Multigenerational Communication in Organizations - Insights From The Workplace

ROUTLEDGE FOCUS
MULTIGENERATIONAL
COMMUNICATION IN
ORGANIZATIONS
Insights from the Workplace
Michael G. Strawser,
Stephanie A. Smith
and Bridget Rubenking
Focus
Multigenerational
Communication in Organizations
Multigenerational Communication in Organizations explores generational

differences in the changing workplace from a communication perspective.
Starting from the reality that a workplace can contain up to five
different generations, these chapters examine topics like generational
perceptions on the job search process; organizational culture; organiza-
tional identification; organizational crises; the dark side of workplace
communication; remote working; and future challenges. Outlines of best
practices and suggestions for application are provided based on the
most recent data and corresponding literature. The authors also develop
a data-forward understanding of Generation Z in context.
This book is ideal for both scholars and practitioners in organizational
communication and management, as well as for workplace managers and
supervisors.
Michael G. Strawser is an Assistant Professor of Communication at

the University of Central Florida.
Stephanie A. Smith is an Assistant Professor of Communication at

Virginia Tech.
Bridget Rubenking is an Associate Professor of Communication at the

University of Central Florida.
Routledge Focus on Communication Studies
A Relational Model of Public Discourse

The African Philosophy of Ubuntu
Leyla Tavernaro-Haidarian
Communicating Science and Technology through Online Video
Researching a New Media Phenomenon
Edited by Bienvenido León and Michael Bourk
Strategic Communication and Deformative Transparency
Persuasion in Politics, Propaganda, and Public Health
Isaac Nahon-Serfaty
Globalism and Gendering Cancer
Tracking the Trope of Oncogenic Women from the US to Kenya
Miriam O’Kane Mara
Maatian Ethics in a Communication Context
Melba Vélez Ortiz
Enhancing Intercultural Communication in Organizations
Insights From Project Advisers
Edited by Roos Beerkens, Emmanuelle Le Pichon, Roselinde Supheert,
Jan D. ten Thije
Communicating Aggression in a Megamedia World
Beata Sierocka
Multigenerational Communication in Organizations
Michael G. Strawser, Stephanie A. Smith and Bridget Rubenking
Multigenerational
Communication in
Organizations
Michael G. Strawser,
Stephanie A. Smith, and
Bridget Rubenking
First published 2021
by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an
informa business
© 2021 Michael G. Strawser, Stephanie A. Smith and Bridget
Rubenking
The right of Michael G. Strawser, Stephanie A. Smith and
Bridget Rubenking to be identified as authors of this work has
been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of
the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic,
mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be
trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this title has been requested
ISBN: 978-0-367-71428-4 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-0-367-71430-7 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-15083-1 (ebk)
Typeset in Times New Roman

by MPS Limited, Dehradun
Contents
List of tables vii
1 The Evolving Organization 1
2 A Generational Perspective 15
3 Understanding Generational Communication

Differences in the Workplace 24
4 Generational Expectations of the Job Search 38
5 Perspectives on Organizational Culture 53
6 Organizational Identification 66
7 Communication in the Organization: Positive

Communication 80
8 The Dark Side of Communication at Work:

Conflict and Dissent 92
9 Workplace Satisfaction 106

vi Contents
10 Remote and Virtual Work 121
11 Innovation and Future Challenges 132
Index 143
Tables
1.1 The Survey and Measures 7

1.2 Reliability Coefficients, Means, and Standard
Deviations for All Study Scales and Subscales 9
1.3 Correlations Between Eight Major Study Scales 12
3.1 Generational Differences in Trust in Supervisor,
Influence of Supervisor, and Mobility from the
Organizational Communication Scale 30
3.2 Generational Differences in Time Spent Communi-
cating with Supervisors, Subordinates, and Peers 32
3.3 Generational Differences in Desirability of Frequent
Interaction with Supervisors, Subordinates, and
Peers 33
4.1 Generational Differences of Job Search Strategies 41
4.2 Generational Differences in Time Commitment and
Duration of Job Search 43
4.3 Generational Differences of Effort and Ease of Job
Search 45
4.4 Generational Differences of Nonselection Response
During a Job Search 45
4.5 Generational Differences of Expectation Violations
Related to the Job Search 48
4.6 Generational Differences of Responses to Positive
Expectancy Violations During the Job Search 49
4.7 Generational Differences of Responses to Negative
Expectancy Violations During the Job Search 49
5.1 Generational Differences in the Organizational
Culture Survey and Subscales 61
6.1 Generational Differences in the Organizational Assimi-
lation Index and Subscales 73
viii Tables
7.1 Generational Differences in the Mentoring and
Communication Social Support Scale and Subscales 87
Communication Conflict Instrument and Subscales 97
Dissent Scale and Subscales 99
9.1 Generational Differences in the Communication
Satisfaction Scale and Subscales 111
10.1 Remote Work Tools, Use, and General Purpose 127
1 The Evolving Organization
Generally, organizations and corporations consistently evolve and

change. For the purposes of this volume, we approach organizational
change through a generational lens. Meaning, throughout this book we
examine the changing organization by focusing on people within the
organization. Organizations are dynamic organisms that, at times, in-
clude four or five generations working together under one umbrella.
This dynamic can be encouraging, enlightening, and engaging. Yet, if
not approached correctly and effectively, generational differences in
organizations can cause dissent and disruption. Through our own
research and prior literature, we demonstrate that a data-driven un-
derstanding of generational differences of Baby Boomers, Generation
X, Millennials, and members of Generation Z, relating to workplace-
specific variables, can help us understand the 21st century organization
in a new and unique way. This book addresses the following organi-
zational variables: the job search, organizational culture, organizational
identification, mentorship and supportive workplace communication,
dissent and conflict, workplace satisfaction, and remote or virtual work
through a generational perspective. We believe a data-driven under-
standing of generational differences, relating to these workplace-specific
variables, can help us understand the 21st century organization in a new
and unique way.
The remainder of Chapter 1 investigates the changing organization
and previews our study. In Chapter 2, we explore the differences and
similarities among the generations in the workplace. Chapter 3 positions
communication as an integral feature of the organization. This chapter
also sets the foundation for the remainder of the book. In Chapter 4, we
begin to address topics specific to our study and previous research.
Specifically, Chapter 4 discusses generational differences in the job
search process. Chapter 5 describes differing perspectives on organiza-
tional culture. In Chapter 6, we offer findings on organizational
identification and belonging. Chapter 7 and Chapter 8 describe different
perspectives on communication in the organization, first exploring
positive communication and then detailing different perceptions of the
dark side of communication in organizations. Chapter 9 explores
workplace satisfaction. Chapters 10 and Chapter 11 discuss more
future-oriented ideas like remote work and innovation. Chapter 11 also
attempts to describe the future of work. While the chapters are, pri-
marily, research-related we have used this space to also identify some
best practices that may be helpful for those leading and managing
generational teams. As we dive into generational differences in the
workplace, it is important to first understand how the organization has
changed and why the modern, or 21st century organization, functions as
it does.
1.1 Investigating Organizational Change

It is difficult to conceptualize how organizations evolve. For one, or-
ganizations are living, breathing organisms (Arghode, Jandu, &
McLean, 2020). They are not stagnant. Organizations grow, develop,
die, and change. For some, organizations have been defined according
to academic foci and theories of management. The dominant concept
of the 1960s, McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y, situated two dif-
ferent work styles and approaches to work itself. McGregor (1960)
believes people will be motivated by either a carrot or a stick and that
most individuals have an inherent dislike for work or will value work
itself. The emphasis was on the worker, the employee, the individual.
The manager, during this time, had to come to a more robust un-
derstanding of the human factor, or those relational elements that
manifest themselves in the workplace. The 1970s was a strategic re-
naissance, as the SWOT analysis and strategic planning rose to pro-
minence (Stait, 1972). The emphasis was still on the human factor, but
managers assumed even inept employees could be overcome by a
proper system and strategy. In the 1980s, organizations started to take
their strategy and develop true systems, in many ways lean systems,
that accomplished more with less and tried to overcome the compe-
tition by process, procedure, and productivity (Krafcik, 1988). The
human factor was still present, but the system itself was the founda-
tion. In the 1990s, organizations optimized processes used technology
to overhaul already efficient means and instead of just processes of
individual aspects of the organization the organizations themselves
became mechanisms efficient machines. The 2000s brought a renewed
emphasis on data, especially big data (Bollier, 2010) and now, in 2020,
The Evolving Organization 3
we find ourselves staring yet again into a renewed call to emphasize the
human factor.
Organizations have come full circle in many ways. At one time, the
organization had to focus on people, not process, because the orga-
nization was people. You needed people, not automation, to complete
a task, lead, delegate, and create. On this side of organizational de-
velopment though, we find that managers and leaders are more in tune
with people-understanding (Grunberg, McManigle, & Barry, 2020).
While our technology now is unmatched compared to any other time
in human history, administrators recognize that without their em-
ployees, efforts for maximum efficiency may be futile.
Even though management theories approached the organization as
a system for many years, some process to be mastered, the reality is the
organization has always been about people. It was never enough to
simply assume Employee X and Employee Y, to hearken back to
McGregor, could be ignored. Instead, Employee X and Employee Y
need to be led to be managed. We believe, in order to effectively en-
gage employees, organizations should consider the implications and
development of communication systems. If the organization is people,
then the organization survives because of communication. Organiza-
tions must come to an understanding of how employees, supervisors,
and systems engage. That engagement can in part be identified as a
communication phenomenon.
Communication in organizations will be approached more thor-
oughly in Chapter 3. As a preface, communication in many ways is the
organization. Without appropriate communication systems, both in-
ternal and external, the organization will struggle to survive. It is
important, then, for organizations to focus on communication effi-
ciency, efficacy, and effectiveness (Pirjol & Radomir, 2017). In many
ways, communication has become a defining and differentiating factor
of the 21st century organization. Communication has changed rapidly,
obviously since the 1960s when McGregor positioned his Theory X
and Theory Y, but even more recently with the advent of instant
messaging platforms, like Slack, as well as true remote work. The
organization today looks drastically different even compared to the
“typical” organization of 2010.
1.2 The 21st Century Organization

At the time of this writing, 2020–2021, the main and consistent constant
of organizations is change and in many cases rapid change. Organizations
on a regular basis deal with new technology, globalization, and new
regulations (Lartey, 2020). In addition, organizations have had to deal
with ever-changing crisis situations in 2020, such as a global pandemic,
international economic recession, and societal unrest in the United States.
These realities are hard to overcome and only enhance organizational
complexity. In essence, industries are forms of chaos and thus chaotic
systems (Lartey, 2020).
However, even in the midst of sustained chaos, these organizational
systems can evolve, grow, and adapt. It is important, though, to re-
cognize the internal audiences and different perceptions and perspec-
tives of employees in order to thrive in today’s chaos-filled climate.
While communication remains important in all organizations, the
manifestations of how communication in organizations are im-
plemented, and the relationships with supervisors/employees should be
a continual area of study.
Communication infiltrates all areas of organizational operations.
For our purposes, we address communication and organizational
implications from a variety of topics and perspectives. In analyzing the
21st century organization, it is crucial to approach a few topics that
underscore the importance of how communication impacts the orga-
nizational structure and, more specifically, relationships or perceptions
within organizations across the generational spectrum. To reiterate,
for this reason, this book addresses the following organizational
variables: the job search, organizational culture, organizational iden-
tification, mentorship and supportive workplace communication, dis-
sent and conflict, workplace satisfaction, and remote or virtual work.
Connecting Organizational Variables to the 21st Century

Workplace
The 21st century organization is a multifaceted organism. From job
search to retirement, employees, and their managers, generally navi-
gate an ever-changing, fast-paced environment where expectations
change constantly. Our economy has shifted, generally, from one fo-
cused on manual labor and commodities to a knowledge-driven re-
pository centered on human capital (Dede, 2010). This reality, in
addition to the ever-changing ways employees complete their work
tasks, at the moment the explosion of remote or virtual work, makes
organizational study a fascinating area of study. We realize that the
journey an employee takes from becoming an employee to completing
their work as a valuable member of the organization will look different
depending on the industry. However, there are general components
that apply to almost all organizations – in some capacity. For one, the
ever-increasing demand for specific job-related skills continues to be-
come more prominent (Van Laar, Van Deursen, Van Dijk, & De Haan
2017). In addition, the job search process in general, for new em-
ployees, and especially younger employees, those of the Millennial or
Generation Z affiliation, can be particularly stressful (Wanberg, Ali, &
Csillag, 2020). The job search also sets the stage for success of both the
organization and the employee (van Hooft, Krammeyer-Mueller,
Wanberg, Kanfer, & Basburg, 2020).
The culture of the organization is not only a major factor in the
actual job search process, as employees strive to find the proper ‘fit’,
but also directly impacts both the productivity and lifespan of the
organization itself (Roulin & Krings, 2020). Organizational culture,
then, becomes the catalyst and foundation for future success. The
culture comprises several different components but, as they relate to
the actual employee, how the individual identifies with the organiza-
tion (Bavik, 2016), communication, both positive and negative
(Gochhayat, Giri, & Suar, 2017), in the organization, and workplace
or job satisfaction (Meng & Berger, 2019), should be considered as key
organizational determinants. We believe a data-driven understanding
of generational differences, relating to these workplace-specific vari-
ables, can help us understand the 21st century organization in a new
and unique way. In the sections that follow, our generational study is
described and we briefly position some of our main findings.
1.3 The Generational Study

Throughout this book data will be presented from a comprehensive
generational study. The main goal of the study was to better understand
the multi-generational workforce. Therefore, the study was designed as
a detailed and in-depth online survey, including both open- and close-
ended questions.
Following institutional research protocol approvals at two uni-
versities, participants were solicited using Amazon M-Turk so that a
sample of people throughout the United States could be utilized. To be
eligible to participate, participants needed to be at least 18 years of age
and currently working full-time in the United States. There were no
restrictions about industry, education level, or other demographics.
Participants were paid one dollar upon completion of the survey.
Participants (N = 339) were also recruited from a large, public uni-
versity in the Mid-Atlantic United States. Student participants
received course research credit for completing the survey.
In all, completed surveys from 1,148 participants were analyzed. An
additional 16 completed surveys were not included in the analysis, as they
were completed by self-identified members of “The Silent Generation” or
“Generation Z.” Table 1.1 below contains demographic breakdowns for
all participants, and by each of the three generations explored in this text:
Baby Boomers (born 1946–1964), Generation X (born 1965–1981), and
Millennials (born 1982–1999).
As Table 1.1 demonstrates, a range of length of experience in the
workplace, as well as industries employed in range across all three
groups. Perhaps not surprisingly, older generations report longer time
spent in their current position, on average, as compared to younger
generations. We see the highest education level attainment in Gen X,
and the lowest among Millennials, likely an effect of recruiting current
university students. Participants were asked to identify one of 35 op-
tions of the industry in which they were employed. The most common
industries represented in the sample are Healthcare/ Medicine and
Education. The sample is somewhat more white (78.4%) and female
(61.8%) than a truly representative sample of the United States is, but
a representation of different races and ethnic groups is apparent.
The online survey was a total of 77 questions including 52 closed-
ended, Likert-style questions, and 25 open-ended response questions.
Participants first confirmed that they were working full-time before
consenting to the study and then self-selecting their generational
membership. The survey measures are listed below, followed by
Table 1.2, which provide reliability coefficients for each scale and
subscale used, as well as means and standard deviations for each.
Organizational Communication Scale (Roberts & O’Reilly, 1974). A
series of 22 questions to determine how people communicate at work.
Participants were instructed to imagine a typical week at work and
answer the questions accordingly. Some of the questions in this mea-
sure included yes/no answer choices, filling in percentages of time spent
equaling 100%, multiple choice, and Likert scale responses.
Job Searching. A combination of Likert-style questions and short
answer questions were used to determine job searching strategies, ex-
pectations, and experiences. Questions determined the extent to which
the job search was easier or harder than participants expected, how
they responded to violated job searching expectations, and how much
time they spent job searching as reflecting on their most recent job
search.
Organizational Culture Survey (Glaser, Zamanou, & Hacker, 1987).
A total of 36 questions to determine the extent to which the following
organizational culture statements applied to participants, answered
Table 1.1 The Survey and Measures
Demographics All Baby Boomers Gen X Millennials

N = 1148 N = 93 N = 234 N = 821
Sex
Female 61.8% (N = 709) 65.6% (N = 61) 58.1% (N = 136) 62.4% (N = 512)
Male 38.1% (N = 437) 33.3% (N = 31) 41.9% (N = 98) 37.5% (N = 308)
Race
White 78.4% (N = 900) 82.8% (N = 77) 78.2% (N = 183) 78% (N = 640)
Black 6.2% (N = 71) 7.5% (N = 7) 6.4% (N = 15) 6% (N = 49)
Latino(a) 4.5% (N = 52) 1.1% (N = 1) 4.3% (N = 10) 5% (N = 41)
Asian 7.6% (N = 87) 4.3% (N = 4) 8.1% (N = 19) 7.8% (N = 64)
American Indian/ 1.1% (N = 13) 2.2% (N = 2) .4% (N = 1) 1.2% (N = 10)
Alaskan
Native
Native Hawaiian/ .2% (N = 2) – – .2% (N = 2)
Pacific Islander
Other/Mixed Race 2% (N = 23) 2.2% (N = 2) 2.6% (N = 6) 1.8% (N = 15)
Education Level
High School 36.2% (N = 416) 21.5% (N = 20) 15% (N = 35) 44% (N = 361)
Associate’s degree 15.1% (N = 173) 17.2% (N = 16) 15.8% (N = 37) 14.6% (N = 120)
Bachelor’s degree 33.3% (N = 382) 34.4% (N = 32) 43.6% (N = 102) 30.2% (N = 248)
Master’s degree 12.2% (N = 140) 21.5% (N = 20) 22.6% (N = 53) 8.2% (N = 67)
Doctoral degree 3.2% (N = 37) 5.4% (N = 5) 3% (N = 7) 3% (N = 25)
(Continued)
8
Table 1.1 (Continued)
Demographics All Baby Boomers Gen X Millennials

N = 1148 N = 93 N = 234 N = 821
Time in Current
Position
In years M = 4.53 (SD = 5.25) M = 10.76 (SD = 8.24) M = 8.04 (SD = 6.52) M = 2.82 (SD = 2.83)
Range .08–40 years .33–40 years .08–25 years .08–22 years
Top Industries 41.6% employed in 65.6% employed in top 5 49.6% employed in top 5 41.% employed in top
Employed In: top 5 Industries Industries Industries 5 Industries
The Evolving Organization
1. 10.8% Healthcare/ 1. 21.5% Healthcare/ 1. 13.7% Education 1. 11% Food Service

Medical Medical
2. 10.1% Education 2. 17.2% Education 2. 9.4% Healthcare/ 2. 10% Healthcare/
Medicine Medical
3. 8.7% Food Service 3. 8.6% Finance/ Banking/ 3. 8.5% Government/ 3. 8.3% Education
Insurance Military
4. 6.5% Retail 4. 7.5% Manufacturing 4. 6% (each) 4. 7.2% Retail
Manufacturing/ Retail
5. 5.5% Finance/ 5. 5.4 % (each) Government/ 4. 6% Finance/ Banking/ 5. 5% Finance/
Banking/ Military and Non-Profits Insurance Banking/
Insurance Insurance
Table 1.2 Reliability Coefficients, Means, and Standard Deviations for All
Study Scales and Subscales
Scale Subscales Alpha Mean

(SD)
Mentoring and Communication Social .891 3.67(.69)

Support Scale
5-point scale
Career Mentoring .811 3.58(.90)
Coaching .683 3.32(.94)
Collegial – Social .826 3.69(.88)
Collegial – Task .855 4.01(.81)
Organizational Communication Conflict .831 4.09(.63)
Instrument
7-point scale
Non-confrontation strategies .870 3.97(1.13)
Solutions-oriented strategies .874 4.77(.94)
Control strategies .820 3.25(1.13)
Organizational Culture Survey .973 3.57(.79)
5-point scale
Teamwork .921 3.60(.80)
Morale .933 3.57(.95)
Information Flow .822 3.51(.88)
Involvement .887 3.38(1.00)
Supervision .922 3.66(.91)
Meetings .891 3.33(.94)
Organizational Identification Scale .943 3.76(1.24)
7-point scale
Organizational Assimilation Index .938 3.80(.74)
5-point scale
Supervisor Familiarity .851 3.76(.98)
Acculturation .888 4.18(.84)
Recognition .926 3.86(1.01)
Involvement .881 3.43(1.05)
Job Competency .725 3.89(.80)
Role Negotiation .780 3.71(1.00)
Organizational Dissent Scale .824 3.02(.60)
5-point scale
Articulated Dissent .826 3.25(.77)
Latent Dissent .862 2.78(.83)
Job Satisfaction .893 3.76(1.06)
5-point scale
Communication Satisfaction .966 3.78(.82)
5-point scale
Personal Feedback .924 3.65(1.01)
Organizational Identification .873 3.85(.89)
Communication Climate .908 3.61(1.00)
Horizontal Communication .818 3.83(.77)
Relationship with Supervisor .924 3.97(.96)
using a five-point Likert-style scale where one was “to a little extent”
and five was “to a very great extent.” Questions included items such as:
“People I work with function as a team,” “This organization respects
its workers,” and “Job requirements are made clear by my supervisor.”
The scale can be examined via one overall dimension, as well as along
six sub-dimensions: Teamwork, morale, information flow, involve-
ment, supervision, and meetings.
Organizational Identification Scale (Cheney, 1983). This unidimen-
sional scale instructed participants to think of their role as an em-
ployee within their organization and selected the answer that best
represented their attitude toward their organization, using a Likert
scale. The measure is a total of 25 questions on a 7-point Likert scale,
including items such as: “I find it easy to identify with my organiza-
tion,” “I feel that my organization cares about me,” and “I am glad I
chose to work for my organization rather than another company.”
Organizational Assimilation Index (Meyers & Oetzel, 2003). A series
of 20 questions about how participants feel part of their organization
answered on a five-point Likert-style scale where one indicates
“strongly disagree” and five indicates “strongly agree.” Items included
statements such as “I understand the standards of the company,” “I
know the values of my organization,” and “I feel involved with this
organization.” This scale contains six subdimensions: supervisor fa-
miliarity, acculturation, recognition, involvement, job competency,
and role negotiation.
Mentoring and Communication Support Scale (Hill, Bahniuk,
Dobos, & Rouner, 1989). A total of 15 questions on a 5-point Likert-
type scale where five indicates “strongly agree” and one indicates
“strongly disagree.” Questions included items such as “Someone of
higher rank frequently devotes extra time and consideration to me,”
“I have had an associate teach me the informal rules of my organi-
zation,” and “my associates and I are friends as well as coworkers.”
This scale contains four subscales: Career mentoring, coaching, col-
legial – social, and collegial – task. The coaching subscale was the
only scale or subscale to fall just short of the widely recognized .70
criteria for assessing a scale’s reliability. Means across the overall
scale and subscales were well over the midpoint, ranging from M =
3.32 for coaching to 4.01 for collegial-task.
Organizational Communication Conflict Instrument (Putnam &
Wilson, 1982). A total of 30 questions were answered on a 7-point
Likert scale to assess how often participants engage in each of the be-
haviors described. Questions included items such as: “I blend my ideas
with others to create new alternatives for resolving a conflict,” “I steer
clear of disagreeable situations,” and “I argue insistently for my stance.”
The instrument includes three subdimensions for how individuals deal
with conflict: nonconfrontation strategies, solution-oriented strategies,
and control strategies.
Organizational Dissent Scale (Kassing, 2000a). A series of 18 state-
ments about how people express their concerns about work answered
using a five-point Likert-style scale where one indicates “strongly
disagree” and five indicates “strongly agree.” Items included state-
ments such as “I complain about things in my organization with other
employees,” “I share my criticism of the organization openly,” and “I
speak with my supervisor or someone in management when I question
workplace decisions.” The scale contains two sub-scales: Articulated
dissent and latent dissent.
Job Satisfaction Scale (Pond & Geyer, 1991). Six statements an-
swered using a five-point Likert-style scale to determine a person’s
level of job satisfaction. Statements including things like “Knowing
what I know now, if I had to decide all over again, I would still take
this job,” and “This job compares with my ideal job.”
Communication Satisfaction Scale (Downs & Hazen, 1977). A total of
25 questions answered on a 5-point Likert scale to determine overall
communication satisfaction in the workplace, by examining five sub-
dimensions: personal feedback, organizational identification, communica-
tion climate, horizontal communication, and relationship with supervisor.
Table 1.3 presents a correlation matrix of all major scales pre-
sented in this text. The largest correlations seen are positive ones
between Communication Satisfaction and several other scales, in-
cluding: Organizational Culture, Organizational Assimilation, and
Job Satisfaction. While those correlations are some of the highest,
these four scales all share significant, positive, moderate-to-large
relationships. Mentoring and communication Support, along with
Organizational Identification also share significant, positive, but
slightly smaller correlations with most of the variables previously
discussed.
Some logical negative relationships are also apparent. The dark
side of organizational communication: Measures of Conflict and
Dissent interestingly share no relationship with one another, but
demonstrate small, negative relationships with Mentoring and Social
Support, Organizational Identification (Conflict) and Organizational
Assimilation (Dissent).
12
Table 1.3 Correlations Between Eight Major Study Scales
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
The Evolving Organization
1. Organizational Culture Survey .

2. Organizational Identification Scale −.264** .
3. Organizational Assimilation Index .632** −.306** .
4. Mentoring and Communication Support Scale .390** −.200** .496** .
5. Organizational Communication Conflict −.045 −.137** .010 .135** .
Instrument
6. Organizational Dissent Scale −.037 −.012 .121** .141** −.013 .
7. Job Satisfaction Scale .634** −.294** .567** .328** −.048 −.092** .
8. Communication Satisfaction Scale .776** −.298** .733** .436** .001 −.014 .695**
1.4 Conclusion
This volume approaches an organizational study from a generational
perspective. To do so, the authors provide substantial data reflective of
the variables mentioned above and subsequently use previous litera-
ture to provide a context for generational differences and implications
of these generations in the workplace. The next chapter explores the
multigenerational workplace in more depth.
References
Arghode, V., Jandu, N., & McLean, G. N. (2020). Exploring the connection
between organizations and organisms in dealing with change. European
Journal of Training and Development. Advance online publication. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-06–2020-0095
Bavik, A. (2016). Identification of organizational culture in the hospitality
industry. Tourism and Hospitality Management, 12, 197–210. https://doi.org/
10.1108/S1871-317320160000012015
Bollier, D. (2010). The promise and peril of big data. The Aspen Institute.
Cheney, G. (1983). On the various and changing meanings of organizational
membership: Field study of organizational identification. Communication
Monographs, 50, 342–362.
Dede, C. (2010). Comparing frameworks for 21st century skills. In J. Bellanca
& R. Brandt (Eds.), 21st century skills (pp. 51–76). Solution Tree Press.
Downs, C., & Hazen, M. (1977). A factor analysis of communication sa-
tisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 14, 63–74.
Glaser, S. R., Zamanou, S., & Hacker, K. (1987). Measuring and interpreting
organizational culture. Management Communication Quarterly, 1, 173–198.
Gochhayat, J., Giri, V. N., & Suar, D. (2017). Influence of organizational
culture on organizational effectiveness: The mediating role of organizational
communication. Global Business Review, 18, 691–702. https://doi.org/10.
1177%2F0972150917692185
Grunberg, N. E., McManigle, J. E., & Barry, E. S. (2020). Using social psy-
chology principles to develop emotionally intelligent healthcare leaders.
Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01917
Hill, S. E., Bahniuk, M. H., Dobos, J., & Rouner, D. (1989). Mentoring and
other communication support in the academic setting. Group and
Organization Studies, 14, 355–368.
Kassing, J. W. (2000a). Investigating the relationship between superior-
subordinate relationship quality and employee dissent. Communication
Research Reports, 17, 58–70.
Krafcik, J. F. (1988). Triumph of the lean production system. Sloan Management
Review, 30, 41–52. https://search.proquest.com/docview/224963951?accountid=
10003
Lartey, F. M. (2020). Chaos, complexity, and contingency theories: A com-
parative analysis and application to the 21st century organization. Journal
of Business Administration Research, 9, 44–51. doi: 10.5430/jbar.v9n1p44
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. McGraw-Hill.
Meng, J., & Berger, B. K. (2019). The impact of organizational culture and
leadership performance on PR professionals’ job satisfaction: Testing the
joint mediating effects of engagement and trust. Public Relations Review, 45,
64–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2018.11.002
Meyers, K. K., & Oetzel, J. G. (2003). Exploring the dimensions of organi-
zational assimilation; Creating and validating a measure. Communication
Quarterly, 51, 438–457.
Pirjol, F., & Radomir, L. L. (2017). The role of internal communication on the
efficiency of the activity in an organization. Business Excellence and
Management, 2, 27–45.
Pond, S., & Geyer, P. (1991). Differences in the relation between job sa-
tisfaction and perceived work alternatives among older and younger blue-
collar workers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39, 251–262.
Putnam, L. L., & Wilson, C. E. (1982). Communicative strategies in organi-
zational conflicts: Reliability and validity of a measurement scale.
Communication Yearbook, 6, 629–652.
Roberts, K. H., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1974). Measuring organizational commu-
nication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 321–326.
Roulin, N., & Krings, F. (2020). Faking to fit in: Applicants’ response stra-
tegies to match organizational culture. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105,
130–145. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000431
Stait, N. (1972). Management training and the smaller company: SWOT
analysis. Industrial and Organizational Training, 4, 325–330. https://doi.org/
10.1108/eb003232
van Hooft, E. A. J., Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., Wanberg, C. R., Kanfer, R., &
Basbug, G. (2020). Job search and employment success: A quantitative re-
view and future research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology. Advance
online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000675
Van Laar, E., Van Deursen, A. J. A. M., Van Dijk, J. A. G. M., De Haan, J.
(2017). The relation between 21st-century skills and digital skills: A sys-
tematic literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 577–588.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.010
Wanberg, C. R., Ali, A. A., & Csillag, B. (2020). Job seeking: The process and
experience of looking for a job. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology
and Organizational Behavior, 7, 315–317. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-
orgpsych-012119-044939
2 A Generational Perspective
The multigenerational workplace has become an area of fascinating

study. While not a novel concept, generational differences became a
mainstream area of study in 1991 with the creation of Generational
Theory (otherwise known as Fourth Turning Theory) by Strauss and
Howe. They assume that generations are cyclical and that a generation
lasts around 20–22 years. Within this 20–22 era, life experiences be-
come unifying and identifying categories for members of a particular
era. Despite some conflicting reports regarding the rigor of genera-
tional theory (Jones, 1992), it has become a helpful categorization tool
to engage personnel differences in the modern workplace.
2.1 An Overview of the Multigenerational Workplace

We are in the midst of a generational revolution. As a matter of identifi-
cation, cultural identity, an individual’s sense of self-derived group mem-
bership (Jameson, 2007), has become intricately tied – in some circles – to
generational affiliation. Schullery (2013) defined a generation as those born
between a specified year range and who share life experiences. We will go
into more detail about this below. As a cultural identity, generational
alignment may have a significant impact on workplace practices, organi-
zational culture, and workplace communication.
The multigenerational workplace has become an area of fascinating
study. While not a novel concept, generational differences became a
mainstream area of study in 1991 with the creation of Generational
Theory (otherwise known as Fourth Turning Theory) by Strauss and
Howe. They assume that generations are cyclical and that a generation
lasts around 20–22 years. Within this 20–22 era, life experiences become
unifying and identifying categories for members of a particular era.
Despite some conflicting reports regarding the rigor of generational
theory (Jones, 1992), it has become a helpful categorization tool to
engage personnel differences in the modern workplace.
Again, Schullery (2013) argues that a generation consists of those
born between a specified year range who share certain, major, life
experiences relating to pop culture, economic conditions, natural dis-
asters, and more. Strauss and Howe (1991) added that generations are
also defined by similarities in values, affections, and beliefs. No matter
the actual life stage or year distinction of generations, members of a
generational cohort are examined together because of shared interests
and experiences.
Workplaces tend to, rightly, distinguish among generations.
Organizations should understand generational differences in order to
effectively manage staff and attract new talent while retaining valuable
employees (Chenkovich & Cates, 2016; Lyons & Kuron, 2014). It is
true that generational differences manifest uniquely in the workplace,
partly because of the influence of other generations on those who may
be older or younger. Millennials, for instance, have long been known
as a cohort that craves clarity of expectation and efficient workplace
communication (Watkins & Smith, 2019). The desire for efficiency is
just one example of a generational difference that becomes a genera-
tional marker. However, there are other unique generational traits that
impact the workplace positively and negatively.
Unfortunately, differences between generations have created un-
precedented and unforeseen conflicts in the workplace (Bright, 2010).
To achieve maximum workplace effectiveness or, at the very least,
adapt to changing workplace demographics, academicians must con-
tinue to study generational distinctions. In addition, because of the
vital nature of communication to, and within, the organization, we
must consider how generational distinction impacts perceptions of
communication within organizations.
The workplace, though, is not just an exhibition of generational
differences. Widespread academic foci have been placed on genera-
tional differences in the workplace, but it is also important for orga-
nizations to consider generational similarities (Costanza & Finkelstein,
2015). Broadly, Mencl and Lester (2014) found that generations were
similar on 7 of the 10 work values examined. A clear understanding of
generational similarities in the workplace can help supervisors estab-
lish an organizational culture and communication infrastructure that
is truly cross generational and effective for the majority of employees.
Ultimately, we know that all generations desire “meaningful work,
professional development and advancement opportunities, a positive
work-life balance” (Strawser, Coffey, & Martin, 2019, p. 188) and an
A Generational Perspective 17
organizational identity that reinforces autonomy and individuality.
These tried and true employee preferences transcend-specific age ca-
tegories and serve as foundational pillars that corporations can use to
enhance a multigenerational workplace. As such, it is important to
continually assess how generational culture can create more dynamic
organizations.
Recently, Millennials became the largest generation in the work-
place, and in some avenues, work environments can contain five gen-
erations: Traditionalists, Baby Boomers, Generation X, Millennials,
and Generation Z/iGen. While the core desires of each generation are
relatively similar, contrary to popular belief, the way younger genera-
tions communicate their expectations are different. Below, a brief
summary of each generation is provided, but these will be expanded
throughout this text.
Traditionalists (Born pre-1945)

This demographic, otherwise known as the Silent Generation, arrived at
the tail end of the “Greatest Generation.” Most were born as the Great
Depression and WWII were dying down. Members of this group are
rule followers. They are more conservative, traditional, respectful, and
sacrificial work, for most Traditionalists, is an opportunity to earn
money crucial for survival (Beekman, 2011). Traditionalists, like
Boomers after them, appreciated the hierarchical structure of the “ty-
pical” organization. Cates, Cojanu, and Pettine (2013) believe formality
should be a defining factor of an organization’s culture when managing
traditional workers. Traditionalists prefer a more controlled leadership
style and, compared to other generations, appreciate individual work
and work assignments (Hammill, 2005). Traditionalists are still present
in some organizations but primarily have moved into retirement.
Baby Boomers (Born 1946–1964)

Depending on the source, Baby Boomers are considered workaholics,
materialistic, and greedy (Crampton & Hodge, 2007; Gibson,
Greenwood, & Murphy Jr., 2009). In addition, Boomers tend to
gravitate toward the concept of the “American Dream” and have
(or have had) issues with work/life balance. They are also responsible,
exceptionally loyal to their children, and ambitious. Like Millennials,
Boomers are sometimes viewed as entitled (Lyons, 2005) and some-
what self-absorbed (Weil, 2008). Boomers are still prominent in
organizations, although more are leaving the workforce.
Generation X (1965–1980)
Members of Gen X are small in number compared to their pre-
decessors and successors. They are rebellious. They saw their parents
work, constantly, and wanted more balance. Gen Xers revel in pessi-
mism. They are skeptical, cynical, and suspicious. An oft-forgotten
group today, at one time, like Millennials, members of Generation X
were discussed and criticized in popular literature (Pekala, 2001).
Because many of them grew up in homes where parents both worked
(Hart, 2006), Generation Xers had to grow up quickly and become
more independent (Yahr & Schimmel, 2013). In terms of sheer num-
bers, there are fewer Generation Xers compared to their bookend
generations, Boomers and Millennials.
Millennials (1981–1996)
Probably to the relief of Generation X, at the arrival of their work-
place transition, Millennials become the primary generational fodder
for criticism and study. Stereotypes for this group typically include
entitled, perfectionist, achievement-oriented, tolerant, confident, tech-
savvy, unfocused, “me”-first, etc. Millennials have grown up in a world
of constant advocacy. Rarely did they have to fight for themselves
because others, specifically their parents, fought for them. Millennials
may not have workplace expectations that are drastically different
from their predecessors, but they do express their expectations a little
differently (Martin, 2005). This particular generation has a strong
desire for technology-infused work, especially related to remote or
flexible work situations, and they value a positive work climate and
culture (Shaw & Ogilvie, 2010; Sutcliffe & Dhakal, 2018). As they
navigate their professional path, professional development is im-
portant for this group because they want to move up the corporate
ladder quickly (Ng & Feldman, 2010).
Generation Z/iGen (1997–2012)

Generation Z grew up in a digital world. Even more than Millennials,
they are digital natives and digital enthusiasts. They tend to have a risk-
averse existence. This group is entrepreneurial, image-driven, and
focused on their personal “brand,” and they are deeply connected to
their values and social causes. In terms of numbers, Generation Z
members comprise 32% of the global population. Often, Generation Z
will consider their jobs, job security, and job fit as matters of utmost
importance (Bernier, 2015). Z’s are incredibly diverse and open-minded
(Pew Research Center, 2014), well-connected (Shatto & Erwin, 2016),
and, unfortunately, have a shortened attention span (Hallowell &
Ratery, 2010). While it is beneficial to focus on generational similarities
as well as differences, a baseline understanding of different generations
is important as organizations work with members of each generation
individually and collectively.
2.2 Historical Development of Generational Differences

One of the biggest antecedents to generational differences is the ex-
ternal environment where people grow up and the happenings of the
world that influence daily life. For instance, Baby Boomers were in-
fluenced by the Civil Rights Movement, the Cold War, and the sexual
revolution, while Generation X lived through an energy crisis, Desert
Storm, Watergate and the women’s liberation. Millennials have been
greatly affected by world events such as 9/11 and various school
shootings, as well as a polarizing and unprecedented political en-
vironment. The era in which generations grow up greatly affects their
core values surrounding things like education, which Millennials see as
a major financial expense and burden, but which Boomers internalize
as a birthright. Core values also include preferred methods of com-
munication, with the younger generations utilizing technology more
than any previous generation; money and financial habits; family va-
lues and systems; and overall cultural outlook. Taking the historical
context of each generation into consideration helps to define the un-
ique attributes of every cohort.
In the workplace, history is a major indicator of generational dif-
ferences used to help explain variables such as work/life balance, job
expectations, work ethic, rewards and compensation, retention, and
retirement, to name a few. Perhaps most important to realize is that in
the sense of generational differences, history does not repeat itself.
Meaning, organizations cannot look to previous generations to help
predict and understand how up and coming generational cohorts will
behave in the workplace. This is why it is imperative to study each
generation separately, but also collectively, as this volume does.
2.3 Development of Multigenerational Understanding

It is well documented that these generations are, to say the least, dif-
ferent. Boomers, for instance, are career loyalists, while Millennials
typically transition jobs, or even careers, more often (Strawser et al.,
2019). Members of Generation X are more balanced in their workplace
expectations but, unlike their Millennial coworkers they tend to ap-
preciate individual, not collaborative work (Strawser et al., 2019).
Those in Generation Z are pragmatic, and not very idealistic. There is
also a widespread acknowledgment that their tech reliance may be
causing mental instability (Twenge, 2017).
Even in terms of communication, each generation has different pre-
ferences. Boomers tend to rely on phone calls or face-to-face meetings;
Generation X members will balance their operations between face-to-face
and tech-driven means; and Millennials and iGen workers appreciate
digital communication, although members of Gen Z are on record saying
they enjoy face-to-face methods as well (Patel, 2017). These commu-
nication differences are extremely important to consider as organizations
develop operations and procedures. And, in essence, these elements can
help build or destroy organizational culture and communication.
To develop a multigenerational understanding of the workplace,
empirical data are continuously needed. It is important for academi-
cians to consider implications of varying generations on all facets of
the organization. Throughout this volume, we will be synthesizing
relevant empirical literature and supplementing that with our own
findings from a comprehensive multigenerational study of workplace
communication.
It is par for the course for each generation to be negatively stereo-
typed in the media, which carries over into the workplace and inter-
personal relationships. Eventually, as the next generation begins to
develop and influence trends, attention is diverted to the newest co-
hort. To date, empirical research has focused on examining how
generations communicate in interpersonal relationships; health con-
texts; families; in groups and teams; in the classroom; and within the
workplace. However, a limited amount of research examines how
generations work together. This has created a communication divide
that further segregates and stereotypes generations rather than con-
tributing to holistic and inclusive communication practices. As
workplaces make efforts to increase diversity and inclusion, genera-
tional cohort should remain a top priority. It is through the multi-
generational workplace that people learn from one another through
mentorships, observation, and shared experiences.
2.4 Conclusion
Academic study of the workplace must be continuously refined.
While it is important to understand the organization at large, we
believe a thorough understanding of communication in the work-
place will help us have a greater understanding of expectations and
effectiveness. As a lens to study communication in the workplace,
generational differences present an applicable and popular dimension
as different eras collide in an environment centered on outcomes. The
next chapter will further explore communication in the workplace
and communication preferences of different generations based on
previous literature.
References
Beekman, T. (2011). Fill in the generation gap. Strategic Finance, 15–17.
Bernier, L. (2015). Getting ready for Gen Z. Canadian HR Reporter, 28, 11–16.
Bright, L. (2010). Why age matters in the work preferences of public em-
ployees: A comparison of three age-related explanations. Public Personnel
Cates, S. V., Cojanu, K. A., & Pettine, S. (2013). Can you lead effectively? An
analysis of the leadership styles of four generations of American employees.
International Review of Management and Business Research, 2, 1025–1041.
Chenkovich, K., & Cates, S. (2016). Welcome to the Millennial generation:
Should this generation be attracted, managed and retained by corporations
differently? International Journal of Management and Human Resources,
4, 79–93.
Costanza, D. P., & Finkelstein, L. M. (2015). Generationally based differences
in the workplace: Is there a there there? Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 8, 308–323. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.15
Crampton, S. M., & Hodge, J. W. (2007). Generations in the workplace:
Understanding age diversity. The Business Review, 9, 16–23.
Gibson, J. W., Greenwood, R. A., & Murphy, E. F., Jr. (2009). Generational
differences in the workplace: Personal values, behaviors, and popular be-
liefs. Journal of Diversity Management, 4, 1–8.
Hallowell, E., & Ratery, J. (2010). Driven to distraction. Anchor Books.
Hammill, G. (2005). “Mixing and managing four generations of employees.”
FDU Magazine Online. Retrieved September 1, 2009, from www.fdu.edu/
newspubs/magazine/05ws/generations.htm.
Hart, K.A. (2006). Generations in the workplace: Finding common ground. Lab
Jameson, D. A. (2007). Conceptualizing cultural identity and its role in in-
tercultural business communication. Journal of Business Communication,
44(3), 199–235.
Jones, G. L. (1992). Strauss, William and Neil Howe ‘Generations: The
History of America’s Future, 1584–2069’. Perspectives on Political Science,
21(4), 218.
Lyons, S. (2005). Are gender differences in basic human values a generational
phenomenon? Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 53, 763–778. Retrieved from
http://wwwfindarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_9–10_53/ai_n16084047/print
Lyons, S., & Kuron, L. (2014). Generational differences in the workplace: A
review of the evidence and directions for future research. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 35(S1), S139–S157. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1913
Martin, Carolyn A. (2005). From high maintenance to high productivity.
Industrial and Commercial Training, 37, 39–44. doi:10.1108/00197850510699965.
Mencl, J., & Lester, S. W. (2014). More alike than different: What generations
value and how the values affect employee workplace perceptions. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21, 257–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1548051814529825
Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2010). The relationships of age with job atti-
tudes: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 63, 677–718. doi:10.1111/j.
1744-6570.2010.01184.x.
Patel, D. (2017). 8 ways generation Z will differ from millennials in the workplace.
Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/deeppatel/2017/09/21/8-ways-
generation-z-will-differ-from-millennials-in-the-workplace/#7220595776e5
Pekala, N. (2001). Conquering the generational divide. Journal of Property
Pew Research Center (2014). Millennials in adulthood. Detached from institu-
tions, networked with friends. Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.
org/2014
Schullery, N. M. (2013). Workplace engagement and generational differences
in values. Business Communication Quarterly, 76, 252–265.
Shatto, B., & Erwin, K. (2016). Moving on from millennials: Preparing for
Generation Z. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 47, 253–254.
doi:10.3928/00220124-20160518-05
Shaw, S., & Ogilvie, C. (2010). Making a virtue out of a necessity: Part time
work as a site for undergraduate work-based learning. Journal of European
Industrial Training, 34, 805–821. doi:10.1108/03090591011080986.
Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (1991). Generations: The history of America’s future,
1584–2069. William Morrow and Company.
Strawser, M. G., Coffey, L., & Martin, J. (2019). Millennial cultural transi-
tions: Higher education experience as an expectation for workplace culture.
In M. Z. Ashlock & A. Atay (Eds.), Examining millennials reshaping orga-
nizational cultures: From theory to practice (pp. 175–192). Lexington Books.
Sutcliffe, J. E., & Dhakal, S. P. (2018). Youth unemployment amidst aged care
workers shortages in Australia. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An
International Journal, 37(2), 182–198. doi:10.1108/edi-05-2017-0105.
Twenge, J. (2017) iGen: Why today’s super-connected kids are growing up less
rebellious, more tolerant, less happy and completely unprepared for adulthood.
Atria Books.
Watkins, B., & Smith, S. A. (2019). Best practices for communicating work-
place culture on social media. In S. A. Smith (Ed.), Recruitment, retention,
and engagement of a millennial workforce (pp. 37–48). Lexington Books.
Weil, N. (2008). Welcome to the generation wars: As Boomer bosses relinquish
the reins of leadership to Generation X both are worrying about Generation
Y. For the good of the enterprise, everyone needs to do a better job of
getting along. CIO, 21. https://www.cio.com/article/2437236/gen-y--gen-x-
and-the-baby-boomers--workplace-generation-wars.html
Yahr, M.A., & Schimmel, K. (2013). Comparing current students to a pre-
millennial generation: Are they really different?. Research in Higher
Education Journal, 20, 1–8. doi:doi.org/10.1097/00006216-200101000-00005.
3 Understanding Generational
Communication Differences
in the Workplace
This chapter provides a contextual overview of internal communica-

tion efforts and internal communication effectiveness specifically from
a multigenerational perspective. Best practices for internal commu-
nication are provided.
3.1 An Overview of Internal Communication

Internal communication should promote communication effectiveness
among people within an organization. Different mechanisms can be
used to promote and stimulate internal communication, and some of
those will be discussed here. But, generally, effective internal commu-
nication is integral to organizational success (Welch & Jackson, 2007)
leading to high social capital (Lee, 2009) and higher levels of workplace
performance and customer service (Tourish & Hargie, 2009). Clampitt
and Downs (1993) report that effective communication, stemming from
audits, can improve productivity, reduce absenteeism, create higher
quality products and service, increase motivation and innovation, and
reduce costs. Communication within the organization cannot and
should not be ignored, and the actual process of internal communica-
tion, as well as varying best practices, continues to be a more popular
area of study (Corcic, Vokic, & Vercic, 2020).
Historically, internal communication research stems from organiza-
tional communication (Jablin & Putnam, 2001) as well as organizational
psychology (Lowenberg & Conrad, 1998). In 2005, Kalla identified four
internal communication domains: business communication (commu-
nication skills of employees), management communication (management
skills and capabilities for communication), corporate communication
(formal communication), and organizational communication (philoso-
phical issues related to the organization’s communication). These di-
mensions are helpful for recognizing the multifaceted nature of internal
Generational Communication Differences 25
communication; however, categorizing how internal communication
manifests in organizations does not take into consideration employee
communication preferences.
Employers and supervisors should continue to explore internal
communication study for many reasons especially because of how it
relates to engagement. Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) posit that engage-
ment has three components: vigor, dedication, and absorption. These
three categories are helpful in identifying employees who are invested in
their work, show a sense of pride in their work, and fully concentrated
and happy at work. Engagement and communication are com-
plementary factors. We know that internal communication strategies
influence employee engagement (Karanges, Johnston, Beatson, & Lings,
2015). Employee engagement is important for several reasons, including
enhancing supportive or positive communication and reducing em-
ployee turnover (Kang & Sung, 2017). Especially important to millen-
nials, internal communication can also help promote transparency
between employees and supervisors (Men, O’Neil, & Ewing, 2020;
Mishra, Boynton, & Mishra, 2014). These factors can enhance overall
organizational climate and culture and can help employees feel more
connected to the organization, often leaving employees better informed.
As organizations strive to help employees understand expectations and
overall operations, clarity of message, frequency, and format must be
approached in a way that is employee friendly.
Within organizations, actual internal communication platforms have
evolved. Recently, beyond more traditional channels, some organiza-
tions have intentionally sought to increase employee engagement and
communication tactics through social media (Ewing, Men, and O’Neil
2019). Globally, digital tools, obviously, have grown in scope throughout
organizations (Akhmetshin, Kulibanova, Ilyina, & Teor, 2020). Com-
munication tools, and internal communication strategies, have been used
for project management as well as corporate messages (Qatawneh, 2018).
The uses, structure, and range of internal communication strategies and
tools or platforms to communicate internally continue to become more
efficient and, if used properly, more effective.
To assess internal communication, practitioners will often use com-
munication audit principles. Communication audits do just what the
name implies; they take an overarching audit of the communication
practices of an organization to determine if the communication practices
are working. Typically, audits involve an assessment of internal com-
munication, but clients and other external stakeholders can also be in-
volved. A communication audit is useful in multiple ways. For one, it
helps organizations determine communication strengths and weaknesses.
26 Generational Communication Differences
Clarity of messaging, both internal and external, can also be evaluated. If
your goal is external, an audit allows you to identify the opinions of your
customers and the success of media messaging and/or public relations
efforts holistically. Finally, communication audits help supervisors,
managers, and C-suite executives determine if communication efforts are
aligned with the mission, vision, and strategic plan of the organization.
Audits are not a central focus of this chapter, but it is important for
context to understand that there are ways to measure internal commu-
nication and satisfaction of employees related to their communication
preferences and expectations.
Employee preferences should be understood in order to create more
intentional internal messages. And, even more so, we need to under-
stand different communication preferences as they correlate to gen-
erational identification. Employees have different communication
needs (Ruck & Welch, 2012). However, more research is required re-
garding what employees desire and what they believe is important in
the internal communication process (Uusi-Rauva & Nurkka, 2010).
Thankfully, generational differences may provide a framework for
understanding employee communication preferences.
3.2 Communication Effectiveness in a Multigenerational

Workplace
Communication preferences in the workplace tend to see incredible
variety based on generational differences. Pollak (2019) posits that the
two primary communication differences among generations in the
workplace are communication style preferences and a perceived difficulty
communicating with those outside one’s own generation. This reality
manifests itself in the workplace through potential conflict or bitterness,
and a lack of productivity may result. To ensure workplace operations
are as efficient as possible, communication format and frequency must
be generation-spectrum friendly. There is not one single style of com-
munication that will work for all employees equally, but there are certain
principles that resonate in the multigenerational workplace.
First, it is important to note that a divergence exists in how commu-
nication preferences are reported in the workplace, and some sources
minimize generational differences. While there is a variance in preference
between generations, these variances may not be that pronounced
(Woodward & Vongswasdi, 2016). Messaging truths like simplicity and
clarity transcend age. Instead, the variance seems to occur in the strength
of individual preferences and the expectations of immediacy and source
(Hall, 2016). And, probably of even more importance, the manager or
supervisor can influence job satisfaction and productivity by practicing
more competent communication (Madlock, 2008).
Competency, then, must be adapted to the receiver. Millennials, for
instance, prefer workplace communication that is more positive, frequent,
and open (Chou, 2012). Millennials also crave very specific expectations
and direct communication (Ferri-Reed, 2014). These preferences, along
with feedback that tends to skew more supportive, are hallmark desires of
millennial employees. Certainly, these desires, according to the research,
are millennial-centric, but employees generally want communication to be
positive, direct, frequent, and specific (Pollak, 2019). Baby Boomers and
Gen Xers, though, unlike Millennials and Generation Z, demand less
transparency of their supervisors (Stewart, Oliver, Cravens, & Oishi,
2017). Generally, too, members of Generation X tend to vocalize their
concerns to supervisors and coworkers more consistently compared to
Millennials, who often rely on text-based communication to air grie-
vances or seek clarification (Stewart et al., 2017). The reliance on tech-
nology for messaging also continues to evolve as each new generation
becomes more prominent in the workplace. Compared to older genera-
tions, for instance, Gen Zers tend to rely more on technology for routine
communication (Schroth, 2019).
These communication preferences will differ in intensity depending
on the organizational culture and the type of vocation. However, the
ability of managers to adapt to their individual workers and respect
differing opinions based on feedback, transparency, criticism, or the
use of technology to spread messages, can be a differentiating factor
for more effective and productive workplace communication. All told,
supervisors and managers should be ready to adapt and must exhibit
communication competence.
3.3 Developing an Internal Communication Strategy

Employees within organizations are currently overwhelmed with in-
formation. Therefore, internal communication strategies need to be stra-
tegic and work together, rather than compete for the employees’ attention.
To do that, an understanding of the different sources of internal com-
munication is necessary. The three most common sources are hierarchical,
mass media, and social media/networks (Whitworth, 2011). Hierarchical
sources include people such as CEO’s, presidents, vice presidents, man-
agers, directors, supervisors, and anyone who has a role with authority
over others in the organization (Whitworth, 2011). Mass media sources
refer to internal communications that reach broad audiences (such as the
entire organization) through mediums like email blasts, newsletters,
videos, blogs, etc. Finally, social media/networks include websites, such as
internal portals that are similar to social media websites; social media
websites such as LinkedIn and Facebook; and the informal communica-
tion networks that exist between employees, like Slack and text messaging
(Whitworth, 2011). The best internal communication strategies use all of
these sources to help maximize the effectiveness of sharing information
with employees to further improve communication satisfaction and en-
gagement, which has strong correlations to employee retention.
Hierarchical communication is the most traditional form of internal
communication and is still one of the most frequently applied strate-
gies. However, some managers more effectively share information than
others, and sometimes, sharing information becomes a game of tele-
phone where the messages get warped and lost in translation down the
chain. Therefore, while managers should continue to be a leading
source in internal communication strategies, they should also be used
to direct people to the information, such as on an internal organiza-
tional portal, so that employees are free to read, interpret, and save the
information themselves without the reliance on their manager. In this
sense, when developing internal communication strategies, the hier-
archical structure present in organizations should operate as directors
of information and encourage employees to seek out information.
When sharing information with employees, a source for additional
questions should always be provided. In some instances, employees
should be directed to their managers, while in others, employees should
be encouraged to talk with human resources, product development,
and/or facilities for more information. This helps create a two-way street
of information sharing, which according to Grunig’s Excellence Theory,
is the most effective way to share information (Gillis & IABC, 2011).
When a two-way dialogue is present, the organization moves closer to
fulfilling its goals (Whitworth, 2011).
The best internal communication strategies mirror the broad range of
mass media available to employees outside of the workplace and integrate
the technological evolutions that have infiltrated our daily lives.
Furthermore, the strongest internal communication strategies share both
good and bad news with honesty and transparency (Whitworth, 2011).
Millennials, particularly, expect fully transparent communication from the
organizations they choose to work for, so providing this information
through publications like newsletters, organizational magazines, and/or
featured blog posts gives employees the option to consume this content.
This is complementary to information that must be shared such as policy
changes and updates, which are better shared through email, hierarchical
communication, and on internal portal announcements. This demonstrates
one of the major points for successful internal communication: channels
should work together rather than compete for attention.
Another important consideration when developing an internal com-
munication strategy is inclusion among a diverse workforce. A multi-
generational workforce counts as diversity and requires the same attention
as other factors of diversity. According to Roberson (2006), “diversity
focuses on organizational demography, whereas inclusion focuses on the
removal of obstacles to the full participation and contribution of em-
ployees in organizations” (p. 217). This is another reason why using a
multipronged approach to internal communication (hierarchical, mass
media, social media/networks) is vital when developing an internal
communication strategy. Through our understanding of generational
communication preferences, we know that generational membership in-
fluences communication preferences. Therefore, providing the opportu-
nities to receive information from interpersonal sources (hierarchical,
social networks), from technology (social media, mass media), and on-
demand when it is most convenient for the receiver (mass media) are
important considerations that only a multipronged internal communica-
tion strategy can provide.
A final consideration is to be strategic in creating the internal com-
munication strategy to motivate people to use all channels and mediums
available, which can be done by creating exclusive content for each
outlet and refraining from repeating content across multiple platforms,
as suggested by Whitworth (2011).
3.4 Exploring and Evaluating Communication in the

Workplace
One way to measure communication in the workplace is through the
use of the Organizational Communication Scale, OCS, originally de-
veloped by Roberts and O’ Reilly (1974). Their scale, which does ex-
hibit some reliability and validity concerns, explores workplace
communication through varying dimensions from an employee per-
spective. Some concerns surround low reliability on several subscales,
as well as several one-to-two item subscales. These dimensions include
trust in supervisor, influence of superior, importance of upward mo-
bility, desire for interaction, accuracy (of coworkers at different levels),
summarization, gatekeeping, overload, directionality of information,
and degree of satisfaction with communication.
Three of the concepts the OCS measures: trust in supervisor, per-
ceived influence of supervisor, and desire for upward mobility in one’s
organization are thought to not directly measure communication per
se, but related concepts. We examine generational differences among
these first.
All three subscales, or sub-dimensions, are measured on 7-point
Likert scales and coded such that greater numbers indicate greater
endorsement of the subscale (i.e. greater perceived influence). Across
all participants, the subscales of Trust in Supervisor (3 items; M = .53,
SD = 1.11, alpha = .739) and perceived Influence of Supervisor
(2 items; M = 4.94, SD = 1.39, alpha = .730) reached acceptable re-
liability, although perceived Importance of Mobility in one’s organi-
zation (M = 4.87, SD = 1.69, alpha = .687) fell just shy of the
traditional .700 cutoff. An ANOVA was utilized to examine significant
differences among the generational groups on these three subscales
and data are presented below in Table 3.1.
As the table demonstrates, there were no significant differences in
trust in supervisor or perceptions of their influence. There were,
however, significant and moderate-to-large size differences among
each of the generational groups and how important they rated their
chance for upward mobility in their organization. Here, Millennials
rated mobility the most important, followed by Gen X and lastly Baby
Boomers. This finding may be due in part to age and time to move
upward in an organization.
There are three measures in the Organizational Communication
Scale which ask participants to estimate how much time they spend
communicating with supervisors, subordinates, and peers, respectively,
so that the total number would be equal to 100%. These questions
asked about the frequency of interacting with each of the three groups,
the total time spent receiving information from each group, and the
Table 3.1 Generational Differences in Trust in Supervisor, Influence of Supervisor,

and Mobility from the Organizational Communication Scale
OCS Sub-scale Baby Boomers Gen X Millennials F eta2

M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) (2, 1147)
Trust in 4.63(1.25) 4.52(1.21) 4.53(1.06) .444 .00

Supervisor
Influence of 4.90(1.48) 4.82(1.50) 4.98(1.35) 1.189 .00
Supervisor
Importance of 3.79(1.82)a 4.64(1.80)b 5.07(1.59)c 27.983** .05
Own Mobility
**p < .001, *p < .05.

a,b
Significant differences between groups as determined by Tukey HSD post hocs. Scores
that significantly differ from the other two scores are bolded.
total time spent sending information to each group. A related, yet
distinct item asked about the time spent communicating across mod-
alities – including in writing, face-to-face, or via telephone. These
descriptive statistics and significance testing for differences across
groups are presented below in Table 3.2.
In terms of overall time spent interacting with others in the work-
place, we see that all three generations report about the same amount
of time interacting with their superiors – between 25 and 30% of all
interactions. Differences here lie with Millennials, who spend about
10% more time interacting with peers, and about 10% less time spent
interacting with subordinates. Millennials are less likely to be working
with subordinates in general. Time spent interacting with others is very
similar across Baby Boomers and Gen X, a pattern we see in many of
the other time spent-related data.
The data on time spent receiving and sending information to super-
iors, subordinates, and peers demonstrate that Gen X spends sig-
nificantly less time receiving and sending information to their superiors.
They spend significantly more time sending and receiving information
with subordinates when compared to Millennials.
Millennials also demonstrated significant differences in the frequency of
communicating across modalities, including written communications, face-
to-face communication, and communication via telephone. They report
spending significantly more time communicating face-to-face and less time
communicating via writing compared to Baby Boomers and Gen X, who
did not differ in time spent communicating via different modalities. This
may be because of the types of industries each group is employed in. As
reviewed in chapter 1, Millennials are more likely to be in retail and food
service industries, where face-to-face communication is paramount.
The last dimension of perceptions about workplace communication
from the OCS examined here is the reported desirability of frequently
interacting with one’s superiors, subordinates, and peers. Results of
the three ANOVAs are presented below in Table 3.3.
Where greater numbers indicate less desirability in interacting with
each co-worker group, we see small, yet significant differences related
to superiors, subordinates, and peers. Gen X is the outlier in two of
the three groups, and Millennials the outlier in one. The data reveal
that Gen X participants desired less interaction with their super-
visors, and more interaction with their peers, as compared to both
Baby Boomers and Millennials. Interestingly, the group less likely to
have subordinates, Millennials, indicated a significant less desire to
interact with subordinates.
32
Table 3.2 Generational Differences in Time Spent Communicating with Supervisors, Subordinates, and Peers
Baby Boomers Gen X Millennials F eta2

M percent M percent M percent (2, 1147)
Time spent: Interacting with: Supervisors 25.53% 27.38% 30.41% 3.660* .01
Subordinates 26.48%a 26.98%a 16.83%b 20.875** .04
Peers 47.98%a 45.64%a 52.75%b 6.925** .01
Time spent Receiving Supervisors 47.49%a 44.88%b 53.56%a 10.390** .02
Information from: Subordinates 18.60%a 19.93%a 11.86%b 18.390** .03
Peers 33.90% 35.19% 34.58% .906 .00
Time spent Sending Supervisors 42.96%a 38.10%b 44.39%a 4.471* .01
Information to: Subordinates 23.99%a 23.53%a 16.52%b 10.810** .02
Peers 33.32% 37.98% 37.74% 1.124 .00
Time spent communicating via: Writing 29.94%a 26.47%a 22.50%b 5.992 .01
Generational Communication Differences
Face-to-face 52.38a 52.71a 59.61%b 7.104 .01

Telephone 16.04% 17.14% 15.32% 1.142 .00
**p < .001, *p < .05.

a,b
Significant differences between groups as determined by Tukey HSD post hocs. Scores which significantly differ from the other two scores are
bolded.
Table 3.3 Generational Differences in Desirability of Frequent Interaction with Supervisors, Subordinates, and Peers
Baby Boomers Gen X Millennials F eta2
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) (2, 1147)
Desirability of Frequently Supervisors 3.12(1.66) 3.54(1.79)a 3.22(1.71)a 3.725* .01

Interaction with: Subordinates 3.40(1.91)a 3.38(1.97)a 3.81(2.01)b 5.254 .04
(Where greater numbers reflect Peers 2.75(1.63)a 3.07(1.61)b 2.83(1.58)a 3.611* .01
less desirability on a 7-point
scale)
**p < .001, *p < .05.

a,b
Significant differences between groups as determined by Tukey HSD post hocs. Scores that significantly differ from the other two scores are
bolded.
Generational Communication Differences
33
3.5 Best Practices for Establishing Effective Internal
Communication
As managers and supervisors attempt to lead a multigenerational
workplace, they should not overlook the importance of communication.
There are different best practices that can be used to enhance internal
communication, no matter the organization.
Best Practice 1: ACORN Your Organization

In 2008, Tolbize identified ACORN imperatives as methods to aid in-
tergenerational comfort. These imperatives include accommodating em-
ployee differences by learning about their unique needs and serving them
accordingly, creating workplace choices such as allowing the workplace
to shape itself around the work being done, and operating from a so-
phisticated management style which would involve adapting leadership
style to context or balancing concerns for tasks and concerns for people.
This acronym is a helpful reminder for organizations. Generally, super-
visors, managers, and leaders must adapt to the changing organization
and changing employees.
Best Practice 2: Create Multimodal Communication Channels

Organizations, when attempting to develop internal communication
strategies that resonate across the generational spectrum, should use
different platforms that can be easily adapted to the organization’s
culture and communication structure. Creating multimodal messages,
meaning messages across a variety of channels and platforms, can help
reach a wide range of internal audiences.
Best Practice 3: Develop an Internal Communication Strategy

Strategic communication planning is important. Do not assume that all
employees will respond the same to every message. Instead, think broadly
about how communication fits into the broader organizational structure
and consider developing an actual internal communication strategy that
fits your organizational ethos. Your strategy should include all three of
the internal sources: hierarchical, mass media, and social media/networks.
Best Practice 4: Audit, Analyze, and Adjust

Every six months, the internal communication team should conduct an
audit of internal communications to determine what went out, what it said,
how often it was sent, how it was sent, and how it was received. This
requires forethought in the creation of the internal communication strategy
to construct internal communications that are measurable and trackable.
For instance, tracking the open rates of internal email announcements is a
great metric. Doing an audit will give organizations a larger overview to
analyze what is working and what is not so that they can eliminate the
strategies that are not providing a return. From this data, organizations
can adjust their internal communication strategies accordingly, which in
many cases, does not require more communication but instead less com-
munication that is more strategic and informative.
3.6 Conclusion
This chapter and the corresponding data from our study showcase the
importance of prioritizing internal communication, especially with
a multigenerational workforce. Sharing the same message in multiple
ways is important to ensure that it is received and transmitted accu-
rately, taking into consideration the different ways that employees
prefer to communicate. As the chapters that follow will demonstrate,
effective internal communication can have implications for commu-
nication satisfaction, support, conflict, leadership, and job satisfaction.
References
Akhmetshin, E. M., Kulibanova, V. V., Ilyina, I. A., & Teor, T. R. (2020).
Innovative internal communications tools and their role in fostering ethical
organization behavior. 2020 IEEE Communication Strategies in Digital
Society Seminar, 75–81. doi: 10.1109/ComSDS49898.2020.9101245.
Chou, S. Y. (2012). Millennials in the workplace: A conceptual analysis of
millennials’ leadership and followership styles. International Journal of
Human Resource Studies, 2, 71–83. doi: 10.5296/ijhrs.v2i2.1568
Clampitt, P. G., & Downs, C. W. (1993). Employee perceptions of the relation-
ship between communication and productivity: A field study. The Journal of
Business Communication, 30, 5–29.
Corcic, D. S., Vokic, N. P., & Vercic, A. T. (2020). Does good internal com-
munication enhance life satisfaction? Journal of Communication Management,
4, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-11-2019-0146
Ewing, M., Men, L. R., & O’Neil, J. (2019). Using social media to engage
employees: Insights from internal communication managers. International
Journal of Strategic Communication, 13, 110–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1553118X.2019.1575830
Ferri-Reed, J. (2014). Are millennial employees changing how managers
manage? The Journal for Quality & Participation, 37, 15–35.
Gillis, T., & IABC (2011). The IABC handbook of organizational communica-
tion: A guide to internal communication, public relations, marketing, and
leadership. John Wiley & Sons.
Hall, A. (2016). Exploring the workplace communication preferences of mil-
lennials. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict,
20, 35–44.
Jablin, F. M., & Putnam, L. L. (2001). The new handbook of organizational
communication. Sage.
Kalla, H. K. (2005). Integrated internal communications: A multidisciplinary
perspective. Corporate Communication, 10, 302–314.
Kang, M., & Sung, M. (2017). How symmetrical employee communication
leads to employee engagement and positive employee communication be-
haviors: The mediation of employee-organization relationships. Journal of
Communication Management, 21, 82–102. doi: 10.1108/JCOM-04-2016-0026
Karanges, E., Johnston, K., Beatson, A., & Lings, I. (2015). The influence of
internal communication on employee engagement: A pilot study. Public
Relations Review, 41, 129–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.12.003
Lee, R. (2009). Social capital and business management: Setting a research
agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11, 247–273.
Lowenberg, G., & Conrad, K. A. (1998). Current perspectives in industrial/
organizational psychology. Allyn & Bacon.
Madlock, P. (2008). The link between leadership style, communicator com-
petence, and employee satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 45,
61–78. doi: 10.1177/0021943607309351
Men, L. R., O’Neil, J., & Ewing, M. (2020). Examining the effects of internal
social media usage on employee engagement. Public Relations Review, 46,
1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.101880
Mishra, K., Boynton, L., & Mishra, A. (2014). Driving employee engagement:
The expanded role of internal communications. International Journal of Business
Communication, 51, 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2329488414525399
Pollak, L. (2019). The remix: How to lead and succeed in the multigenerational
workplace. Harper Business.
Qatawneh, H. (2018). Hybrid communication strategies and tools as a stra-
tegic lever to improve supply chain performance. International Journal of
Business Management, 13, 181–187. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v13n3p181
Roberts, K. H., & O’ Reilly, C. A. (1974). Measuring organizational com-
munication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 321–326.
Roberson, Q. M. (2006). Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion
in organizations. Group & Organization Management, 31, 212–236.
Ruck, K., & Welch, M. (2012). Valuing internal communication; manage-
ment and employee perspectives. Public Relations Review, 38, 294–302.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.016
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and
their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293–315. doi:10.1002/job.248
Schroth, H. (2019). Are you ready for Gen Z in the workplace? California
Management Review, 61, 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0008125619841006
Stewart, J. S., Oliver, E. G., Cravens, K. S., & Oishi, S. (2017). Managing
millennials: Embracing generational differences. Business Horizons, 60,
45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2016.08.011
Tourish, D., & Hargie, O. (2009). Communication and organizational success.
In O. Hargie & D. Tourish (Eds.), Auditing organisational communication:
A handbook of research, theory, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 3–26). Routledge.
Tolbize, A. (2008). Generational differences in the workplace. University of
Minnesota. Research and Training Center on Community Living. Retrieved
from https://rtc.umn.edu/docs/2_18_Gen_diff_workplace.pdf
Uusi-Rauva, C., & Nurkka, J. (2010). Effective internal environment-related
communication: An employee perspective. Corporate Communications: An
International Journal, 15, 299–314.
Welch, M., & Jackson, P. R. (2007). Rethinking internal communication: A
stakeholder approach. Corporate Communications: An International Journal,
12, 177–198. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280710744847
Whitworth, B. (2011). Internal communication. In T. Gillis (Ed.), The
IABC handbook of organizational communication (2nd ed., pp. 195–206).
Jossey‐Bass.
Woodward, I. C., & Vongswasdi, P. (2016). More that unifies than divides:
Intergenerational communication preferences in the workplace. Communication
Research and Practice, 3, 358–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/22041451.2017.
1275259
4 Generational Expectations
of the Job Search
This chapter will serve as a precursor to the subsequent chapter on

organizational culture. Specifically, this chapter will focus on not only
the recruitment of employees from the organizational perspective but
also how the idea that different generations have different job
searching strategies and expectations. In order to recruit and retain,
organizations need to be aware of and initiate talent.
4.1 The Evolving Job Search Process

The job search is an inherently communicative process that involves
looking for new work, which has become a common activity in to-
day’s economy, regardless of current employment status (Wanberg,
Basbug, vanHooft, & Samtani, 2012). Securing employment is di-
rectly linked to both the job search behaviors that a job seeker per-
forms and the amount of effort a job seeker exerts during their job
search (Blau, 1993). Traditionally, job searching research has focused
on the process as a coping mechanism to deal with the stressful ex-
perience of losing a job (DeFrank & Ivancevich, 1986; Leana &
Feldman, 1988). As research in this area has evolved and expanded, it
has shifted to focus on job search predictors and outcomes, including
the effect that communication has on job searching activity (Doyle,
2014; Gordon, 2010; Holmstrom, Clare, & Russell, 2014;
Holmstrom, Russell, & Clare, 2013; Piercy & Lee, 2018; Smith, 2017;
Wanberg et al., 2012).
Job searching is a difficult task that “requires the use of complex
strategies, substantial self-control, and self-regulation skill” (Price &
Vinokur, 1995, p. 192). Job searching has also been defined as “the
outcome of a dynamic, recursive, self-regulated process” (Kanfer,
Wanberg, & Kantrowitz, 2001, p. 838). Similarly, job searching behavior
Generational Expectations of the Job Search 39
refers to the specific activities that an individual engages in to acquire
knowledge about employment opportunities (Bretz, Boudreau, & Judge,
1994). Job searching behaviors include preparatory efforts such as
gathering information and securing leads, as well as active behaviors like
applying to jobs and interviewing (Bretz et al., 1994). Empirically, job
searching effectiveness has been measured based on the number of job
offers received (Saks & Ashforth, 2000).
Research contributing to job searching has focused on three main
areas: intensity-effort, content-direction, and temporal-persistence,
with most research emphasizing the intensity-effort dimension
(Wanberg et al., 2012). For example, people who spend more time job
searching tend to find jobs quicker. Several variables have been at-
tributed to this finding such as perceived control, employment com-
mitment, social support, age, gender, and education (Kanfer et al.,
2001). Individual differences may help understand the different com-
munication strategies used for job searching. A personality and job
searching meta-analysis demonstrated that high levels of extraversion
and conscientiousness were positively and significantly related to job
searching, such that people higher in those two personality char-
acteristics had better job search outcomes (Kanfer et al., 2001).
Further, those with proactive personalities have shorter and more
successful job searches (Brown, Cober, Kane, Levy, & Shalhoop,
2006). It has also been reported that when job seekers receive helpful
and supportive messages from others relating to their job search, their
intensity of job searching increases (Holmstrom et al., 2013).
There are a number of ways to search for a job, some of which are
influenced by generational membership. Undoubtedly, the changes in
technology paired with the generational cohort have greatly influenced
how people find jobs and create their career expectations. People can
job search using a number of channels such as websites, recruiters, a
personal network, advertisements, and word-of-mouth. Granovetter
(1995) outlined three basic techniques people use to search for jobs:
formal means, personal contacts, and direct application. Formal
means include using sources such as advertisements and employment
agencies. The defining characteristics of job searching through formal
means is that the job seekers use the sources of an impartial inter-
mediary to find prospective employers. In contrast, job searching
through personal contacts relies on the help of an individual whom the
job seeker knows personally is personally known by the job seeker in a
context unrelated to job searching, such as a friend or family member.
Through a reliance on an interpersonal network, the job seeker is
better able to connect and communicate with potential employers and
40 Generational Expectations of the Job Search
have the opportunity to speak directly with decision makers (Mau &
Kopischke, 2001). Finally, direct application techniques describe how
a job seeker may contact a potential employer directly (online, via
phone, or in person), does not rely on an intermediary of any source
(partial or impartial), and has not learned of the opportunity through
an interpersonal relationship. It is reported that among all job seekers,
regardless of age and/or experience, at least 60% of jobs are found
through networking or personal connections, and that using a strategy
of networking can result in faster employment than formal methods of
job searching (Doyle, 2014; Granovetter, 1995). Gordon (2010) found
that approximately 46% of job seekers made a direct application to the
employer before getting hired.
Job seekers that use multiple methods for job searching have shorter and
more successful job searches, regardless of the amount of time spent job
searching, which aligns with the intensity effort dimension of job searching
previously discussed. To that end, most job seekers use more than one
strategy for job searching, which typically includes involves a primary
strategy and a secondary strategy. Furthermore, research findings suggest
that using the internet for job searching along with other sources such as
personal requests, can lead to faster job attainment (Kuhn & Mansour,
2014; Stevenson, 2009). Undoubtedly, online sources have changed how
people search and apply for jobs. The Pew Research Center reports that
among job seekers in the last few years, regardless of age and experience,
the most frequently used and most important source for job searching was
online information (Smith, 2015). Conversely, previous research indicates
that older people tend to use fewer social resources (such as social net-
working websites like Facebook and LinkedIn) for job searching. This
begs the question: how do people of different generations search for jobs?
4.2 Generational Differences and in Job Search

Strategies
Previous research has helped to demonstrate the generational differences
that are present in job searching, and the qualitative data of our study
continues and expands this area of inquiry. However, job searching
strategies could have more to do with amount of experience, which is
only tangentially related to generational membership. Nonetheless, be-
cause we now have a multigenerational workforce, it is helpful to un-
derstand how people at different stages of their career, which currently
corresponds to generational membership, search for employment.
The following data illustrate how each generation present in the
workforce searches for a job. These data were both quantitatively and
qualitatively collected using open-ended survey responses. Collectively,
it helps to understand which job searching strategies are the most often
used by each generation, which has implications for recruiting a mul-
tigenerational workforce.
Job Searching Strategies

All of the participants in this study (N = 1,148) indicated that they
used more than one job searching strategy, regardless of generational
membership. The following table indicates the most popular job
searching strategies used by each generation (Table 4.1).
These data indicate that when it comes to searching for a job, gen-
erational membership makes a minimal difference, which is helpful for
organizations to understand. The direct application strategy was the
most common, primary job searching strategy for all three generations
represented in this study. Job searching through aggregate websites like
Indeed.com, Monster, and Career Builder was the second most
common strategy used by all cohorts. The secondary strategy used by all
cohorts is personal networking, but as the data indicate, it is used by
fewer people than direct application and websites for job searching.
Generational membership makes the greatest difference with regard
to the job search when examining the use of social media. Millennials
noted the highest use of social media for job searching, including
websites such as Facebook and LinkedIn, which both offer features to
post available opportunities and apply directly through the social
networking websites. The data show that as age increases, the use of
social media for job searching decreases. This is particularly interesting
given the fact that Gen X and Baby Boomers are some of the heaviest
users of social media sites like Twitter and Facebook. However, these
data illustrate that Gen X and Baby Boomers use social media pri-
marily for reasons beyond outside job searching and do not consider
social media when looking for a job, despite their recreational and
non-professional use of the sites.
Table 4.1 Generational Differences of Job Search Strategies
Generation Direct Websites Personal Social

Application Networking Media
Millennials 57.7% 55.3% 33.6% 18.3%

Gen X 58.5% 49.1% 35.5% 14.6%
Baby Boomers 30% 19.9% 18.8% 1%
4.3 Expectations of the Job Search Process
Underlying the job search are career expectations and expectations for
the process and outcome of the job search. Burgoon (1978) defines
expectations as a belief that something will happen, as compared to a
desire for something to happen, and argues that expectations are de-
veloped through social norms. Therefore, a career expectation is a
belief that something is going to or likely to happen with regard to
career-related issues, such as finding a job, and may be formed in part
based on the social norms established within each generation. For
example, Ng, Schweitzer, and Lyons (2010) discovered that Millennial
job seekers (under age 30) have realistic expectations about their first
job and salary, but unrealistic expectations about rapid advancement
opportunities and a fulfilling life outside of work.
Expectations are based on social norms, and we use them as filters
for planning and executing our communication. Norms help people
enter job interviews with a handshake rather than a hug and help
people form their expectations about situations, particularly in pro-
fessional contexts. While norms are one of the largest antecedents to
expectations, people also form expectations based on a combination
of other sources (Smith, 2017). For instance, when it comes to job
searching and career development, the mass media is influential in the
formation of expectations. When people hear and read reports in the
news about the economy and the labor market, they adjust their own
expectations accordingly. People also form their expectations based
on the stories they hear from and about others. This is one potential
reason why job searching on social networking sites has increased in
popularity. As we hear other people find jobs and opportunities
through sites like this, we turn to the same places and expect similar,
perhaps better, results for ourselves. Interpersonal sources are par-
ticularly influential when it comes to forming expectations about the
duration and intensity of job searching in both positive and negative
ways. Expectations are also formed through observation or social
learning and direct experience. Humans inherently learn by watching
and learn by doing. As people watch other members of their friends
and family search for jobs and secure employment, they learn about
the job searching process, which informs their own personal ex-
pectations. Similarly, if someone previously had a grueling job search
that lasted months or even years, they are likely to have negative
expectations about the process of finding a job, despite the other
variables, like their qualifications and the economy, that can influ-
ence the process.
Our generational data help to better understand the different
kinds of expectations that job seekers have, which are important for
employers to understand. Through a thematic analysis of the data,
the expectations break down into four main categories: time,
availability, rejection, and effort. While the themes are not sur-
prising or particularly novel at face-value, the individual insights
provide exceptional richness and honesty about the job search and
how each generation experiences the same process in different ways.
Time Commitment and Duration of Job Search

Job searching is a time-consuming process, as previously discussed.
The participants in this study indicated that job searching took more
time than they expected (see Table 4.2), with Gen X reporting with the
most frequently that job searching took longer than they expected; the
greatest instance of job searching being more time-consuming than
expected. Conversely, just over one-third of Baby Boomers reported
job searching to be more time consuming than expected, which could
be explained through their cumulative experiences of job searching
allowing them to set more realistic expectations about how long it
takes to find a job.
Millennials reported, overwhelmingly, that job searching was a
longer process than they originally anticipated, followed by Gen X and
then Baby Boomers. One Millennial participant explained: “Searching
for a job was hard to find something that I wanted. I put in so many
apps. I really searched long and hard.” Another Millennial expressed
frustration with the time it takes to get interviewed saying: “The time it
takes to actually get a face-to-face meeting with someone. It was
frustrating to spend time having to go through all the steps and then
waiting for someone to be available to talk.”
Interestingly, Gen X reported that job searching was more time
consuming but not as long as they expected which could indicate that
Table 4.2 Generational Differences in Time Commitment and Duration of

Job Search
Generation Time Commitment (took Duration of Search (took

more time than expected) longer than expected)
Millennials 43.6% 71.7%

Gen X 45.9% 39.3%
Baby Boomers 35.3% 35.3%
the process required greater intensity effort than they expected. One
participant explained why the process was more time consuming than
they expected saying: “I spent hours perfecting a resume. I carefully
added all pertinent information to my resume, just to get rejected
over and over.” Another Gen X participant explained, “I sent out
tons and tons of resumes, applied to over 60 jobs, and had to re-
peatedly follow up with interviewers to get a response. All of that was
unexpected, I thought the process would be more consistent and
systematic.”
With regard to the duration of the job search, more than half of
the Gen X participants were happy the job search was shorter than
they anticipated. One participant explained: “It didn’t take me long
to be offered a position after I started the process of looking. I was
offered a couple of jobs at the same time and had to decide which
one to accept.” Similarly, many participants remarked at how
quickly a decision was made following an interview, with many
mentioning they were offered the job “on the spot” following the
interview.
The data for Baby Boomers were the same – those who experienced
a more time-consuming job search also reported that the job search
took longer than they thought, but this was not the majority of job
searching Boomers, to be clear. The majority of Baby Boomers see-
mingly had realistic expectations about the time required to search for
a job and the duration of the job search. Those who experienced a
longer and more time-consuming job search than anticipated cited
several reasons including the volume and intricacies of searching on-
line, alleged age discrimination, being overqualified, and inability to
stand out among applicants. As one participant explained: “Job
searching is stressful these days. You rarely get the opportunity to
apply in person. Everything is done online so the employer doesn’t
really get a good feel about a person. It can be frustrating.”
Required Effort and Ease of Job Searching

The descriptive and qualitative data indicated that, overall, the job
search required less effort than anticipated. However, a slight ma-
jority of participants, except for Baby Boomers, indicated that the
job search was not easier than they expected, as shown in Table 4.3.
It is not surprising that those with less experience job searching re-
ported that the job search required more effort and was harder than
they expected (like Millennials). It is possible that Gen X found the
job search to be harder because they have perfected their skills and
are searching within professional niches, which can take longer to
find and have fewer opportunities.
Rejection and Disappointment

Job searching is challenging due to the overwhelming amount of re-
jection, disappointment, and uncertainty. However, as our findings in-
dicate, the majority of participants had realistic expectations in this
regard, and only about one-third experienced more rejection than they
were expecting (see Table 4.4). Millennials, interestingly, reported higher
levels of disappointment, which indicates that rejection could be tied to
their self-efficacy, as supported by previous research (Holmstrom et al.,
2013; Holmstrom et al., 2014; Wanberg et al., 2012).
Although the descriptive data indicate that there was less rejection
and disappointment than expected, the participants were very out-
spoken about these two points in their open-ended, qualitative re-
sponses. If someone were to only read the qualitative data, it would be
misleading, causing someone to think that job seekers experienced high
levels of rejection and disappointment. For example, one Baby Boomer
said: “The amount of time before a final decision was reached was
longer than expected. I was accustomed to waiting a few weeks to hear if
I got a job. Instead, I waited three months in many instances just to hear
Table 4.3 Generational Differences of Effort and Ease of Job Search
Generation Required Effort (more Ease of Search (easier

than expected) than expected)

Gen X 41.9% 46.2%
Table 4.4 Generational Differences of Nonselection Response During a Job

Search
Generation Rejection (more than Disappointment (more

expected) than expected)

Gen X 39.3% 34.5%
I didn’t get it.” To further illustrate the disappointment felt, one
Millennial explained: “I didn’t get a reply from companies for about a
month and when I did, they were mostly rejections. I almost gave up on
the whole thing. I was very disappointed in myself to be honest.”
Finally, hundreds of participants across generations remarked about the
fact that many organizations do not notify of non-selection, which
leaves you uncertain and wondering about the status of your application
which is “frustrating,” “disappointing,” and “disrespectful,” according
to our participants.
4.4 Responding to Expectancy Violations

Expectancy violations theory (EVT) is a communication theory that
helps predict and explain how people respond to encounters and
communicative situations that do not align with their expectations.
You have probably been in a situation where you were either plea-
santly surprised at how things unfolded – maybe a meeting you
were anticipating to be contentious but it went smoothly and faster
than you planned, or a situation where things went far worse than
expected – like being called in for a check-in with your boss only to
be laid off or let go. These are expectancy violations, and they are
abundant and natural in all contexts including the workplace.
Using the framework of EVT helps to understand how people assess
whether violations are positive or negative and then how they adjust
their subsequent communication. When something unexpected hap-
pens, people assess the situation. Within the context of job searching,
an unexpected event could be getting called for an interview with a
company you were not expecting to hear from, receiving news of a
rejection, and/or receiving a job offer. Afifi and Metts (1998) explain
that, “any behavior that falls outside a range of expected behaviors is
theorized to produce cognitive arousal and trigger an interpretation-
evaluation sequence that helps individuals cope with unexpected out-
comes” (p. 367).
It is during the interpretation-evaluation phase that people assign a
valence to a violation. More simply, after a violation, individuals assign
either a positive or negative meaning to the violation (White, 2008).
While valence helps to determine the outcomes of an interaction, it is
also useful in helping people determine whether it is better to do what is
expected, or to deviate from the norm when responding after a violation.
To do so, people consider the communicative consequences, which are
best understood through the communicator reward value (Burgoon,
1993). Communicator reward value is the concept that people possess
characteristics that influence the extent to which interactions with them
are rewarding (Burgoon, 1993). Typically, physical attractiveness, power,
and intelligence are interpreted as rewarding traits (Burgoon, 1993), and
therefore, job seekers are likely to view interviewers, CEOs, and hiring
managers as rewarding.
In a job searching study about Millennial, entry-level job seekers, it
was found that that positive information was evaluated as rewarding,
but also showcase that bad news can be evaluated positively, in con-
trast to what EVT predicts. Participants considered information that
provided no affirming information, such as a receipt of an application,
to be positive feedback, because that information made them feel se-
cure and relieved to know their application would be reviewed.
Additionally, participants noted how their expectations were positively
violated when receiving bad news, like not getting a job, followed by
information relating to other available opportunities. Participants
evaluated these experiences positively because they expected to receive
no news at all regarding their applications. Naturally, participants
evaluated this information as rewarding even when it contained bad
news. The most likely explanation for this finding is because even bad
news from a highly rewarding source during the job search helps to
reduce uncertainty. For example, some participants discussed how they
were happy to know their application was no longer being considered
because it reduced their uncertainty about the job (Smith, 2017).
The reward level is central when understanding how people commu-
nicatively respond to expectancy violations while job searching. EVT
explains that positively valued messages from a positively regarded source
are rewarding; negatively valued messages from a positively regarded
source are punishing; positively valued messages from a negatively valued
source are not rewarding and may even be punishing; and negatively
valued messages from a negatively valued source are not punishing
and may even be rewarding (Burgoon, 1993). It has been noted that
when career expectations do not align with reality, job seekers experience
feelings of failure and discontent (Carvajal et al., 2000), which can
inhibit the continuation of their job search, illustrating the impact that
expectancy violations can have on the overall process of job searching.
When responding to unexpected situations, EVT explains that the op-
tions are to compensate or reciprocate, and the decision hinges on the
reward level of the violating party (i.e. a hiring manager, an interpersonal
contact, etc.) and whether or not that person is increasing or decreasing
communication. For example, in high-reward relationships, such as be-
tween a hiring manager and a job candidate, EVT posits that recipients will
reciprocate attempts by the communicator to increase communication.
Conversely, if the hiring manager is unresponsive or no longer commu-
nicating with the job candidate, the candidate may compensate for the
decrease in communication through a change in their communication
strategies (see Hale & Burgoon, 1984). These changes can include mod-
ifications to how people present themselves through their application ma-
terials by providing more information and customizing each application,
adding more job searching strategies following a lack of interest, and/or
adjusting the amount of time spent job searching.
The multigenerational data of this study provide greater insight into
how people change their job searching strategies based on their ex-
periences throughout the process. A series of closed-ended survey
questions were asked to better understand this process, quantitatively.
Then, some open-ended questions were asked to determine how
strategies changed following both positive and negative expectancy
violations. The presentation of this data is in what follows.
Before discerning how the violation of expectations influenced job
searching strategies and subsequent communication, it is important to
note how many participants felt the process of job searching met their
expectations. That data are presented in Table 4.5.
These data are interesting because it shows that as age increases, the
likelihood of having met expectations related to job searching also
increases. This creates a robust area for future inquiry to determine a
potential moderator, which could be the amount of previous experi-
ence, to better understand this relationship.
Even when expectations are met overall, however, there can still be
positive and negative expectancy violations throughout the process.
The data in Table 4.6 indicate how people responded to positive
expectancy violations by answering two questions: 1) when things
happened in my job search that were better than my expectations,
I maintained my strategies and 2) when things happened in my job
search that were better than I expected, I slowed down my strategies.
Table 4.5 Generational Differences of Expectation

Violations Related to the Job Search
Generation Job searching

met expectations
Millennials 50.0%
Gen X 67.1%
Baby Boomers 72.0%
Table 4.6 Generational Differences of Responses to Positive
Expectancy Violations During the Job Search
Generation Maintained strategies Slowed strategies

Gen X 77.7% 24.8%
Table 4.7 Generational Differences of Responses to Negative

Expectancy Violations During the Job Search
Generation More Time Greater Intensity

Gen X 47.5% 56.1%
These data show that when things are going well, people keep doing
it while job searching. However, those with less job searching experi-
ence might slow down their strategies while awaiting a job offer or as
they are going through an interview process, for instance.
To determine how people respond to negative expectancy violations,
the following questions were asked: 1) when things happened in my job
search that were worse than my expectations, I changed my strategies
to spend more time looking for a job and 2) when things happened
that were worse than my expectations, I used greater intensity to find a
job. This data are presented in Table 4.7.
These data are interesting because intensity rises, but that does not
indicate a symbiotic relationship such that when intensity increases,
the amount of time spent job searching also increases. As one Gen X
participant explained: “When things weren’t going well, I updated my
LinkedIn a ton, I put everything on there and then I read job de-
scriptions more closely and only applied when I actually had what they
wanted.” As a Millennial describes, instead of spending more time job
searching, they reassessed their strategies: “I didn’t spend more time
searching, but I did take time to really think about what I was doing
and why it might not be working and then came up with a different
plan. But I have friends who also just gave up entirely.”
Both the positive and negative findings indicate that EVT’s predic-
tion of compensating communication and reciprocal communication
transfer to job searching across generations. When things are going
well, people reciprocate by continuing to do what is working. When
things are not going well, people compensate through greater intensity,
more time, and readjusting their strategies for finding a job, consistent
with previous research findings (Smith, 2017).
4.5 Best Practices for Recruiting a Multigenerational

Workforce
Collectively, the data presented in this chapter coupled with previous
research help to make informed suggestions for organizations that are
recruiting a multigenerational workforce. First, organizations should
post available opportunities on multiple channels, using both online
and offline sources, including it’s own website, as many people prefer
direct application. Do not forget to utilize social media for sharing
available jobs particularly if the organization is looking to hire
Millennials and most likely, Gen Z, as they continue to enter the
workforce. Second, share all available positions with current em-
ployees, even those outside of hiring departments. As these data and
previous research indicate, personal networking is a primary strategy
that job seekers use. As the next chapter will discuss, securing em-
ployment through personal networking can also lead to a better cul-
tural fit, leading to better making the retention of employees better
retention. Finally, share pertinent information, such as a hiring time-
line and whether or not applicants will be notified if not selected, in the
job description. This can help prospective employees set more realistic
expectations. When possible, also include a point of contact so that if
applicants have questions, they can get in touch.
References
Afifi, W., & Metts, S. (1998). Characteristics and consequences of expectation
violations in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
15, 365–392.
Blau, G. (1993). Further exploring the relationship between job search and
voluntary individual turnover. Personnel Psychology, 46, 313–330.
Bretz, R., Boudreau, J., & Judge, T. (1994). Job search behavior of employed
managers. Personnel Psychology, 47, 275–301.
Brown, D., Cober, R., Kane, K., Levy, P., & Shalhoop, J. (2006). Proactive
personality and the successful job search: A field study with college grad-
uates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 9, 717–726.
Burgoon, J. (1978). A communication model of personal space violations:
Explication and initial test. Human Communication Research, 4, 129–142.
Burgoon, J. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and
emotional communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology,
12, 30–48.
Carvajal, M., Bendana, D., Boxorgmanesh, A., Castillo, M., Pourmasiha, K.,
Rao, P., & Torres, J. (2000). Gender differentials between college students’
earnings expectations and the experience of recent graduates. Economics of
Education Review, 19, 229–243.
DeFrank, R., & Ivancevich, J. (1986). Job loss: An individual review and
model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 28, 1–20.
Doyle, A. (2014). How to use job search networking to find a job. Retrieved
from http://jobsearch.about.com/cs/networking/a/networking.htm
Gordon, J. (2010). 50 job search statistics you need to know. Retrieved from
http://careerchangechallenge.com/50-job-search-statistics-you-need-to-know/
Granovetter, M. (1995). Getting a job: A study of contacts and careers
(2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Hale, J., & Burgoon, J. (1984). Models of reactions to changes in nonverbal
immediacy. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 8, 287–314.
Holmstrom, A., Clare, D., & Russell, J. (2014). Problem-focused content in
the job search: Two tests of the cognitive emotional theory of esteem sup-
port messages. Human Communication Research, 40, 161–187.
Holmstrom, A., Russell, J., & Clare, D. (2013). Esteem support messages re-
ceived during the job search: A test of the CETESM. Communication
Kanfer, R., Wanberg, C., & Kantrowitz, T. (2001). A personality-motivational
analysis and meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
837–855.
Kuhn, P., & Mansour, H. (2014). Is Internet job search still ineffective? The
Economic Journal, 124, 1213–1233.
Leana, C., & Feldman, D. (1988). Individual responses to job loss: Perceptions,
reaction, and coping behaviors. Journal of Management, 20, 311–342.
Mau, W., & Kopischke, A. (2001). Job search methods, job search outcomes,
and job satisfaction of recent college graduates: A comparison of race and
sex. Journal of Employment Counseling, 38, 141–149.
Ng, E., Schweitzer, L., & Lyons, S. (2010). New generation, great expecta-
tions: A field study of the millennial generation. Journal of Business
Psychology, 25, 281–292.
Piercy, C., & Lee, S. (2018). A typology of job search sources: Exploring the
changing nature of job search networks. New Media & Society, 21, 1173–1191.
Price, R., & Vinokur, A. (1995). Supporting career transitions in a time of
organizational downsizing. In London M. (Ed.), Employees, careers, and job
creation (pp. 191–209). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Saks, A., & Ashforth, B. (2000). Change in job search behaviors and em-
ployment outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 277–287.
Smith, A. (2015). Searching for work in the digital era. Pew Research Center.
Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/11/19/searching-
for-work-in-the-digital-era/
Smith, S. A. (2017). Job searching expectations, expectancy violations, and
communication strategies of recent college graduates. Business and Professional
Communication Quarterly, 80, 296–320. DOI: 10.1177/2329490617723116
Stevenson, B. (2009). The internet and job search. In D. Autor (Ed.), Labor
market intermediation (pp. 67–86). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Wanberg, C., Basbug, G., vanHooft, E., & Samtani, A. (2012). Navigating the
black hole: Explicating layers of job search context and adaptational re-
sponses. Personnel Psychology, 65, 887–926.
White, C. (2008). Expectancy violations theory and interaction adaptation
theory: From expectations to adaptation. In L. Baxter & D. Braithwaite (Eds.),
Engaging Theories in Interpersonal Communication: Multiple Perspectives
(pp. 189–202). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
5 Perspectives on Organizational
Culture
The remainder of the volume hinges on this chapter as the foundational

component of the workplace. Organizational culture will be defined and
presented within a historical context; then the authors will reflect on
their findings and connect these findings to previous literature.
5.1 Defining Organizational Culture

2020 arguably changed many personal and professional elements of
the workplace. For one, suddenly, more than ever before, organiza-
tions were under attack for their values or lack thereof. As organiza-
tions learned to pivot, downsize, re-establish values, and communicate
with various stakeholders, society at large was not the only group
experiencing change. Organizations were under a cultural attack in
many ways and were forced to reconsider all elements of the business,
which collectively contribute to an organization’s culture.
Organizational culture is a saturated area of study in management,
business, and communication industries. Therefore, the definition of or-
ganizational culture can be complex and varied. Typically, organizational
culture is defined as a set of values, beliefs, assumptions, and symbols that
define the way in which a firm conducts its business (Deal & Kennedy,
1982). Organizational culture is important because it identifies the re-
levant employees, customers, suppliers, and competitors and defines how
an organization will interact with these parties. Organizational culture has
been correlated with competitive advantage (Barney, 1986), leadership
(Schein, 2010), recruitment (Braddy, Meade, & Kroustalis, 2006), reten-
tion (Sheridan, 1992), and unethical behavior (Umphress, Bingham, &
Mitchell, 2010), to name a few.
Organizational culture helps us understand exactly how organizations
accomplish goals and fulfill their missions and purposes (Sanchez, 2011).
Culture is anecdotally referred to as “the way things are done around
54 Perspectives on Organizational Culture
here,” similar to hearing “because I said so” from a parent while you were
growing up. Organizational culture can seem arbitrary, but it is none-
theless pragmatic as defined by Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner
(1997) as “the way in which a group of people solves problems and re-
solves dilemmas” (p. 6). Hofstede, who is often credited for his con-
tributions to culture research and knowledge, defines organizational
culture as: “…a deeply rooted value or shared norm, moral or aesthetic
principles that guides action and serves as standards to evaluate one’s
own and others’ behaviors” (1994, p. 68). Collectively, organizational
culture helps define and distinguish organizations from one another
through outward symbols such as branding, dress codes, and work en-
vironment, as well as less tangible variables including values, norms, and
beliefs.
5.2 Organizational Culture: A Historical Perspective

It can be argued that the understanding of organizational culture
emerged through the first studies about how work is conducted, often
called classical management approaches. Classical management ap-
proaches represent a collection of theories that share the underlying
metaphor that organizations are machines, an idea largely informed by
the industrial revolution (Eisenberg, Trethewey, LeGreco, & Goodall,
2017). The earliest organizations were modeled after empires and ar-
mies. These organizations operated with a culture of rank and were
informed by the Bible and proverbs that denounced laziness, cele-
brated struggling, and encouraged hard work. This gave way to the
bureaucratic organization that is still alive and well today.
Bureaucratic organizations use a top-down approach to management
(Eisenberg et al., 2017). These organizations rely on the scientific
method for production to provide information to managers that is used
to organize and control workers. In a bureaucratic organizational cul-
ture, employees are passive. While bureaucratic organizations are still in
existence, they can be problematic cultures that lead to abuses of power
and disgruntled employees. Hence, the birth of scientific management.
Scientific management cultures have managers that are purely ob-
jective, relying on defined laws, rules, and principles for operations.
The intent was to create cooperation between managers and em-
ployees, but instead, the scientific management approach created
greater division and birthed what we now understand as line and staff
functions in the workplace. Today, organizations where the culture is
Perspectives on Organizational Culture 55
management-oriented and production-centered are considered to have
a scientific management culture.
Fayol (1949) then created administrative science, later known as clas-
sical management, which still informs much of our organizational op-
erations today. Fayol’s approach to management, which is the creation of
culture, included the following four elements: 1) structure, 2) power, 3)
reward, and 4) attitude. His approach not only includes hierarchy and
centralized decision making but also began to consider the employee’s
feelings through reward and attitude. This recognized the power that
employees have within organizations and the importance of keeping
employees happy in order to retain them. Many of Fayol’s principles gave
way to more modern management approaches such as human resources,
human relations, and Theory Y (Eisenberg et al., 2017).
Today, organizational culture remains fluid and evolving, particu-
larly with regard to the influence of technology and the changing ways
we work including time and location. Similar to Fayol, we now un-
derstand organizational culture as having four elements. The four
elements are: 1) strategy, 2) structure, 3) people, and 4) processes
(Sanchez, 2011). Strategy is necessary to articulate how resources will
be used and applied to help fulfill the mission of an organization. The
structure then determines the positioning and distribution of resources
that the organization needs to carry out the strategy. People, of course,
are required to execute the strategy and create and maintain the
structure. Finally, processes are the ways that tasks are implemented to
create the functionality of the organization. When these four elements
are in balance, Sanchez (2011) argues that a harmonious organiza-
tional culture, one that is positive and supportive of the organizational
mission, exists.
5.3 Previous Research and Theory

Researchers have studied organizational culture so they can better
understand various components of the workplace, including leader-
ship; recruitment and retention of employees; change management;
and job satisfaction. What follows is a brief overview of the literature
in each of these areas. Before diving into the empirical literature, it is
important to note that organizational culture lacks a central theory,
and research typically is informed by multiple theoretical perspectives
that can be successfully studied with either and both qualitative and
quantitative methods.
Leadership
Leadership, similar to organizational culture, is a robust area of in-
quiry that draws upon the knowledge of other disciplines such as
psychology, sociology, anthropology, business, and communication.
Leadership and culture are correlated as they relate to the workplace.
A poor leader can drive employees and customers away, whereas an
inspiring and motivational leader can not only retain employees but
also grow the organization internally and externally. As argued by
Schein (2010), leadership and culture are fundamentally intertwined in
three ways: “1) [that] leaders as entrepreneurs are the main architects
of culture, 2) that after cultures are formed, they influence what kind
of leadership is possible, and 3) that if elements of the culture become
dysfunctional, leadership can and must do something to speed up
cultural change” (p. xi).
Employee Recruitment and Retention

Particularly when examining organizational culture from a genera-
tional perspective, culture operates symbiotically with employee re-
cruitment and retention. As discussed in the previous chapter,
employees have expectations about what they want from organiza-
tions. This concept has been referred to as “anticipatory socialization”
in organizational literature and focuses on forming expectations
among potential employees (Dubinsky, Howell, Ingram, & Bellenger,
1986). The anticipatory socialization phase of job recruitment helps
establish career expectations via realism and congruence. Realism is
the degree to which recruits have a complete and accurate notion of
what life is really like at an organization (Dubinsky et al., 1986).
Congruence is the degree to which an organization’s resources and
demands, as well as a job candidate’s needs and skills, are compatible
(Dubinsky et al., 1986). Both realism and congruence have been shown
to affect job satisfaction and turnover rates, because when the career
related expectations of employees are not met, they find new em-
ployment (Porter, Lawler, & Hackman, 1975). The objective of an-
ticipatory socialization is to influence the formation of job seekers’
expectations and to reduce the likelihood of unmet expectations in the
future (Wanous, 1977). This relates to organizational culture because it
is during the anticipatory socialization process that prospective em-
ployees learn and assess the culture of an organization and create
expectations about the working environment and potential fit.
Change Management
As we have all experienced in the last few years, change is constant,
rapid, and can create uncertainty among people and within organi-
zations. As the world around us changes, organizations are forced to
either keep up or shut down, so not surprisingly, organizations work
hard to remain operational which creates changes in communication
and culture. As Pettigrew (1985) explains, changes within an organi-
zation are a response to business and economic events based on
managerial perception, choice, and action. Previous research has al-
ready demonstrated that organizational culture plays a vital role in
change management (Ahmed, 1998; DeLisi, 1990; Lorenzo, 1998;
Pool, 2000; Schneider & Brief, 1996; Silvester & Anderson, 1999). This
research helps to understand the association between organizational
culture and attitudes toward organizational change—in other words,
organizations whose organizational culture is evaluated positively are
more likely to have employees with positive attitudes toward organi-
zational change (Rashid, Sambasivan, & Rahman, 2004). Similarly, a
qualitative study indicated that when employees have values that are
congruent with those of the organization, they react more positively to
change. Furthermore, because change can be an emotional experience,
when organizations treat employees with respect during a period of
change, those people become more engaged with the change (Smollan
& Sayers, 2009).
Job Satisfaction
Another major area of inquiry related to organizational culture is job
satisfaction. It is sensible to reason that when someone is satisfied with
the organizational culture, they are more likely to also be satisfied with
their job. However, as research indicates, things are not always this
plain and simple. Much like organizational culture, job satisfaction is a
multidimensional concept that is influenced by various internal and
external factors. Job satisfaction depends on many organizational
variables such as size, structure, salary, working conditions, and lea-
dership, all of which constitute organizational culture. Early research
about the relationship between organizational culture and job sa-
tisfaction indicated that job satisfaction increases as people progress to
higher job levels and is based on a productive working environment
(Corbin, 1977; Schneider & Snyder, 1975). Later, this research was
extended by Sempane Rieger and Roodt (2002) using job satisfaction
as a way to predict perceptions of organizational culture. Collectively,
research in the areas of job satisfaction and organizational culture
remains ongoing but demonstrates that there is a relationship between
the two that requires attention from organizational leaders.
5.4 Generational Perspectives on Organizational Culture

While organizational culture has been studied in various contexts as dis-
cussed, organizational culture is also influenced by generational expecta-
tions about the workplace. At least in mass media, the multigenerational
workplace is often discussed, sometimes only for comedic relief, showing
that Millennials never want to talk on the phone, that Boomers cannot
keep up with technological advances, and that Gen X is just merely there.
This section will break down the different generational perspectives about
organizational culture that exist before presenting our multigenerational
data about organizational culture.
Millennials
Millennials are very outspoken about their cultural desires when en-
tering the workforce. For instance, they have inspired the inclusion of
many previously unconventional concepts, such as nap pods, pet-
friendly workplaces, and co-working spaces. One of the most desired
variables of a Millennial-friendly organizational culture is flexibility
(Rawlins, Indvik, & Johnson, 2008) and the ability to work flexible
hours (Brack & Kelly, 2012). This does not imply that Millennials do
not want to work, as often reported in mass media outlets, but means
that Millennials want to work on their own terms, when and where
they want, to accommodate their lifestyles.
Speaking of lifestyle, work/life balance is another important compo-
nent of organizational culture for Millennials. This could explain why
Rawlins et al. (2008) found that Millennials want to be able to manage
their personal lives while at work, if needed. A workplace that has a
culture of “being seen” and logging long hours regardless of actual
productivity is not the right fit for this generation. In fact, it is estimated
that Millennials would be willing to give up $7,600 in salary every year
to work in a desired environment (Chew, 2016). This is a major shift
from previous generations who viewed work as a way to live.
Millennials value several elements of organizational culture, including
corporate social responsibility; diversity and inclusion; work/life balance;
results-oriented discussions through feedback and growth; and purposeful
engagement (Alton, 2017). Millennials want to work for organizations
that share and support their own beliefs, particularly with regard to
environmental and social issues. Therefore, when organizations offer
corporate social responsibility programs like recycling, carpools, and
available time-off to volunteer, Millennials are more likely to apply for
jobs there. This is related to Millennials politically independent viewpoints,
which influence their need for diversity and inclusion in the workplace.
Organizations that demonstrate support for diverse groups, by supporting
gay pride month or International Women’s Day for instance, earn
stronger recruitment and retention efforts among Millennials.
Millennials are goal-oriented, and they thrive in cultures that give
feedback and promote growth. On-the-job learning opportunities,
employee resource groups, and both formal and informal mentoring
and evaluations are attractive to Millennials. While the list of examples
could go on and on, the bigger point is that when Millennials identify
with an organization’s culture, they are more likely to apply for po-
sitions and remain employed there.
Generation X
After Millennials, Generation X is the second largest generation pre-
sent in today’s workforce. This means that they not only have a lot of
control over organizational culture but also a lot of experience to
determine different variables present in an ideal organizational culture.
Unlike Baby Boomers, Gen X has more experience with technology in
the workplace, but they still have less digital wisdom than Millennials.
This is helpful because this cohort is not afraid of technological
changes, especially at work, since they have experienced rapid changes
throughout their lives (Allen, 2017).
Gen X’ers are known for their high-quality work output and ded-
ication to the work itself. Their values align with the core foundation of
organizational culture, which is to work toward a shared goal or mis-
sion. In the workplace, Gen X’ers make great mentors to Millennials,
while also being role models as leaders and helping to shape the future
leaders within the organization (Allen, 2017). These factors contribute
greatly to organizational culture. Much like Millennials, Gen X also
desires a flexible organizational culture and likes to have strict work-life
balance boundaries. Additionally, because Gen X has faced more un-
deremployment than Boomers and was the first generation to enter the
workforce with large debts from education, they are motivated by sal-
aries in the workplace rather than, or instead of, other perks that can be
appealing to Millennials (Mulvanity, 2001). Finally, because Boomers
are choosing to remain in the workforce beyond the once standard re-
tirement age of 65, many Gen X’ers view their opportunities for
advancement as grim. Therefore, many Gen X’ers make several lateral
moves among organizations to soak up as much knowledge and money
as they can before moving on to a new job (Mulvanity, 2001). That’s
why considering how organizational culture influences Gen X is im-
portant for retaining this generation.
Some of the defining workplace characteristics of Gen X’ers include
the need for appreciation, development, involvement, recognition,
direct communication, and sincerity (Muchnick, 1996; Raines, 1997).
In order to keep Gen X’ers happy at work, there cannot be any mi-
cromanagement, and the workplace needs to feel flexible and fun to
them, elements that are inherent in organizational culture. This is also
a generation that is strongly against “paying their dues” and wants
recognition to be based solely on merit. Due to their needs for
freedom, work-life balance, and flexibility, the best organizational
culture fit for Gen X’ers is one where empathy is practiced. Leadership
should understand that work does not occur in a vacuum and requires
support for family, health, and diversity needs.
Baby Boomers
One of the biggest concerns and points of interest with Baby Boomers
in the workplace is their use of technology. It is a misconception that
Boomers are unable or unwilling to learn and adapt to new technol-
ogies. The reality is that during their tenure in the workforce, they
have experienced a great amount of change, all of which have been
implemented for regular use. For instance, this generation went from a
world relying on phone calls and fax machines to the takeover of email
and video conferencing. Baby Boomers can and will adapt to tech-
nology as long as the new tools are developed to make their work and
lives easier (Marx, n.d.).
Baby Boomers are also in the unique position to both be a mentor
and mentee within an organization. Since Boomers are less concerned
right now with upward mobility, compared to Millennials, they are in
an excellent position to serve as a mentor and help Gen X and
Millennials within the organization. This helps make Baby Boomers
feel appreciated and valued, which they like (Marx, n.d.). In some
organizations, the practice of two-way mentoring is known as
“transferring tribal knowledge” and has been used in organizations
such as General Electric, Estee Lauder, and Saint-Gobain North
America (Altany, 2019).
5.5 Organizational Culture and Generational
Differences: Our Data
Perceptions about the strength of different dimensions of organiza-
tional culture were measured with the Organizational Culture Survey
(Glaser, Zamanou, & Hacker, 1987). In addition to the overall scale,
six sub-dimensions are included in the measure: Teamwork, Morale,
Information Flow, Involvement, Supervision, and Meetings. Greater
scores on this 5-point scale indicate greater endorsement of that sub-
dimension of culture being present in their current organization.
Overall, the average scores across all subscales were clustered above
the midpoint, ranging from 3.33 to 3.66. Scores per generational group
are presented in Table 5.1.
As the table demonstrates, there are differences by generation in only
one of the six subscales and main scale: Morale. Gen X has a significantly
lower morale score than both Baby Boomers and Millennials, who do not
differ from one another. Gen X’s dissatisfaction in the workplace has
been demonstrated in other areas, as seen throughout other chapters in
this volume. Similar outlooks on organizational culture represent an
agreement in criteria for evaluating each of these facets of culture. The
lack of differences in perceptions of culture is an interesting one.
The data from this study present interesting avenues for both practice
within organizations and future research. What this demonstrates is that
Table 5.1 Generational Differences in the Organizational Culture Survey and

Subscales
Measure Baby Gen X M(SD) Millennials F eta2

Boomers M(SD) (2, 1147)
M(SD)
Organizational 3.67(.77) 3.48(.85) 3.58(.78) 2.290 .00

Culture Survey
Teamwork 3.69(.80) 3.55(.83) 3.60(.79) 1.046 .00
Morale 3.66(.90)a 3.38(.1.03)b 3.61(.94)a 5.747* .01
Information 3.56(.87) 3.44(.93) 3.52(.87) .964 .00
Flow
Involvement 3.51(.99) 3.29(1.11) 3.39(.98) 1.653 .00
Supervision 3.75(.95) 3.62(.96) 3.67(.89) .751 .00
Meetings 3.41(.91) 3.31(.95) 3.33(.94) .385 .00
**p < .001, *p < .05.

a,b
Note: Morale differences between Gen X and Baby Boomers p = .051.
many organizations are already successfully retaining a multigenerational
workforce, which is great news. This also demonstrates that while each
generation has its own “wish list” of an ideal workplace, when various
components of a workplace are simultaneously working in harmony, it
creates an overall culture of satisfaction. For instance, meetings can help
people feel involved, supervised, and part of a team.
It is important to note that this scale does not take generational
desires into account, thereby making it more objective, but also less
specific to generational differences that could still be present. It would
be difficult for any organization to operate without any of the mea-
sures included here. That does not mean that these are the only
measures related to culture. Further, this scale does not allow the in-
ference that each generation is satisfied with the organizational culture.
5.6 Best Practices for Creating an Age-Inclusive

Organizational Culture
Clarity and Communication

Clarifying the mission, values, and operations of the organization creates
an organizational culture. Therefore, organizations should work hard to
create clarity around these things then implement their communication
about these concepts to existing employees as well as to future employees
during recruitment. Working toward a shared goal can positively influence
morale, teamwork, and involvement, all of which employees use to assess
culture, as our data demonstrate. Moreover, knowing that generations
take the values and mission of organizations seriously throughout their
job searching process (see Chapter 4 for additional information), organi-
zations should not let the opportunity to showcase their culture during
recruitment pass by. Finally, communicating and showing how the or-
ganization actively works to fulfill its mission during the recruitment
process helps with anticipatory socialization.
Assess Your Culture

Both organizational leaders and employees can assess the company
culture that is present within the workplace. Doing this can help de-
termine whether or not the actual culture is in alignment with the de-
sired culture. Many of the steps for assessing organizational culture are
similar to those outlined in Chapter 3 about internal communication.
Beginning with a survey of all employees, including leaders, to under-
stand how they perceive the culture is vital. This will encourage
involvement for all employees, allowing them to share their thoughts, as
well as provide information that is quantifiable, which can later be used
to refine and refresh policies and operating procedures (Sanchez, 2011).
An organizational culture measurement study can also be done using
qualitative methods such as employee interviews or focus groups and/or
observation. The results from a cultural study should then be examined
against the desired culture and assessed with input from leadership so
that there is a collective understanding of the current culture, ways to
maintain it, and how to improve it in the future (Sanchez, 2011).
5.7 Conclusion
While the data from our study are consistent with that of other em-
pirical research which does not show a major generational difference in
perceptions of organizational culture, this is still an important finding.
The information presented in this chapter coupled with our data shows
that culture is holistic and communal. Organizational culture, when
established well, can transcend age and experience levels to create an
inclusive environment where everyone is happy, motivated, and en-
couraged to work toward the same goals guided by one central mission.
References
Ahmed, P. K. (1998). Culture and climate for innovation. European Journal of
Innovation Management, 1, 30–43.
Allen, D. (2017). The merging of Gen X and Millennial cultures in the
workplace. ATD: Association for Talent Development. Retrieved from
https://www.td.org/insights/the-merging-of-gen-x-and-millennial-cultures-
in-the-workplace
Altany, K. (2019). Baby Boomers vs. Millennials: Merging culture. Retrieved
from https://www.industryweek.com/talent/article/22028374/baby-boomers-
vs-millennials-merging-cultures
Alton, L. (2017). How millennials are reshaping what’s important in corporate
culture. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryalton/
2017/06/20/how-millennials-are-reshaping-whats-important-in-corporate-
culture/#f1da7222dfb8
Barney, J. (1986). Organizational culture: Can it be a source of sustained
competitive advantage? Academy of Management, 11, 656–665.
Brack, J., & Kelly, K. (2012). Maximizing Millennials in the workplace. UNC
Kenan-Flagler Business School. Retrieved from https://www.kenan-flagler.
unc.edu/executive-development/custom-programs/~/media/files/documents/
executive-development/maximizing-millennials-in-the-workplace.pdf
Braddy, P., Meade, A., & Kroustalis, C. (2006). Organizational recruitment
website effects on viewers’ perceptions of organizational culture. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 20, 525–543.
Chew, J. (2016). Why Millennials would take a $7,600 pay cut for a new job.
Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2016/04/08/fidelity-millennial-
study-career/
Corbin, L. (1977). Productivity and job satisfaction in research and develop-
ment: Associated individual and supervisory variables. Airforce Institute of
Technology, 3.
Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. (1982). Corporate cultures. Addison-Wesley.
DeLisi, P. S. (1990). Lessons from the steel axe: Culture, technology, and
organizational change. Sloan Management Review, 32, 83–93.
Dubinsky, A., Howell, R., Ingram, T., & Bellenger, D. (1986). Salesforce so-
cialization. Journal of Marketing, 50, 192–207.
Eisenberg, E., Trethewey, A., LeGreco, M., & Goodall, H. (2017).
Organizational communication: Balancing creativity and constraint (8th ed.).
Bedford St. Martin’s.
Fayol, H. (1949). General and industrial management. Pitman.
Glaser, S. R., Zamanou, S., & Hacker, K. (1987). Measuring and interpreting
organizational culture. Management Communication Quarterly, 1, 173–198.
Hofstede, G. (1994). Uncommon sense about organizations: Case studies and
field observations. Sage.
Lorenzo, A. (1998). A framework for fundamental change: Context, criteria,
and culture. Community College, Journal of Research & Practice, 22,
335–348.
Marx, L. (n.d.). How to create a company culture that Baby-Boomers,
Millennials, and Gen Z employees can thrive in. Retrieved from: https://
www.urbanbound.com/blog/how-to-create-a-company-culture-that-baby-
boomers-millennials-and-gen-z-employees-can-thrive-in
Muchnick, M. (1996). Naked management: Bare essentials for motivating the X-
Generation at work. St. Lucie Press.
Mulvanity, E. (2001). Generation X in the workplace: Age diversity issues in
project teams. Project Management Institute. Retrieved from https://www.
pmi.org/learning/library/generation-x-workplace-age-diversity-style-7904
Pettigrew, A. (1985). The awakening giant: Continuity and change in imperial
chemical industries. Blackwell.
Pool, S. (2000). Organizational culture and its relationship between job tension
in measuring outcomes among business executives. Journal of Management
Development, 19, 32–49.
Porter, L., Lawler, E., & Hackman, J. (1975). Behavior in organizations.
McGraw Hill.
Raines, C. (1997). Beyond Generation X. Crisp Publications.
Rashid, M., Sambasivan, M., & Rahman, A. (2004). The influence of orga-
nizational culture on attitudes toward organizational change. Leadership &
Organizational Development Journal, 25, 161–179.
Rawlins, C., Indvik, J., & Johnson, P. (2008). Understanding the new gen-
eration: What the millennial cohort absolutely positively must have at work.
Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict, 12, 1–8.
Sanchez, P. (2011). Organizational culture. In T. Gillis (Ed.), The IABC
handbook of organizational communication (pp. 28–40). Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leadership (4th ed.). Josey-Bass.
Schneider, B., & Brief, A. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for sustain-
able organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24, 7–19.
Schneider, B., & Snyder, R. (1975). Some relationship between job satisfaction
and organizational climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 318–328.
Sempane, M., Rieger, H., & Roodt, G. (2002). Job satisfaction in relation to
organizational culture. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 28, 23–30.
Sheridan, J. (1992). Organizational culture and employee retention. Academy
of Management Journal, 35, 1036–1056.
Silvester, J., & Anderson, N. (1999). Organizational culture change. Journal of
Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 72, 1–24.
Smollan, R., & Sayers, J. (2009). Organizational culture, change and emotions:
A qualitative study. Journal of Change Management, 4, 435–457.
Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1997). Riding the waves of culture:
Understanding diversity in global business. McGraw Hill.
Umphress, E., Bingham, J., & Mitchell, M. (2010). Unethical behavior in the
name of the company: The moderating effect of organizational identifica-
tion and positive reciprocity beliefs on unethical pro-organizational beha-
vior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 769–780.
Wanous, J. (1977). Organization entry: Newcomers moving from outside to
inside. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 601–618.
6 Organizational Identification
As part of the larger corporate structure, employees must still feel

connected to the organization. This chapter will discuss how employees
identify with and assimilate to the organization. We reflect on our own
findings and connect these findings to previous literature surrounding
organizational identification. Best practices will also be provided to help
employees identify and connect to the organization as a whole.
6.1 Connecting to the Workplace

The traditional workplace involves people, processes, and plans. Because
of this complexity, it is not enough to assume that people will feel
connected to their organization simply by having a sense of belonging
or accomplishment. Instead, several factors influence how and why
employees feel like they are connected to their places of employment.
Employees tend to feel connected to their organizations when the
socialization and assimilation processes have been effectively utilized.
Employees, especially newly onboarded employees, must feel con-
nected to their workgroups, other employees, and the larger organi-
zation as a whole (Morrison, 2002). Clear communication and
relationship building can help build and sustain an employee’s sense of
belonging (Kammeyer-Mueller, Wanberg, Rubenstein, & Song, 2013).
Ultimately, the identity of the employee must be connected to the
organization, and employees must be assimilated into the organiza-
tion. As a result, retention and overall satisfaction may increase.
6.2 Identification
6.2.1 Previous Research and Theory

Identity manifests itself in many ways, especially in the organization.
Identity, or “that which is central, distinctive, and more less enduring”
Organizational Identification 67
(Ashforth, 2016, p. 262), positions the identification concept as a per-
sonal distinctive that can be applied in organizations. Organizational
identification includes one’s linkage, or perceived link, to the organi-
zation. Cheney (1983), the original architect of the organizational
identification questionnaire, believes identification is a process, specifi-
cally an active process whereby individuals link themselves to elements
in that social scene. This link can lead to organizational commitment,
i.e. retention (Cook and Wall, 1980). Thus, in the case of our study, an
employee’s central and distinct identity can be applied and developed
within organizations, and, theoretically, the more an organization
connects to an employee’s central, distinct, and enduring identity, the
more loyal an employee will remain.
Identification, while important especially as one enters an organiza-
tion, is also an evolving concept. For one, scholars recognize that we
continually re-negotiate our identity as it relates to an organization
(Brown, 2017; Haslam, 2004). Further, as Kanungo (1982a) illustrates,
job identification, rather than organizational commitment, can also
include how committed one is to his or her professional position. In
addition, identity to a position or an organization can manifest itself
through concern with one’s present position (Paullay, Alliger, & Stone-
Romero, 1994), self-esteem related to job performance (Lodahl &
Kejner, 1965), and genuine care and concern for one’s work (Kanungo,
1982b). These elements, as one can imagine, tend to result in greater
organizational effectiveness (Uygur & Kilic, 2009).
From a generational perspective, identification is felt differently
depending on the general age group. And, ironically, for organiza-
tions to survive and thrive with a multigenerational workforce, or-
ganizations must deal not only with the social identity of their
workers and the tendency to categorize ourselves and view other
generations more positively or negatively depending on our percep-
tions (Ho & Yeung, 2020) but also with how this social identity
connects to and infiltrates the workplace.
Generally, Baby Boomers, those affectionately referred to as career
loyalists (Singh & Gupta, 2015), tend to find an identity in their jobs and
are more likely to show a favorable attitude toward their job (Ng &
Feldman, 2010). Historically, older workers view their jobs in a more
positive light (Carstensen, 1991) and have received more gratification from
the identification they find in their jobs (Wright & Hamilton, 1978).
Generation X, those who tend to be more independent and self-reliant, are
viewed as less loyal than their Boomer coworkers and Boomer bosses
(Rottier, 2001) although a study by Davis, Pawlowski, & Houston (2016)
reveals that Boomers and Generation X tend to be more alike in their
work and job involvement as well as organizational and professional
commitment. Compared to Baby Boomers and Gen-Xers, Millennials
tend to be more concerned, overall, with their identity and organizational
identifications. Millennials are usually more attracted to and identify more
uniquely with organizations and institutions where there the system is
equitable. To put it another way, despite public opinion that would decry
millennials as disloyal, millennials tend to be loyal to those organizations
which are loyal to them (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010). All of this impacts
how one’s identity is connected to and developed within the organization,
and because of generational differences related to organizational identifi-
cation, job identification, workplaces—regardless of the industry—would
do well to establish clearer opportunities for their workers to connect to
the organization at large. As workers strive to identify with their organi-
zations, the topic needs continual study, and it is important to consider the
extent to which individuals identify with the organization. And, while
worker identification is an important generational consideration, how
workers assimilate in their organizations and how organizations retain
their employees are also important to note for those interested in orga-
nizational dynamics.
6.2.2 Organizational Identification and Generational

Difference: Our Data
Cheney’s (1983) Organizational Identification Scale offers a uni-
dimensional approach to assessing the degree to which individuals
identify with their organization. Across all three generations, this scale
reported excellent reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .943) and mean just
above its midpoint (M = 3.76 (SD = 1.24) on a 7-point scale.
A look at differences in means across the generational groups show
small, yet marginally significant differences between groups. An ANOVA
showed overall small, significant differences, F(2, 1148) = 3.356, partial
eta2 = .006, p < .05 across the three groups. Millennials reported the
greatest identification with their organization (M = 4.31, SD = 1.20),
followed by Baby Boomers (M = 4.11, SD = 1.31) and Gen X (M = 4.10,
SD = 1.31). A Tukey post hoc test revealed the difference between Gen X
and Millennials neared significance (p = .053).
The data from our study show that individuals’ identification with
their organization does not differ to a large degree by their generation.
However, we see a small, and nearly significant difference: Millennials
have the greatest identification with their organization as measured
here. This is in line with previous research.
6.3 Assimilation

Through organizational assimilation, employees learn about the orga-
nization as a whole and learn about the organization’s members, po-
licies, procedures, culture, and other crucial aspects of the workplace
that employees need to grasp (Croucher, Zeng, & Kassing, 2016). In
2003, Myers and Oetzel developed six dimensions of the organizational
assimilation process. Their dimensions include familiarity with others,
specifically the ability to develop and build relationships; acculturation,
or the process of learning about organizational norms; recognition,
being recognized as a valuable member of the organization by the or-
ganization; involvement, ways to contribute to the organization; job
competency, or one’s actual job performance; and role negotiation, or the
process an employee goes through to negotiate their actual place or
expectations within an organization. The sections that follow explore
these dimensions from a generational perspective.
Familiarity
As employees assimilate into the organization, they can develop a
familiarity with those other coworkers, especially supervisors.
Ironically, Millennials and Gen Xers share similar perspectives on
work, and their understanding tends to run counter to a Boomer
perspective. Generally, for Millennials and X-ers alike, their identity is
not as focused on their job (Marston, 2007). This can become a point
of contention between generations in organizations and can, therefore,
negatively impact how relationships are developed (Raines, 2003). As
these relationships form—especially now as Boomers are still primarily
supervisors—generally, in organizational contexts, these relationships
become even more delicate, and familiarity becomes even more im-
portant. As Jokisaari and Nurmi (2009) found, strong relationships
with supervisors help develop long-term job satisfaction for millen-
nials. This means organizations should enhance opportunities for
cross-generational relationship building. However, this may be easier
than it sounds because several factors influence how we come to build
and sustain relationships at work.
Obviously, trust can influence how individuals develop and build
relationships, especially with supervisors. As members of different
organizations strive to build effective relationships, age diversity can
continually get in the way as intergenerational differences can
influence the trust one has for members of their team or their super-
visors/subordinates (Williams, 2016). It is important, then, to step
back and recognize that in order for generational assimilation to occur
successfully, there must be a foundation of trust. In organizations
where communication is a prominent mechanism for culture, under-
standing, and general functionality, clear expectations for workplace
relationships are necessary. For one, Millennials tend to expect closer
relationships and greater transparency from their supervisors (Society
for Human Resource Management, 2009). And it is likely that
Generation Z supervisor expectations will follow a similar, or even
more intense, trajectory (Goh & Lee, 2018). Familiarity and re-
lationship building, then, become a crucial factor for assimilating
workers, especially younger employees, into the organization.
Acculturation
Familiarity with members of the organization should be preceded by an
acculturation process whereby the employee is immersed in an under-
standing of organizational norms and culture. Myers and Oetzel (2003)
also focus not just on learning behavioral norms but on avoiding those
actions that may go against or break organizational norms. While or-
ganizational norms look differently depending on the organization, one
generational impact on organizational acculturation was the relation-
ship between supervisor and employee. In most cases, for instance, Baby
Boomers were probably taught to accept direction, criticism, feedback,
etc. from a supervisor and to subsequently not question the comments
(Stewart, Oliver, Cravens, & Oishi, 2017). For Millennials, generally,
this organizational norm is archaic. Interestingly, Stewart et al. (2017)
also argue that millennials, compared to previous generations, carry an
expectation that the workplace will cater to or accommodate their
needs. This understanding, coupled with the notion that organizational
norms may be of less importance to millennials, means organizations
should consider how to approach acculturation as a valuable standard
rather than a burdensome reality.
Recognition
Generally, all employees want and need recognition in the workplace.
While the type and amount of recognition may be preferential, gen-
erations across the spectrum want to know that they have performed
at or above expectations (Van Dyke & Ryan, 2013). Recognition, the
understanding that an employee is of value to their organization, can
manifest itself in increased wages or even through additional perks like
flexible hours or remote work (Meister & Willyerd, 2010). Ironically,
rewards like remuneration and benefits and a positive working en-
vironment are more important to the younger employees and tend to
reduce as employees get older (Close & Martins, 2015). Twenge and
Campbell (2010) also argue that Millennials, compared to Baby
Boomers, are more interested in extrinsic rewards but less interested
compared to Generation X employees. Millennials also prefer non-
traditional or non-material rewards more than their generational
counterparts do and greatly appreciate learning and development and
immediate feedback from supervisors (Hewlett, Sherbin, & Sumberg,
2009). These generational differences force managers to recognize the
employees as individuals, understanding that a one-size-fits all reward
system is outdated.
Involvement
Employee involvement in the organization, or the actual ways one
contributes to the workplace, can manifest itself in a variety of ways.
Boomers, for instance, can be seen by some as problematic not because
of their contributions but rather because of their inability or unwill-
ingness to adapt to a changing workplace (Bosco & Harvey, 2013). In
terms of asset accumulation, Boomers are retiring with more wealth
than any previous generation; while this is not a direct indicator of
workplace productivity, it can shed some light on Boomer organiza-
tional and economic impact (Roberts, 2011). In a 2005 study, specifi-
cally looking at the differences in productivity between Boomers and
Gen Xers, Appelbaum, Serena, & Shapiro found that older workers are
more productive than younger workers due to their experience and
knowledge. Long held notions that younger employees who are first
starting out tend to produce more immediate results may not be entirely
true. Instead, it is important to recognize that employee involvement
and contributions may be linked as much to experience as anything else.
However, Martin (2005) indicates that Generation Y, otherwise known
as Millennials, if led by the right type of manager, have the potential to
be the highest performing generation in history. This holistic under-
standing, that Generation Y has immense productivity potential, serves
researchers well as they consider the multigenerational workplace. There
are no substitutes for experience, but because of their technology
acumen, entrepreneurial spirit, and achievement personality, Millennials
may become dominant producers in organizational contexts.
Job Competency
In a similar vein to involvement, job competency involves one’s actual job
performance. While not a generational difference per se, it is important
to note that historically researchers would agree that there is little to no
relationship between age and job performance (Salthouse & Maurer,
1996; Warr, 1994). Job performance or competency, like involvement,
can be influenced by experience and accumulated job knowledge, thus
making someone who has been in a position longer potentially more
efficient. Further, job performance may also filter down to different
generations in the workplace as younger generations may see increased
productivity because of the transferable experience of older generations
through mentorship or collaborative projects (Waljee, Vineet, & Saint,
2020). As workers navigate their actual performance on the job, gen-
erational differences can be useful for considering improved productivity
related to collaboration and individual duties.
Role Negotiation
The final dimension for Myers and Oetzel (2003), role negotiation, ex-
plores the process an employee goes through to negotiate their actual place
or expectations within an organization. Practically speaking, role nego-
tiation is how one perceives he or she fits within an organization. While
other generations are not immune to the challenges associated with role
negotiation in organizations, Millennials, because of stereotypes about
them as well as their own expectations, may struggle with organizational
socialization (Marston, 2007). Internal role negotiation is also determined
by membership negotiation, where current organizational members decide
who may, or may not, suffice as an appropriate organizational fit
(Slaughter & Zickar, 2006). Those just entering positions also participate
in this negotiation process (Scott & Myers, 2010). Ironically, Millennial
roles will be influenced by their own perceptions, and these expectations
may also impact the role(s) of others within the organization (Myers &
Sadaghiani, 2010). How these negotiated roles within an organization,
especially with the incoming Generation Z cohort filtering in slowly, affect
long-term organizational culture is yet to be determined.
6.3.1 Organizational Assimilation and Generational

Difference: Our Data
Meyers and Oetzel’s (2003) Organizational Assimilation Index demon-
strated excellent reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .938) and a mean score
Table 6.1 Generational Differences in the Organizational Assimilation Index
and Subscales
Measure Baby Boomers Gen X Millennials F eta2

M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) (2, 1147)
Organizational 4.03(.68)a 3.82(.80)a 3.76(.73)b 5.77* .01

Assimilation
Index
Supervisor 3.83(.90) 3.72(1.03) 3.75(.97) .425 .00
Familiarity
Acculturation 4.47(.72)a 4.24(.89)a 4.13(.83)b 7.80** .01
Recognition 4.17(.92)b 3.83(1.14)a 3.83(.99)a 4.860* .01
Involvement 3.57(1.04) 3.37(1.12) 3.41(1.05) 1.20 .00
Job Competency 4.18(.72)a 4.03(.80)a 3.82(.80)b 13.574** .02
Role Negotiation 3.97(.92)a 3.84(1.00)b 3.64((1.00)b 7.325** .01
*p < .001, **p < .05.

a,b
which significantly differ from the other two scores are bolded.
well above the midpoint across all individuals (M = 380, SD = .74).

Greater scores are indicative of greater assimilation and its sub-
dimensions. Results are presented below in Table 6.1. Millennials scored
significantly lower (M = 3.76, SD = .73) than both Gen X (M = 3.82,
SD = .80) and Baby Boomers (M = 4.03, SD = .68), who did not
significantly differ, despite the differences in mean scores.
The pattern of Millennials scoring significantly lower is a pattern
found in the subdimensions of the scale as well. In two of the sub-
scales, Millennials scored significantly lower than both Gen X and
Baby Boomers (acculturation, job competency); in another two
subscales, both Millennials and Gen X scored significantly lower
than Baby Boomers (recognition, role negotiation), and there were
no differences in the remaining two subscales (supervisor familiarity,
involvement). While these differences are small in effect size, the
pattern observed is relatively consistent: Millennials demonstrate
lower scores across the subdimensions of assimilation, Baby
Boomers demonstrate greater scores, and Gen X falls in between. It
should be noted that across all participants, scores on organizational
identification and organizational assimilation share a r = .306,
p < .01. This moderate-size correlation speaks to the relatedness of
the two concepts.
6.4 Retention
Optimizing talent, specifically hiring and retaining, is a significant
challenge facing modern organizations (Clare, 2009). The elements
listed above related to assimilation must be negotiated in an effective
manner for employees to stay at organizations. At times, leaving a
company cannot be helped. However, there are certainly instances
when workers will leave an organization because they found a better
opportunity, have not assimilated themselves into the broader cul-
ture, or believe they are not being used effectively in their current
role. Baby Boomers still have a desire to work and participate ac-
tively in organizations (Salb, 2015). Because many Boomers are ca-
reer loyalists, retention was not a necessary focus. Retention, partly
because Generation X-ers were more inclined to leave their positions
for something else, was more important with those who came after
Boomers. Those employing Generation X need to offer variety, si-
mulation, and constant change to keep workers engaged (Jurkiewicz,
2000). Jurkiewicz (2000) also notes that culture is of primary im-
portance for X-ers. This trend has continued, and today employee
retention is a renewed area of study.
Generational workplace preferences do vary, although some of
the foundational desires of employees transcend generational de-
mographics. For one, Eversole, Venneberg, and Crowder (2012)
emphasize the importance of organizational flexibility to retain
workers across the generational spectrum. Pregnolato, Bussin, and
Schlecter (2017), when evaluating reward preferences of different
generations, reveal that financial rewards, including benefits; per-
formance and recognition; remuneration; and career; as well as
career advancement; learning; and work-life balance are all elements
that can help organizations retain talented employees. Generation
Z, those post-millennial workers, likewise appreciate a career path,
flexible work conditions, and transparency (Goh & Okumus, 2020).
Despite their simplicity, these components are difficult to achieve in
organizations.
6.5 Best Practices for Helping Employees Identify

with the Organization
The integration of multiple generations into the workplace can create
organizational uncertainty. Organizations should strive to create en-
vironments where employees feel as though they belong and know they
are valuable members. The following best practices can help employees
identify with their organization, thus contributing to assimilation and
retention mechanisms that transcend generational boundaries.
Best Practice 1: Build a Mission-Centric Culture

Employees, generally, respond more positively to organizations where
they feel connected. This is especially true for members of Generation
Z as well as Millennials. Yet, Gen X-ers and Baby Boomers also want
to know that their work has value. Organizations would do well to
create a mission-centric culture that is inclusive of all backgrounds and
perspectives. But, ultimately, reminding employees of the mission and
articulating how each individual employee “fits” into the broader work
can be helpful.
Best Practice 2: Communicate Clearly

A sense of belonging does not occur naturally and, instead, must be
communicated from the supervisory level and through peer relation-
ships. Communicate expectations and explore ways to deliver mes-
sages in ways that resonate with individual employees, not just the
group as a whole. As you onboard employees, you must also com-
municate effectively as the assimilation process starts.
Best Practice 3: Start Building Relationships Early and Often

Employees must be familiar with the organization and their role within
the broader structure. This familiarity occurs over time, but you
can develop mentorship relationships, especially across the genera-
tional spectrum, that help younger workers integrate, encourage older
workers to leave a legacy of impact, and establish a culture of
relationship development throughout the organization.
6.6 Conclusion
Our data show an interesting connection to previous research.
Millennials want and need to feel connected to the institution.
Assimilation, and the subsequent connection that follows, is key to
establishing rapport with younger employees and can help retain and
even recruit Millennial talent. It is important to continue to stress to all
employees, especially younger generations, that training for the job
will be provided and that the culture, as a whole, is employee friendly
and generally positive.
References
Appelbaum, S. H., Serena, M., & Shapiro, B. T. (2005). Generation “X” and
the Boomers: An analysis of realities and myths. Management Research
News, 28, 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409170510784751
Ashforth, B. E. (2016). Exploring identity and identification in organizations:
Time for some course correction. Journal of Leadership and Organizational
Studies, 23, 361–373. doi: 10.1177/1548051816667897
Bosco, S. M., & Harvey, D. M. (2013). Generational effects on recruitment
and workplace productivity. Northeast Business and Economics Association
Proceedings, 17–20.
Brown, A. D. (2017). Identity work and organizational identification.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 19, 296–317. doi: 10.1111/
ijmr.12152
Carstensen, L. L. (1991). Selectivity theory: Social activity in life-span con-
text. In K. W. Sehaie (Ed.), Annual review of gerontology and geriatrics
(pp. 195–217). Springer.
Cheney, G. (1983). On the various and changing meanings of organizational
membership: Field study of organizational identification. Communication
Clare, C. (2009). Generational differences: Turning challenges into opportu-
nities. Journal of Property Management, 74, 40–41.
Close, D., & Martins, N. (2015). Generational motivation and preference
for reward and recognition. Journal of Governance and Regulation, 4,
259–270.
Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, orga-
nizational commitment and personal need non-fulfillment. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 53, 39–52.
Croucher, S. M., Zeng, C., & Kassing, J. (2016). Learning to contradict and
standing up for the company: An exploration of the relationship between
organizational dissent, organizational assimilation, and organizational
reputation. International Journal of Business Communication, 56, 349–367.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2329488416633852
Davis, J. B., Pawlowski, S. D., & Houston, A. (2016). Work commitments of
Baby Boomers and Gen-Xers in the IT profession: Generational differ-
ences or myth? Journal of Computer Information Systems, 46, 43–49.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2006.11645897
Eversole, B. A. W., Venneberg, D. L., & Crowder, C. L. (2012). Creating
a flexible organizational culture to attract and retain talented workers
across generations. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 14, 607–625.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1523422312455612
Goh, E., & Lee, C. (2018). A workforce to be reckoned with: The emerging
pivotal Generation Z hospitality workforce. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 73, 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.01.016
Goh, E., & Okumus, F. (2020). Avoiding the hospitality workforce bubble:
Strategies to attract and retain Generation Z talent in the hospitality
workforce. Tourism Management Perspectives, 33, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.tmp.2019.100603
Haslam, S. A. (2004). Psychology in organizations: The social identity approach
(2nd ed.). Sage.
Hershatter, A., & Epstein, M. (2010). Millennials and the world of work: An
organization and management perspective. Journal of Business Psychology,
25, 211–223. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9160-y
Hewlett, S. A., Sherbin, L., & Sumberg, K. (2009). How Gen Y & boomers
will reshape your agenda. Harvard Business Review, 87, 71–76.
Ho, H. C. Y., & Yeung, D. Y. (2020). Conflict between younger and
older workers: An identity-based approach. International Journal of
Conflict Management, 1–24. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-08-
2019-0124
Jokisaari, M., & Nurmi, J. E. (2009). Change in newcomers’ supervisor sup-
port and socialization outcomes after organizational entry. Academy of
Management Journal, 52, 527–544.
Jurkiewicz, C. L. (2000). Generation X and the public employee. Public Personnel
Management, 29, 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F009102600002900105
Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., Wanberg, C. R., Rubenstein, A., & Song, Z. (2013).
Support, undermining, and newcomer socialization: Fitting in during the first
90 days. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1104–1124. https://doi.org/10.
5465/amj.2010.0791
Kanungo, R. N. (1982a). Measurement of job and work involvement. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 67, 341–349.
Kanungo, R. (1982b). Work alienation: An integrative approach. Wiley.
Lodahl, T. M., & Kejner, M. (1965). The definition and measurement of job
involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 24–33.
Marston, C. (2007). Motivating the what’s in it for me workforce: Managing
across the generational divide and increase profits. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Martin, C. A. (2005). From high maintenance to high productivity: What
managers need to know about Generation Y. Industrial and Commercial
Training, 1, 39–44. https://doi.org/10.1108/00197850510699965
Meister, J. and Willyerd, K. (2010). The 2020 workplace. HarperCollins.
Morrison, E. W. (2002). Newcomers’ relationships: The role of social network
ties during socialization. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1149–1160.
https://doi.org/10.5465/3069430
Myers, K. K., & Oetzel, J. G. (2003). Exploring the dimensions of organiza-
tional assimilation: Creating and validating a measure. Communication
Quarterly, 51, 438–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370309370166
Myers, K. K., & Sadaghiani, K. (2010). Millennials in the workplace: A
communication perspective on Millennials’ organizational relationships and
performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 225–238.
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2010), The relationships of age with job
attitudes: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 63(3), 677–718.
Paullay, I., Alliger, G., & Stone-Romero, E. (1994). Construct validation of
two instruments designed to measure job involvement and work centrality.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 224–228.
Pregnolato, M., Bussin, M. H. R., & Schlecter, A. F. (2017). Total rewards
that retain: A study of demographic preferences. SA Journal of Human
Resource Management, 15, 1–10. doi: 10.4102/sajhrm.v15.804
Raines, C. (2003). Connecting generations: The sourcebook for a new work-
place. Thompson Crisp Learning.
Roberts, K. (2011). The end of the long baby-boomer generation. Journal of
Youth Studies, 4, 479–497. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2012.663900
Rottier, A. (2001). Gen 2001: loyalty and values, Workforce, 80, 23.
Salb, D. (2015). Using technology to retain Baby Boomers in the workplace.
Computer and Information Science, 8, 180–185. doi:10.5539/cis.v8n3p180
Salthouse, T. A., & Maurer, T. J. (1996). Aging, job performance, and career
development. In J. E. Birren, K. W. Schaie, R. P. Abeles, M. Gatz, & T. A.
Salthouse (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (4th ed., pp. 353–365).
Academic Press.
Scott, C. W., & Myers, K. K. (2010). Toward an integrative theoretical per-
spective of membership negotiations: Socialization, assimilation, and the
duality of structure. Communication Theory, 30, 79–105.
Singh, A., & Gupta, B. (2015). Job involvement, organizational commitment,
professional commitment, and team commitment: A study of generational
diversity. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 22, 1192–1211.
Slaughter, J. E., & Zickar, M. J. (2006). A new look at the role of insiders in
the newcomer socialization process. Group & Organization Management, 31,
264–290.
Society for Human Resource Management. (2009). The multigenerational
workforce: Opportunity for competitive success. http://www.shrm.org/Research/
Articles/Articles/Documents/09-0027_RQ_March_2009_FINAL_noad.pdf
Twenge, J., & Campbell, S. (2010). Who are the Millennials? Empirical evi-
dence for generational differences in work values, attitudes and personality.
In E. Ng, S. Lyons, & L. Schweitzer (Eds.), Managing the new workforce
(pp. 1–19). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Uygur, A., & Kilic, G. (2009). A study into organizational commitment
and job involvement: An application towards the personnel in the central
organization for ministry of health in Turkey. Ozean Journal of Applied
Sciences, 2, 113–125.
Van Dyke, M., & Ryan, M. (2013). Changing the compensation conversation
and the growing utility of non-cash rewards and recognition. Compensation
and Benefits Review,44, 276–279.
Williams, M. (2016). Being trusted: How team generational age diversity
promotes and undermines trust in cross-boundary relationships. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 37, 346–373.
Warr, P. (1994). Age and employment. In M. Dunnette, L. Hough, &
H. Triandis (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology
(pp. 487–550). Consulting Psychologists Press.
Waljee, J. F., Vineet, C., & Saint, S. (2020). Mentoring millennials. JAMA, 17,
1716–1717. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.3085
Wright, J. D., & Hamilton, R. F. (1978). Work satisfaction and age: Some
evidence for the ‘job change’ hypothesis. Social Forces, 56, 1140–1158.
7 Communication in the
Organization: Positive
Communication
This chapter will explore, specifically, supportive workplace commu-

nication by focusing on mentorship and communication support. The
authors will reflect on their findings and connect these findings to pre-
vious literature surrounding mentorship and supportive communication.
7.1 Supportive Communication

The workplace is unique because it is a place where different contexts of
communication converge. We have to manage interpersonal relation-
ships and stakeholder communication as well as maintain our profes-
sional self-image simultaneously. While people are familiar with the
various conflicts and dilemmas that can occur due to communication –
or rather miscommunications – in the workplace, there is also a vast
body of research that explores the ways in which communication helps
engage employees and keep them happy, supported, and satisfied in the
workplace.
Public relations helps to understand communication within the or-
ganization and between organizations and an external audience (cus-
tomers, community leaders, etc.). Excellence theory is one of the most
foundational theories to inform public relations and gives way to
understanding supportive communication. The essence of excellence
theory is that the most effective communication is two-way and
symmetrical (Grunig & Grunig, 2008). This means that both parties
engaged in communication are speaking and listening equally.
Operating with this theory in mind helps inform supportive commu-
nication in the workplace while also helping with employee trust and
engagement efforts.
Supportive communication is defined as “verbal and nonverbal be-
havior produced with the intention of providing assistance to others
Communication in the Organization 81
perceived as needing that aid” (Burleson & MacGeorge, 2002, p. 374).
Previous research helps to understand the various benefits of supportive
communication, an area that has been robustly studied in health and
interpersonal contexts, especially. For instance, supportive commu-
nication has been demonstrated to create and strengthen social net-
works, improve social experiences, and provide greater perceptions of
available support (Burleson, 2009; Cohen, Mermelstein, Karmarck, &
Hoberman, 1985; Shaver, 2008). Furthermore, supportive communica-
tion can decrease emotional distress and help people cope more easily
(Cunningham & Barbee, 2000; Gottlieb, 1994). Research about sup-
portive communication has also demonstrated that supportive messages
are complex and that the effectiveness of messages is contingent upon
various factors, including the message source, the receiver of the mes-
sage, and the interactional context (Bodie & Burleson, 2008; Cutrona,
Cohen, & Igram, 1990).
Burleson (2009) outlines features of supportive messages, which
apply to both professional and interpersonal interactions. The first
feature is the message content, which includes verbal and nonverbal
communication. The verbal content is what the person seeking the
support actually says to solicit the need for support from someone else
and the type of support offered through the verbal message. Different
types of support include emotional support, informational support or
advice, esteem support, and/or social network support. The nonverbal
elements of a message can include the length of the message, the timing
or placement of the message within an interaction, how the message is
shared, and the number of appeals or statements in the message (Feng,
2009; Jacobson, 1986; Neff & Karney, 2005).
The second feature of supportive communication is the relationship
that exists between the person needing support and the person pro-
viding the support. Women tend to be viewed as more supportive than
men, and messages provided by women are evaluated as more sup-
portive than those typically provided by men, even when the content of
the message is the same (Glynn, Christenfeld, & Gerin, 1999; Uno,
Uchino, & Smith, 2002). The credibility of the helper is also known to
influence supportive communication messages, as well as the quality of
the relationship between the two parties. When the person receiving
support feels close to the one providing support, messages are eval-
uated more favorably (Clark et al., 1998).
The final two features include the context and the recipient. Features of
the context refer to the physical setting, the medium of communication,
and the problem situation that makes supportive communication a relevant
activity (Burleson, 2009). For instance, unsolicited messages are viewed
82 Communication in the Organization
unfavorably, and the quality of support is more impactful when it is related
to a serious issue (Burleson, 2009; MacGeorge, Feng, & Thompson, 2008).
Finally, features of the recipient matter, making this timely for con-
sideration within a multigenerational workforce. Demographic character-
istics, personality composition, and cognitive attributes influence responses
to supportive communication (Burleson, 2009).
7.2 Supportive Communication in the Workplace

The workplace creates endless opportunities for uncertainty, which
creates the need for support. The workplace can also be a stressful
environment, which furthers our need and desire for support. This is
why people so often turn to their coworkers for post-work happy
hours, sessions where everyone can vent their frustrations, and inter-
office relationships, all of which can be considered support, albeit not
always healthy support. Supportive communication in the workplace
seeks to help manage and reduce uncertainty (Mikkola, 2019). The
benefits of supportive communication at work are plentiful, including
increases in productivity, motivation, job satisfaction, and commit-
ment. Supportive workplace relationships can also help with problem-
solving, decision making, and learning.
Mikkola (2019) outlines two types of support present in the work-
place: emotional and informational support. Emotional support is
what enables employees to become friends, share frustrations, and
celebrate each other’s accomplishments. Emotional support is used to
help gain psychological distance from the emotions that can erupt
during stressful and uncertain workplace situations. Through emo-
tional support, employees help each other lessen the amount of emo-
tional distress one or both of them may be experiencing (Burleson,
2003). A central feature of emotional support is legitimizing the feel-
ings of the person seeking support through verbal and nonverbal
communication. Informational support, on the other hand, provides
relevant information to reduce uncertainty as a form of support
(Brashers, 2001). Informational support is best suited to situations that
are problem and solution oriented, whereas many emotional support
situations cannot be solved through information.
Supportive communication and social support provide various posi-
tive outcomes in the workplace, as evidenced by previous research. For
example, social support promotes high-quality performance through
increasing emotional affirmation and strengthening the capacity for
collective problem-solving (Park, Wilson, & Lee, 2004). Social support
can also boost engagement among both employees and leaders alike,
which is an antecedent to organizational commitment (Lambert, Minor,
Wells, & Hogan, 2016). Similarly, when people work in a supportive
environment, it can prevent and decrease employee turnover (Feeley,
Moon, Kozey, & Lowe, 2010). Social support in the workplace helps
reduce stress among employees, which positively influences levels of job
satisfaction and helps prevent burnout (Singh, Singh, & Singhi, 2015;
Snyder, 2009).
7.3 Mentorship
Mentoring is an oft-studied organizational concept that is practiced in
prevalence across industries. In fact, mentoring has become somewhat of
a buzzword in both empirical and mass media contexts and has been
studied both extensively and empirically in U.S. workplaces. While often
viewed as a way to promote advancement among disadvantaged groups
such as women and/or BIPOC and minorities who lack access to informal
and interpersonal career development resources, mentoring programs
have been implemented at organizations throughout the United States.
A clear definition of mentoring is a controversial subject, but in
essence, mentoring relationships consist between one seasoned or more
senior member of an organization and one more junior member of the
organization. Mentoring is unique because it can create an unequal
and vulnerable relationship. A mentor is also defined as a person who
serves as a guide or sponsor to the development of another who has a
different rank (Sands, Parson, & Duane, 1991). The most traditional,
common, and concise definition of workplace mentoring is a re-
lationship between two people (dyadic) where the senior employee
takes the junior employee under his or her wing to share knowledge
and provide guidance (Allen, Finkelstein, & Poteet, 2009).
Mentoring has roots in Greek mythology and later evolved into the
modern day understanding of a protege, similar to apprenticeship.
Mentoring used to be most prevalent among men, where midlife men
served as transitional figures for younger men during their early
adulthood (Levinson, Darrow, Klein, Levinson, & McKeen, 1978).
Mentoring has since evolved into a mentor/mentee relationship and
away from the protege conceptualization and practice. Mentees are
guided and advised by mentors, who are senior-level role models who
provide career guidance, coaching, and support through an ongoing
relationship (Darling, 1985; Prehm and Iscson, 1985). Mentees should
take an active role in the formation and development of mentoring
relationships. Good mentors should be “sincere in their dealings with
mentees, be able to listen actively and understand mentees’ needs, and
have a well-established position within the [organization].” (Sambunjak,
Straus, & Marusic, p. 79, 2009).
Mentoring is inherently supportive and provides two forms of
support: career-related and psychosocial support. Career-related sup-
port focuses on the success, development, and advancement of the
mentee. This can include helping the mentee gain exposure and visi-
bility; coaching; providing protection and sponsorship; and providing
opportunities for assignments. Psychosocial support, on the other
hand, focuses more on the identity of the mentee and building his or
her effectiveness as a professional. This includes activities such as
helping them make friends, building acceptance and confirmation, and
serving as a role model. The psychosocial elements of mentoring have
been shown to be positively associated with the outcomes of the
mentoring relationship (Allen et al., 2009).
Mentoring is fundamentally different from other types of workplace
relationships. First, mentoring is a dyadic relationship between people of
two different experience levels. Second, it is both a mutually beneficial
relationship but also asymmetrical because the focus of the relationship
is on the development of the mentee, despite the benefits that both
parties can gain. Finally, mentoring is a fluid and dynamic relationship
that changes over time. It differs from supervisor–subordinate relation-
ships, for instance, because the mentor and the mentee are not required
to work together, there is no requirement for reward power to be present,
and the mentor can be several levels higher than the mentee – or only one
level higher (Allen et al., 2009).
Jacobi (1991) explicated five elements that are present in the men-
toring relationship: 1) focus on achievement or acquisition of knowl-
edge; 2) emotional and psychological support, direct assistance with
career and professional development, and role modeling; 3) reciprocity
where both mentor and mentee derive benefits; 4) personal in nature
involving direct interaction; and 5) emphasizes the mentor’s greater
experience, influence, and achievement within a particular organiza-
tion. This demonstrates the complexity of mentoring and reinforces
the notion that leaders are essential to the process of developing
supportive and collaborative cultures (Edge, 2014).
Mentoring offers benefits for the mentor, the mentee, and the or-
ganization, making it well suited for a multigenerational workforce
where people with various levels of experience and knowledge are
working together. Mentors, for example, experience enhanced career
success, which is great for members for Gen X, career revitalization
which can be important for Baby Boomers, and personal growth and
satisfaction. Conversely, mentees experience higher compensation and
faster salary growth, more promotions and higher expectations for
advancement, more job and career satisfaction, and greater commit-
ment to the organization. All of these benefits are very important to
Millennial employees, making them well positioned to receive men-
toring from a Gen X or Boomer employee. Finally, organizations can
experience benefits such as enhanced recruitment and retention efforts
and increases in employee socialization and organizational learning
(Allen et al., 2009).
As the multigenerational workforce became the norm and organi-
zations had three, sometimes four generations present, a new type of
mentoring emerged: reverse mentoring. Reverse mentoring flips tra-
ditional mentoring upside down and has a younger, junior employee
serving as the mentor to an older, senior colleague (Murphy, 2012).
The concept was first introduced by Jack Welsh, CEO of General
Electric, but is now considered a best practice at other large organi-
zations including Dell, Estee Lauder, Procter & Gamble, and Time
Warner (Greengard, 2002; Harvey & Buckley, 2002; Hewlett, Sherbin,
& Sumberg, 2009). One of the main benefits of reverse mentoring is the
ability for others to learn from the digital wisdom and savviness of
younger generations. Additionally, though, reverse mentoring helps
prepare younger employees for leadership roles, fosters diversity ef-
forts, enhances and promotes intergenerational working relationships,
and promotes innovation (Murphy, 2012). Furthermore, reverse
mentoring, much like traditional mentoring, is a cost-effective pro-
fessional development strategy for organizations to implement.
7.4 Previous Research and Theory

Mentoring and communication support are frequently studied to-
gether because they are antecedents to so many other workplace
variables as mentioned throughout this chapter. The mentoring and
communication support scale, used in our study, is one of the most
commonly applied scales for measurement empirically. The scale was
originally developed to study communication within academic orga-
nizations but has since been applied to the nonacademic workforce.
The scale is useful because it recognizes that mentoring is part of the
larger concept of workplace support, while also maintaining the un-
ique attributes of mentoring. The mentoring and communication
support scale helps to determine mentoring as well as other supportive
behaviors dimensionally (Hill, Bahniuk, Dobos, & Rouner, 1989).
Empirical research utilizing the mentoring and communication sup-
port scale has helped researchers to better understand the positive
attributes of a supportive workplace that includes mentoring. For in-
stance, Harris, Winskowski, and Engdahl (2007) demonstrated that so-
cial support accounted for almost 17% of the variance in job satisfaction,
with career mentoring being one of the most predictive factors of job
satisfaction. A case study using two large chemical organizations de-
monstrated that mentoring as part of a larger organizational commu-
nication support program helps minority employees climb the corporate
ladder, as well as gain friendships, feel supported, and maintain a posi-
tive attitude in the workplace (Kogler Hill & Gant, 2000). A manage-
ment study examined the mutuality present in mentoring and supportive
communication finding that when mentees are open to coaching and put
forth effort in accomplishing work, mentors' perceptions of relationship
effectiveness and trust are positively influenced. Furthermore, when
mentors engage in supportive behaviors to meet the expectations of
mentees, mentees form higher perceptions of effectiveness and trust for
their mentor (Young & Perrewe, 2000). Collectively, this research helps
showcase the positive outcomes and importance of mentoring and sup-
portive communication in the workplace, which is further demonstrated
through our data in what follows.
7.5 Mentoring and Communication Support and

Generational Differences: Our Data
The Mentoring and Communication Support Scale (Hill et al., 1989)
indexed participants’ experiences of mentoring and communication
support in their workplaces. This scale contains four subscales: Career
mentoring, coaching, collegial – social and collegial – task. Means
across the overall scale and subscales were well over the midpoint,
ranging from M = 3.32 for coaching to 4.01 for collegial-task. The
coaching subscale was the only scale or subscale to fall just short of the
widely recognized .70 criteria for assessing a scale’s reliability, so one
should be cautious about generalizing findings on that subscale.
An examination of differences in this scale and subdimensions by
generation are presented below in Table 7.1.
There are no differences between generations and the main scale, as
well as three of the four subscales. There is a significant difference in
scores on Collegial – Task because Baby Boomers report significantly
greater scores than both Gen X and Millennials.
The findings of our generational study are consistent with previous
research, which indicates that there is not a generational difference
when it comes to mentoring. This helps to underscore the importance
of organizational mentoring, though, showcasing that everyone in an
Table 7.1 Generational Differences in the Mentoring and Communication
Social Support Scale and Subscales
Measure Baby Gen X Millennials F eta2

Boomers M(SD) M(SD) (2, 1147)
M(SD)
Mentoring & 3.69(.71) 3.64(.75) 3.67(.67) .194 .00

Communication
Social Support
Career Mentoring 3.41(.92) 3.51(.97) 3.60(.87) 2.432 .00
Coaching 3.20(1.03) 3.35(1.01) 3.31(.92) .850 .00
Collegial – Social 3.77(.87) 3.61(95) 3.69(.86) 1.138 .00
Collegial – Task 4.27(.80)a 4.03(.89)b 3.97(.78)b 5.618* .01
**p < .001, *p < .05.

a,b
organization can benefit from the process, regardless of whether they

are the mentor or the mentee. Furthermore, with it comes to Baby
Boomers, our data indicates that through mentoring, their feelings of
social collegiality can improve, which is positive information that or-
ganizations should use as additional consideration for implementing
mentorship initiatives. Finally, these findings demonstrate that men-
toring represents one successful and positive prong in a larger program
of supportive workplace programs and practices.
7.6 Best Practices for Creating a Supportive

Multigenerational Workplace
The goal of a supportive workplace is to have happy, satisfied, and
supported employees because when an organization’s employees are
happy, the benefits are endless, keeping the organization healthy. The
following are some best practices that organizations can implement to
improve support, but this is not an exhaustive list, and organizations
are encouraged to regularly survey employees and conceptualize new
ways to provide support.
Best Practice 1: Provide Enriching Experiences

According to a large workplace survey conducted by MetLife (2019),
employees need an ally, and it does not need to be one specific person.
Instead, employees need their organization to be their ally, and one way to
do this is to provide enrichment opportunities that go beyond employee
recognition, and instead, provide support. For instance, workplaces can
offer workshops about financial topics or programs to reduce stress
(lunchtime meditations, for example); encourage people to use their vaca-
tion time; and provide training so that people can do their job better and/or
faster to support employees as both organizational assets and humans.
Best Practice 2: Listen

Listening is an important part of supportive communication and is free
for organizations to implement. Supportive listening is characterized
by focusing attention on the support seeker, expressing involvement,
demonstrating understanding, and being both verbally and non-
verbally responsive (Mikkola, 2019). In the workplace, anyone can be
a supportive listener regardless of age, tenure, position, or power. The
more that people engage in supportive listening, the more that people
will communicate their needs for support, creating a cyclical process
for support in the workplace.
Best Practice 3: Monitor Stress and Manage Uncertainty

There is not one workplace throughout the world where stress and
uncertainty is nonexistent, regardless of how supportive the organi-
zational culture is. Stress and uncertainty are workplace norms, but
with that, supportive communication can also become a norm, as the
concept is intimately linked with stress and uncertainty. One of the
easiest ways to create and maintain a supportive work environment is
to identify, monitor, and manage stress and uncertainty through
communication. Simple tactics such as encouraging employees to
discuss stressors and creating a shared need for support (on a project
team, for instance) can provide support. Mikkola (2019) suggests re-
flecting on current communication practices and asking whether or not
they promote supportive interactions. For instance, engaging in ex-
cessive and/or constant discussion of work and workplace problems
can increase stress and lead to defensiveness in communication. Also,
the practice of “rush talk” where people are constantly stating how
busy and overworked they are promoting a culture of busyness and
stress, which is not supportive and can hide communication efforts
that seek support. Therefore, engaging in more supportive commu-
nication such as asking questions, having honest conversations, and
acknowledging stress and uncertainty as hard and discomforting can
promote supportive workplaces.
7.7 Conclusion
Similar to Chapter 5, which is about organizational culture, there are
certain workplace practices that transcend age and are not influenced
by generations. Supportive communication is another one of these
items as demonstrated by our data. When a supportive workplace is
present, generational effects are minimized, and people coexist with
greater ease to help reach organizational goals. Therefore, promoting
positive communication in the workplace can provide great benefits
and help connect a multigenerational workforce.
References
Allen, T., Finkelstein, L., & Poteet, M. (2009). Designing workplace mentoring
programs: An evidence-based approach. Wiley-Blackwell.
Bodie, G., & Burleson, B. (2008). Explaining variations in the effects of sup-
portive messages: A dual-process framework. In C. Beck (Ed.), Communication
yearbook (vol. 32, pp. 354–398). Routledge.
Brashers, D. (2001). Communication and uncertainty management. Journal of
Communication, 15, 477–497.
Burleson, B. (2003). Emotional support skills. In J. O. Green and B. Burleson
(Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 551–594).
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Burleson, B. (2008). What counts as effective emotional support? Explorations
of individual and situational differences. In M. T. Motley (Ed.), Studies in
applied interpersonal communication (pp. 207–227). Sage.
Burleson, B. (2009). Understanding the outcomes of supportive communica-
tion: A dual-process approach. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
26, 21–38.
Burleson, B., & MacGeorge, E. (2002). Supportive communication. In M. L.
Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd
ed., pp. 374–424). Sage.
Clark, R., Pierce, A., Finn, K., Hsu, K., Toosley, A., & Williams, L. (1998).
The impact of alternative approaches to comforting, closeness of relation-
ship, and gender on multiple measures of effectiveness. Communication
Studies, 49, 224–239.
Cohen, S., Mermelstein, R., Karmarck, T., & Hoberman, H. (1985). Measuring
the functional components of social support. In I. Sarason & B. Sarason
(Eds.), Social support: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 73–94). Maritnus
Nijhoff.
Cunningham, M., & Barbee, A. (2000). Social support. In C. Hendrick & S.
Hendrick (Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 272–285). Sage.
Cutrona, C., Cohen, B., & Igram, S. (1990). Contextual determinants of the
perceived helpfulness of helping behaviors. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 7, 553–562.
Darling, L. (1985). What to do about toxic mentoring? Journal of Nursing
Administration, May 1985, 15, 43–45.
Edge, K. (2014). A review of the empirical generations at work research:
Implications for school leaders and future research. School Leadership &
Management, 34, 136–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2013.869206
Feeley, T., Moon, D., Kozey, R., & Lowe, A. (2010). An erosion model of
employee turnover based on network centrality. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 38, 167–188.
Feng, B. (2009). Testing an integrated model of advice-giving in supportive
interactions. Human Communication Research, 35, 115–129.
Glynn, L., Christenfeld, N., & Gerin, W. (1999). Gender, social support, and
cardiovascular responses to stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 61, 234–242.
Gottlieb, B. (1994). Social support. In A. Weber & J. Harvey (Eds.),
Perspectives on close relationships (pp. 307–324). Allyn & Bacon.
Greengard, S. (2002). Moving forward with reverse mentoring. Workforce,
March, 15.
Grunig, J., & Grunig, L. (2008). Excellence theory in public relations: Past,
present, and future. In A. Zerfass, B. van Ruler, & K. Sriramesh (Eds.),
Public relations research: European and international perspectives and in-
novations (pp. 327–347). VS Verlag.
Harris, J., Winskowski, A., & Engdahl, B. (2007). Types of workplace social
support in the prediction of job satisfaction. The Career Development
Quarterly, 56, 150–156.
Harvey, M., & Buckley, M. (2002). Assessing the “conventional wisdoms” of
management for the 21st Century organization. Organizational Dynamics,
30, 368–378.
Hewlett, S., Sherbin, L., & Sumberg, K. (2009). Let GenY teach you.
Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2009/06/let-gen-y-teach-you-tech
Hill, S. E., Bahniuk, M. H., Dobos, J., & Rouner, D. (1989). Mentoring and
other communication support in the academic setting. Group and Organization
Studies, 14, 355–368. doi: 10.1177/105960118901400308
Jacobi, M. (1991). Mentoring and undergraduate academic success: A litera-
ture review. Review of Educational Research, 61, 505–532.
Jacobson, D. (1986). Types and timing of social support. Journal of Health and
Social Behavior, 27, 250–264.
Kogler Hill, S., & Gant, G. (2000). Mentoring by minorities for minorities:
The organizational support system. Review of Business, 21, 53–57.
Lambert, E., Minor, K., Wells, J., & Hogan, N. (2016). Social support’s re-
lationship to correctional staff job stress, job involvement, job satisfaction,
and organizational commitment. Social Science Journal, 53, 22–32.
Levinson, D., Darrow, C., Klein, E., Levinson, M., & McKeen, B. (1978).
Seasons of a man’s life. Knopf.
MacGeorge, E., Feng, B., & Thompson, E. (2008). “Good” and “bad” advice:
How to advise more effectively. In M. Motley (Ed.), Studies in applied in-
terpersonal communication (pp. 145–164). Sage.
MetLife (2019). Thriving in the new work-life world. MetLife’s 17th annual U.S.
employee benefit trends study. Retrieved from https://www.metlife.com/
content/dam/metlifecom/us/ebts/pdf/MetLife-Employee-Benefit-Trends-Study-
2019.pdf
Mikkola, L. (2019). Supportive communication in the workplace. In L.
Mikkola & M. Valo (Eds.), Workplace communication (pp. 147–162). Taylor
& Francis.
Murphy, W. (2012). Reverse mentoring at work: Fostering cross-generational
learning and developing Millennial leaders. Human Resource Management,
51, 549–574.
Neff, L., & Karney, B. (2005). Gender differences in social support: A question
of skill or responsiveness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7,
561–570.
Park, K., Wilson, M., & Lee, M. (2004). Effects of social support at work on
depression and organizational productivity. American Journal of Health
Behavior, 28, 444–455.
Prehm, H., & Iscson, S. (1985). Mentorship: Student and faculty perspectives.
Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher
Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 8, 12–16.
Sambunjak, D., Straus, S., & Marusic, A. (2009). A systematic review of
qualitative research on the meaning and characteristics of mentoring in
academic medicine. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 25, 72–78.
Sands, R., Parson, L., & Duane, J. (1991). Faculty mentoring faculty in a
public university. The Journal of Higher Education, 62, 174–193.
Shaver, P. (2008, Spring). Some necessary links between communication stu-
dies and social psychology in research on close relationships. Relationship
Research News, 6, 1–2.
Singh, A., Singh, A., & Singhi, N. (2015). Organizational role stress and social
support as predictors of job satisfaction among managerial personnel.
Journal of Social Service Research, 40, 178–188.
Snyder, J. (2009). The role of coworker and supervisor social support in al-
leviating the experience of burnout for caregivers in the human-services
industry. Southern Communication Journal, 74, 373–389.
Uno, D., Uchino, B., & Smith, T. (2002). Relationship quality moderates the
effect of social support given by close friends on cardiovascular reactivity in
women. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 9, 243–262.
Young, A., & Perrewe, P. (2000). What did you expect? An examination of
career-related support and social support among mentors and proteges.
Journal of Management, 26, 611–632.
8 The Dark Side of
Communication at Work:
Conflict and Dissent
This chapter will explore destructive workplace communication – spe-

cifically, conflict and dissent. The authors will reflect on their findings
and connect these findings to previous literature surrounding conflict
and dissent. This chapter will address multigenerational workplace
preferences, including crisis communication in the work environment.
8.1 Ineffective Communication in the Workplace

In an ideal world, employees would understand supervisor expectations
clearly, tasks would be accurately completed, and workplace relationships
would be positive and supportive. Unfortunately, our world is not idea-
listic, and often workplaces struggle to create an environment that is
conducive to positive communication. Indeed, communication is crucial to
organizational structures, with Odine (2015) even remarking that man-
agement can only thrive in the prevalence of communication. A positive
and supportive communication climate does not happen naturally and
instead must be nurtured and developed. Our organizations are, probably,
more likely to engage in and practice ineffective communication.
In 2011, Chandra, Theng, Lwin, and Shou-Boon (2011) identified un-
certainty as one of the primary barriers to effective communication in the
workplace. The concept of uncertainty tends to lead to equivocality or
ambiguity. These barriers are more conceptual, relying on the message and
the sender. Other barriers exist, including cultural and language differ-
ences; literal physical barriers that impact noise; psychological barriers like
self-esteem, jargon, and language; differing expectations; or even differing
abilities. This list is nowhere near exhaustive. Yet, despite all of these
challenges, for organizations to truly develop an environment where em-
ployees want to work and to avoid significant turnover (Nwagbara, Oruh,
Ugorji, & Ennsra, 2013), communication should be a key component of an
The Dark Side of Communication at Work 93
organization’s mission. Ineffective communication can lead to decreased
productivity, satisfaction, and lower retention rates (Salahuddin, 2010).
In some ways, ineffective communication may also boil down to
employee expectations. Millennials, for one, prefer organizations that
have a reduced hierarchical structure (Barnes, 2009). For this group,
then, communication in the workplace that is ineffective would seem
to reinforce “red tape” or decrease transparency. While this is not the
only communication difference between generations, it is prevalent.
A deteriorating focus on communication can have significant rami-
fications beyond those traditionally reserved for job functionality.
Specifically, ineffective communication can become inherently negative.
Workplace bullying, for one, can occur because of diminished com-
munication channels (Venkataramani, Labianca, & Grosser, 2013).
Gossip can also occur when communication expectations have not been
defined clearly (Ye, Zhu, Deng, & Mu, 2019). These consequences
highlight the dark side of workplace communication, but there are other
manifestations of negative communication in the workplace as well.
8.2 Manifestations of Negative Communication

Just because communication is ineffective does not mean it is inherently
negative. In fact, ambiguity in some cases does not manifest itself as
either a positive or negative outcome. Instead, it could occur because of
poor planning or basic misunderstanding. Yet, there are instances where
communication in the workplace becomes a negative event with nega-
tive results. Negative messages cause unpleasant reactions even as in-
tense as sickness, absences, reduced motivation, and productivity
declines leading to financial consequences (Kline & Lewis, 2019).
Generally, negative communication leads to negative relationships in
the workplace (Keashly & Jagatic, 2003). Workers, struggling to control
a negative communication environment, will see increased stress, emo-
tional load, turnover, and cynicism toward the organization and their
life in general (Fritz & Omdahl, 2006). Negative communicative beha-
viors can be long-lasting affairs or isolated incidents. No matter the
duration, negative behaviors can lead to long-term emotional strain.
Negative communicative behaviors and problematic relationships
can manifest through different relational categorizations. Tuikka
(2020) believes the most problematic negative relationships in the
workplace are those that are uncivil, aggressive, (sexually) harassing,
unwanted, or are defined by conduct that is unprofessional.
Organizations should clearly identify their expectations for handling
unethical, uncivil, and unprofessional communication (Fritz, 2019).
94 The Dark Side of Communication at Work
Uncivil Relationships
Incivility is pervasive in organizations (Cortina & Magley, 2009).
While the definition of incivility, especially in the workplace, is
somewhat ambiguous (Andersson & Pearson, 1999), it is important
to note that there is some form of deviance or violated norms for
respect associated with incivility. Incivility may be spurred on by
many factors, but perceived intent to harm may be one of the most
influential factors that contributes to employee mistreatment. No
matter what the reasons, organizations should determine that civility
will be a central tenet of their culture.
Harassment
Harassment, especially sexual harassment, is widespread (Hardies,
2019). McDonald (2012) defines sexual harassment as behaviors to-
ward targets and can include unwanted sexual comments, proposi-
tions or requests, gestures, or even actions and assault. Like other
negative communication, sexual harassment can lead to mental and
physical health challenges and decreased job performance (Willness,
Steel, & Lee, 2007).
Incivility and harassment can generally be classified as behavior
that is unprofessional. Unprofessional behavior, and negative com-
munication, fuel dysfunctional organizational culture. And, espe-
cially because there are now additional outlets, like social media
platforms, for these dark side behaviors to occur, organizations
would be wise to address their policies and procedures related to
these actions.
Unfortunately, organizations that struggle to handle this dark
side of workplace communication may struggle to adapt and evolve
in an environment increasingly concerned with positive and sup-
portive climates. As virtual work has become more prominent, tasks
that at one time were completed face to face are now completed in
computer-mediated environments (Vrankes, Bailien, Vandebosch,
Erreygers, & De Witte, 2017). Organizations, therefore need to
focus not only on negative communication in physical contexts but
also on negative or damaging communication in virtual environ-
ments. All of this to say: ignoring the dark side of workplace
communication is not a luxury the 21st century organization can
afford. Negative communication has far-reaching effects. For our
purposes, though, two of the most pressing consequences of nega-
tive communication include conflict and dissent.
8.3 Conflict

Conflict in the workplace is inevitable and occurs in all organizations
(Tuikka, 2020). However, the actual manifestation of conflict, and for
our purposes the analysis of conflict in the workplace, can be an area
of disagreement (Chaudry & Asif, 2015). No matter how conflict in
organizations comes to fruition, it has been a significant area of study
for researchers (Litterer, 1966).
The definition of conflict is debated. The range of different defini-
tions conceptualizes conflict as a reflection of interpersonal hostility
(Barki & Hartwick, 2001), a phenomenon that includes emotions,
perceptions, and behaviors (Pondy, 1969), or even disagreement of
how to achieve certain goals Jehn, 1997). Chaudry and Asif (2015)
believe the common theme of these varying definitions revolves around
identifying what triggers and prolongs conflict. They, then, con-
ceptualize conflict as a “cohesive framework of behavior and percep-
tion of organizational members, which is triggered by the feelings of
being deprived with an awareness of incompatibility with others”
(Chaudry & Asif, 2015, p. 239). This definition is helpful because it
brings to light a condition where conflict arises because one does not
get what they want or finds a relationship incompatible.
Like the actual definition of conflict itself, expert opinions differ on the
benefits of conflict. Some view conflict as a functional dynamic (Chen,
2006; Harolds & Woods, 2006; Jehn & Bendersky, 2003), while others
view conflict as damaging to the organizational structure (De Dreu, 2008;
Litterer, 1966). Recognizing that individual situations and organizations
probably have different outcomes related to their conflict, it is worth
noting that the results of conflict probably depend more on organiza-
tional culture and personal relationships within the organization and are
not necessarily inherently positive or negative (Sharma & Singh, 2019).
Ultimately, individuals in organizations will handle conflict differently.
From a generational perspective, Dencker, Joshi, and Martocchio,
2008 believe that an accurate understanding of generational differences
in the workplace that help mitigate conflict and enhance conflict re-
solution. Conflict can occur in workplaces between generations for a
variety of reasons. Urick, Hollensbe, and Masterson (2012) identify
three different forms of intergenerational conflict: value based, behavior
based, and identity based. Intergenerational work conflict can occur
because of several different factors but miscommunication, work-life
balance, technology-use differences (Carver & Candela, 2008), and
issues with older/younger supervisor dyadic relationship challenges
(Collins, Hair, & Rocco, 2009). Unfortunately, if not handled properly,
generational conflict in the workplace can negatively impact the orga-
nization (Sessa, Kabacoff, Deal, & Brown, 2007).
To measure conflict in organizations, Putnam and Wilson (1982)
developed the Organizational Communication Conflict Instrument
(OCCI). Their instrument, unlike those prior, focuses on concrete
communicative behaviors, not just conflict styles. We used this measure
to identify generational differences in endorsements of various conflict
strategies in the workplace. Their instrument asked participants how
often they use a particular strategy. Specifically, their strategies were
nonconfrontation strategies (generally avoid disagreements, down-
playing controversies, or approaching conflict indirectly); solutions-
oriented strategies (using compromise or a search for innovation); and
finally control strategies (those behaviors that seek to manage conflict
by arguing for particular positions). These three subdimensions help to
inform our understanding of how employees engage in actual commu-
nication behaviors related to conflict.
8.3.2 Conflict and Generational Differences: Our Data

The Organizational Communication Conflict Instrument (Putnam &
Wilson, 1982) was used to index endorsement of three different conflict
strategies: Nonconfrontation, solutions-oriented, and control strate-
gies. The scale and its three subscales all demonstrated reliability
coefficients > .82. Greater numbers on this (7-point) scale indicate
greater agreement that individuals adopt each of the three strategies,
where Solutions-oriented strategies has the greatest average, M = 4.77,
SD = .94), followed by nonconfrontation strategies (M = 3.97, SD =
1.13) and lastly control strategies (M = 3.25, SD = 1.13). An analysis
of differences across the three generations is presented in Table 8.1.
Results show overall similar endorsement of each of the three
strategies, with significant differences emerging in nonconfrontation
strategies. Here, we see Millennials endorse this strategy to a greater
extent than both Gen X and Baby Boomers.
8.4 Dissent

Conflict can, potentially, lead to organizational dissent. Dissent, ac-
cording to Kassing (1998), is “how employees verbally express their
Table 8.1 Generational Differences in the Organizational Communication
Conflict Instrument and Subscales

M(SD)
Organizational 3.93(.65)a 3.95(.63)a 4.15(.63)b 12.432** .02

Com. Conflict
Instrument
Non- 3.64(1.15)a 3.74(1.22)a 4.07(1.09)b 12.454** .02
Confrontation
Strategies
Solutions- 4.79(.98) 4.66(1.02) 4.81(.91) 2.262 .00
Oriented
Strategies
Control 3.10(1.11) 3.20(1.17) 3.28(1.13) 1.201 .00
Strategies
**p < .001, *p < .05.

a,b
contradictory opinions and disagreements about organizational phe-

nomena” (p. 183). Dissent, then, manifests in the sharing of employee
opinions about the organization. As one can imagine, a negative
communication climate can lead to high levels of organizational dis-
sent. Theoretically dissent is expressed when employees, specifically,
share “contradictory opinions about organizational practices, policies,
and operations” (Kassing, 1998, p. 183).
Generational differences surrounding dissent and the expression
of dissent in organizations tend to vary. For instance, Shakil and
Siddiqui (2020) report that when millennials are unable to express
their dissent, the situation becomes more detrimental, especially to
their sense of commitment to the organization. Boomers, on the other
hand, tend to be a little more positive related to their overall work
values and report that they view work as an extension of their self-
interests and as a place where they can experience gratification and
growth (Zemke, Raines, & Filipczak, 1999). Gen Xers tend to re-
present the opposite end of the spectrum. Members of Generation X
spent their formative years in organizations where downsizing and
outsourcing were common practices (Jones & Murray, 2019).
Ironically, Millennials tend to have higher levels of overall company
satisfaction compared to Xers (Kowske, Rasch, & Wiley, 2010) yet
Millennials are more inclined to communicate their dissenting
thoughts to coworkers and supervisors (Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010).
These realities create a difficult communication environment for
employees and supervisors to navigate.
One way organizations can create a safe environment for employees
to share organizational feedback is by recognizing how dissent is
communicated in their organization. To measure organizational dissent,
Kassing (2000), developed an 18-item Organizational Dissent Scale,
which indexes overall dissent toward the organization along two dif-
ferent sub-dimensions: articulated and latent.
Articulated Dissent
Employees who believe their dissent will be perceived more favor-
ably tend to practice articulated dissent. In instances where articu-
lated dissent is expressed, employees assume their thoughts will be
perceived as helpful or constructive and that the hearers will not
retaliate against the employee who voices the concern (Kassing,
1997). Employees, too, who express their dissent in this way tend to
communicate to those who they believe can actually make some
change.
Latent Dissent
Unlike articulated dissent, latent dissent, originally conceptualized
as antagonistic dissent, tends to be more adversarial. Those who
express latent dissent tend to believe they are still safe from re-
taliation because they possess an organizational leverage (Kassing,
1997). The term latent dissent also expresses a nonobservable con-
cept meaning, dissent readily exists but may not be easy to measure
or observe, and as the dissent grows, the possibility for observation
tends to increase.
Workplace communication, specifically negative workplace com-
munication, has substantial implications on day-to-day operations
and productivity. Even in “normal” workplace scenarios, it can be
hard to manage so many personalities, relationships, and genera-
tional differences. Yet, in crisis situations, organizations should
work even harder to create environments that are transparent and
effective. To combat negative communication in crisis that leads to
conflict and dissent, organizations should develop a strategy that
clearly identifies a crisis communication strategy and different ideas
for communication in a multigenerational workplace during crisis
situations.
Table 8.2 Generational Differences in the Organizational Dissent Scale and
Subscales

M(SD)
Organizational 2.94(.58) 3.03(.68) 3.02(.58) .893 .00

Dissent Scale
Articulated 2.37(.74)a 2.66(.86)b 2.86(.82)c 17.809** .03
Dissent
Latent Dissent 3.50(.84)a 3.40(.911)a 3.18(.70)b 13.619** .02
**p < .001, *p < .05.

a,b
8.4.2 Dissent and Generational Differences: Our Data

Kassing’s (2000) Organizational Dissent Scale demonstrated reliability
(Cronbach’s alpha = .824). Across all participants, scores were higher
for Latent Dissent (M = 3.25, SD = .77) than for Articulated Dissent
(M = 2.78, SD = .83), on a 5-point scale. Analyses of differences across
generations are presented in Table 8.2.
Interesting, significant differences are found across articulated and
latent dissent among the generations. Notably, Millennials stick out as
demonstrating the greatest articulated dissent and the least latent
dissent. This finding reflects previous research that Millennials are
more likely to be more vocal about their dissent in the workplace. The
opposite pattern is true for Baby Boomers, who show the least ar-
ticulated dissent and the greatest latent dissent (although they do not
differ from nearly as low Gen X in latent dissent.
8.5 Multigenerational Crisis Response

In organizations, as employers struggle to overcome negative commu-
nication, conflict, and dissent, a firm grasp of crisis management is also
important for the modern manager. Crisis researchers have primarily fo-
cused on external messaging in crisis situations (Frandsen & Johansen,
2011), but internal stakeholders need crisis leadership as well. And, in our
modern organizations where incivility, harassment, bullying, and other
dark side interactions are common, a crisis approach can be helpful. Crisis
situations, referred by Mitroff (2005) as major acts of betrayal, should be
approached with wisdom and intentionally. In turn, employers should
strive for an element of transparency as they deal with internal crisis
situations. Transparency, according to Schnackenberg and Tomlinson
(2016), is the “perceived quality of intentionally shared information from a
sender” (p. 1788). A transparency initiative will speak volumes to
Millennials and Generation Z. As Stewart, Oliver, Cravens, and Oishi
(2017) point out, increased transparency can help increase an employee’s
drive and increase operational efficiency.
External relationships tend to drive crisis communication; however, as a
potential categorization of negative or dark-side internal communication,
crises can be approached similarly to other employee communication.
Strategic communication between managers and internal stakeholders
should, generally, promote commitment and organizational belonging
(Welch, 2012).
Historically, research has conceptualized crisis communication based
on which channels are utilized and/or how frequently messaging occurs;
however, this approach may fall short of what organizations actually
need to know and share about their internal crisis strategy (Ruck &
Welch, 2012). While it is important to consider both frequency and
channel in crisis situations, the actual content and the impending dia-
logue brought about by messages should be a focal point of employers.
However, channels used to communicate in crisis situations should
be adaptable and, from a generational perspective, managers must be
more adept today at using technology to respond to crisis situations in
organizations (Vielhaber & Waltman, 2008) because new or efficient
technologies can be used to communicate with different generational
groups, and younger generations prefer high-tech channels.
8.6 Best Practices for Handling Conflict, Dissent, and

Crisis in the Modern Multigenerational Organization
The consideration of employers and managers, when dealing with all
that goes into the dark side of corporate communication, is a topic not
for the faint of heart. The institutional ramifications of negative
communication, including but limited to conflict and dissent, as well as
potential crisis situations should be approached thoughtfully. To offer
practical solutions or guidance for dealing with negative communica-
tion in the workplace, the following best practices are proposed.
Best Practice 1: Establish a Culture of Advocacy and when

Necessary, Appropriate Policies
Organizations must work to establish an organizational culture that
emphasizes equitability, advocacy, and inclusion. Along those lines,
establishing a culture where people understand how to be in re-
lationships with each other can create a tone of positive normalcy.
Meaning, positive interaction can become the norm not the exception.
However, to do this, it may be appropriate to establish policies for
behavior that is unacceptable. When you communicate clearly to your
people that bullying, harassment, and other manifestations of negative
communication will not be tolerated, it can shed light on your orga-
nizational values. In addition, clarifying for your people how to deal
with conflict and dissent, giving appropriate time and context for
disagreement, can also be helpful. In sum, normalize the process for
healthy conflict and dissent and formalize a policy against unhealthy
negative communication and behavior.
Best Practice 2: Be Transparent (When You Can)

From a generational perspective, transparency can be a nonnegotiable
desire for Millennials and members of Generation Z. Generation X and
Baby Boomers have less demanding expectations for transparency and
accountability from their bosses and supervisors, but they still desire
open and appropriate communication. Be transparent when you can. Let
your people know how you are dealing with internal crises, inform them
of your rationale for decisions, and communicate information that they
need to know. Obviously, you cannot be transparent about everything,
but ask yourself if you are sharing everything you should share.
Best Practice 3: Do not Allow Dissent to Fester

Employees will always have dissenting opinions. However, pretending
that employees are on board with every decision and that they do not
need a chance to share their perspective can lead to a dangerous
outcome. Dissent can be helpful because it provides additional action
steps and differentiated operations. Do not be afraid of dissent or
conflict, but make sure you have identified your own personal style for
dealing with both then provide opportunities for healthy feedback.
Ignoring dissenting opinions or failing to provide opportunities for
employees to share differing thoughts in a safe space can allow dissent
to fester and become a negative cultural distinction. Generally, people
appreciate the opportunity to share their thoughts, and younger gen-
erations in particular – those more willing to be explicit about their
opinions – will generally take you up on opportunities you provide. As
you think about a platform for employee sharing, determine if the
feedback should be anonymous, think about follow-up mechanisms,
and provide clear communication about how feedback will be re-
ceived. Clearly communicate a cycle for feedback and follow-up.
8.7 Conclusion
Our data show an interesting parallel to previous research. For one,
Millennials are not afraid to voice their concerns and opinions, as they
relate to the workplace. This new cultural dimension, one of unabashed
vocal feedback and opinion sharing, is relatively new and was not a
sustained characteristic of Gen X or Boomer employees. In addition, we
see, ironically, Millennials appreciate nonconfrontational strategies when
dealing with workplace conflict. This particular group, those Generation
Y (i.e. Millennials) workers, again show a new and unique way of
dealing with issues and challenges in the modern work environment.
References
Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of
incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24, 452–471.
Barki, H., & Hartwick, J. (2001). Interpersonal conflict and its management in
information system development. MIS Quarterly, 25, 195–228.
Barnes, G. (2009). Guess who’s coming to work: Generation Y. Are you ready
for them? Public Library Quarterly, 28, 60.
Carver, L., & Candela, L. ( 2008). Attaining organizational commitment
across different generations of nurses. Journal of Nursing Management, 16,
984–991. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2834.2008.00911.x
Chandra, S., Theng, Y., Lwin, M. O., & Shou-Boon, S. (2011, May 26–30).
Exploring trust to reduce communication barriers in virtual world collaborations
[paper]. 60th Annual International Communication Association (ICA)
Conference, Boston. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/May_Lwin/publication/
267381074_Exploring_Trust_to_Reduce_Communication_Barriers_in_Virtual_
World_Collaborations/links/5474abb10cf2778985abf047.pdf
Chaudry, A. M., & Asif, R. (2015). Organizational conflict and conflict
management: A synthesis of literature. Journal of Business and Management
Research, 9, 238–244.
Chen, M. H. (2006). Understanding the benefits and detriments of conflict on
team creativity process. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15, 105–116.
Collins, M., Hair, J., & Rocco, T. (2009). The older-worker-younger-
supervisor dyad: A test of the reverse Pygmalion effect. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 20, 21–41. doi: 10.1002/hrdq.20006
Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2009). Patterns and profiles of response to
incivility in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14,
272–288.
De Dreu, C. K. (2008). The virtue and vice of workplace conflict: Food for
(pessimistic) thought. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 5–18.
Dencker, J. C., Joshi, A., & Martocchio, J. J. (2008). Towards a theoretical
framework linking generational memories to workplace attitudes and be-
haviors. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 180–187.
Frandsen, F., & Johansen, W. (2011). The study of internal crisis communication:
Towards an integrative framework. Corporate Communications: An
International Journal, 16, 347–361. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563281111186977
Fritz, J. M. H. (2019). Communicating ethics and bullying. In R. West & C. S.
Beck (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of communication and bullying
(pp. 22–29). Routledge.
Fritz, J. M. H., & Omdahl, B. L. (2006). Problematic relationships in the
workplace. Peter Lang.
Hardies, K. (2019). Personality, social norms, and sexual harassment in the
workplace. Personality and Individual Differences, 151, 1–5. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.paid.2019.07.006
Harolds, J., & Wood, B. P. (2006). Conflict management and resolution.
Journal of the American College of Radiology, 3, 200–206.
Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in
organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530–557.
Jehn, K. A., & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup conflict in organizations: A
contingency perspective on the conflict outcome relationship. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 25, 187–242.
Jones, J. S., & Murray, S. R. (2019). The effect of generational differences on
work values and attitudes. International Journal of Research in Business and
Kassing, J. W. (1997). Articulating, agonizing, and displacing: A model of
employee dissent. Communication Studies, 48, 311–331.
Kassing, J. W. (1998). Development and validation of the organizational
dissent scale. Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 183–229.
Kassing, J. W. (2000). Investigating the relationship between superior-subordinate
relationship quality and employee dissent. Communication Research Reports,
17, 58–70.
Keashly, L., & Jagatic, K. (2003). By any other name: American perspectives
on workplace bullying. In E. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf, & Cooper, C.,
Eds., Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspec-
tives in research and practice (pp. 31–36). Taylor & Francis.
Kline, R., & Lewis, D. (2019). The price of fear: Estimating the financial cost
of bullying and harassment to the NHS in England. Public Money and
Kowske, B., Rasch, R., & Wiley, J. (2010). Millennials’ (lack of) attitude
problem: An empirical examination of generational effects on work atti-
tudes. Journal of Business & Psychology, 25, 265–279
Litterer, J. A. (1966). Conflict in organization: A reexamination. Academy of
Management Journal, 9, 178–186.
McDonald, P. (2012). Workplace sexual harassment 30 years on: A review of
the literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14, 1–17.
Mitroff, I.I. (2005). Why some companies emerge stronger and better from a
crisis. Amacom.
Myers, K., & Sadaghiani, K. (2010). Millennials in the workplace: A com-
munication perspective on Millennials’ organizational relationships and
performance. Journal of Business & Psychology, 25, 225–238.
Nwagbara, U., Oruh, E. S., Ugorji, C., & Ennsra, M. (2013). The impact of
effective communication on employee turnover intension at First Bank of
Nigeria, 4, 13–21.
Odine, M. (2015). Communication problems in management. Journal of
Emerging Issues in Economics, Finance and Banking, 4, 1615–1630.
Pondy, L. R. (1969). Varieties of organizational conflict. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 14, 499–505.
Putnam, L. L., & Wilson, C. E. (1982). Communicative strategies in organi-
zational conflicts: Reliability and validity of a measurement scale.
Communication Yearbook, 6, 629–652.
Ruck, K., & Welch, M. (2012). Valuing internal communication: Management
and employee perspectives. Public Relations Review, 38, 294–302. doi:10.
1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.016
Salahuddin, M. M. (2010). Generational differences impact on leadership style
and organizational success. Journal of Diversity Management, 5, 1–6. https://
doi.org/10.19030/jdm.v5i2.805
Schnackenberg, A. K., & Tomlinson, E. C. (2016). Organizational transparency:
A new perspective on managing trust in organization-stakeholder relationships.
Journal of Management, 42(7), 1784–1810. doi: 10.1177/0149206314525202
Sessa, V., Kabacoff, R., Deal, J., & Brown, H. (2007). Research tools for the
psychologist-manager: Generational differences in leader values and leader-
ship behaviors. Psychologist-Manager Journal, 10, 47–74. doi: 10.1080/10887.
150701205543
Shakil, B., & Siddiqui, D. A. (2020). Factors affecting millennials employees’
dissent and its subsequent impact on their commitment. Retrieved from
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3683231
Sharma, S., & Singh, K. (2019). Positive organizational culture: Conceptualizing
managerial role in interpersonal conflict. European Journal of Business &
Social Sciences, 7, 1508–1518.
Tuikka, S. (2020). Negative relationships in the workplace. In L. Mikkola &
M. Valo (Eds.), Workplace communication. Routledge.
Urick, M. J., Hollensbe, E. C., & Masterson, S. S. (2012). Understanding and
managing generational tensions. Presented at Academy of Management
Annual Meeting, Boston, MA.
Venkataramani, V., Labianca, G. J., & Grosser, T. (2013). Positive and ne-
gative workplace relationships, social satisfaction, and organizational at-
tachment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 1028–1039. https://doi.org/
10.1037/a0034090
Vielhaber, M. E., & Waltman, J. L. (2008). Changing uses of technology:
Crisis communication responses in a faculty strike. The Journal of Business
Communication (1973), 45(3), 308–330.
Vrankes, I., Bailien, E., Vandebosch, H., Erreygers, S., & De Witte, H. (2017).
The dark side of working online: Towards a definition and an emotion re-
action model of workplace cyberbullying. Computer in Human Behavior,
69, 324–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.055
Welch, M. (2012). Appropriateness and acceptability: Employee perspectives
of internal communication. Public Relations Review, 38, 246–254. doi:10.
1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.017
Willness, C. R., Steel, P., & Lee, K. (2007). A meta-analysis of the antecedents
and consequences of workplace sexual harassment. Personnel Psychology,
60, 127–162.
Ye, Y., Zhu, H., Deng, X., & Mu, Z. (2019). Negative workplace gossip and
service outcomes: An explanation from social identity theory. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 82, 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhm.2019.04.020
Zemke, R., Raines, C., & Filipczak, B. (1999). Generations at work: Managing the
class of veterans, boomers, Xers, and nexters in your workplace. AMACOM.
9 Workplace Satisfaction
This chapter focuses on generational perspectives on workplace

satisfaction.
9.1 Communication and Workplace Satisfaction

Extensive research on the relationship between communication satisfac-
tion, first conceptualized by Downs and Hazen (1977), and job satisfac-
tion did not begin until the mid-1970s (Pincus, 1986). Since that time,
communication satisfaction has become a stable construct in organiza-
tional communication research (Crino & White, 1981). However, more
than two decades ago, Pincus (1986) noted the lack of research examining
the relationships between communication satisfaction, job satisfaction,
and communication channel. Surprisingly, given the rapidly expanding
capabilities of communication technologies, research in this area is still
developing, and with the changes of 2020, this will remain a hot topic
within empirical organizational research and for organizations.
Within the organizational setting, communication satisfaction is
defined as “an individual’s satisfaction with various aspects of com-
munication in his organization” (Crino & White, 1981, pp. 831–832).
Akkirman and Harris (2005) measured the following six factors: em-
ployees’ relationship with supervisor, communication climate, overall
communication satisfaction, horizontal communication, organiza-
tional integration, and personal feedback. The researchers discovered
that teleworkers experience higher levels of communication satisfac-
tion on all factors compared to traditional office workers. Tsai and
Chuang (2009) found that supervisory communication, personal
feedback, and communication climate are the greatest contributors to
the communication-job performance relationship among employees.
Although these two studies investigated the broader organizational
communication structures, past research has not significantly
Workplace Satisfaction 107
accounted for the role of interpersonal communication satisfaction
and job satisfaction among employees.
Interpersonal communication satisfaction within the workplace can
be defined as “an employee’s overall affective reaction to his or her
evaluation of interaction patterns with coworkers across situations
and levels within an organization” (Park & Raile, 2010, p. 572).
Interpersonal relationships play a significant role in the satisfaction of
employees as it relates to various constructs including communication
satisfaction. Informal co-worker interactions are important for
building synergy within the organization (Kurland & Bailey, 1999). In
addition, satisfying interpersonal relationships are crucial for effective
performance and the spreading of organizational culture (Watson-
Manheim & Belanger, 2007). Furthermore, research has found the
necessity of physical proximity in the development of co-worker re-
lationships to be the least important factor for communication
satisfaction (Sias, Pedersen, Gallagher, & Kopaneva, 2012).
It is challenging to separate communication satisfaction from job
satisfaction because the two concepts are so related. However, typi-
cally if someone is very dissatisfied with their job, it relates back to a
communication issue, indicating that communication satisfaction is an
antecedent to job satisfaction. There are exceptions to this, of course,
but understanding communication satisfaction independently before
exploring job satisfaction can help discern when communication is
going well and when communication practices need work so as not to
disrupt a person’s overall job satisfaction.

Two theories from previous research can help explain workplace
communication satisfaction; employers will find these theories useful,
especially when it comes to understanding the preferences of a multi-
generational workforce. Understanding these two theories can help
prevent miscommunications and communication dissatisfaction with a
multigenerational workforce, leading to more effective communication
and better outcomes among employees. The two theories are: media
richness theory and channel expansion theory, which are commonly
studied together.
Media Richness Theory

Media richness theory has emerged as one of the most widely studied
and cited frameworks in the body of research on organizational media
use (D’Urso & Rains, 2008). The premise of media richness theory is
that a communication medium should be consistent with the needs of
the message for effective communication (Lengel & Daft, 1988).
Richness concerns a medium’s capacity to convey various types of
information cues in a manner that approximates face-to-face com-
munication (Sheer, 2011). Media richness follows a continuum from
high richness (i.e. face-to-face) to low richness (i.e. bulletin boards) for
understanding the transmission of messages. The richness of a medium
comprises four aspects: (1) the availability of instant feedback, which
allows questions to be asked and answered; (2) the use of multiple
cues, such as physical presence, vocal inflection, body gestures, words,
numbers, and graphic symbols; (3) the use of natural language, which
can be used to convey an understanding of a broad set of concepts and
ideas; and (4) the personal focus of the medium (Lengel & Daft, 1988).
When none or only a few of these attributes are present, a medium is
considered “lean” (Sheer, 2011). Therefore, face-to-face is considered
the richest medium because it allows for all four aspects important in
communication.
The most effective choice of media is one that matches the intended
outcome for a message, which indicates whether a rich or lean media
should be utilized for message distribution (Easton & Bommelje,
2011). Sheer and Chen (2004) demonstrated that rich media have
greater personal information-carrying capacities than lean media as
analogous to communication immediacy. Additional research has fa-
vored face-to-face communication, pointing out that humans are most
accustomed to “natural” characteristics only present in face-to-face
communication (Kock, 2004) and that face-to-face interactions hold
social advantages not present in other forms of media communications
(Green et al., 2005).
According to the theory, messages should be communicated on
channels with appropriate richness capabilities. When information is
communicated using an inappropriate channel, the information is
likely to be misinterpreted or seen as ineffective with regard to the
intended purpose (Carlson & Zmud, 1999). Additionally, when a
message and medium mismatch occurs, communication parties have to
engage in compensating communication activities, which takes addi-
tional time and resources (Hollingshead, McGrath, & O’Connor,
1993). Media richness research has spent a considerable amount of
time identifying the limitations of one channel versus others. For ex-
ample, Jacobsen (1999) argued that new media, such as instant mes-
saging and online communication, are limited in conveying the same
amount of information as a face-to-face conversation. Specifically,
when two communicators are not in the same place, physical contact
and other nonverbal cues such as olfactory cues become impossible
(Kock, 2004). Henderson and Gilding (2004) illustrated that commu-
nicating via lean mediums could affect the effectiveness and amount of
self-disclosure, thereby influencing reciprocity and trust. While this
study was conducted within an interpersonal context, these findings
suggest organizational implications. Sheer’s (2011) study discovered
that a popular reason for the abundance of instant message use be-
tween friends is the ability to control information and self-
presentation, which could also be applied to co-worker relationships.
Additionally, D’Urso and Rains (2008) found support indicating that
richness is based on perception and that richness may be shaped by
interpersonal factors, such as one’s relevant experiences, which is an-
other finding that may lend insight into communication channel sa-
tisfaction between co-workers.
As new technologies increasingly become integrated into organiza-
tions, the channels of communication available to employees continue
to expand. Media channels vary greatly in their richness (Lengel &
Daft, 1988). Flyers and bulletins are considered the leanest form of
communication, as these are limited in their ability to transmit mul-
tiple cues and typically contain fewer cues than richer mediums
(Lengel & Daft, 1988). Conversely, face-to-face communication is
considered the richest medium because it can transmit multiple cues
and information at once (Lengel & Daft, 1988). Richness of the
channel is dependent upon the ability to communicate information,
the ability to handle multiple cues, feedback rate, and the amount of
personal focus (Lengel & Daft, 1988). These factors may also be the
reason why some channels would be more appealing to teleworkers of
differing personality types such as email, instant messaging, and video
communication.
Channel Expansion Theory

Channel expansion theory was conceptualized in an attempt to re-
concile previous media richness research (Carlson & Zmud, 1999).
While media richness theory has generally been supported when tested
on traditional media such as face-to-face and phone communication,
the findings have been inconsistent about new media such as e-mail
(Lengel & Daft, 1988). Thus, the central premise of channel expansion
theory is that an individual’s experiences are important factors influ-
encing a person’s perception of channel richness. Channel expansion
theory argues that each person develops a richness perception for
communication channels, specifically influenced by four experiences:
experience with the channel, experience with the messaging topic, ex-
perience with the organizational context, and experience with com-
munication co-participants (Carlson & Zmud, 1999). Increases in these
four types of experience should allow people to articulate and re-
cognize indicators that signal rapid feedback, multiple cues, natural
language, and personal focus. For example, co-workers who fre-
quently communicate via email will become more aware of how to
convey different levels of formality and communicate subtleties with
more experience. Therefore, these types of experiences are positively
related to a person’s perception of a channel’s richness (Carlson &
Zmud, 1999).
Similar to how people develop experience with a channel, they also
develop experience with communication partners, such as co-workers
and supervisors. As people communicate with a specific communica-
tion partner, they begin to develop a knowledge base for that person,
allowing them to communicate messages tailored to their partner
making for a richer communication experience. This can be accom-
plished through using cues relevant to him or her, referring to shared
experience, or using common language (Carlson & Zmud, 1999). This
type of knowledge is acquired through on-going communication and
the use of one or more knowledge-generating strategies to develop
knowledge about others (Walther, 1996). Additionally, as people de-
velop experience with a communication topic, they develop a knowl-
edge base for the topic, allowing for richer communication experiences
(Carlson & Zmud, 1999). When communication partners have similar
topic experience, richer messages can be facilitated through leveraging
shared understanding. As such, communication partners can interpret
messages received about a topic more or less richly based on their topic
knowledge (Carlson & Zmud, 1999). Finally, people develop a
knowledge base centered upon the organizational context in which
they are communicating. This allows for communication partners to
encode messages with shared symbols and/or organizational cultural
references for a richer communication experience, although this idea
has found only partial support in empirical research (Carlson &
Zmud, 1999).
While experience with communication partners, knowledge, and or-
ganizational context are essential to perceptions of media richness, these
concepts alone do not fully explain channel perceptions. The social
influence model of technology use refers to individual beliefs concerning
the appropriate use of a channel as well as perceptions of a channel’s
richness and demonstrates that these perceptions are in part socially
constructed and therefore subject to social influence (Carlson &
Zmud, 1999). Research about the social influence model has engendered
mixed results. For example, in Carlson and Zmud’s two-wave study,
support was only found in one group. Although rationalized as a re-
search design error, this was not the first study to find a lack of support
for the social influence model (Schmitz & Fulk, 1991). However,
D’Urso and Rains’ (2008) study did find that perceptions of media
richness are socially constructed, which is in line with the social influ-
ence model.
9.1.2 Communication Satisfaction and Generational

Differences: Our Data
Downs and Hazen’s (1977) Communication Satisfaction Scale was im-
plemented to index the degree of satisfaction with communication within
one’s organization. This scale contains five subdimensions, including:
personal feedback, organizational identification, communication climate,
horizontal communication, and relationship with supervisor. Overall
means for the main scale and all subscales were densely concentrated
above the midpoint, ranging from 3.97 (relationship with supervisor)
to 3.61 (communication climate). Differences across generations are
presented below in Table 9.1.
Table 9.1 Generational Differences in the Communication Satisfaction Scale

and Subscales

M(SD)
Communication 3.94(.76) 3.77(.86) 3.76(.81) 1.989 .00

Satisfaction
Personal Feedback 3.82(1.00) 3.62(1.07) 3.64(.99) 1.358 .00
Organizational 4.12(.80)a 3.89(.94)a,b 3.81(.88)b 5.575* .01
Integration
Communication 3.72(.99) 3.55(1.03) 3.61(1.00) .963 .00
Climate
Horizontal 3.86(.73) 3.81(.78) 3.83(.77) .148 .00
Communication
Relationship with 4.19(.91)a 3.96(1.03)a,b 3.93(.96)b 3.049* .01
Supervisor
**p < .001, *p < .05.

a,b
which significantly differ from the other two scores are bolded.
The results of the between-groups comparisons below reveal minor
differences between some generational groups on two of the subscales.
Overall, the results show a high degree of communication satisfaction.
Two subscales see Baby Boomers reporting significantly greater sa-
tisfaction in: organizational integration, which is concerned with the
degree to which employees receive information that is pertinent to
their immediate responsibilities, and greater satisfactions with their
relationship with their supervisors. Baby Boomers differ only from
Millennials on these two scales, as Gen X falls squarely in between
each group and does not differ from either.
This is a particularly useful scale to measure communication sa-
tisfaction because it examines the different dimensions that work
together to create communication satisfaction. It is not surprising that
Baby Boomers are higher on organizational integration. This could be
explained through another factor, such as length of time employed by
the organization. Even if that did not explain this finding, overall level
of work experience could. Since Baby Boomers have been a part of the
workforce for a longer period of time than other generations in this
study, they have likely learned how to integrate faster and evaluate their
integration differently than they did earlier in their career. Conversely,
this could help to explain why there is a stagnation among Gen X. Early
in their careers, they probably experienced a “honeymoon” phase of
employment when they were learning and happy to be employed and
soaking everything in, trying to understand how they would evaluate
workplace communication. Then, as their experience grew, their per-
ceptions changed because they had baseline knowledge, which could
cause their perceptions of communication satisfaction, in this instance,
to drop or plateau. This is likely why our findings show Gen X to be
lower on some dimensions.
9.2 Generational Perspectives on Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction refers to how content an individual is with his or her
job (West & Berman, 2009). Job satisfaction can also be defined as an
affective relationship to one’s job that is a function of situational
factors, including nature of the work, human resources elements, and
the organizational environment (Boswell, Shipp, Payne, & Culbertson,
2009). Previous research about job satisfaction and age remains in-
conclusive. Therefore, it is unclear if there is a link between job
satisfaction and generational membership.
One of the biggest reasons why there is inconsistency in research
about age and job satisfaction is because job satisfaction remains
stable over time for many employees. However, older employees tend
to either maintain their level of job satisfaction over time or experience
a decrease in job satisfaction because the number of opportunities
available to them decreases (Applebaum, Serena, & Shapiro, 2005). In
a study of hospitality workers, generational differences between
Millennials and Baby Boomers were found to have significant mod-
erating effects on the relationship between emotional exhaustion and
job satisfaction and turnover intention (Lu & Gursoy, 2013). In a
comprehensive study conducted by the Society for Human Resource
Management, (SHRM, 2014), it was reported that most Millennials
are satisfied with their job and that compensation and job security are
the two main contributors to their evaluation and feelings of job sa-
tisfaction. They also feel satisfied with their job when they are moti-
vated by their work goals, which encourages leaders to help Millennial
employees set goals related to their job. Members of Gen X, however,
tend to report the lowest levels of job satisfaction because they feel like
they are not rewarded enough for their hard work and dedication to
their organizations (MetLife, 2019).

As previously mentioned earlier in this chapter, job satisfaction is a
multidimensional construct that is influenced by several other factors,
including, but not limited to: organizational culture, communication,
leadership, personality, and teleworking. This section will briefly
outline some of the previous research findings related to job satisfac-
tion, with the note that this is not an exhaustive overview of this
multidimensional construct that is a robust area of research.
An early model of job satisfaction research proposed the two-factor
model (Herzberg, Maunser, & Snyderman, 1959), which later gave
way to the global approach for understanding job satisfaction. The
global approach studies separate job parts that are likely to pro-
mote or prevent an individual’s level of job satisfaction (Sowmya &
Panchanatham, 2011). This informed another model of job satisfac-
tion by Hackman and Oldman (1975), which considered five variables
to create “motivating potential,” which is the degree to which an
employee’s motivation can be influenced. Over time, researchers
turned to more cognitive conceptualizations of job satisfaction, which
is where the field remains today, examining variables that include the
employee’s needs and how they perceive job satisfaction.
Through cognitive research, we have learned job satisfaction is de-
pendent on many things beyond an employee’s frame of mind and also
influenced by organizational factors like culture, size, salary, and working
conditions or environment. For example, there is a large body of work
that examines the job satisfaction of teleworking employees, which has
become a renewed interest due to the pandemic that occurred in 2020 and
forced organizations to allow many employees to work remotely.
A study conducted in 2005 found a curvilinear relationship between
teleworking and job satisfaction, arguing that at a certain point, tele-
working leads to less employee satisfaction (Golden, Veiga, & Simsek,
2006). Specifically, Golden and Viega argued that in small amounts,
teleworkers are more satisfied because they experience all the benefits
of teleworking, while minimizing the disadvantages of teleworking,
such as isolation and lack of interpersonal workplace relationships.
However, when employees telework regularly, or exclusively, they may
start to experience the disadvantages more heavily than the ad-
vantages, and therefore have less job satisfaction. Teleworking in-
itially, and in smaller amounts, increases job satisfaction due to its
many benefits. Conversely, as the level of teleworking increases and
becomes more frequent or exclusive, job satisfaction decreases and at
some point, plateaus. These results show that teleworking is complex,
and job satisfaction can vary for a number of different reasons, such as
the amount of time-spent teleworking (Golden et al., 2006).
In contrast to the study conducted by Golden et al. (2006), a meta-
analysis suggested a positive relationship between teleworking and job
satisfaction (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007) by demonstrating positive
direct effects between teleworking and job satisfaction, mostly attrib-
uted to the many benefits teleworking provides employees. In fact, in
contrast to previous findings, the meta-analysis did not find any ne-
gative effects of teleworking on workplace social ties. Indeed, the
meta-analysis revealed that while there are disadvantages to tele-
working, the advantages and benefits of teleworking outweigh the
disadvantages when it comes to job satisfaction but did not account
for the possibility communication channel satisfaction may play in the
teleworking and job satisfaction relationship. Finally, Smith, Patmos,
and Pitts (2018) found that personality composition does affect the
relationship between teleworking and job satisfaction; for example,
those who are higher in extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and
conscientiousness are best suited for job satisfaction in teleworking
environments.
Another major area of inquiry is the relationship between job sa-
tisfaction and leadership. Unsurprisingly, employees are more satisfied in
organizations that are flexible and that emphasize communication and
reward employees (McKinnon, Harrison, Chow, & Wu, 2003), which is
greatly influenced by leadership style. Within job satisfaction research,
two types of leadership have been studied: transactional leadership and
transformational leadership. Transactional leaders act within existing
organizational culture, wheres transformational leaders initiate change
and can adapt the organizational culture to their own values (Belias &
Koustelios, 2014). When leadership style is a match to the employee’s
values and vision, job satisfaction is positively influenced (Chang & Lee,
2007). Other research has supported the idea that transformational lea-
dership can lead to greater job satisfaction (Bushra, Usman, & Naveed,
2011; Emery & Barker, 2007; Riaz, Akram, & Ijaz, 2011).
9.2.2 Job Satisfaction and Generational Differences: Our Data

Job Satisfaction was measured with a six-item, unidimensional scale
from Pond and Geyer (1991). The scale demonstrated excellent relia-
bility, Cronbach’s alpha = .966. Greater scores on this measure in-
dicate greater satisfaction.
Although the mean score on Job Satisfaction for Baby Boomers
(M = 3.96, SD = 1.09) was slightly higher than both Gen X (M = 3.71,
SD = 1.81) and Millennials (M = 3.75, SD = 1.02), that difference failed
to reach statistical significance (F(2, 1147) = 1.957, p = .142, partial eta
squared = .00). This pattern of findings, where Baby Boomers’ raw
scores on job satisfaction are higher, but not significantly so, is similar
to the findings reported for Communication Satisfaction above. The
results presented in this chapter note a couple of areas where Baby
Boomers are slightly more satisfied with communication in their or-
ganizations, but no significant differences emerged in overall commu-
nication satisfaction of job satisfaction across the three generations
explored here.
For similar reasons, it is not surprising that there are not statistically
significant generational differences within job satisfaction. Knowing
that job satisfaction is a multidimensional construct, this information
can be used to help inform future research to better determine, where,
if at all, generational differences might influence job satisfaction. Our
findings also demonstrate that there is a lot of room to further improve
job satisfaction and make it even stronger, through initiatives that
enhance or maintain workplace communication.
9.3 Best Practices for Creating a Satisfying Workplace

This chapter has demonstrated the interrelatedness of communi-
cation satisfaction and job satisfaction with several other workplace
variables including organizational culture, support, leadership, and
individual differences. Therefore, the best practices for creating a sa-
tisfying workplace among multigenerational employees reflects the
relationship that these constructs have with others.
Best Practice 1: Consider Culture

As previous research indicates, organizational culture is really central to
understanding satisfaction. If issues exist with constant miscommunica-
tions or high levels of communication dissatisfaction, there is most likely
a cultural block somewhere within the organization. Similarly, if the
retention rate of employees is low, morale is low, and you know that a
lot of employees are dissatisfied for a prolonged period of time, you need
to look to the organizational culture to address the problem and make
changes that promote a culture of satisfaction. This is best measured by
looking at employee satisfaction surveys and analyzing exit interview
data to understand why people are leaving and if there is any oppor-
tunity to make changes that can increase retention and overall satisfac-
tion. The fact is, satisfied employees stay with organizations, so turnover
rate is a key metric for understanding employee satisfaction.
Best Practice 2: Communication is Central

The information within this chapter also demonstrated the central role
of communication. Although culture is vital to understanding sa-
tisfaction, culture is only shared through various forms of commu-
nication. When communication is poor throughout an organization,
job satisfaction will likely be lower. Conversely, when communication
is satisfying and employees feel heard, informed, and able to easily
share information, they are likely to report greater levels of both
communication and job satisfaction. Refer back to the information in
Chapter 7 about supportive communication to improve employee
communication satisfaction, which does not seem to have statistically
significant generational differences.
Best Practice 3: Technology is a Tool

Technology has overtaken communication and the workplace. Previous
research does indicate that there are generational differences related to
technology in the workplace, and this is an important consideration with
regard to communication and job satisfaction. Generational differences
may be present among teleworkers when it comes to job satisfaction.
Consistently using inappropriate channels to share information can lead
to lower levels of communication satisfaction, which over time can have a
negative and cumulative effect on job satisfaction. Therefore, organiza-
tions need to be mindful about the use of technology and not only create
policies that promote healthy and satisfactory use but also encourage
leaders to model this behavior accordingly to better demonstrate and
build satisfaction levels among a multigenerational workforce.
9.4 Conclusion
Communication satisfaction and job satisfaction are highly correlated
for every workforce, not just a multigenerational one. Therefore, it is
important to understand the different variables that can positively and
negatively impact both, which can be influenced by generational
membership. The findings from our study are descriptive and de-
monstrate that when satisfaction is present, there are negligible if any,
generational differences among employees. Therefore, this should be
encouraging news for organizations and leaders to promote effective
communication in the workplace for long-term job satisfaction.
References
Akkirman, A. D., & Harris, D. L. (2005). Organizational communication
satisfaction in the virtual workplace. Journal of Management Development,
24, 397–409.
Applebaum, S., Serena, M., & Shapiro, B. (2005). Generation “X” and the
Boomers: An analysis of realities and myths. Management Research News,
28, 1–32.
Belias, D., & Koustelios, A. (2014). Organizational culture and job satisfaction:
A review. International Review of Management and Marketing, 4, 132–149.
Boswell, W., Shipp, A., Payne, S., & Culbertson, S. (2009) Changes in new-
comer job satisfaction over time: Examining the pattern of honeymoon and
hangovers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 844–858.
Bushra, F., Usman, A., & Naveed, A. (2011). Effect of transformational lea-
dership on employee’s job satisfaction and organizational commitment in
banking sector of Lahore (Pakistan). International Journal of Business and
Social Science, 2, 261–267.
Carlson, J., & Zmud, R. (1999). Channel expansion theory and the experiential
nature of media richness perceptions. Academy of Management Journal, 42,
153–170.
Chang, S., & Lee, M. (2007). A study on relationship among leadership, or-
ganizational culture, the operation of learning organization and employee’s
job satisfaction. The Learning Organization, 14, 155–185.
Crino, M. D., & White, M. C. (1981). Satisfaction in communication: An
examination of the Downs-Hazen measure. Psychological Reports, 49,
831–838.
Downs, C. W., & Hazen, M. D. (1977). A factor analytic study of commu-
nication satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 14, 63–73.
D’Urso, S., & Rains, S. (2008). Examining the scope of channel expansion: A
test of channel expansion theory with new and traditional communication
media. Management Communication Quarterly, 21, 486–507.
Easton, S., & Bommelje, R. (2011). Interpersonal communication con-
sequences of email non-response. Florida Communication Journal, 39, 45–63.
Emery, C., & Barker, K. (2007). The effect of transactional and transforma-
tional leadership styles on the organizational commitment and job sa-
tisfaction of customer contact personnel. Journal of Organizational Culture,
Communications, and Conflict, 11, 77–90.
Gajendran, R., & Harrison, D. (2007). The good, the bad, and the unknown
about telecommuting: Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and in-
dividual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1524–1541.
Golden, T., Veiga, J., & Simsek, Z. (2006). Telecommuting’s differential im-
pact on work-family conflict: Is there no place like home? Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91, 1340–1350.
Green, M., Hilken, J., Friedman, H., Grossman, K., Gasiewski, J., & Adler, R.
(2005). Communication via instant messenger: Short and long-term effects.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 445–462.
Hackman, J., & Oldman, G. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic
Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159–170.
Henderson, S., & Gilding, M. (2004). “I’ve never clicked this much with
anyone in my life”: Trust and hyper-personal communication in online
friendships. New Media & Society, 6, 487–506.
Herzberg, F., Maunser, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Hollingshead, A., McGrath, J., & O’Connor, K. (1993). Group task perfor-
mance and communication technology: A longitudinal study of computer-
mediated versus face-to-face work groups. Small Group Research, 24,
307–333.
Jacobsen, D. (1999). Impression formation in cyberspace: Online expectations
and offline experiences in text-based virtual communities. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 5. doi: 10.1111=j.1083–6101.1999.tb00333.x
Kock, N. (2004). The psychobiological model: Towards a new theory of
computer-mediated communication based on Darwinian evolution.
Organizational Science, 15, 327–349.
Kurland, N., & Bailey, D. E. (1999). Telework: The advantages and challenges
of working here, there, anywhere, and anytime. Organizational Dynamics,
28, 53–68.
Lengel, R., & Daft, R. (1988). The selection of communication media as an
executive skill. The Academy of Management Executive, 2, 225–232.
Lu, A., & Gursoy, D. (2013). Impact of job burnout on satisfaction and
turnover intention: Do generational differences matter? Hospitality &
Tourism Research, 40, 210–235.
McKinnon, L., Harrison, L., Chow, W., & Wu, A. (2003). Organizational
culture: Association with commitment, job satisfaction, propensity to re-
main and information sharing in Taiwan. International Journal of Business
Studies, 11, 25–44.
MetLife (2019). Thriving in the new work-life world. MetLife’s 17th annual
U.S. employee benefit trends study. https://www.metlife.com/content/dam/
metlifecom/us/ebts/pdf/MetLife-Employee-Benefit-Trends-Study-2019.pdf
Park., H. S., & Raile, A. N. W. (2010). Perspective taking and communication
satisfaction in coworker dyads. Journal of Business Psychology, 25, 569–581.
Pincus, J. D. (1986). Communication satisfaction, job satisfaction, and job
performance. Human Communication Research, 12, 395–419.
Pond, S., & Geyer, P. (1991). Differences in the relation between job sa-
tisfaction and perceived work alternatives among older and younger blue-
collar workers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39, 251–262.
Riaz, T., Akram, M., & Ijaz, H. (2011). Impact of transformational leadership
style on affective employees commitment: An empirical study of banking
sector in Islamabad (Pakistan). The Journal of Commerce, 3, 43–51.
Schmitz, J., & Fulk, J. (1991). Organizational colleagues, media richness, and
electronic mail: A test of the social influence model of technology use.
Communication Research, 18, 487–523.
Sheer, V. (2011). Teenagers’ use of MSN features, discussion topics, and on-
line friendship development: The impact of media richness and commu-
nication control. Communication Quarterly, 59, 82–103.
Sheer, V., & Chen, L. (2004). Improving media richness theory. Management
Communication Quarterly, 18, 76–93.
SHRM (2014). Millennial employees’ job satisfaction and engagement. SHRM
Research Spotlight. Retrieved from: https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/trends-
and-forecasting/research-and-surveys/Documents/Millennials-Job-Satisfaction-
Engagement-Flyer.pdf
Sias, P. M., Pedersen, H., Gallagher, E. B., & Kopaneva, I. (2012). Workplace
friendship in the electronically connected organization. Human Communi-
cation Research, 38, 253–279.
Smith, S. A., Patmos, A. K., & Pitts, M. J. (2018). Communication and tel-
eworking: A study of communication channel satisfaction, personality, and
job satisfaction for teleworking employees. International Journal of Business
Communication, 55, 44–68. doi: 10.1177/2329488415589101
Sowmya, K., & Panchanatham, N. (2011). Factors influencing job satisfaction
of banking sector employees in Chennai, India. Journal of Law and Conflict
Resolution, 3, 76–79.
Tsai, M., & Chuang, S. (2009). An integrated process model of communication
satisfaction and organizational outcomes. Social Behavior and Personality,
37, 825–834.
Walther, J. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, inter-
personal and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3–43.
Watson-Manheim, M. B., & Belanger, F. (2007). Media repertoires: Dealing
with the multiplicity of media choices. MIS Quarterly, 31, 267–293.
West, J., & Berman, E. (2009). Job satisfaction of public managers in special
districts. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 29, 327–353.
10 Remote and Virtual Work
This chapter describes the changing nature of the workplace specifi-

cally focusing on remote and virtual work. The evolving nature of
work, especially surrounding digital expectations, will be discussed.
10.1 The Evolving Nature of Work

At the time of this writing, the very nature of work has changed
dramatically on an international scale. On December 31st, 2019, China
confirmed an unknown cause for a handful of pneumonia cases. By the
first week of January 2020, this unknown disease had been labeled as a
new strain of coronavirus effectively named COVID-19. Travel bans,
economic declines, event cancellations, lockdowns, and stay-at-home
orders ensued as the virus spread worldwide and the death toll rose.
In essence, this new coronavirus strand impacted everything, especially
work. From an economic standpoint, COVID-19 created unprecedented
“modern-era” job loss. In April 2020, unemployment in the United States
reached upward of 14%, or around 23 million unemployed workers.
Some workers were furloughed with subsequent layoffs days, weeks, or
months after. Not all jobs lost could have been performed in a remote
capacity; however, many jobs were saved because of a virtual transition.
Though the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 ushered forth a new era
wherein remote and virtual work became more prominent, remote and
virtual work are not new phenomena. Even as early as 1989, Peter
Drucker supposedly determined that working from the office was ob-
solete (Streitfield, 2020). Mokhtarian (1991) defined telecommuting,
broadly, as the use of “telecommunications technology to partially or
completely replace the commute to and from work” (p. 1). This distinc-
tion, developed by Mokhtarian 30 years ago, has only somewhat
changed. Remote work today still encompasses a work-from-somewhere-
else mantra, but the National Institute of Health (NIH) does distinguish
remote work from telework among their own workers. According to
National Institutes of Health (2020), remote work constitutes a perma-
nent designation in which the employee works permanently from an al-
ternative worksite, while telework is regular or ad hoc but does require
the employee to report to the office at times. These distinctions are helpful
for considering next steps in terms of defining the structure of work for
employees. Semantics, especially now, are crucial as organizations de-
termine how to proceed for telecommuting or remote workers. No matter
how those distinctions are communicated organizationally, the overall
sentiment remains the same: work not consistently conducted in the
physical office setting.
There are, generally, different types of remote work and subsequently
different remote workers. Nickson and Siddons (2012) identify a home
worker as anyone who is based at home and who uses their home as their
main office space for at least two days a week. Home office working,
though, is different from coworking, where individuals still work at a
physical office location but work alongside other unaffiliated profes-
sionals (Spinuzzi, 2012). Coworking, post pandemic, has become less
popular, and the term “remote work” generally applies to a virtual
context. With that said, a more helpful all-encompassing term was coined
by Grant, Wallace, and Spurgeon (2013) who refer to remote e-working
as work completed anywhere and at any time. This reality, that work can
legitimately be accomplished anywhere regardless of location, presents
incredible opportunities and challenges for organizations today.
Workers in remote contexts experience a different work environ-
ment from the traditional face-to-face worker. For one, they have
limited face-to-face interaction with their peers or supervisors
(Charalampous, Grant, Tramontano, & Michailidis, 2019) which can
have negative effects on support and employee engagement. In addi-
tion, the actual environment where remote workers conduct their
business can lead to home conflict and distraction (Eddleston and
Mulki, 2017). These issues create potential difficulty for remote
workers, but these challenges can be overcome.
The modern workplace, highlighted by shifts in remote and virtual
work, has changed in other ways as well. The delivery of work, or
how we conduct our work and in what context, is not the only issue
to consider. The actual work done has also become a topic of dis-
cussion. The virtual work revolution has provided an opportunity for
work “gigification” (Veen, Kaine, Goods, & Barratt, 2020). This
means, basically, that new services and novel solutions to niche
problems have been answered through many different platforms or
opportunities. Generally, “gig” work is driven by customer demand
Remote and Virtual Work 123
and the individual worker, typically, has what is needed to perform
the work. Usually “gig” work is paid at a piece rate (think freelance),
and there is usually an intermediary platform that connects client and
worker. The ability to not just work for a full-time employer but also
conduct business virtual for “gig” platforms has placed a premium on
remote and virtual work contexts.
This evolution of work makes leadership all the more important.
Flood (2019) believes, and rightly so, that leading a remote or virtual
workforce requires formal policies, additional resources, and innovative
operations for individuals to share ideas and achieve objectives. Thus,
performance management, relationship building, communication, and
training all become even more important in a virtual or remote context
(Hickman & Pendall, 2018). As remote work continues to become more
popular in a “post-pandemic” world, leaders need to be adept not only
at managing generational differences but also doing so in potentially
remote and virtual environments.
10.2 Work Post-Pandemic

Since the pandemic, an unprecedented number of employers have
begun working from home. In July 2020, job losses that occurred as
a result of the COVID-19 pandemic were up to three times as large
for non-remote workers (Angelucci, Angrisani, Bennett, Kapteyn, &
Schaner, 2020). Not surprisingly, income losses and health challenges
were greater during this time for non-remote workers. In addition,
similar to the changes wrought by the gig-economy, the actual work
conducted in a post-pandemic world varies. Bartik, Cullen, Glaeser,
Luca, and Stanton (2020) report that remote work levels are higher
post-pandemic but that there are significant variations across in-
dustries and that remote work is more common in industries with
workers who are better educated and have better pay.
The final verdict on the actual effect and impact of remote work
continues to be a matter of debate. Some, like Ozimek (2020), suggest
that the remote work experiment has done better than expected.
However, as will be discussed later, other dimensions related to pro-
ductivity have yet to come to true fruition (Chebly, Schiano, & Mehra,
2020). Almost certainly, organizations will continue to figure out how
to increase effectiveness and productivity in the remote workplace.
However, as organizations strive to create environments that are
flexible and adaptable for a new generation of employees, the under-
lying necessity to make operations, policies, and procedures remote
friendly continues to confront remote leaders and workers.
10.3 Remote Work and Virtual Effectiveness
In a time that now seems like ages ago, Marissa Mayer, then CEO of
Yahoo, banned remote work (Calvo, 2013). Mayer’s decision was
nothing short of controversial; today it would seem outrageous. Even
before Millennials infiltrated the workplace, the concept of remote
work and the ability to finish tasks virtually was debated but did find
friendly audiences in several different industries. As Millennials be-
came more ingratiated in the workplace, the demands for remote and
virtual opportunities increased (Calvo, 2013). This reality has become
even more prominent in our post-pandemic world. However, it is
important to consider the benefits as well as the challenges of working
in a remote or virtual context.
Benefits of Remote Work

It is important to note, first, that remote work can be successful be-
cause of great technological connectivity (Messenger & Gschwind,
2016). Without new technological advances, remote work would cease
to exist, much less serve as a tangible alternative to face-to-face office
work. New remote work tools and platforms are discussed later in the
chapter, but before having a philosophical discussion about the merits
of virtual work, it is important to note that as the technology goes, so
goes the ability to do what employees need to do outside of the office.
The benefits of remote work are multifaceted and help more than
just the individual employee. For one, remote work can decrease costs
associated with purchasing a physical office or work location as well as
maintaining that physical space (Felstead & Henseke, 2017). This
reality helps affirm at least one potential organizational benefit. The
necessary physical resources diminish as employees spend more time
working from a non-office location. Kylili et al. (2020) go further and
state that the lack of commute and necessity to be in a physical lo-
cation also positively impacts the environment. For instance, de-
creased commuting leads to fewer emissions and a reduced carbon
footprint. Additional environmental benefits include reduced noise
pollution, reduced need for roads and infrastructure, and reduced road
congestion (Kylili et al., 2020).
The concept of work-from-home, or today’s even more appropriate
mantra of work-from-anywhere (Choudhury, Foroughi, & Larson,
2020), offer employees great flexibility. This flexibility, however, must
be managed appropriately. Staples, Hulland, and Higgins (1999) noted
increased perceptions of employee productivity when their self-efficacy
and perceptions of remote work effectiveness are high. This is im-
portant to note. Employees may not naturally find themselves astute at
remote work operations, especially if the concept or experience is new,
but organizations can employ training mechanisms to help employees
understand expectations. Interestingly, Baker, Avery, and Crawford
(2007) found that organizational and job-related factors are more
likely to affect the satisfaction of work from home or work from
anywhere employees. Meaning, it is less about household character-
istics and work styles and still, like traditional face-to-face work
contexts, more about the job and the culture itself.
Continually, increasing work life balance is a strong argument for
remote work offerings. A better or more balanced work life environ-
ment can certainly be achieved if people work from home (Kerslake,
2002). The time saved by forgoing a commute and potentially saving
on childcare are extremely beneficial. Yet, working virtually does
present opportunities for overwork.
Potential Challenges of Remote Work

The concept of overwork, or the inability of employees to separate
work from life on an even more extreme basis, is one of the most
pressing questions, and challenges, of remote work. While work life
balance in some ways is enhanced through remote and virtual work,
the ability for employees to work too much is a real concern (Grant
et al., 2013). Working from home does create challenges as employees
try to separate their work from their regular life without clear differ-
entiating boundaries.
In addition, the actual office environment, and the lack of social
relationships at work can be problematic. Workers have said they
miss office interactions and have a sense and feeling of isolation
(Grant et al., 2013; Mann & Holdsworth, 2003). This isolation,
which can be overcome, somewhat, with real-time, synchronous
video or phone calls, is still a real manifestation of a potentially
lonely situation.
Virtual team collaboration, creativity, and overall productivity may
also suffer. Eisenberg and Krishnan (2018) identify five virtual team
challenges, including trust and relationships, communication and
knowledge sharing, perceptions and decision making, leadership, and
diversity. These five challenges do not occur solely in a virtual context,
but it is still worth noting that they can potentially become more
pressing when workers are only interacting and communicating
through remote platforms.
Finally, human resources professionals note issues related to overall
employee clarity. For one, a general lack of policies and procedures are
in place (Flood, 2019) across the spectrum as organizations try to
identify the best ways to engage virtual workers while holding them
accountable. The problems with work life balance and the ability to
work at all times throughout the day prove especially problematic for
hourly workers, who, in many instances, cannot go over a certain time
threshold without incurring required overtime pay. These challenges
are not insurmountable but certainly should cause organizations to
consider best practices for engaging and managing remote employees.
10.4 Remote Work Tools and Platforms

The platforms used to perform remote work continue to provide new
avenues for increased productivity; however, that was not always the
case. The 1970s brought to the forefront an explosion of personal
computers and, eventually, work-from-home monitoring software.
The tool itself, the personal computer, was somewhat nullified without
the ability for organizations to hold employees accountable through
systemic network software. The trend continued with the advent of the
Internet and the incredible capabilities the world wide web afforded. In
the 1990s, the invention of WIFI provided greater geographic flex-
ibility as workers could forsake their hard-wired Internet connections.
After these foundational developments, specifically network and tools,
the creation of monitoring software and actual remote work platforms
started to increase. Eventually, with the creation of the smartphone, all
roads converged into uber remote convenience.
From a policy standpoint, several governmental actions in the
United States popularized or helped normalize remote work. For one,
in 1995, Congress approved permanent funding for “flexiplace” work-
related equipment for federal employees. Then in 2000, the DOT
Appropriations Act was enacted. This law required all executive
agencies to develop telecommuting policies. Five years later, in 2005,
President Barack Obama signed the Telework Enhancement Act re-
quiring federal agencies to create policies for employees to work re-
motely. As these policies were enacted, the actual number of remote
workers and remote platform users continued to grow.
In 1987, 1.5 million documented telecommuters worked across the
USA. Before the pandemic of 2020, 7 million people reported working
remotely in the United States, roughly 3.5% of the population. In 2016,
the team collaboration tool, Slack, had 4 million active daily users and 9
million by 2019. By 2018, 70% of the world’s population reported working
Table 10.1 Remote Work Tools, Use, and General Purpose
Remote General Use Purpose

Work Tool
Slack Team communication Get instant feedback and connect

application with colleagues
Zoom Video conferencing “Zoom calls” allow employees to
application meet synchronously over video
Trello Project management Uses visual cues and aesthetic
software design to increase remote group
productivity
Google File management Digital file management tool that
Drive application allows for synchronous
collaboration and file storage
Zapier Workflow automation Zapier allows applications to
connect somewhat seamlessly
to allow greater functionality
and moves data between
different applications
remotely at least once a week. By 2019, the team video collaboration tool,
Zoom, reported more than 50,000 customers that had more than 10
employees. In 2017, Zoom reported more than 700,000 users. These
platforms continue to grow in popularity and overall efficiency.
The market today is flooded with remote work platform options.
For simplicity, we developed a table to summarize different remote
work platforms. The list below is not exhaustive and mentions tools
primarily popular in 2020 but does provide a glimpse into the varying
types of workflow platforms and their focus (Table 10.1).
The list above does not account for duplicate products, like Skype or
previous Google Hangouts for video conferencing, all-in-one platforms
like Microsoft Teams, or even additional tools like Serene, Toggl, Spark,
or remote desktop that allow for even more creativity and efficiency.
These tools all can be helpful, but employers would be wise to think
strategically about communication in their remote work environment
and approach these tools with intentionality and purpose. Just because a
tool exists does not mean it is best for every business or organization.
10.5 Generational Differences and Remote Work

As remote work becomes more popular, and remote work tools be-
come more widespread, a look at how employees feel about remote
and virtual work can provide organizational clarity. While not the
only framework to consider employee perceptions of remote work,
generational differences can help supervisors and executives determine
how their employees differ in their remote work perceptions. With that
said, the overall differences may not be as distinct as one would as-
sume, especially in a world overrun with remote workers and remote
work opportunities.
Before considering legitimate generational differences in this regard,
it is worth noting again what different generations value. Millennials,
for instance, are tech-savvy and appreciate collaborative work, Gen
Xers tend to rank lower on executive presence, and Baby Boomers are
notably loyal to their organizations but may not adapt quickly. In
addition, like Millennials, Gen Xers appreciate flexibility and want to
be independent workers. Zimmerman (2016) reports that Millennials
appreciate working from home, but an even greater number of
Boomer and Gen X employees prefer a work from home option.
Millennials are generally used to the always-available workplace, yet
they continually rank work-life balance and work flexibility as highly-
rated work rewards.
Kennelly (2015) correctly identifies that new employee character-
istics are shifting in terms of when people work, how people share jobs,
and how individuals are evaluated on their performance. However,
even as these shifts occur, employees generally desire some sort of
flexibility in terms of how their job is performed (Rousseau, 2015).
This trend is probably not going away.
Recognizing that all generations prefer flexibility, in some capacity,
all workers may not be prime candidates for work-from-home or
work-from-anywhere options. As organizations continue to explore
remote work options, individual employee desires; the actual job
description and primary responsibilities; and remote work capacity
should all be considered.
10.6 Best Practices
Best Practice 1: Consider the Purpose of Remote Work

While it may be easy – especially in a work world initially ravaged by a
pandemic – to assume jobs work best in a remote context, employers and
supervisors should consider all facets of the job, the organizational cul-
ture, and individual employees before demanding or suggesting em-
ployees work from home. Organizations would do well to intentionally
explore remote options without assuming individuals should or should
not work from home because of personal preferences. This chapter does
position remote work as a tangible and realistic option for a host of
employees for a number of reasons. As a suggested best practice, though,
organizations are encouraged to tread wisely into remote positions.
Best Practice 2: Remote Work Platforms Are NOT

Created Equally
While the lists presented above are not exhaustive, they do provide a
snippet of the software or platform options available to organizations.
However, organizations should navigate platform choices wisely. For
one, remember that all software platforms and remote network systems
are not created equal. Your organization may not need, for example, all
of the features Slack has to offer. Consider your overall internal com-
munication strategy as it relates to remote work platforms. Instead of
using all tools available and switching when a new tool arrives on the
market, work in a constant state of assessment and analysis, asking how
employees use their current software to communicate effectively and
what other features are needed in order to conduct appropriate business.
Best Practice 3: Designate Remote Responsibilities as well as

Policies and Procedures
The rush to remote work in 2020 highlighted a few issues in the general
workplace. For example, when many organizations transitioned to re-
mote work, they were not prepared from a human resources perspective.
Specifically, a lack of policies regarding work conducted remotely led to
a lack of accountability for both employees and managers in some or-
ganizations. Any organization desiring a remote transition should first
assess its overall operations and designate what should be completed
remotely. After this, designating remote responsibilities for individual
employees is crucial. Finally, policies and general procedures for remote
work should be clearly communicated to the organization as a whole.
10.7 Conclusion
This chapter presented the current state of remote and virtual work. While
remote work may seem relatively new because of the steep increase in
remote workers due to global events, the reality is that remote work has
existed for decades. This reality should encourage organizations who can
move remotely to do so. From a generational perspective, it is interesting
to note that employees, generally, across the spectrum appreciate the op-
portunity to do their work in a flexible environment, remote or otherwise.
This desire transcends generational differences and has become a general
desire of employees who believe working from home gives greater work-life
balance and offers more flexibility. With that said, organizations should
approach remote work wisely. Do not forsake what makes your organi-
zational culture unique in an effort to satisfy the new remote
work urge. Instead, take time to think deeply about a potential remote
work transition and, where possible, transition slowly and with purpose.
References
Angelucci, M., Angrisani, M., Bennett, D. M., Kapteyn, A., & Schaner, S. G.
(2020). Remote work and the heterogeneous impact of COVID-19 on em-
ployment and health (No. w27749). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Baker, E., Avery, G. C., & Crawford, J. (2007). Satisfaction and perceived
productivity when professionals work from home. Research and Practice in
Human Resource Management, 15, 37–62.
Bartik, A. W., Cullen, Z. B., Glaeser, E. L., Luca, M., & Stanton, C. T. (2020).
What jobs are being done at home during the COVID-19 crisis? Evidence from
firm-level surveys (No. w27422). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Calvo, A. J. (2013). Where’s the remote? Facetime, remote work, and implications
for performance management. Cornell HR Review. http://digitalcommons.ilr.
cornell.edu/chrr/45/
Charalampous, M., Grant, C. A., Tramontano, C., & Michailidis, E. (2019).
Systematically reviewing remote e-workers’ well-being at work: A multi-
dimensional approach. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 28, 51–73.
Chebly, J., Schiano, A., & Mehra, D. (2020). The value of work: Rethinking
labor productivity in times of COVID‐19 and automation. American Journal
of Economics and Sociology, 79, 1345–1365. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12357
Choudhury, P., Foroughi, C., & Larson, B. Z. (2020). Work-from-anywhere:
The productivity effects of geographic flexibility. In Academy of Management
Proceedings (Vol. 2020, No. 1, p. 21199). Academy of Management.
Eddleston, K. A., & Mulki, J. (2017). Toward understanding remote workers’
management of work–family boundaries: The complexity of workplace
embeddedness. Group & Organization Management, 42, 346–387.
Eisenberg, J., & Krishnan, A. (2018). Addressing virtual work challenges:
learning from the field. Organization Management Journal, 15, 78–94.
Felstead, A., & Henseke, G. (2017). Assessing the growth of remote working
and its consequences for effort, well‐being and work‐life balance. New
Technology, Work and Employment, 32(3), 195–212.
Flood, F. (2019). Leadership in the remote, freelance, and virtual workforce
era. In A. Farazmand (Ed.), Global encyclopedia of public administration,
public policy, and governance (pp. 1–7). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-319-31816-5_3825-1.
Grant, C. A., Wallace, L. M., & Spurgeon, P. C. (2013). An exploration of
the psychological factors affecting remote e-worker’s job effectiveness, well-
being and work-life balance. Employee Relations, 35, 527–546.
Hickman, A., & Pendall, R. (2018). The end of the traditional manager. Gallup.
https://www.gallup.com/workplace/236108/end-traditional-manager.aspx
Kennelly, J. (2015). Embracing the virtual workforce. Human Resource
Management, 22–23.
Kerslake, P. (2002). The work/life balance pay-back. New Zealand Management,
49, 28–31
Kylili, A., Afxentiou, N., Georgiou, L., Panteli, C., Morsink-Georgalli, P. Z.,
Panayidou, A., Papouis, C., & Fokaides, P. A. (2020). The role of remote
working in smart cities: Lessons learnt from COVID-19 pandemic. Energy
Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 12, 1–16.
Mann, S., & Holdsworth, L. (2003). The psychological impact of teleworking:
Stress, emotions and health. New Technology, Work and Employment, 18,
196–211.
Messenger, J., & Gschwind, L. (2016). Three generations of telework: New ICT
and the (R)evolution from home office to virtual office. New Technology,
Work and Employment, 31, 195–208.
Mokhtarian, P. (1991). Defining telecommuting. UC Davis: Institute of
Transportation Studies. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/35c4q71r
National Institutes of Health. (2020, November). Remote work. https://hr.nih.
gov/working-nih/work-schedules/remote-work
Nickson, D., & Siddons, S. (2012). Remote working. Routledge.
Ozimek, A. (2020). The future of remote work. Available at SSRN 3638597.
Rousseau, D. (2015). I-deals: Idiosyncratic deals employees bargain for them-
selves: Idiosyncratic deals employees bargain for themselves. Routledge.
Spinuzzi, C. 2012. Working alone together: Coworking as emergent colla-
borative activity. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 26,
399–441. doi:10.1177/1050651912444070.
Staples, D. S., Hulland, J. S., & Higgins, C. A. (1999). A self-efficacy theory
explanation for the management of remote workers in virtual organizations.
Organization Science, 10, 758–776.
Streitfield, D. (2020, June 29). The long, unhappy history of working from
home. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/29/technology/
working-from-home-failure.html
Veen, A., Kaine, S., Goods, C., & Barratt, T. (2020). 2 The ‘gigification’ of
work in the 21st century. In Contemporary work and the future of employ-
ment in developed countries (pp. 15–32). Routledge-Cavendish.
Zimmerman, K. (2016, October 14). Do millennials prefer working from home
more than Baby Boomers and Gen X? Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/
sites/kaytiezimmerman/2016/10/13/do-millennials-prefer-working-from-
home-more-than-baby-boomers-and-gen-x/?sh=475f7eb42070
11 Innovation and Future
Challenges
This chapter explores the future of work, including future challenges,

expectations, and evolutions. The authors provide information about
future generations (i.e. what can we learn from Generation Alpha)
and what communication will look like in the workplace of the
future.
11.1 The Future of Work

The future of work looks drastically different in a post-pandemic
world. However, some innovations we have already implemented, like
work-from-anywhere and remote or virtual work, will continue to
become more commonplace. Where we conduct our work has been a
consistent discussion for years – if not decades – but other realities will
distinguish work in a post-2020 world from work environments that
came before. This section will preview several new work initiatives
that may help define the future of work. Generally, we may see a trend
toward what Peters (2017) calls technological unemployment because
of so many new technologies replacing traditional vocations.
Automation
As a work phenomenon, automation includes artificial intelligence,
autonomous systems, and robotics. Workplace automation replaces or
enhances workflow and varying processes through technology. As one
could assume, automation offers several benefits, specifically cutting
costs and increasing productivity. As a framework or overarching
change agent for the modern workplace, automation is in the midst of
a renaissance or a revolution. Interestingly, AI and automation experts
call our current climate the fourth Industrial Revolution (Sako, 2020).
This new revolution brings together artificial intelligence, automation,
Innovation and Future Challenges 133
robotics, genetic engineering, and other technologies. Automation
receives mixed reviews from economists and employees as some de-
clare it replaces employment, considering that is what it is designed to
do (Autor, 2015). However, Bessen (2019) points out that automation
can actually increase opportunities for industry employment.
Generally, automation causes employees to, at the very least, learn
new skills and new occupations. While opinions vary widely regarding
the impact of automation on jobs (Winick, 2018), some clarity waits
on the horizon as more companies and industries move to automated
processes. In some ways, the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 forced
companies to make decisions about their digital or automated opera-
tions. No matter what comes next, automation – and one of the core
subsets of automation, artificial intelligence – are certainly a significant
category surrounding the future of work and work innovation. From a
communication standpoint, the influx of automation brings about
several interesting questions related to human capabilities; the need for
emotional intelligence and workplace relationships; and the general,
overall impact of automation on work and organizational culture.
Artificial Intelligence
The actual definition of artificial intelligence (AI), especially as it re-
lates to a manifestation in the workplace, has been debated, and,
unfortunately, no widely accepted definition of artificial intelligence
exists. Wang (2019) reiterates the confusion involved with trying to
determine one specific AI definition; however, simply, AI includes a
“system’s ability to correctly interpret external data, to learn from such
data, and to use those learnings to achieve specific goals and tasks”
(Kaplan & Haenlein, 2019, p. 15). In a work context, AI is predicted to
have even more of a holistic globally transformative impact on the
economy (Howard, 2019).
AI can be extremely beneficial in the workplace. For one, AI can
actually help determine which jobs can be completed by a machine
(Sako, 2020). This can significantly increase efficiency and productivity
and provides some clarity about what tasks require a human worker for
completion. These efficiencies come with some difficulties, and it is in-
correct to assume artificial intelligence will just solve all workforce
problems. There are some challenges to consider. As AI becomes more
popular, additional regulation may be needed (Haenlein & Kaplan,
2019). Humans may need to develop ethics and functional norms sur-
rounding AI (Sako, 2020). Regardless, artificial intelligence will con-
tinue to be a significant factor in the future of work.
134 Innovation and Future Challenges
Inclusive Workplaces
Inclusive work – and diversity and inclusivity as corporate initiatives –
have become more popular as organizations wrestle with their hiring
procedures and operational biases. Organizations have sought to become
more inclusive by creating an atmosphere of psychological safety
(Carmeli, Brueller, & Dutton, 2009); establishing transparent hiring
practices; and providing equal access to advancement, decision-making,
professional development, and other resources (Shore, Cleveland, &
Sanchez, 2018). Inclusive workplaces will not occur naturally and instead
must be achieved with careful consideration and planning.
Inclusive best practices are numerous. Offerman and Basford (2014)
believe that inclusive leaders should work to develop a talent pipeline
and that they should confront subtle discrimination. In addition, di-
versity should be leveraged to increase business performance, and
accountability systems and mechanisms should be established
(Offerman & Basford, 2014). Employees and other senior leaders
should be trained to carry out inclusive efforts. Similarly, Sabharwal
(2014) believes inclusive behaviors must be a top down initiative in-
volving fair and equitable treatment of employees so they can influence
organizational decisions. As a feature of the modern workplace and an
integral part of the future of work, inclusive workplaces and inclusive
organizational culture will continue to be an area of consistent study
for communication scholars (Rezai, Kolne, Bui, & Lindsay, 2020).
Cloud-Based Collaboration
Cloud-based collaboration and cloud use in general will continue to be
a feature of work moving forward. Gallaugher (2014) refers to cloud
computing as hardware or software services that occur over the
Internet through a third party. Qin, Hsu, and Stern (2016) refer to
cloud computing as a form of computation “where the processing and
applications mainly reside not on the user’s computer or network, but
rather on a remote server connected through an Internet connection”
(p. 227). The business of cloud computing will continue to grow with
an expected revenue of over $240 billion post-2020 (Dignan, 2011).
From a communication standpoint, cloud computing should have far
reaching effects, especially on teams, teamwork, and group collabora-
tion. As much of what we do – both as consumers and employees –
moves into a cloud-based context, organizations should explore ways to
improve collaboration services, specifically by focusing on team strate-
gies surrounding communication, coordination, support, and effort
(Qin, Hsu, & Stern, 2016). As workplaces look to enhance the overall
ethos of their organizations, as well as the efficiency of their operations,
a thorough look at cloud computing will help increase productivity
and overall group learning processes (Hadjileontiadou, Dias, Diniz, &
Hadjileontiadis, 2015).
Learning and Development

Though learning and development are not new concepts, they will
continue to be important focus areas for corporations and organizations
in the future for several reasons. For one, learning and development
initiatives continue to be linked to different business performance im-
provement (Chambel & Sobral, 2011). In addition, different knowledge
areas, connected to learning and development, can serve as a key
competitive advantage (Drucker, 2000). Generally, the area of learning
and development has changed dramatically from one of individual,
manual-driven instruction to high-tech interactive and experiential
learning (Scurtu, 2015).
As a feature of future work, learning and development is expected to
continue to evolve. It is expected that future learning and development
will be even more mobile (Bonk, Kim, & Zong, 2005), will be focused
not just on knowledge and behavior but also on affect (Barnett, 2012),
and will be continually tech-driven and individualized to each learner
(Davidson, 2009).
The post-pandemic world will continue to reveal new and neces-
sary learning and development areas. However, it is expected that
inclusivity and training in a potentially socially distanced or fully
virtual workplace will continue to be a defining feature of learning
and development moving forward (McBride, 2020).
Social, Emotional, and Physical Well-being

The other future work foci – automation, artificial intelligence, inclusive
workplaces, and learning and development – are related, mostly, to job
performance. However, as remote work continues to become more
popular, work-life balance and other items related to general employee
well-being have become a corporate focus for many organizations.
Dodge, Daly, Huyton, and Sanders (2012) define well-being as “the
balance point between an individual’s resource pool and the challenges
faced” (p. 222). Generally, though, well-being in the workplace is de-
fined primarily positive. The fact that the employee is balanced, doing
well, and is experiencing more positive emotions than negative emotions
in the workplace (Aboobaker, Edward, & Zakkariya, 2019).
The work-from-home and work-from-anywhere culture has brought
to the forefront a struggle for many employees, a healthy separation
of work-life from home-life. Employees face a challenging context, a
complex and blurred boundary between work and life (Hamilton
Skurak, Malinen, Naswall, & Kuntz, 2018). In light of these challenges,
organizations would do well to focus on programs and initiatives that
emphasize employee well-being. As organizations focus on employee
well-being, they may see increased productivity and performance (Peiró,
Kozusznik, Rodríguez-Molina, & Tordera, 2019.
All told, these future work dynamics are exciting. While uncertainty
definitely surrounds some of these developments, our workplaces will
adapt. As the workplace of the future continues to evolve, relationships
within organizations and initiatives that protect workplace culture should
be a continued priority. Workplaces, then, need to appropriately respond
not just to changing operations, like automation and artificial intelligence,
but also to changing dynamics among employees. We explain how to
seamlessly incorporate future generations into the workplace.
11.2 Integrating Future Generations and Creating a

Culture of Generational Understanding
This book explores, primarily, relationships among Baby Boomers,
Generation Xers, and Millennials. While some of our data and cor-
responding literature do address members of Generation Z, they are
not a core focus of this text. Yet, members of Generation Z, and even
those who come after members of Gen Z currently identified as
Generation Alpha, should be considered when organizations develop a
long-term culture of generational understanding.
Generation Z
Members of Generation Z, otherwise known as the iGeneration and
post-Millennials, were born between 1997 and 2012 (Dimock, 2019).
While not the only distinguishing factor of this generation, the
iPhone launched in 2007, when the oldest Zers were 10. This gen-
eration’s existence has been defined by technology, mobile devices,
WIFI, and digital connectedness. This concept of digital native,
truly connected from birth, continues to be a defining characteristic
of Generation Z. In addition, diversity is an expectation, and Zers
tend to be a little more pragmatic compared to their Millennial
counterparts (Lanier, 2017). Finally, in the workplace, employers
may have more success dealing with Generation Z through nondigital
means because this generation tends to favor in-person commu-
nication with leaders (Schawbel, 2014). Generation Z will certainly
continue to have a significant impact on 21st century workplaces,
especially communication.
Generation Alpha
Generation Alpha currently are characterized by a birth year of 2013 or
beyond. As you can imagine, little is known about this generation, and
most conclusions are mere conjectures. However, we can project some
distinguishing characteristics of this group. First, it is important to note
that Alphas are, primarily, the children of Millennials. For those who
routinely espouse Millennials as the source of all societal ills, this is bad
news. We are already seeing projections of their sheer numbers (Alphas
will account for roughly 11% of the global workforce by 2030), and their
proclivities, as they are expected to delay life milestones, like marriage
and child rearing, similar to previous generations. We may also be able
to assume some other distinctions, specifically the influence of technology
and constant connection and the formative experience of a global pan-
demic. While it would not be helpful at this time to determine how
Generation Alpha will impact the workforce and workplace, it is worth
noting that, like generations before them, they will bring changes, likely
ones that are holistic and sweeping. This means workplaces should be
continually adept at integrating new generations. The cycle will never end.
Integrating Generations
Pollak (2019) believes that a strong organizational culture is key to
combating generational prejudice. She gives great advice when de-
termining how to integrate generations in the workplace. Pollak (2019)
says employers should
Have as open conversation with people as possible with multi-

generational employees at all levels about what flexibility means to
them. Once you know what people want, you can prioritize what
flexible options you can decide to offer. The data can show
priority, then you can expand and regroup. (p. 230)
Pollak (2019) touches on a key concept of the future workplace: flex-

ibility. While we can never truly combat or solve those challenges that
stare down workplaces in a post-2020 world, we can solve some of those
challenges by creating flexible work environments and by talking to our
people about their needs and wants. In this vein, we can structure
training to address automation and AI, create initiatives to encourage
well-being, and deliver an environment where collaboration is not bound
by time or geography. A workplace with different generations can be
helpful as the organization navigates an ever-evolving set of challenges.
A Culture of Generational Understanding

To their credit, Lyons and LeBlanc (2019) view generational differences
from the perspective of identity, not just demographic characteristics.
This is helpful because, as they argue, it can reduce stereotypes and even
intergenerational conflict (Lyons and LeBlanc, 2019). Ultimately, it is
important to remember that every individual is not identified solely by
their generational typology and, instead, individuals possess unique de-
sires, especially regarding their careers. A study reiterates three distinct
areas where generations differ: work ethic, managing change, and per-
ception of organizational hierarchy (Glass, 2007). These realities may
always exist; however, as younger generations become more ingrained
in workplace dynamics, these differences may become less pronounced.
Until then, organizations would do well to develop a corporate vision
that enhances a welcoming understanding of all generations while
placing people, no matter their age or generational affiliation, into an
environment where they can succeed. Collaborative decision-making and
training programs that focus on generational differences from a strengths
perspective can also be helpful. Finally, organizations would do well to
reconsider their communication efforts and ensure an environment of
effective communication.
11.3 Communication “Next”

Effective communication must be a central component of the orga-
nization, now maybe more than ever. The influx of different genera-
tions into the workplace and the many demands of our communication
time and energy necessitate a thorough yet flexible communication
structure. Communication style differences exist between generations,
and it is traditionally difficult to communicate across generational
differences (Pollak, 2019).
The sheer avenues of communication have become multifaceted.
Producing a strategy that effectively integrates all channels, both in-
ternal and external, should be a central feature of organizations as
we continue to move forward toward the future of work. Leaders
today should communicate early, communicate often, and commu-
nicate with transparency, when appropriate. Specifically, this means
inclusive communication and engagement across levels and with em-
ployees of varying communication styles should be characteristic of
leaders today. In addition, supervisors should actively look for ways
to provide feedback, in person and virtually depending on the general
tone and tenor of the organization.
The core communication trait needed today is adaptability. Leaders,
managers, and employees should recognize that, like leadership,
communication is not a one size fits all directive. Instead, people have
individual communication preferences. Our current age of work
should be approached with self-assessment and analysis. How do you
prefer to have others communicate with you? Are you more formal or
informal? Do you prefer email, phone, or face-to-face conversations?
How do you prefer to receive (and offer) feedback? What level of detail
do you desire when you receive messages? Asking yourself these
questions and then asking these questions of your employees can help
create a strategic communication climate.
As we navigate the future of work, we may also have an opportunity
to return to the basics of communication. The channels will change, as
they always have, but the core concepts remain the same. Effective
communication continues to emphasize simplicity, clarity, and ap-
propriate brevity. In addition, we will continue to see a shift in mul-
timodal communication. Employee preferences for audio, video, and
generally more visual communication may continue to increase be-
cause of the influx of younger generations but also because our habits
and patterns societally are evolving. Organizations, then, would be
wise to continue to communicate in ways that reflect broader cultural
distinctives without forsaking core tenants.
11.4 Conclusion
There is much we do not know about the future of work, commu-
nication next steps, and how generational differences will continue to
manifest and influence the organization. However, what we do know is
that the workplace will continue to evolve. Organizations will change
and adapt. Even in the midst of this evolution, though, employees will
continue to search for jobs; companies will be defined by their orga-
nizational culture; organizational identification, mentorship, and
supportive workplace communication will influence job satisfaction;
and dissent and conflict will continue to be present in all organizations.
These organizational and communication variables are key features of
work in the past, present, and future. As such, scholars would do well
to continue to explore these variables as they relate to remote work,
automation and artificial intelligence, well-being, training and devel-
opment, and inclusivity. The findings presented in this volume provide
a crucial starting point, a foundation for generational research at
work, but there is more to be done. Our organizations are ripe for
additional exploration.
References
Aboobaker, N., Edward, M., & Zakkariya, K. A. (2019). Workplace spiri-
tuality, employee wellbeing and intention to stay. International Journal of
Educational Management, 33, 28–42. doi:10.1108/IJEM-02-2018-004
Autor, D. H. (2015). Why are there still so many jobs? The history and future
of workplace automation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29, 3–30.
doi:10.1257/jep.29.3.3
Barnett, R. (2012). Learning for an unknown future. Higher Education
Research and Development, 31, 65–77.
Bessen, J. (2019). Automation and jobs: When technology boosts employment.
Economic Policy, 34, 589–626.
Bonk, C., Kim, K., & Zong, T. (2005). Future directions of blended learning
in higher education and workplace settings. In C. J. Bonk & C. R. Graham
(Eds.), Handbook of blended learning: Global perspectives, local designs
(pp. 22–25). Pfieffer Publishing.
Carmeli, A., Brueller, D., & Dutton, J. E. (2009). Learning behaviors in the
workplace: The role of high‐quality interpersonal relationships and psy-
chological safety. Systems Research and Behavioral Science: The Official
Journal of the International Federation for Systems Research, 26, 81–98.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.932
Chambel, M. J., & Sobral, F. (2011). Training is an investment with return in
temporary workers: A social exchange perspective. Career Development
International, 16, 161–177.
Davidson, C. (2009). Future of learning institutions in the digital age.
MacArthur.
Dignan, L. (2011). Cloud computing’s real creative destruction may be the
IT workforce. ZDNet. Retrieved from: https://www.zdnet.com/article/
cloud‐computings‐real‐creative‐destruction‐may‐be‐the‐it‐workforce/
Dimock, M. (2019). Defining generations: Where Millennials end and
Generation Z begins. Pew Research Center, 17, 1–7.
Dodge, R., Daly, A., Huyton, J., & Sanders, L. (2012). The challenge of de-
fining wellbeing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 2, 222–235.
Drucker, P. J. (2000). Knowledge work. Executive Excellence, 17, 11–12.
Gallaugher, J. (2014). Information systems: A Manager’s guide to harnessing
technology. Flat World Knowledge
Glass, A. (2007). Understanding generational differences for competitive
success. Industrial and Commercial Trainings, 39, 90–103.
Hadjileontiadou, S. J., Dias, S. B., Diniz, J. A., & Hadjileontiadis, L. J. (2015).
Computer-supported collaborative learning: A holistic perspective. In
L. A. Tomei (Ed.), Fuzzy logic-based modeling in collaborative and blended
learning, advances in educational technologies and instructional design
(pp. 51–88). IGI Global
Haenlein, M., & Kaplan, A. (2019). A brief history of artificial intelligence: On
the past, present, and future of artificial intelligence. California Management
Review, 6, 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125619864925
Hamilton Skurak, H., Malinen, S., Näswall, K., & Kuntz, J. C. (2018).
Employee wellbeing: The role of psychological detachment on the re-
lationship between engagement and work–life conflict. Economic and
Industrial Democracy, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0143831X17750473
Howard, J. (2019). Artificial intelligence: Implications for the future of work.
American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 62, 917–926. https://doi.org/10.
1002/ajim.23037
Kaplan, A., & Haenlein, M. (2019). Siri, Siri, in my hand: Who’s the fairest in
the land? On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial
intelligence. Business Horizons, 62, 15–25.
Lanier, K. (2017). 5 things HR professionals need to know about Generation
Z: Thought leaders share their views on the HR profession and its direction
for the future. Strategic HR Review, 16, 288–290. https://doi.org/10.1108/
SHR-08-2017-0051
Lyons, S. T., & LeBlanc, J. E. (2019). Generational identity in the workplace:
Toward understanding and empathy. In R. J. Burke and A. M. Richardsen
(Eds.), Creating psychologically healthy workplaces (pp. 270–291). Edward
Elgar Publishing.
McBride, K. (2020, June 17). Training and development in a post-COVID-19
workplace. Training Industry. https://trainingindustry.com/blog/strategy-
alignment-and-planning/training-and-development-in-a-post-covid-19-
workplace/
Offerman, I. R., & Basford, T. E. (2014). Best practices and the changing role
of human resources. In B. M. Ferdman & B. R. Deane (Eds.), Diversity at
work: The practice of inclusion (pp. 580–592). Jossey-Bass.
Peiró, J. M., Kozusznik, M. W., Rodríguez-Molina, I., & Tordera, N. (2019).
The happy-productive worker model and beyond: Patterns of wellbeing and
performance at work. International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, 16, 479–499. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16030479
Peters, M. A. (2017). Technological unemployment: Educating for the
fourth industrial revolution. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 49. 1–6.
doi:10.1080/00131857.2016.1177412
Pollak, L. (2019). The remix: How to lead and succeed in the multigenerational
workplace. HarperCollins.
Qin, L., Hsu, J., & Stern, M. (2016). Evaluating the usage of cloud-based
collaboration services through teamwork. Journal of Education for Business,
91, 227–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2016.1170656
Rezai, M., Kolne, K., Bui, S., & Lindsay, S. (2020). Measures of workplace
inclusion: A systematic review using the COSMIN methodology. Journal of
Occupational Rehabilitation, 30, 1–35.
Sako, M. (2020). Artificial intelligence and the future of professional work:
Considering the implications of the influence of artificial intelligence given
previous industrial revolutions. Communications of the ACM, 63, 25–27.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3382743
Sabharwal, M. (2014). Is diversity management sufficient? Organizational in-
clusion to further performance. Public Personnel Management, 43, 197–217.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0091026014522202
Schawbel, D. (2014, September 2). Gen Y and Gen Z global workplace ex-
pectations study. Workplace Intelligence. http://millennialbranding.com/
2014/geny-genz-global-workplace-expectations-study
Scurtu, L. E. (2015). Knowledge and their shelf life in the business cycle.
Ecoforum 4, 1–3.
Shore, L. M., Cleveland, J. N., & Sanchez, D. (2018). Inclusive workplaces: A
review and model. Human Resource Management Review, 28(2), 176–189.
Wang, P. (2019). On Defining Artificial Intelligence. Journal of Artificial
General Intelligence, 10, 1–37.
Winick, E. (2018, January 25). Every study we could find on what automation
will do to jobs, in one chart. MIT Technology Review. https://www.
technologyreview.com/2018/01/25/146020/every-study-we-could-find-on-
what-automation-will-do-to-jobs-in-one-chart/
Index
Note: Page numbers in bold indicate tables in the text.
acculturation 70 satisfying workplace 115–117;

administrative science 55 for crisis in modern
Afifi, W. 46 multigenerational
Amazon M-Turk 5 organization 100–102; culture
“American Dream” 17 116; culture of advocacy
articulated dissent 98 100–101; designate remote
artificial intelligence (AI) 133 responsibilities 129; for dissent
Asif, R. 95 100–102; enriching experiences
assimilation 69–73; acculturation 70; 87–88; for internal
dimensions 69; familiarity communication 34–35;
69–70; generational difference internal communication
72–73; involvement 71; job strategy 34; listening 88;
competency 72; recognition mission-centric culture 75;
70–71; role negotiation 72 platforms 129; purpose of
automation 132–133 remote work 128–129; start
Avery, G. C. 125 building relationships early
and often 75; stress monitoring
Baby Boomers 1, 6, 17, 19, 27, 43–44, 88; technology 116–117;
60, 67 uncertainty management 88
Baker, E. 125 bureaucratic organizations 54
Bakker, A. B. 24 Burgoon, J. 42
Bartik, A. W. 123 Burleson, B. 81
Basford, T. E. 134 business communication 24
Bessen, J. 133 Bussin, M. H. R. 74
best practices: ACORN your
organization 34; audit, analyze, Campbell, S. 71
and adjust 34–35; be Career Builder 41
transparent 101; communicate career development 42, 83–84
clearly 75; communication 116; career mentoring 10
for conflict 100–102; create career-related issues 42
multimodal communication Cates, S. V. 17
channels 34; for creating certainty 92
144 Index
challenges: organization 132–140; of COVID-19 121, 123, 133
remote and virtual work Cravens, K. S. 100
125–126 Crawford, J. 125
Chandra, S. 92 Cullen, Z. B. 123
change management 57 cultural identity 15
Chaudry, A. M. 95 culture: assess 62–63; elements of 55;
Cheney, G. 67–68 of generational understanding
Civil Rights Movement 19 138; leadership and 56; of
Clampitt, P. G. 24 organization 5, 53–63;
clarity 62 see also organizational culture
clarity of messaging 26
classical management approaches 54; Daly, A. 135
see also administrative science Davis, J. B. 67
cloud-based collaboration 134–135 Dell 85
coaching 10 Dencker, J. C. 95
cohort 16 development: career 42, 83–84; of
Cojanu, K. A. 17 communication systems 3;
Cold War 19 foundational 126; of
collegial–social 10 generational differences 19;
collegial–task 10 learning and 135; of
communicate clearly 75 multigenerational
communication: audit principles understanding 19–20; product
25–26; business 24; clarity and 28; professional 84–85
62; competency 27; corporate 24; disappointment 45–46
dark side of 92–102; effective dissent 96–99; articulated 98;
138; effectiveness 24, 26–27; generational differences 99;
engagement and 25; exploring latent 98
and evaluating in workplace Dodge, R. 135
29–31; future nature of work DOT Appropriations Act 126
138–139; generational Downs, C. W. 24,
differences 86–87; hierarchical 106, 111
28; infrastructure 16; Drucker, P. 121
management 24; in organization
3–4, 80–89; organizational 24; effective communication 138
phenomenon 3; positive 80–89; Eisenberg, J. 125
preferences 26–27; style emotional support 82
differences 138; supportive emotional well-being 135–136
80–82; systems 3; tools 25; employee: communication needs 26;
workplaces 16; see also internal engagement 25; preferences 26;
communication recruitment 56
Communication Satisfaction Scale 9, engagement 25
11, 12, 111, 111, 115 Engdahl, B. 86
communicator reward value 46–47 Estee Lauder 60, 85
competency 27 evolving organization 1–13; 21st
comprehensive multigenerational century organization 3–5;
study 20 demographics measures 7–8;
conflict 95–96; see also dissent generational study 5–11; means
congruence 56 9; organizational change 2–3;
control strategies 11 overview 1–2; reliability
corporate communication 24 coefficients 9; scales and
Index 145
subscales 9, 12; standard generational differences 1, 32, 33, 43;
deviations 9; survey and communication satisfaction
measures 7–8 and 111, 111; conflict and 96,
EVT see expectancy violations theory 97; dissent and 99, 99;
excellence theory 28, 80 efficiency 16; force managers
expectancy violations theory 71; historical development of
(EVT) 46–50 19; indicator of 19; job
expectations, defined 42 satisfaction and 115; in job
search strategies 40–41, 41, 43,
Facebook 41 45, 48, 49; mentoring and
face-to-face interaction 122 communication support and
face-to-face worker 122 86–87, 87; in organizational
familiarity 69–70 assimilation index and
Fayol, H. 55 subscales 73; Organizational
Flood, F. 123 Communication Scale 30;
formal means 39 organizational culture and 61,
foundational developments 126 61–62; remote work 127; in
future nature of work 132–140; workplace 2, 16, 24–35
artificial intelligence (AI) 133; generational perspective,
automation 132–133; cloud- organization 15–21;
based collaboration 134–135; generational differences 19;
communication 138–139; multigenerational
future generations 136–138; understanding 19–20;
inclusive work 134; learning multigenerational workplace
and development 135; social, 15–19; overview 15;
emotional, and physical well- see also multigenerational
being 135–136 workplace
generational study 5–11; as detailed
Gallaugher, J. 134 5; goal of 5; as in-depth online
General Electric 60, 85 survey 5; institutional research
Generation Alpha 137 protocol approvals 5; open-
generation, defined 15 and close-ended questions 5;
Generation X. 1, 6, 17, 18–20, 44, student participants 5–6
59–60, 67 Generational Theory 15
Generation Y. 71 generational traits 16
Generation Z/iGen 1, 5, 6, 17, 18–20, Geyer, P. 115
27, 50, 72, 136–137 gigification 122–123
generational communication Glaeser, E. L. 123
differences 24–35; Golden, T. 114
communication effectiveness Google Drive 127
26–27; effective internal Google Hangouts 127
communication, best practices Gordon, J. 40
34–35; exploring and Granovetter, M. 39
evaluating 29–31; internal Grant, C. A. 122
communication 24–26; internal
communication strategy 27–29; Hackman, J. 113
overview 24; see also internal Hampden-Turner, C. 54
communication harassment 94
generational culture 17 harmonious organizational
generational data 43 culture 55
146 Index
Harris, J. 86 of 43, 43–44; ease of 44–45; effort
Hazen, M. D. 106, 111 and ease of 45; expectancy
hierarchical communication 28 violations theory (EVT) 46–50,
hierarchical sources 27 48; expectations for process
Higgins, C. A. 124 42–46; formal means 39;
Hofstede, G. 54 generational differences of
Hollensbe, E. C. 95 40–41, 41; generational
home office working 122 expectations of 38–50; individual
Houston, A. 67 differences 39; nonselection
Howe, N. 15–16 response 45; overview 38;
Hsu, J. 134 personal contacts 39; process
Hulland, J. S. 124 38–40; rejection 45–46; required
human factor 2–3 effort 44–45; strategies 40–41, 41;
Huyton, J. 135 techniques 39; time commitment
43, 43–44; websites 41
identification 66–68; Jokisaari, M. 69
see also organizational Joshi, A. 95
identification Jurkiewicz, C. L. 74
iGeneration 1, 5, 6, 17, 18–20, 27, 50,
72, 136–137 Kalla, H. K. 24
inclusive workplaces 134 Kanungo, R. N. 67
Indeed.com 41 Kassing, J. W. 96, 98–99
Industrial Revolution 132 Kennelly, J. 128
ineffective communication in Krishnan, A. 125
workplace 92–93; Kylili, A. 124
see also conflict; dissent;
negative communication latent dissent 98
informational support 82 leadership 56
internal communication: assessment LeBlanc, J. E. 138
of 25; best practices 34–35; Lester, S. W. 16
domains 24; effective 24; Likert-style scale 10–11, 30;
hierarchical communication 28; questions 6
history 24; measure of 26; LinkedIn 41
overview of 24–26; platforms Luca, M. 123
25; promote and stimulate 24; Lwin, M. O. 92
strategies 25, 27–29; Lyons, S. 42
successful 29 Lyons, S. T. 138
international economic recession 4
International Women’s Day 59 management communication 24
involvement 71 Martin, C. A. 71
Martocchio, J. J. 95
Jacobi, M. 84 mass media 27, 42
job competency 72 Masterson, S. S. 95
job satisfaction 57–58, 112–115; Mayer, Marissa 124
see also workplaces McDonald, P. 94
Job Satisfaction Scale 9, 11, 12 McGregor, D. 2–3
job search 4–5, 6; behavior 38–39; best Mencl, J. 16
practices 50; channels to 39; Mentoring and Communication
defined 38; direct application 40; Support Scale 9, 10, 12,
disappointment 45–46; duration 85, 86–87
Index 147
mentorship 83–87 O’ Reilly, C. A. 29
Metts, S. 46 organization: bureaucratic 54;
Microsoft Teams 127 challenges 132–140;
Mid-Atlantic United States 5 communication differences in
Mikkola, L. 82, 88 workplace 24–35;
Millennial job seekers 42 communication in 3–4, 80–89;
Millennials 1, 5, 6, 16–17, 18, 20, 27, culture of 5, 53–63; dark side of
58–59, 68, 71 communication 92–102;
mission-centric culture 75 dynamic organisms 1;
Mitroff, I.I. 99 evolutions 1–13; generational
Mokhtarian, P. 121 differences 1; generational
Monster 41 perspective 15–21; human
motivating potential 113 factor 2–3; identification 66–75;
multigenerational crisis response innovation 132–140; job search
99–100 38–50; mechanisms efficient
multigenerational data 48, 58 machines 2; remote and virtual
multigenerational study 20 work 121–130; technology 2;
multigenerational workplace satisfaction 106–117
understanding 19–20 organizational assimilation
multi-generational workforce 5, see assimilation
29, 50 Organizational Assimilation Index 9,
multigenerational workplace 17; 10, 12, 72, 73
communication effectiveness in organizational change 1; global
26–27; communication in 98; pandemic 4; international
overview 15–17; supportive 87 economic recession 4;
Myers, K. K. 69, 70, 72 investigation about 2–3;
societal unrest in the United
National Institute of Health (NIH) States 4
121–122 Organizational Communication
nature of work 121–123 Conflict Instrument (OCCI) 9,
negative communication 93–94; 10–11, 12, 96, 97
see also conflict; dissent Organizational Communication Scale
Ng, E. 42 (OCS) 6, 29, 30, 30
Nickson, D. 122 organizational culture 16, 17, 53–63;
NIH see National Institute of Health age-inclusive 62–63; assess
nonconfrontation strategies 11 63–64; best practices 62–63;
Nurmi, J. E. 69 defined 53–54; generational
differences 61–62; generational
Obama, Barack 126 perspectives on 58–60; history
OCCI see Organizational 54–55; overview 53; previous
Communication Conflict research and theory 55–58;
Instrument see also harmonious
OCS see Organizational organizational culture
Communication Scale Organizational Culture Survey 6–10,
Odine, M 92 9, 12, 61, 61
Oetzel, J. G. 69, 70, 72 organizational development 3
Offerman, I. R. 134 Organizational Dissent Scale 9, 11,
Oishi, S. 100 12, 98, 99, 99
Oldman, G. 113 organizational identification 66–75;
Oliver, E. G. 100 best practices 74–75;
148 Index
generational difference 68; Roodt, G. 57
overview 66; workplace 66
Organizational Identification Scale 9, Sabharwal, M. 134
10, 12, 68 Saint-Gobain North America 60
organizational integration 112 Sanchez, P. 55
organizational variables 4–5 Sanders, L. 135
Ozimek, A. 123 scales 9, 12; Communication
Satisfaction Scale 9, 11, 12,
Patmos, A. K. 114 111, 111, 115; Job Satisfaction
Pawlowski, S. D. 67 Scale 9, 11, 12; Mentoring and
Peters, M. A. 132 Communication Social
Pettigrew, A. 57 Support Scale 9, 86–87, 87;
Pettine, S. 17 Organizational Assimilation
Pew Research Center 40 Index 9, 10, 12, 72, 73;
physical well-being 135–136 Organizational
Pitts, M. J. 114 Communication Conflict
Pollak, L. 26, 137 Instrument 9, 10–11, 12, 96, 97;
Pond, S. 115 Organizational
positive communication 80–89 Communication Scale 6, 29, 30,
post-pandemic work 123 30; Organizational Culture
Pregnolato, M. 74 Survey 6–10, 9, 12, 61, 61;
Procter & Gamble 85 Organizational Dissent Scale 9,
product development 28 11, 12, 98, 99, 99;
professional development 84–85 Organizational Identification
psychosocial support 84 Scale 9, 10, 12, 68
public relations 80 Schaufeli, W. B. 24
Putnam, L. L. 96 Schein, E. 56
Schlecter, A. F. 74
Qin, L. 134 Schnackenberg, A. K. 100
Schullery, N. M. 15–16
Rawlins, C. 58 Schweitzer, L. 42
realism 56 scientific management cultures 54–55
recognition 70–71 securing employment 38
rejection 45–46 Sempane, M. 57
remote and virtual work 121–130; Serene 127
benefits of 124–125; best sexual revolution 19
practices 128–129; challenges of Shakil, B. 97
125–126; generational Shou-Boon, S. 92
differences and 127, 127–128; SHRM see Society for Human
nature of work 121–123; Resource Management
platforms 129; purpose of Siddiqui, D. A. 97
128–129; tools and platforms Siddons, S. 122
126–127; types of 122; virtual Silent Generation 6, 17
effectiveness 124–126; work Simsek, Z. 114
post-pandemic 123 Skype 127
retention 56, 74 Slack 3, 28, 126, 127, 129
Rieger, H. 57 Smith, S. A. 114
Roberson, Q. M. 29 social media/networks 28, 50
Roberts, K. H. 29 social norms 42
role negotiation 72 social support 83
Index 149
social well-being 135–136 societal unrest in the 4;
societal unrest in the United States 4 unemployment in 121; working
Society for Human Resource remotely in 126
Management (SHRM) 113 Urick, M. J. 95
solution-oriented strategies 11
Spark 127 Veiga, J. 114
Spurgeon, P. C. 122
Stanton, C. T. 123 Wallace, L. M. 122
Staples, D. S. 124 Wang, P. 133
start building relationships early and well-being 135–136
often 75 Welsh, Jack 85
Stern, M. 134 Whitworth, B. 29
Stewart, J. S. 70, 100 WIFI 126
strategies: control 11; internal Wilson, C. E. 96
communication 25, 27–29; job Winskowski, A. 86
search 40–41, 41; work-from-home 124–126, 128, 132,
nonconfrontation 11; solution- 136; see also remote and
oriented 11 virtual work
Strauss, W. 15–16 workplaces: communication 16;
supportive communication 80–82; conflicts in 16; effectiveness 16;
defined 80–81; in emotional support 82;
workplace 82–83 generational differences in 16;
supportive workplace 87–88 generational similarities in 16;
SWOT analysis 2 history in 19; inclusive 134;
ineffective communication in
Telework Enhancement Act 126 92–93; informational support
teleworking 114 82; multigenerational 17;
Theng, Y. 92 organizational identification
Theory X. 2–3 66; satisfaction 106–117; social
Theory Y. 2–3 support 83; supportive 87–88;
time commitment 43–44 supportive communication in
Time Warner 85 82–83; types of support in 82;
Toggl 127 uncertainty 82;
Tolbize, A. 34 see also multigenerational
Tomlinson, E. C. 100 workplace
Traditionalists 17 work post-pandemic 123
Trello 127
Trompenaars, F. 54 Yahoo 124
Tuikka, S. 93
Twenge, J. 71 Zapier 127
Zimmerman, K. 128
uncivil relationships 94 Zoom 127, 127
United States 5; governmental
actions in 126; Mid-Atlantic 5;

Multigenerational Communication in Organizations - Insights From The Workplace

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Multigenerational Communication in Organizations - Insights From The Workplace

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Multigenerational Communication in Organizations - Insights From The Workplace

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are some of the topics examined in the book?

What are some of the topics examined in the book?

What are some of the best practices and suggestions provided in the book?

What are some of the best practices and suggestions provided in the book?

ROUTLEDGE FOCUS

Insights from the Workplace

and Bridget Rubenking

Multigenerational Communication in Organizations explores generational

Michael G. Strawser is an Assistant Professor of Communication at

Stephanie A. Smith is an Assistant Professor of Communication at

Bridget Rubenking is an Associate Professor of Communication at the

A Relational Model of Public Discourse

ISBN: 978-0-367-71428-4 (hbk)

Typeset in Times New Roman

List of tables vii

1 The Evolving Organization 1

3 Understanding Generational Communication

4 Generational Expectations of the Job Search 38

5 Perspectives on Organizational Culture 53

7 Communication in the Organization: Positive

8 The Dark Side of Communication at Work:

9 Workplace Satisfaction 106

11 Innovation and Future Challenges 132

1.1 The Survey and Measures 7

Generally, organizations and corporations consistently evolve and

1.1 Investigating Organizational Change

1.2 The 21st Century Organization

Connecting Organizational Variables to the 21st Century

1.3 The Generational Study

Demographics All Baby Boomers Gen X Millennials

Table 1.1 (Continued)

Demographics All Baby Boomers Gen X Millennials

1. 10.8% Healthcare/ 1. 21.5% Healthcare/ 1. 13.7% Education 1. 11% Food Service

Scale Subscales Alpha Mean

Mentoring and Communication Social .891 3.67(.69)

Table 1.3 Correlations Between Eight Major Study Scales

1. Organizational Culture Survey .

The multigenerational workplace has become an area of fascinating

2.1 An Overview of the Multigenerational Workplace

Traditionalists (Born pre-1945)

Baby Boomers (Born 1946–1964)

Generation Z/iGen (1997–2012)

2.2 Historical Development of Generational Differences

2.3 Development of Multigenerational Understanding

This chapter provides a contextual overview of internal communica-

3.1 An Overview of Internal Communication

3.2 Communication Effectiveness in a Multigenerational

3.3 Developing an Internal Communication Strategy

3.4 Exploring and Evaluating Communication in the

Table 3.1 Generational Differences in Trust in Supervisor, Influence of Supervisor,

OCS Sub-scale Baby Boomers Gen X Millennials F eta2

Trust in 4.63(1.25) 4.52(1.21) 4.53(1.06) .444 .00

**p < .001, *p < .05.

Baby Boomers Gen X Millennials F eta2

Face-to-face 52.38a 52.71a 59.61%b 7.104 .01

**p < .001, *p < .05.

Desirability of Frequently Supervisors 3.12(1.66) 3.54(1.79)a 3.22(1.71)a 3.725* .01

**p < .001, *p < .05.

Best Practice 1: ACORN Your Organization