sig. Agency 2.06 .12 Pathway 1.31 .28 Total Hope 1.79 .16 Objective 3 Objective: Determine differences in organizational commitment b y generational cohort To determ ine differences in levels of organization commitment, participants completed the Organizational Commitment Scale. The Organizational Co mmitment Scale describes the relationship an employee has with their organization. Of all the generations across each scale Generation X scored the highest in continuance commitment ( M = 38.56, SD = 9.67). Baby Boomers ( M = 37.22, SD = 5.74) and the Veteran g eneration ( M = 35) scored the highest on continuance commitment, while Millennials ( M = 33.33, SD = 5.64) scored the highest on affective commitment. T able 4 12 displays the results from the Organizational Commitment Scale

PAGE 68

68 Table 4 13 Organizational c ommi tm ent s cores by generational cohort M SD n Normative Continuance Affective Normative Continuance Affective Veteran 1 31.00 35.00 31.00 Baby Boomer 36 27.33 37.22 34.78 5.12 5.74 3.46 Generation X 9 27.11 38.56 33.11 4.76 9.67 4.99 Millennial 9 23.33 31.78 33.33 5.27 7.10 5.64 Note: Normative commitment scores range from 6 to 42. Continuance commitment scores range from 9 to 63. Affective commitment scores range from 8 to 56.

PAGE 69

69 To determine if differences existed between generation s and organizational commitment a one way analysis of variance was utilized To establish significance, the p value was set at .05 a priori at a 95% confidence interval. A statistically significant difference was not found between generational cohort an d organizational commitment The normative scale was F = 1.76 p > .05, the continuance scale was F = 1.92 p >. 05 and the affective scale was F = .78, p > .05 Table 4 13 displays the one way analysis of variance between generational cohort and hope. Table 4 1 4 One way analysis of variance between generational cohort and organizational commitment F Sig. Normative 1.76 .67 Continuance 1.92 .14 Affective .78 .51 Objective 4 Objective: Describe the relationship between sources of work motivation, hop e and organizational commitment. The purpose of this study was to determine if differences exist ed in the sources of work motivation between generational cohorts and to determine if a relationship existed between work motivation, hope and organizational co mmitment. A Pearson product moment correlation coefficient was utilized to determine if a relationship existed between the variables. A Pearson product moment correlation is a measure of strength and direction of relationships between two variables Effect sizes were interpreted as small, medium or large at .10, .25, and .40, respectively (Cohen, 1992). Goal internalization and normative commitment ( r = .354 ) and goal internalization and continuance commitment ( r = .275) showed medium positive effects as seen in Table 4 14. Pathway and self concept internal ( r = .242) and

PAGE 70

70 continuance commitment and instrumental motivation ( r = .248) also showed medium positive effects, but were not deemed statistically significant. Table 4 15 Relationship between work motivati on, hope, and organizational commitment Agency Pathway Normative Continuance Affective Self concept Internal .208 .242 .156 .113 .236 Self concept External .257 .175 .020 .215 .009 Goal Internalization .137 .015 .354** .275* .005 Intr insic Process .177 .037 .025 .138 .069 Instrumental .238 .002 .092 .248 .120 Note : **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level, 2 tailed, *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level, 2 tailed Objective 5 Objective: Predict hope and orga nizational commitment based on work motivation with selected demographics The previous objectives described the relationship between work motivation, hope, and organizational commitment. Backward multiple regression was performed between all of the demogr aphic variables (gender, race/ethnicity, year born marital status, education, and yearly household income), work motivation (self concept internal self concept external goal internalization, intrinsic process, and instrumental), hope (agency and pathway ), and organizational commitment (normative, continuance, and affective) in order to explain the influence of the demographic variables and the moderating variables, hope and organizational commitment on work motivation. Agency The work motivation sources self concept external and self concept internal along with education yielded the best model for predicting the agency score of the state hope scale Regression analysis showed that the model significantly explained agency, F ( 4 45 ) = 5.658 p <.05. The R coefficient for the mo del was .34 and the adjusted R was .28. The unstandardized regression coefficients (B), intercept, and

PAGE 71

71 15. Education ( t = 3.51, p = .001) self concept e xternal ( t = 2.21, p = .03), and self concept internal ( t = 2.17, p = .04) contributed significantly to predicting agency (hope) When combined, the three variables explained 28% of the variance in agency (hope). Table 4 16 Backward Regression Analysis of A gency (Hope) B SE t p (Constant) Education Self concept External Self concept Internal 6.54 5.84 1.12 .27 1.43 .41 .47 3.51 .001 .203 .09 .30 2.21 .03 .33 .15 .27 2.17 .04 Pathway. The work motivation sources, self concept external and self concept internal and education yielded the best model for predicting the pathway score on the state hope scale. Regression analysis showed that the model significantly explained pathway F ( 3,46) = 5.856, p < .05 The R coefficient for the model was .28 and the adjusted R was .23 The unstandardized regression coefficients (B), intercept, and standardized regression coefficient 15. Education ( t = 2.40 p = .02 ), self concept external ( t = 2.54 p = .01 ), and self concept internal ( t = 2.61 p = .01 ) contributed significantly to predicting pathway (hope). When combined, the three variables e xplained 23% of the variance in pathway (hope). Table 4 17 Backward Regression Analysis of Pathway (Hope) B SE t p (Constant) Education Self concept External Self concept Internal 5.11 5.62 .91 .37 .93 .4 .32 2.40 .02 .21 .08 .34 2.54 .01 .38 .15 .33 2.61 .01

PAGE 72

72 Affective Commitment Regression analysis using work motivation and demographics did not yield a model that significantly explained affective commitment. None of the independent variables exhibited significant individual relationshi ps with affective commitment. No rmative Commitment Year born, and the work motivation sources, instrumental and goal internalization yielded th e best model for predicting the normative commitment score on the organizational commitment scale Regression an alysis showed that the model significantly explained normative commitment F (4,45) = 5.68, p = .001. The R coefficient for the model was .34, and the adjusted R was .28. The unstandardized regression coefficients (B), intercept, and standardized regression own in Table 4 17. Year born ( t = 2.00 p = .0 5 ), instrumental ( t = 2.3 4, p = .02 ), and goal internalization ( t = 3.37 p = .0 02 ) contributed significantly to predicting normative commitment. When combined, the three v ariables explained 28% of the variance in normative commitment. Table 4 18 Backward Regression Analysis of Normative Commitment B SE t p (Constant) Year Born Instrumental Goal Internalization 24.20 4.85 5.00 .00 1.64 .83 .25 2.00 .05 .34 15 .31 2.34 .02 .45 .13 .44 3.37 .002 Continuance Commitment. Year born yielded th e best model for predicting the continuance commitment score on the organizational commitment scale Regression analysis showed that the model significantly explained c ontinuance commitment F (6,43) = 2.96, p = .017. The R coefficient for the model was .29, and the adjusted R was .19. The unstandardized regression coefficients (B), intercept, and standardized regression

PAGE 73

73 coefficients ( 17. Year born ( t = 2.00, p = .05) contributed significantly to predicting continuance commitment. Year born explained 19% of the variance in continuance commitment. Table 4 1 9 Backward Regression Analysis of Conti nuance Commitment B SE t p (Constant) Year Born 35.4 8.28 4.27 .00 2.42 1.22 .30 2.00 .05 Summary This chapter presented the findings of this stu dy. These findings were organized and presented according to the objectives guiding this study. The objectives were: (1) i dentify dominant and secondary sources of work motivation of generational cohorts (2) determine differences in the state of ho pe b y generational cohorts, (3) determine differences in the level of organizational commitment by gene rational cohorts (4) d escribe the relationship between sources of work motivation, hope and organizational commitment and (5) p redict hope and organizational commitment based on work motivation with selected demographics Chapter 5 will present a more de tailed discussion of the se findings Conclusions, recommendations, and implicat ions will also be presented in C hapter 5.

PAGE 74

74 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION S The purpose of this study was to ascertain if diffe rences exist between generationa l cohorts with regards to sources of work motivation and to determine the impact of work motivation on hope and organizational commitment. The independent variable in this study was generational cohort the dependent variable was work motivation, and the m oderating variables were hope and organizational commitment. According to Twenge and Campbell (2008), popular literature such as the books: When Generations Collide (Lancastar & Stillman, 2003), Generations at Work (Zemke et al., 1999) and Managing Genera tion X (Tulgan, 2003) have painted a picture in the minds of many about what to expect from multiple generations in the workplace. From differences in values, attitudes, and leadership preferences, these books are based on case studies, interviews, anecdot al stories, and qualitative surveys. However, there is a severe lack of empirical, quant it ative data to show that such differences really exist. Therefore, this study sought to determine generational differences in a mid sized institution part of an un der represented industry in generational research Objectives The following five objectives were established to guide this study: Id entify dominant and secondary sources of work motivation of generational cohorts, Determine differences in the state of hope by generational cohort, Determine differences in organizational commitment by generational cohort, Describe the relationship between sources of work motivation, hope, and organizational commitment and Predict hope and organizational commitment based on motivation with selected demographics.

PAGE 75

75 Methodology The population under investigation in this study was employees in mid sized, multi branch institutions based in the United States. A purposive sample was taken of an institution comprised of 11 offices located in the southeast region of the United States, employing a staff of 130. Of the 130 employees, 59 were surveyed, accounting for a 45% response rate. This study utilized descriptive survey methodology for the purpose of data analysis. The researcher calculated mean scores, frequencies, one way analysis of variance, and regression models. Summary of Findings Demographics The demographics included in this study were: gender, race/ethnicity, generational cohort, marital status, yearly household income, and education. All demographics were self reported by respondents. representing 44.1% ( n = 26) and males representing 49.5% ( n = 29). An overwhelming 86.4% ( n = 51) of participant were Baby Boomers (61%, n = 36) born from 1946 to 1964, but each generational cohort was represented with 15.3% ( n = 9) being Generation X, born from 1965 to 1979, 15.3% ( n = 9) being Millennials, b orn from 1980 to present, and 1.7% ( n = 1) being Veterans, born from 1915 to 1945. Although every marital status was represented, majority of n = 38). There was a diverse range of yearly household incomes reported by employees with the top three being $60,000 $79,000 (16.9%, n = 10), $40,000 $59,000 (15.3%, n = 9), and $120,000 $139,000 (13.6%, n = 8).

PAGE 76

76 There was also a diverse range of education, but results indicated that majority of employees had received either a bachelor degre e (39%, n = 23) or a graduate/professional degree (27.1%, n = 16). Objective 1: Identify dominant and secondary sources of work mot ivation of generational cohorts This objective sought to identify the work motivation sources of each generational cohort. The work motivation sources were established through the theoretical Self Concept Based Work Motivation model. This theory proposed five sources of work motivation including: intrinsic motivation, self conce pt internal self concept external instrumental motivation, and goal internalization. The dominant work motivation source f or each generational cohort was self concept internal (Veterans, M = 35, n = 1; Baby Boomers, M = 37.57, n = 35; Generation X, M = 38.22, n = 9; Millennials, M = 38.11, n = 9). The secondary work motivation source for Veterans ( M = 28, n = 1), Baby Boomers ( M = 26.54, n = 35), and Generation X ( M = 25.67, n = 9) was goal internalization. The secondary work motivation source for Millennials was self concept external ( M = 29.22, n = 9). Objective 2: Determine differences in the state of hope by generational cohort This objective sought to determine if generational cohorts have different states of n that goals can be m et (Snyder & et al, 1991) and was measured by scores on the State Hope Scale (Snyder & et al., 1996). A one way analysis of variance did not show any statistically significant differences between generational cohort and each scale on t he state hope assessment (agency, F = 2.06, p >.05; pathway, F = 1.31, p >.05).

PAGE 77

77 Objective 3: Determine differences in organizational commitment by generational cohort This objective sought to determine if generational cohorts were different with respect to or ganizational commitment. Organizational commitment was defined as an and involvement in a particular organization (Mowday, Steers, & Porter, 1979). In this study organizational commitment was defined by the to the Organizational Commitment Scale (Allen & Meyer, 1997). A one way analysis of variance did not show any statistically significant differences between generational cohort and each scale on the organizational commitment scale (affective commitment, F = .78, p >.05; continuance commitment, F = 1.92, p >.05; normative commitment, F = 1.76, p >.05). Objective 4: Describe the relationship between sources of work motivation, hope, and organizational commitment This objective sought to determine if a relationship e xisted between work motivation, hope, and organizational commitment. A Pearson product moment cor relation coefficient revealed two statistically significant relationships. Goal internalization work motivation source and normative commitment ( r = .354) and goal internalization work motivation source and continuance commitment ( r = .275) showed medium positive effects. Objective 5: Predict hope and organizational commitment based on work motivation with selected demographics. The purpose of this objective wa s to determine if work motivation with selected demographi c s could predict hope and organizational commitment. Backward multiple regression was performed to explain this objective. Regression analysis with agency (hope scale item) as the dependent variable yielded a statistically significant relationship

PAGE 78

78 with education ( t = 3.51, p = .001), self concept external ( t = 2.21, p = .03), and self concept internal ( t = 2.17, p = .04) accounting for 28% of the variance in agenc y With pathway (hope scale item) as the dependent variable, regression analysis also yielded a statistically significant relationship with education ( t = 2.40, p = .02), self concept external ( t = 2.54, p = .01), and self concept internal ( t = 2.61, p = .01) accounting for 23% of the variance in pat hway Regression analysis with affective commitment as the dependent variable did not yield a statistically significant relationships with work motivation sources or demographic variables. Regression analysis with normative commitment as the dependent vari able yielded a statistically significant relationship with year born ( t = 2.00, p = .05), instrumental work motivation ( t = 2.34, p = .02), and goal internalization work motivation ( t = 3.37, p = .002) accounting for 28% of the variance in normative commitmen t Regression analysis with continuance commitment as the dependent variable yielded a statistically significant relationship with year born ( t = 2.00, p = .05) accounting for 19% of the variance in continuance commitment Conclusions The following conclu sions were drawn based on the findings of this study: At this institution, gender was evenly dispersed. An overwhelming majority of employees at this institution were white. Majority of employees at this institution were married. Objective 1: Identify domi nant and secondary sources of work motivation of generational cohorts In this financial institution, the Veteran was dominantly motivated based on self concept internal followed by goal internalization and was least motivated by intrinsic process.

PAGE 79

79 In this institution, Baby Boomers were dominantly motivated based on self concept internal followed by goal internalization and were least motivated by intrinsic process. In this institution, Generation X was dominantly motivated based on self concept internal fol lowed by goal internalization and were least motivated by intrinsic process. In this institution, Millennials were dominantly motivated based on self concept internal followed by self concept external and were least motivated by intrinsic process. Objectiv e 2: Determine differences in the state of hope by generational cohort In this institution, Generation X was the most hopeful generation al cohort and Mil lennials were the least hopeful; however, all generations had high hope. In this institution there wer e no statistically significant differences between the state of hope of each generation al cohort Objective 3: Determine differences in organizational commitment by generational cohort The Veteran at this institution had high normative commitment, low co ntinuance commitment, and moderat ely high affective commitment. The Baby Boomers at this institution had high normative commitment, high continuance commitment, and high affective commitment. Generation X at this institution had high normative commitmen t, moderately high continuance commitment, and high affective commitment. Millennials at this institution had moderately high normative commitment, low continuance commitment, and high affective commitment. In this institution, there were no statistically significant differences between the level s of organizational commitment of each generation. Objective 4: Describe the relationship between sources of work motivation, hope, and organizational commitment Normative commitment was positively related to the w ork motivation source, goal internalization The higher a generation scored on the normative commitment scale, the higher they scored on goal internalization. Therefore, an employee that maintains membership in th is institution because they feel obligated will be motivated when goals match their personal value system.

PAGE 80

80 Continuance commitment was positively related to the work motivation source, goal internalization The higher a generation scored on the continuance commitment scale, the higher they scored o n goal internalization. Therefore, an employee that feels like they have to maintain membership in the institution because there are no better alternatives is most likely to be motivated when goals match their personal value system. Objective 5: Predict hope and organizational commitment based on work motivation with selected demographics. In this institution, the work motivation sources, self concept external and self concept internal along with education were significant predictors of agency and path way (hope scale items) These three variables accounted for 28% of the variance in agency and 23% of the variance in pathway. In this institution, none of the variables significantly predicted affective commitment. In this institution, the work motivation sources, instrumental and goal internalization, and year born were significant predictors of normative commitment. These three variables accounted for 28% of the variance in normative commitment. In this institution, year born was a significant predictor of continuance commitment. This variable accounted for 19% of the variance in continuance commitment. Discussion and Implications This research sought to determine generational differences in a mid sized institution based in the United States using Leon Self Concept B ased Work Motivation M Meyer Component Model of Organizational Commitment as the theoretical framework. According to the findings of this study, generational differences with regards to work motivation, hope and organizational commitment are not significant in this institution. Generational cohorts were very similar in regards to all three of the constructs that were explored. All four gen erations were dominantly motivated by self concept internal work motivation, had high hope, and scored close to ideal on the

PAGE 81

81 organizational commitment scale. Previous research on generation s have also found similarities in regards to motivation attitudes, and personalities ( Macky, et al., 2008; Wong, et al., 2008 ; Levy et al., 2005; Hart et al., 2003; Montana & Lenaghan, 1999 ). top six work motivators were identical and b aby boomers only differed by one motivational factor. Generation X selecting the same four motivational factor s as being the most importa nt: stable and secure future, high salary, opportuniti es to learn new things, and variety in work assignments. According to Niemiec (2000), money and recognition are strong motivators for Baby Boomers. However, the Baby Boomers in this institution scored low on instrumental motivation (tangible, extrinsic rew ards). Niemiec (2000) also stated that Generation X does not wan t recognition for work efforts, which was supported in this study. Generation X in this institution scored second lowest on self concept external (approval and recognition). Interestingly, Bar buto and Miller (2008) found a significant difference between Baby Boomers and Generation X on instrumental motivation. According to Barbuto and Miller (2008), Generation X sought greater tangible benefits in the workplace, such as bonuses, increased salar y, and time off. Other research has also indicated that Generation X is enticed by salary increases personal fulfillment, and commitment to self rather than an organization (Dencker et al., 2007; Eisner, 2005; Jurkiewicz, 2000; Rodriquez et al., 2003 ). Ho wever, according to the findings in this inst itution, the dominant motivator for Generation X was self concept internal such as seeking task feedback that reinforces self perceptions of traits, competencies, and

PAGE 82

82 values. This finding is in opposition to ot her previous work which has emphasized This finding also aligns with Seller s ( 1994) statement that Generation X is unimpressed by fancy job titles, lacks interest to climb corporate ladders, but seek s tasks that allow them to learn and express their individual values. In addition a study conducted on Millennials in leadership positions in Colleges of Agricultural and Life Sciences found that Millennials were primarily intrinsically motivated (enjoyable tasks) and motivated least by self concept internal (tasks consistent with internal standards) (Andrews, 2011). However, t he Millennials in this institution scored h ighest in self concept internal and scored second lowest in intrinsic work motivation. Consistent with other research, Millennials in this institution care more about personal fulfillment than making money (Rawlins et al., 2008; Dries et al., 2008). Altho concept secondary source of work motivation was self concept external, whereas the other generations secondary sourc e of work motivation was goal internalization. This finding indicated that Millennials in this institution were more concerned with social acceptance and need for affiliation than having a strong belief in tasks. Therefore, Millennials in this institution want tasks that lead to higher competency and want social approval from higher ups and coworkers. et al. (1991) hope theory has not been explored in generational research, researchers an d popular literature have discussed psychological dimensions in generational cohorts ( Twenge, 2000; Macky et al., 2008; Wong et al.,

PAGE 83

83 2008). Wong et al. (2008) stated that employers should be prepared to handle increased levels of cynicism, negativity and less optimism in younger generations. However, acco rding to the findings of this study, all generational cohorts in this institution had high hope. This indicates that each generation, when faced with challenges or obstacles has enough determination to overcome the obstacles by finding alternative paths to goal attainment. Each generational cohort in this institution can handle complex and ambiguous goals and when faced with unexpected barriers each cohort can overcome such challenges without becoming discouraged or distracted from the original goal. There fore, this study did not find any statistically significant differences in hope by generational cohort. However, some differences should be noted. Generation X had the highest hope score by approximately 4 points when compared to Baby Boomers indicating a higher ability to achieve goals. This finding could be a result of Generation X being in line to fill the management positions of the retiring Baby Boomers and at their prime to prove steadfast skills and achieve promotion. On the other hand, Millennials scored approximately 7 points lower than Generation X on hope and Millennials secondary work motivation source was self concept external, potentially indicating that Millennials are more dependent on feedback when pursing goals and need extra support from supervisors. Furthermore, organizational commitment was explored in this study to determine differences by generational cohort. Accordi ng to Brousseau, Driver, Eneroth, and Larsson (1996), younger generations (Generation X and Millennials) do not have val ues that favor organizational commitment (Larsson, 1996; Deal, 2007) Sellers (1994) stated that Generation X does not plan to stay with one organization for the rest of their career

PAGE 84

84 nor are they committed to one type of work. In addition, Lawler (2005) s tated that younger generations view organizational loyalty as a losing proposition and as a substitute, will accept learning opportunities, respect, challenging work, and rewards. Lawler (2005) concluded that when workers do not receive desirable substitut es, they will quickly move to more favorable employment conditions. However, older workers (Veterans and Baby Boomers) want to complete their careers in stable organizations (Brousseau et al., 1996), suggesting more commitment driven from pure desirability Button et al. (1996) stated that older generations are interested in learning and are more likely to stay with their organization than younger generations. Partially d issimilar to the aforementioned propositions the findings in this study revealed that each generational cohort scored close to ideal on the organizational commitment s cale. All generational cohorts in this institution scored high on normative commitment Therefore, each generational cohort feels a strong sense of obligation to this institu tion. In addition Baby Boomers and Generation X scored high on continuance commitment and the Veteran and Millennials scored low on continuance commitment. A low score is desirable on the continuance commitment scale. A high continuance commitment score i ndicates that Baby Boomers and Generation X maintain membership at this institution because the cost of leaving is too great; therefore Baby Boomers and Generation X in this institution may feel trapped (Meyer & Allen, 2004). In addition, employees with h igh continuance commitment will do little beyond formal job descriptions; however, turnover rates are lower for these employees (Meyer & Allen, 2004). Therefore, Baby Boomers and Generation X in this institution will be resistant to go above and beyond the ir job requirements; however, both a re more likely to stay at

PAGE 85

85 this institution compared to the Veteran and Millennials. Last of all, each generational cohort scored high on affective commitment. All generational cohorts have some desire to remain employed at this institution. According to Meyer and Allen (2004), employees with high affective commitment perform at higher levels than those with low affective commitment. A study by Patalano (2008) found that Generation X scored significantly higher than Millen nials on affective and normative commitment and that Millennials scored significantly higher on continuance commitment. However, this study did not find any statistically significant differences in organizational commitment by generational cohort. All gen erational cohorts in this institution are dominantly motivated based on self concept internal work motivation and all cohorts scored high on normative commitment. According to Meyer and Herscovitch (2001), one base of normative commitment is derived from t he internalization of norms, which relates to self concept internal work motivation and goal internalization work motivation Goal internalization and self concept internal work motivation sources both involve the reinforcement of an value system. Although not revealed in this study, possibly due to sample size limitations, self concept internal work motivation may be positively related to normative commitment. However, a positive relationship was found in this study between goal inter nalization work motivation and normative commitment. Therefore, future research should seek to examine a relationship between self concept internal work motivation and normative commitment. A positive relationship between continuance commitment and goal in ternalization work motivation was also found in this institution In other words, as continuance

PAGE 86

86 commitment increases, so does motivation derived from goal internalization, and vice versa. As previously mentioned, high continuance commitment characterizes an employee that stays with an organization because there are no better alternatives (Meyer & Allen, 2004), and goal internalization work motivation stem s from engagement in activities that provide a sense of purpose and reinforce internal value systems (L eonard et al., 1999). Therefore, if an employee has goal internalization work motivation and feels u nhappy with their job, then the employee could maintain membership in the position because there are no better alternatives that would allow them to achieve desired goals or they may have to forgo something of value in order to leave the organization Future research should seek to further explain this relationship. The last analysis conducted in this study sought to determine if hope and organizational comm itment could be predicted based on work motivation and selected demographics. Findings revealed that self concept external and self concept internal work motivation sources, as well as education were significant predictors of agency and pathway (hope scale measures). Self concept external relates well to hope, because when employees have relationships with coworkers they are more likely to seek guidance and attain support when tasks become challenging. Self concept internal also plays a strong role in hope due to the challenge of achieving higher competency. When tasks increase in diff iculty, an employee is motivated to persevere through the challenge because the end result is greater knowledge, skills, and abilities. In addition, year born, instrumental wor k motivation, and goal internalization work motivation were significant predict or s of normative commitment. Year born is a significant predictor of normative commitment because younger generations that are early in a career path are more

PAGE 87

87 focused on finding where they fit in the world of work whereas older generations are more content in their careers due to longer tenure in the workforce. Also, instrumental motivation is a significant predictor of normative. When an employee receives substantial benefits i n an organization, such as pay, and when special projects are assigned, dedication through a sense of obligation develops. There were no significant pred ictors for affective commitment, but year born was found to be a significant predictor of continuance c ommitment. The older an employee gets the less valuable and desirable they tend to feel toward an employer, which makes the costs of leaving an organization too great for fear no other jobs will be available. In addition, younger employees often enter the workforce with debts from student loans that must be paid within a fixed time period. Also, younger employees are starting families resulting in additional financial responsibilities Therefore, younger employees also tend to be concerned with maintaining e mployment in order to pay back student loans and meet family obligations These conclusions follow the trend that popular literature found in management and in the media have falsely stereotyped generat ions (Macky et al., 2008; Wong et al., 2008 ; Jurkiewi cz, 2000 ). Inconsistent findings of generational differences allude that differences as well as similarities may be context bound and fluctuate based on the nature of the work environment Yu and Miller (2005) found generational differences in preferred le adership styles in the manufacturing industry, but no differences in the education sector. If generational differences and similarities are context bound, then researchers should focus on what factors cause differences and what factors lead to similarities The sample in this study provided the unique opportunity to explore

PAGE 88

88 generational characteristics in an institution that had re cently went through a merger which resulted in organizational hierarchy restructuring. Prior to the merger this institution wa s divided into three independent institutions. E ach institution had chief level positions and branches that were managed by loan officers Post merger, the three independent institutions became one institution with the only surviving chief level positions being the ceo/p resident and the chief financial officer which resulted in the retirement of some employees However, f ive chief level positions were created and each branch is managed by appointed branch leaders. Therefore, three different cultures merg ed together leaving this institution in a transition phase where employees had to adjust to new operations and managerial rep orting. The nature of the working environment in this sample may have contributed to the findings; however, more research is needed in this area. In addition, inconsistent findings of gen erational comparisons could be due to the lack of researchers accounting for maturity or life cycle stages Rhodes (1989) first posited the difficulty of identifying generational cohort differences f rom what may be attitudes and preferences are life long effects (Schewe & Meredith, 1994). As a result maturity has often been disregarded in generational research. H owever, researchers As discussed in Chapter 2 Maslow (1943) indicated in the Theory of Human Motivation that certain conditions, such as freedom to speak, freedom to do w hat one wishes as person is satisfied, and once satisfied motivation to ceases. These basic conditions are

PAGE 89

89 often satisfied as a person ages, indicating a decline in motiv ation as one grows old. Nonetheless, a longitudinal study of generations would reveal if differences in the workplace are due to life cycle stages and maturity or to generational cohorts. According to Yu and Miller (2005), it is paramount that leaders ad apt their leadership style to positively contribute to motivation. Leaders and Managers will have more success in the workplace if they base decisions according to valid models of employee characteristics as opposed to false assumptions (Stone, 1998). On t he other hand organizational leaders that disregard the characteristics of employees or believe the false assumptions assigned to generational cohorts as seen in popular literature are doing a true disservice to their organization. According to Yu and M iller (2005) simple changes to job designs, reward systems, and organizational structures are often the s olution to keeping an engaged workplace. National Research Agenda This study sought to aid The National Research A genda: Agricultural Education and Communication 2011 2015 by furthering the following research priority area (RPA): RPA 3: Sufficient Scientific and Professional Workforce that addresses the challenges of the 21 st century RPA Outcome: A sufficient supply of well prepared agricultural scien tists and professionals drive sustainable growth, scientific discovery, and innovation in public, private, and academic settings. This research aided the RPA 3 by providing an understanding of the differences and similarities of 21 st century workers in ord er to improve work efficiency through motivation tactics, goal setting techniques, and overall to understand effective collaboration to solve challenging problems. RPA 4: Meaningful, Engaged Learning in all Environments

PAGE 90

90 RPA Outcome: Learners in all agricu ltural education learning environments will be actively and emotionally engaged in learning, leading to high levels of achievement, life and career readiness, and professional success. This research aided the RPA 4 by seeking to identify how employees are motivated and committed in order for organizations and learning institutions to effectively develop and maintain an engaging environment that appeals to adult learners. By tapping into the motivation sources of learners, organizations and learning institut ions will be able to tailor workshops, training programs, and incentive plans that advance thinking and performance. Recommendations Based on the results and conclusions of this study, the research er has made recommendations for p ractitioners and researchers. Recommendations for Practice This institution should compare the findings of this stu dy to their incentive motivation sources. This institution should c ultivate an environment that makes employees feel their contributions are important. This institution should survey employees every year for feedback on organizational activities initiatives, and satisfaction with formal job responsibilities This insti tution should seek ethnic diversity within their organization. This institution should strive to make sure job responsibilities and tasks reinforce perceptions of traits, competencies, and values. Managers at this institution should pro vide task feedback to employees that perceptions of traits, competencies, and values. This institution should keep in mind that employees are able to handle ambiguous tasks when assigning responsibilities. This institution sho uld promote relationship development among coworkers and also between employees and managers. Relationship development allows for open communication and collaboration. A supportive environment will also motivate employees to go beyond their formal job desc riptions.

PAGE 91

91 Recommendations for Research The methodology of this study should be replicated with a larger population sample that can capture an equal representation of each generational cohort. Further researc h should compare generational cohort characterist ics to age in regards to career maturity or the process of life stages. Future research on generations should focus on the context of the workplace and/or nature of the environment A longitudinal study should be conducted to determine if life cycle stage s are the reason for differences in the workplace or if the differences are a result of generational cohorts. Future research should seek to examine a relationship between self concept internal work motivation and normative commitment. Future research shou ld seek to explain the relationship between goal internalization work motivation and continuance commitment. A longitudinal study should examine tenure in predicting motivation sources, hope, or organizational commitment. Researchers should follow a strict guideline of defining the years that each generation was born. Inconsistencies in the definition of birth years has made it difficult to compare research findings. Summary This chapter began by presenting an overview of the significance of conducting re search in this area, along with the purpose and objectives of this study. The methodology of this study was discussed and included specifics on the population, how data were analyzed, and the response rate. Next, a summary of findings and conclusions were presented. Each objective was stated and discussed based on statistical findings. In addition, the findings of this study were connected to the national research agenda and recommendations for practitioners and researchers were provided

PAGE 92

92 APPENDIX A INSTI TUTIONAL REVIEW BOAR D APPROVAL

PAGE 93

93

PAGE 94

94 APPENDIX B SURVEY COMPLETION RE QUESTS Pre Survey Em ail Dear Employee, My name is Holly Cain and I am a graduate student at the University of Florida in the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences working on my Master Leadership Development. I am writing to invite you to participate in my thesis research, workplace (Veterans, Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Millennials). The intent or goal of my research is to determine how each generation is motivated, how they pursue goals and how committed they are to their organizations. In the next week, you will be receiving an email containing a link to participate in this study. Your participation is greatly appreciated and completely voluntary. There is absolutely no penalty for not participating. If you choose to participate, you will answer ite ms on three confidential assessments that will take approximately 15 20 minutes to complete. You do not have to answer any question you do not want to answer, and can stop at any time without penalty. If you would like more information on this study, pleas e contact me at 408 Rolfs Hall, Gainesville campus, 352 273 2095, hollykreed@ufl.edu or Dr. Nicole Stedman, 217B Rolfs Hall, Gainesville campus, 352 273 2585. If you have questions about your rights as a research par ticipant, please contact the UF IRB Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 32611 2250, 352 392 0433. Again, your participation is completely anonymous and would be greatly appreciated. You are helping to develop a better understanding of the differences and similarities among generations in the workplace for the benefit of managers, leaders, and researchers working to improve the 21 st century workplace. Thank you, Holly Reed Cain Graduate Student Agricultural Leadership Development University of Florida hollykreed@ufl.edu 408 Rolfs Hall 352 273 2095

PAGE 95

95 Initial Contact Email October 3, 2011 Dear E mployee, On September 22 nd you received an email inviting you to participate in my graduate research at the University of Florida regarding generational differences in the workplace. If you follow the link below you will be directed to participate in the survey. This survey has been previously tested for accuracy and took participants an average of ten m inutes to complete. Again, your participation is completely anonymous and voluntary. If you have any questions or concerns, I can be reached at hollykreed@ufl.edu or (352)273 2095. Your contribution to my thesis re search is greatly appreciated! It is only through the help of people like you that research questions can be answered. The link: https://ufaecd.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_81cSM o5hagqUoM4 Thank you, Holly Reed Cain Graduate Student Agricultural Leadership Development University of Florida hollykreed@ufl.edu 408 Rolfs Hall 352 273 2095

PAGE 96

96 First Follow Up Email October 10, 2011 Dear E mp loyee, chance to take the survey that you still have the opportunity. This survey is completely anonymous and confidential and will take approximately 10 minutes to complete. Your help in answering this research question will be greatly beneficial not only in helping me complete my thesis research, but to other researchers in the Lea dership field working to improve your workplace environment. The survey link: https://ufaecd.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_81cSMo5hagqUoM4 Thank you in advance, Holly Reed Cai n Graduate Student Agricultural Leadership Development University of Florida hollykreed@ufl.edu 408 Rolfs Hall 352 273 2095

PAGE 97

97 Second Follow Up Email October 18, 2011 Dear E mployee, Your opportunity to contribute to the research, Generational Differences in the Workplace is quickly wrapping up. However, the link to the survey is still available. Just copy and paste the survey link into your URL. Link: https://ufaecd.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_81cSMo5hagqUoM4 Your participation is completely anonymous and confidential. Thank you so much to those of you who have already participated. Your help is greatly appreciated! If you have any q uestions or comments, I can be contacted at hollykreed@ufl.edu If you have questions regarding your rights as a survey participant please contact the University of Florida Institutional Review Board at 352 392 0433. Thank you, Holly Reed Cain Graduate Student Agricultural Leadership Development University of Florida hollykreed@ufl.edu 408 Rolfs Hall 352 273 2095

PAGE 98

98 Third Follow Up Email October 26, 2011 Dear E mployee, Toge ther we are making great progress toward the research Generational Differences in the Workplace. Due to steady survey feedback, the survey will continue to be available. I am eag er to keep hearing from you! Thank you so much if you have already participate d; we are now closer to answering this research priority. Once more, participation in this survey is completely anonymous. To participate, copy and paste the following link into your web browser. Survey Link: https://ufaecd.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_81cSMo5hagqUoM4 If you have any questions I can be contacted at hollykreed@ufl.edu For questions regarding your rights as a sur vey part icipant please contact the University of Florida Institutional Review Board at 352 392 0433 Thank you, Holly Reed Cain Graduate Student Agricultural Leadership Development University of Florida hollykreed@ufl.ed u 408 Rolfs Hall 352 273 2095

PAGE 99

99 Fourth Follow Up Email November 2, 2011 Dear Employee, We are now wrapping up the research on Generational Differences in the Workplace. The survey will officially close on Wednesday, November 9 th at 12 am, giving you only one week left to participate if you have not done so already. To participate copy and paste the following link into your web browser. Link: https://ufaecd.qualtrics.com/SE/? SID=SV_81cSMo5hagqUoM4 This survey is completely anonymous and confidential. If you have any questions I can be contacted at hollykreed@ufl.edu For questions regarding your rights as a survey participant please co ntact the University of Florida Institutional Review Board at 352 392 0433. Thank you all so much for your willingness to contribute to my graduate thesis! Sincerely, Holly Reed Cain Graduate Student Agricultural Leadership Development University of Fl orida hollykreed@ufl.edu 408 Rolfs Hall 352 273 2095

PAGE 100

100 Fifth Follow Up Email November 8, 2011 Dear Employee, It was brought to my attention that the survey link for Generational Differences in the Workplace was cl osed by the Qualtrics survey management system I apologize for this inconvenience and assure that the survey link is now working properly. As a result the survey deadline will be extended until Tuesday, November 23 rd at 12 a m. If you have not already p articipated in the survey I would greatly appreciate your support. To participate in the survey, copy and paste the following link into your web browser. Link: https://ufaec d.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_81cSMo5hagqUoM4 Thank you for your attention to this matter and willingness to contribute to graduate research at the University of Florida Sincerely, Holly Reed Cain Graduate Student Agricultural Leadership Development Uni versity of Florida hollykreed@ufl.edu 408 Rolfs Hall 352 273 2095

PAGE 101

101 Final Contact Email November 30, 2011 Dear Employee I am pleased to announce that your participation in the survey Generational Differences in t he Workplace was a success! Thank you so much to each person who contributed to my thesis research. The College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, as well as the department of Agricultural Education and Communication greatly benefit from your support of ac ademic research. In return, through our contribution of research, we strive to make advancements that will improve your 21 st century workplace. Thank you again for your generosity. Sincerely, Holly Reed Cain Graduate Student Agricultural Leadership De velopment University of Florida hollykreed@ufl.edu 408 Rolfs Hall 352 273 2095

PAGE 102

102 APPENDIX C INTRUMENTATION Motivation Sources Inventory The purpose of this survey is to describe the things that best motivate you. R ate your level of agreement with each of the following statements on the scale below. There are not right or wrong answers. Read each statement and answer honestly about yourself. Answer each item according to the following scale: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree Mostly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Mostly Agree Strongly Agree _____ 1. I prefer to do things that are fun. _____ 2. I like to be rewarded for extra responsibilities. _____ 3. It is important that others appreciate the wor k I do. _____ 4. Decisions I make reflect my personal standards. _____ 5. I work hard for a company if I agree with its mission. _____ 6. I get excited when working on things I enjoy doing. _____ 7. I will work harder if I get paid for the extra effort. __ ___ 8. I like to get recognition for a job well done. _____ 9. It is important that my work requires my unique skills. _____ 10. I need to believe in a cause before I work hard. _____ 11. I often put off work so I can do something better. _____ 12. I work harder if I know my efforts will lead to better rewards. _____ 13. I work harder if I know my efforts will be praised. _____ 14. I work harder if I know my skills are needed.

PAGE 103

103 _____ 15. When I believe in the cause, I work hard to help it succeed. _____ 16. _____ 17. I work hard to find ways to earn more income. _____ 18. I am motivated when people make me feel appreciated. _____ 19. My favorite tasks are those that are the most challenging. ___ __ 20. I work hard when I feel a sense of purpose in the work. _____ 21. I prefer to spend time with people who are fun to be with. _____ 22. I like to find ways to earn more money. _____ 23. I work hard on the job to strengthen my reputation. _____ 24. I prefer to do things that give me a sense of achievement. _____ 26. When choosing jobs, I consider which job will be most fun. _____ 27. I like to keep looking for better business opportu nities. _____ 28. I give my best effort when I know others will notice. _____ 29. I am motivated when my skills are needed.

PAGE 104

104 State Hope Scale Read each item carefully. Using the scale sho wn below, please select the number that best describes how you think about yourself right now and put that number in the blank provided. Please take a few moments to focus on yourself and what is going on in your life at this moment. Once you have this "he re and now" set, go ahead and answer each item according to the following scale: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Definitely False Mostly False Somewhat False Slightly False Slightly True Somewhat True Mostly True Definitely True _____ 1. If I should find myself in a jam, I could think of many ways to get out of it. _____ 2. At the present time, I am energetically pursuing my goals. _____ 3. There are lots of ways around any problem that I am facing now. _____ 4. Right now I see myself as being pretty successful. _____ 5. I can think of many ways to reach my current goals. _____ 6. At this time, I am meeting the goals that I have set for myself.

PAGE 105

105 Organizational Commitment Scale Read each item carefully. Using the scale shown below, please select the number that best desc ribes you. There is no right or wrong answers. Answer each item according to the following scale: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree Mostly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neutral Somewhat Agree Mostly Agree Strongly Agree _____ 1. I would be very happy to sp end the rest of my career in this organization. _____ 2. I enjoy discussing my organization with people outside it. _____ 3. I really feel as if this organization's problems are my own. _____ 4. I think I could easily become as attached to another organiza tions as I am to this one. _____ 5. I do not feel like "part of the family" at my organization. _____ 6. I do not feel "emotionally attached" to this organization. _____ 7. This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me. _____ 8. I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization. _____ 9. I am not afraid of what might happen if I quit my job without having another one lined up. _____ 10. It would be very hard for me to leave my organization right now, even if I wanted to. _____ 11. Too much of my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted to leave my organization right now. _____ 12. It wouldn't be too costly for me to leave my organization in the near future.

PAGE 106

106 _____ 13. Right now, staying with my organization is a matter of necessity as much as desire. _____ 14. I believe that I have too few options to consider leaving this organization. _____ 15. One of the few negative consequences of leaving this organization would be the scarcity of available alternatives. _____ 16. One o f the major reasons I continue to work for this organization is that may not match the overall benefits I have here. _____ 17. If I had not already put so much of myself into this organization, I might consider working elsewhere. _____ 18. I do not feel any obligation to remain with my current employer. _____ 19. Even if it were to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave my organization now. _____ 20. I would feel gu ilty if I left my organization now. _____ 21. This organization deserves my loyalty. _____ 22. I would not leave my organization right now because I have a sense of obligation to the people in it. _____ 23. I owe a great deal to my organization.

PAGE 107

107 LIST O F REFERENCES Adams, V. H., Snyder, C. R., Rand, K. L., King, E. A., Sigman, D. R., Pulvers, K. M. (2002). Hope in the workplace. In Giacolone R, Jurkiewicz, C (Eds.), Workplace spirituality and organizational performance. New York: Sharpe. Aldisert, L. (1 999). Generational distinctions part two. Bank Marketing 31 (4), 38. Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1997). Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, research & application Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Andrews, A. L. (2011). Factors influencing leadership in collegiate agricultural organizations: The role of gender. (Masters, University of Florida). Retrieved from http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0042933/andrews_a.pdf Ansoorian, A., Good, P. & Samuelson, D. (2003). Managing generational differences. L eadership, 32(5), 34 36. Arsenault, P. M. (2004). Validating generational differences: A legitimate diversity and leadership issue. The Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 25(2), 124 141. Averill, J. R., Catlin, G., & Chon, K. K. (1990). Rul es of hope New York: Springler Verlag. Barbuto, J. E., Bryant, S., & Pennisi, L. A. (2010). Intergenerational differences in mental boundaries. Psychological Reports, 106(2), 562 566. Barbuto, J.E., & Miller, M.L. (2008). Generation gaps in the workplac e: Exploring differences in work motivation between generational cohorts. Paper presented and published in proceedings, Midwest Academy of Management, 51 st Annual Meeting. October 2 4, 2008. St. Louis, MO. Barbuto, J. E., & Scholl, R. W. (1998). Motivatio n Sources Inventory: Development and validation of new scales to measure an integrative taxonomy of motivation. Psychological Reports, 82, 1011 1022. Barnett, C. (2009, August). Learning Curve. Florida Trend 52 (5), 76. Bohlander, G., & Snell, D. (2010). The challenge of human resources management. In M. Acuna, & J. Sabatino (Eds.), Managing Human Resources (pp. 4). Mason, OH: South Western Cengage Learning. Braungart, R. G., & Braungart, M. M. (1984). Generational politics. Micropolitics, 3, 349 415.

PAGE 108

108 Brockner, J., Siegel, P. A., Daly, J. F., Tyler, T., & Martin, C. (1997). When trust matters: the moderating effect of outcome favoribility. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 558 583. Brousseau, K. R., Driver, M. J., Eneroth, K., & Larsson, R. (19 96). Career pandemonium: Realigning organizations and individuals. Academy of Management Executive, 10 (4), 52 66. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010). Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population by age, sex, and race [Household data annua l averages]. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat3.pdf Burke, M. E. (2004). Generational differences survey report. Retrieved from Society for Human Resource Management website: www.shrm.org/.../SurveyFindings/Articles/Pages/Generational_20Differ ences_20 Survey_20Report.aspx Button, S. B., Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1996). Goal orientation in organizational research: A conceptual and empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67 (1), 26 48. Carpini, M. X. D. ( 1989). Age and history: Generations and sociopolitical change. In R. S. Sigel (Ed.), Political Learning in Adulthood: A Sourcebook of Theory and Research (pp. 11 55). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Carver, L., Candela, L., & Gutierrez. (2011). Survey of generational aspects of nurse faulty and organizational commitment. Nursing Outlook, 59, 137 148. Cascio, W. P. (1993). Downsizing: What do we know? What have we learned? Academy of Management Executive, 7(1), 95 104. Christenson. (1977). Gene rational value differences. The Gerontologist, 17(4), 367 374. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112 (1), 155 159. Coomes, M. D. and DeBard, R. (2004), A generational approach to understanding students. New Directions for Student S ervices, 2004: 5 16. Craig, K. J. W. (1943). The nature of explanation Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. and talent retention across generations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 929 953. Dawn, S. (2004). From one generation to the next. NZ Buisness, 18(1 ).

PAGE 109

109 Deal, J. J. (2007). Retiring the generation gap. How employees young and old can find common ground. Center for Creative Leadership & Jossey Ba ss, San Francisco, CA. Dencker, J., Aparna, J., & Martocchio, J.J. (2007). Employee benefits as context for intergenerational conflict. Human Resources Management Review, 17 208 220. Dillman, D. A. (2006). Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method 2007 Update with New Internet, Visual, and Mixed Mode Guide Wiley. Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., and Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, Mail, and Mixed Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New Jersey: Wiley. Dries, N., Pepermans, R., & De Ke rpel, E. (2008). about career. Is satisfied the new successful? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23 (8), 907 928. Dulin, L. (2008). Leadership preferences of a generation y cohort. Journal of Leadership Studies, 2(1), 4 3 59. Dwyer, R. J. (2009). Prepare for the impact of the multi generational workforce! Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy 3 (2), 101 110. Eisner, S. P. (2005). Managing generation y. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 70 4 15. Glass, A (2007). Understanding generational differences for competitive success. Industrial and Commercial Training 39 (2), 98 103. Haasen, A., & Shea, G. F. (1997). A Better Place to Work: A New Sense of Motivation Leading to High Productivity. New York: AMACOM Hammill, G. (Winter/Spring, 2005). Mixing and managing four generations of employees. FDU Magazine Online Retrieved from: http://www.fdu.edu/newspubs/magazine/05ws/ generations.htm Hart, P. M., Schembri C., Bell, C. A., & Armstrong, K. (2003). Leaders hip, climate, work attitudes, and commitment: Is generation x really that different. Paper presented at Academy of Management Meeting, Seattle, Washington. Hatfield, S. L. (2002). Understanding the four generations to enhance workplace management. AFP Ex change, 22(4), 72 74. Hays, S. (2000). Gen X and the art of the reward. Workforce, 78, 44 7.

PAGE 110

110 Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate employees. Harvard Business Review, 46, 53 62. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The Motivation to Work (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Hill, R. P. (2002). Managing across generations in the 21 st century: Important lesson from the ivory trenches. Journal of Management Inquiry, 11(60), 60 66. Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (1991). Gene York: William Morrow. Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: the next great generation. New York: Random House Inc. Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2000). Generation X and the public employee. Public Person nel Management, 29 (1), 55 74. Jurkiewicz, C.E., & Brown, R.G. (1998). GenXers vs. boomers vs matures: generational comparisons of public employee motivation. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 18 18 37. Kogan, M. (2001). Briding the gap across t he generation divide in the federal workplace. Government Executive, 33(12), 16 21. Kupperschmidt, B.R. (2000). Multigeneration employees: strategies for effective management. The Health Care Manager 19 65 76. Lancaster, L. C., & Stillman, D. (2003). W hen Generations Collide. New York, NY: HarperBusiness. Larson, M., & Luthans, F. (2006). Potential added value of psychological capital in predicting work attitudes. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 13, 75 92. Lauer, R. H. (1973). Perspe ctives on social change Boston : Allyn and Bacon. Lawler, E. E. (2005). Creating high performance organizations. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 43 (10), 10 17. Leonard, N.H., Beauvais, L.L., & Scholl, R. W. (1999). Work motivation: The incorpo ration of self concept based processes. Human Relations, 52(8), 969 998.

PAGE 111

111 Levy, L., Carroll, C., Francoeur, J., and Logue, M. (2005). The generational mirage? A pilot study into the perceptions of leadership of generation and y. Hudson Global Resources, Sy dney. Lindner, J. R., Murphy, T. H., & Briers, G. E. (2001). The handling of nonresponse in agricultural education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42(4), 43 53. ge neration. Franklin Lakes, NJ: Career Press, Inc. Loomis, J. E. (2000). Gen X Indianapolis, IN: Rough Notes Co. Luthans, F., Avolio, B., Walumbwa, F., Li, W. (2005). The psychological capital of chinese workers: Exploring the relationship with performan ce. Management and Organizational Review, 1, 247 269. Luthans, F., Luthans, K. W., Luthans, B. C. (2004). Positive psychological capital : Beyond human and social capital. Business Horizons, 47(1), 45 50. Luthans, F., Norman, S. M., Avolio, B. J, & Avey J. B. (2008). The mediating role of psychological capital in the supportive organizational climate employee performance relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 219 238. Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Psychological cap ital. New York: Oxford University Press. Lyons, T. L., Duxbury, L, & Higgins, C. (2007). An empirical assessment of generation differences in basic human values. Psychological Reports, 101, 339 352. Maccoby, M. (1988). Why work: Motivating and leading th e new generation. New York: Simon & Schuster. Macky, K., Gardner, D., & Forsyth, S. (2008). Generational differences at work: Introduction and overview. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 857 861. Mannheim, K. (1972). The problem of generations. I n G. Altbach & R. S. Laufer (Eds.), The New Pilgrims. New York: David McKay (originally published in 1928). Martin, C., & Tulgan, B. (2002). Managing the generation mix: From collision to collaboration (2 ed.). Amberst, MA: HRD Press. Maslow, A. H. (1943 ). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370 396. McCrindle, M. & Hooper, D. (2006). Gen Y: attracting, engaging and leading a new generation at work, white paper, University of Tasmania, Hobart.

PAGE 112

112 McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2010) Research in education: Evidence based inquiry Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc. Meister, J. C., & Willyerd, K. W. (2010). The 2020 Workplace. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. Meredith, G. & Schewe, C.D. (1994). The power of cohorts. American Demo graphics, December, pp. 22 31. Meyer, J. P, & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61 89. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Meyer, J. P. & Allen, N. J. (2004). TCM employee commitment survey: Academic users Meyer, J. P. & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commit ment in the workplace: Toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11, 299 326. Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee Commitment and Motivation: A conceptual analysis and integrative model. Journal of Applied Psyc hology, 89(6), 991 1007. Montana, P. J., & Lenaghan, J. A. (1999). What motivates and matters most to generations x and y. Journal of Career Planning and Placement, 59(4), 27 30. Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M., & Porter, L.W. (1979). The measurement of organ izational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14 224 247. Murphy, E. F. Jr., Gibson, J.W., & Greenwood, R.A. (2010). Analyzing generational values among managers and non managers for sustainable organizational effectiveness. S.A.M. Advanced Manag ement Journal, 75 (1), 33 53. Niemiec, S. (2000). Finding common ground for all ages. Security Distributing and Marketing, 30 (3). Osborne, E. W. (Ed.) (n.d.). National research agenda: Agricultural education and communication, 2011. Gainesville, FL: Unive rsity of Florida, Department of Agricultural Education and Communication. Ozag, D. (2006). The relationship between the trust, hope, and normative and continuance commitment of merger survivors. Journal of Managerial Development, 25(9), 870 883.

PAGE 113

113 Patalano C. (2008). A study of the relationship between generational group identification and organizational commitment: Generation x vs. generation y. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?did=1475180271&Fmt=7&clientI d=79356&RQ T=309&VName=PQD. Peterson, S., & Luthans, F. (2003). The positive impact of development of hopeful leaders. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 24, 26 31. BJS 45 (3), 482 495. Pinder, C. (1984). Work Motivation: Theory, Issues, and Applications. Glenview: Scott, Foresman and Company. Pinder, C.C. (1998). Work Motivation in Organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Ramlall, S. (2004). A r eview of employee motivation theories and their implications for employee retention within organizations. Journal of American Academy of Business, 5. Rawlins. C., Indvik, J., & Johnson, P. R. (2008). Understanding the new generation: What the millennial c ohort absolutely, positively must have at work. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications, and Conflict, 12 (2), 1 8. Rentz, J. O. & Reynolds, F. D. (1991). Forecasting the effects of an aging population on product consumption: an age old period co hort framework. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 355 360. Robbins, S. P. (2001). Organizational Behavior: Concepts, Controversies, and Applications (8th ed). New York: Prentice Hall Inc. Rodriguez, R. O., Green, M. T., & Ree, M. J. (2003). Leading gene ration x: Do the old rules apply? Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9 (4), 67 75. Rowh, M. (2007). Managing younger workers. Office Solutions, 24(1), 29 32. Samad, S. (2011). The effects of job satisfaction on organizational commitment and job companies. European Journal of Social Sciences, 18(4), 602 611. Schewe, C. D. & Meredith, G. E. (1994). Digging deep to delight the mature adult consumer. Marketing Management, 3, 20 35.

PAGE 114

114 Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 878 891. Schweiger, D. M., & DeNisi, A. S. (1 991). Communication with employees following a merger: a longitudinal field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 34(1 ), 110 135. Fortune 181 196. Smola, K. W., Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generat ional differences: revisiting generational work values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior 23 363. Smith, G. P. (2001). Here today, here tomorrow transforming your workforce from high turnover to high retention. Chicago, IL: Dearb orn Trade Publishing. Society for Human Resource Management. (2011). Intergenerational conflict in the workplace SHRM poll. Retrieved from Society of Human Resource Management website: http://www.shrm.org/Research/SurveyFindings/Articles/Pages/Intergenera tionalC onflictintheWorkplace.aspx Snyder, C.R. (1995). Conceptualizing, measuring, and nurturing hope. Journal of Counseling & Development 73, 355 360 Snyder, C. R. (2002). Hope theory: Rainbows in the Mind. Psychological Inquiry, 13(4), 249 275. Sny der, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., Sigmon, S. T., Yoshinobu, L., Gibb, J., Langelle, C., & Harney, P. (1991). The will and the ways: Development and Validation of an individual differences measure of hope. Journal of P ersonality and Social Psychology, 60(4), 570 585. Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. (2002). Handbook of positive psychology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Snyder, C. R., Sympson, S. C., Ybasco, F. C., Borders, T. F., Babyak, M. A., & Higgins, R. L. (1996 ). Development and validation of the state hope scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(2), 321 335. Steers, R. M. (1977). Antecedents and Outcomes of Organizational Commitment. Administrative Science Quarterly 22(1), 46 56. Steinhaus, C.S. and Perry J.L., 1996. Organizational commitment: Does sector matter. Public Productivity & Management Review, 19, 278 288.

PAGE 115

115 Stone, R. J. (1998). Human Resource Management, 3 rd edition, Wiley Australia, Brisbane. Stotland, E. (1969). The psychology o f hope. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1985). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel and W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (p. 7 24). Chicago: Nelson Hall. Tapscott, D. (2009). Gro wn up digital: How the net generation is changing your world. New York: McGraw Hill. Tulgan, B. (2003). Managing Generation X New York, NY: Capstone. Tulgan, B. (2004). Trends point to a dramatic generational shift in the future workforce. Employment Re lations Today 30 (4), 23 31. Twenge, J. M. (2000). The age of anxiety? Birth cohort change in anxiety and neuroticism, 1952 1993. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (6), 1007 1021. Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, S. M. (2008). Generational differences in psychological traits and their impact on the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23 (8), 862 877. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley & Sons. Vroom, V. H. (2005). On the Origins of Expectancy Theory. In K. Smith & M. Hitt (Ed.), Great minds in management: The process of theory development (pp. 239 247) New York: Oxford University Press. Wong, M., Gardiner, E., Lang, W., & Coulon, L. (2008). Generational d ifferences in personality and motivation do they exist and what are the implications for the workplace. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 878 890. Youssef, C. M., & Luthans, F. (2007). Positive organizational behavi or in the workplace : The impact of hope, optimism, and resilience. Journal of Management, 33(5), 774 800. Yu, H. & Miller, P. (2005). Leadership style: The X Generation and Baby Boomers compared in different cultural contexts. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 26 (1), 3 5 50. Zemke, R., Raines, C., & Filipczak, B. (2000). Generations at work: Managing the clash of veterans, boomers, Xers, and ne xters in your workplace. New York: AMACOM.

PAGE 116

116 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Holly Kendall Reed Cain was born in Gainesville, Florida. She w as raised in Lake Butler, Florida and graduated from Union County High S chool in 2006. In the year following high school graduation Holly finish ed her Associate of Arts degree from Lake City Community College and transferred to the University of Florida. Holly pursued a Bachelor of Science degree from the Warrington College of Business Administration at the University of Florida. While completing her bachelor degree, Holly was a member of the University of Florida Cheerleading team and led the Gators to a National Championship in 2008. In December 2009, Holly gradu ated with a Bachelor of Science in Business Management. Following graduation Holly completed an internship with Florida Farm Bureau coordinating their annual Field to the Hill trip in May 2010 Shortly after in July 2010 Holly married her high school sweetheart Andrew Cain In August 2010, Holly joined the Agricultural Education and Communications Department at the University of Florida to study Agricultural Leadership Development. While compl AEC3033 Technical Writing and AEC3414 Leadership Development. Following graduation Holly plans to pursue a career in human resources or pro gram/event coordinating.