Millennials in The Workplace - 2010

Millennials in the Workplace: A Communication Perspective on Millennials' Organizational
Relationships and Performance

Author(s): Karen K. Myers and Kamyab Sadaghiani
Source: Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 25, No. 2, Special Issue: Millennials and
the World of Work: What You Didn't Know You Didn't Know (June 2010), pp. 225-238
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40605781
Accessed: 09-03-2017 20:44 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Business and
Psychology
This content downloaded from 192.100.201.10 on Thu, 09 Mar 2017 20:44:08 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:225-238
DOI 10.1007/sl0869-010-9172-7
Millennials in the Workplace: A Communication Perspective

on Millennials' Organizational Relationships and Performance
Karen K. Myers * Kamyab Sadaghiani
Published online: 5 March 2010

The Author(s) 2010. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com
Abstract Stereotypes about Millennials, born between

create and maintain work relationships among team and
organizational members, and between those members and
1979 and 1994, depict them as self-centered, unmotivated,
disrespectful, and disloyal, contributing to widespread
key organizational stakeholders (Myers 2009; Sias 2009).
concern about how communication with Millennials will In particular, communication that reveals shared values and
reflects common commitments to organizational goals
affect organizations and how they will develop relation-
enables coworkers to forge and sustain productive rela-
ships with other organizational members. We review these
purported characteristics, as well as Millennials' moretionships in organizations (Herriot 2002). Communication
can also have direct and indirect effects on team and
positive qualities - they work well in teams, are motivated
to have an impact on their organizations, favor openorganizational performance (Greenbaum and Query 1999).
and frequent communication with their supervisors, and
Furthermore, interactions and relationships in the work-
are at ease with communication technologies. We discuss
place are influenced by numerous individual differences in
Millennials' communicated values and expectations communication,
and and these have been found to affect
their potential effect on coworkers, as well as how work-
coworkers' satisfaction and productivity (Jablin and Krone
place interaction may change Millennials. 1994).
Millennials, born between 1979 and 1994 (Smola and
Keywords Communication Millennial generation Sutton 2002), have been described in both the popular
Workplace communication Intergenerational literature and the popular press (see definitions in footnote
communication Organizational communication 1) as the "Look at Me" generation, implying that they are
overly self-confident and self-absorbed (Pew Research
Center 2007). They also have been depicted as lacking in
Among many functions of communication in organizationsloyalty and work ethic (Marston 2009). As Millennials
and work groups, including information sharing, decision
continue to enter the workplace, there is widespread
speculation and some concern about how Millennials'
making, influence, coordination, motivation, and identifi-
cation (Cheney et al. 2004; Miller 2009; Scott et al. 1998),
predispositions and behaviors - including their communi-
communicative interactions in the workplace serve to orientations and skills - will affect other organiza-
cation
tional members (especially those of older Boomer and Gen
X cohorts). In the main, these concerns focus on Millen-
nials' abilities to create functional work relationships with
K. K. Myers (El) older employees and to enhance organizational perfor-
Department of Communication, University of California, mance (McGuire et al. 2007). Questions have been raised
Santa Barbara, 4005 SS & MS, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USAabout how management can best motivate Millennials, as
e-mail: myers@comm.ucsb.edu
well as how Millennials' described "unique" qualities will
K. Sadaghiani translate to organizational membership and commitment.
39 Coronado Pointe, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677, USA Although recent economic conditions may cause them to
e-mail: thekamyab@gmail.com be more compliant than people had speculated they would
} Springer
226 J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:225-238
be (Koch 2009; George 2008),

perspectives on Millennial some
communication cont
and behaviors.1
nial' characteristics may
We frequently refer complicate, and
to these three classifications thereby
rupt, workplace enabling
interactions with
readers to evaluate the strength of various claims. m
generations, thus negatively
We include affecting
popular literature and reports because there is
organizational processes (Alsop
so little empirical evidence, et
but inclusion of theal. 2009
references
2007). For example, should not necessarily be taken as
popular endorsement of this
perception
ported by substantial study or agreementevidence) is
with the ideas described in this study.tha
impatient, self-important, We pursue these aims by andtreating disloyal,
the intersection of a
tractive qualities from Millennials' characteristics
an and communication-related
organizational
2008; Howe and Strauss 2007; Jacobson 2007). Some dynamics in f''c areas that are especially relevant for
organizations believe that to thrive and fully utilize Mill- performance and member relationships in contemporary
ennials' unique abilities, they may need to alter their rules organizations: (1) socialization and membership negotia-
and policies (Gursoy et al. 2008). In addition, popular tion by organizational members; (2) employment expec-
perceptions of Millennial are not entirely negative. There tations and processes of relationship development in the
also are popular depictions of Millenniais' purported workplace; (3) use of advanced information and commu-
admirable attributes from organizations' perspectives, nication technologies; (4) reactions to the current job
including beliefs that they are more accepting of diversity market and implications of their full-time employment; and
than were past generations, have capabilities with advanced (5) orientation toward achievement and their aspirations for
communication and information technologies, have theengaging in leadership (and the communicative role of
ability to see problems and opportunities from fresh per- Millennials' parents in developing these). We conclude by
spectives, and are more comfortable working in teams than outlining an agenda for research on Millennials' organi-
were past generations (Howe and Strauss 2000; Gorman zational communication, relationships, and performance.
et al. 2004; Tapscott 1998; Zemke et al. 2000).
In this article we examine these and other attributes
Millennials, Communication, and Membership
commonly associated with Millenniais - characteristics
that many people believe are likely to affect not Negotiation
only
Millennials' ability to perform productively in organiza-
As Millennials enter the workplace, like generations before
tions, but also their ability to develop effective organiza-
tional relationships. We explore how people speculate them,
that the first significant hurdle they encounter is their
socialization into the organization (Chao et al. 1994; Van
Millennials are likely to be perceived by supervisors and
coworkers and, based on their values and lived experi-Maanen and Schein 1979). Newcomers learn about tasks
ences, how people think that Millennials may respondand
to,social norm expectations through socialization pro-
and be affected by, those and other factors in thecesses,
con- as well as how to adapt to and negotiate their roles
temporary workplace. While engaging potential short-
comings of the Millennial generation, we emphasize how
1 We distinguish three source types. Popular press items include
Millennial values and behavioral tendencies can enhance
online articles and blogs, newspaper articles, and non-expert maga-
zine columns. While these might allude to surveys or empirical
organizations through the quality of Millennials' relation-
studies,
ships in the workplace and their effects on productivity. In they are primarily entertainment-focused and should not be
considered as substantive evidence of differences among the gener-
the process, we set an agenda for Millennial-focused
ations. They attract attention by making surprising or interesting
workplace interaction research, and call for investigations
claims and offering prescriptive advice, often based on no evidence
centered on benefits offered by Millennial participation and an individual's opinion or personal experience. These sources
beyond
are the most common, but they are the least reliable. Popular
opportunities for organizations. Throughout our discussion,
literature includes books and articles that are written for trade and
we take a communication perspective and highlight mes-
other audiences. These works base their claims on secondary research
sages, meanings, and interactions likely to be central to the
including surveys and even more empirical studies. We also include
dynamics we describe involving Millennials and other in this group commercially administered surveys and associated
reports.
generational cohorts in the workplace. We reference a The credibility of these sources is somewhat suspect because
the authors/organizations may not be trained in empirical methods
variety of sources which we group into three categories
and data interpretation. Furthermore, the authors/organizations are
including (1) popular press and (2) popular literature - by sales of their books, reports, and magazines so their claims
driven
articles and books that are more opinion than evidence-
and conclusions can be over-stated. Empirical studies or research
offer the most powerful evidence. These studies are theory-driven and
based and have contributed to stereotypes, many without
rely on sound social scientific methods. They are either peer-reviewed
empirical support, about the generation. When possible, we
or were the basis of dissertations or theses, and therefore subject to
draw on (3) empirical studies - peer-reviewed, data-based
expert scrutiny. Although we prefer these sources, they are the fewest
in number.
research with more rigorous methods - for more credible
} Springer
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:225-238 227
(Black and Ashford 1995;

on beliefs De
and contextual norms Vos
about appropriateet
behav- al. 2
1999), and how to gain
iors in given circumstances.others' accept
When members violate others'
participating members in
expectations of appropriate the
behavior, workpl
others' attributions
Levine 1982, 2001; and responses
Myers toward that member and are affected (Leets
Oetzel
tional socialization is interactive,
2001). Behaviors that are negatively assayed because they invo
and old-timers' evaluations and commitments to each other violate expectations cause the violator to be judged more
and to the organization, as well as newcomers' potential
negatively than if he or she had met standard expectations
(Burgoon 1993). Moreland and Levine's (2001) research
transition to important roles in the organization (Moreland
and Levine 1982, 2001; Myers 2006). illuminates these dynamics. Early on, organizational
The ongoing, interactional communication processesincumbents assess every newcomer's ability to benefit the
among members during socialization has been termedworkgroup. Only when the new member is deemed valu-
membership negotiation - the intentional and uninten-able to the workgroup and organization, according to
Moreland
tional processes through which individuals engage, dis- and Levine, do others reciprocate the relation-
ship with commitment. Coworkers begin to ask for the new
engage, and accomplish reciprocal, but still asymmetrical,
influence over the intended meanings of an individual's member's opinions, delegate significant tasks to the new
participation in organizational functions (McPhee and member, and develop meaningful working relationships
Zaug 2000). Through membership negotiation processes, with the new member. This acceptance can be stifled when
interaction reveals important differences in attitudes and
incumbent members determine who will likely fit in, both
functionally and socially, to benefit the organization behaviors.
(Slaughter and Zickar 2006). Newcomers also engage in A pertinent example of attitudinal and value differences
evaluations, assessing not merely job-related tasks andrelated to Millennial that may affect membership negoti-
responsibilities, but also the organization and whetheration is that, according empirical and popular press sour-
they will like working with coworkers and supervisors ces, more senior workers' believe that Millennial
(Robinson and Morrison 2000; Scott and Myers 2010).newcomers should have to "pay their dues" as they did
Values held by newcomers and old-timers affect these when they were young workers (Marston 2007). Academic
sources explain that "career" plays a significant role in
evaluations and the success of these "negotiations" con-
cerning membership (Allen 1995; Bouwhuis and RinkBoomers' lives and is an essential component of their
2009; Cox 1994; Rink and Ellemers 2009). Therefore, identities (Collinson and Hearn 1994). Boomer workers are
newcomers' acceptance by coworkers is not guaranteed, depicted as having routinely sacrificed on behalf of the
as evidenced by the fact that some recruits become morefirm, working 55- to 60-h weeks, and they frequently
central to their organizations while others remain on theadvise young coworkers to work hard, demonstrate their
periphery, never accepted as fully participating members dedication, and patiently wait their turn for promotions
(Allen 1995; Van Maanen and Schein 1979). When (Chatman and Flynn 2001). However, Millennial, much
coworkers' work-related values and role expectations do like Generation X workers, may not share Boomers' beliefs
not mesh, conflict, mistrust, and lower productivity canand values; building a career is not a primary motivator for
result (Hill 2002). most Millennials2 (Marston 2007). Instead, and as touted in
popular literature, work is a less significant part of their
Trade journals and blogs claim that differences in values
between Millennial and older generations of workers arepersonal identities, instrumental to supporting the lifestyle
affecting Millennial' membership negotiation and their they desire (Marston 2007). Empirical studies demonstrate
acceptance by incumbent workers (Jacobson 2007; that throughout their careers, many Boomers have
McGuire et al. 2007; Zwilling 2009). Their differing embraced competitiveness, and have focused on climbing
experiences and values can affect their perspectives, theirorganizational ranks (Gursoy et al. 2008). They are the
evaluation of coworkers, and their organizational expec- original workaholics who, even as young adults, had little
tations. For example, some management-targeted websites notion of work-life balance (McGuire et al. 2007; Stauffer
forewarn that Millennial may desire more flexible work-1997).
ing conditions and hours (e.g., working from remote In contrast, Millennial workers are likely to communi-
cate an interest in flexible career paths because their pri-
locations, working into the evening but not early mornings)
than have been normative in most organizations (Simmonsority is work-life balance (Carless and Wintle 2007; Smola
2008). However, when Millennial communicate and act
according to their backgrounds and values, others' assess-
2 Although some suggest that these differences might be a result of
ments of them may reflect expectancy violations (e.g.,
stage in life, empirical research by Wentworth and Chell (1997),
Burgoon 1993; Burgoon et al. 2000). According to found that these were to be more strongly associated with genera-
expectancy violation theory, individuals are judged based tional differences.
Springer
228 J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:225-238
and Sutton 2002). A turbulence

economic recent and widespread Gallup
job layoffs may cause poll
ennials desire a work-life balance that will allow them to some workers to put in extra hours to demonstrate their
balance play with work (Ott et al. 2008). Millennial-writ- worth, popular literature suggests other long-time dedi-
ten blogs and popular press articles attest that they also cated workers may question the wisdom of devoting
freely and openly admit that they prioritize close personal10-12 h a day for up to 50 years of their lives to organi-
relationships over career ("Cara" 2009; Raines 2002). zations that may not offer the security long promised
Their coworkers may initially respond to Millennials'(Sennet 2000). Second, more senior workers may rebel
work-life balance attitude with resistance (Alvesson and against Millennials and argue that it is their younger col-
Willmott 2002; Smola and Sutton 2002). In particular,
leagues' turn to make sacrifices and to accept responsibility
Boomer coworkers who often are in leadership positions, for performance outcomes: "It's on their shoulders if
may question Millennials' commitment and dedication to deadlines are missed." Third, and consonant with employ-
the organization, dismissing Millennial workers as selfishees' use of communication for resistance to organizational
or lazy (Collinson and Collinson 1997; Raines 2002). Their practices (Ganesh et al. 2005; Stohl and Cheney 2001),
Millennials' push for work-life balance may attract the
subsequent interactions with Millennial coworkers may
attention of management who may already be feeling
reflect a level of discomfort, disrespect, or even distrust. It
is possible that Boomer generation workers will never pressure to alter official discourses that normalize "work-
completely accept new colleagues who do not share their aholic" behaviors and villainize workers who take advan-
work ethic. While this might be true for any newcomerstage of family leave policies (Kirby and Krone 2002).
with significantly different values, many Millennials maySome organizations are finding human resource advantages
remain somewhat marginalized by their older and more to relaxing normative expectations concerning working
senior coworkers, making it more difficult for Millennialsover-time. For example, international accounting and
to earn workplace respect and credibility. This is especiallyconsulting firm Deloitte and Touche significantly improved
problematic because a lack of informal communication inits 33% turnover rate for women when it redressed the
organizations is negatively related to member satisfactionimplicit requirement that members work 80-h work weeks
(see Pace and Faules 1994), and low levels of communi-(Babcock and Laschever 2003). The firm changed its for-
cative support from supervisors in particular is associatedmal policies, as well as the way that overtime work was
with job turnover (Clampitt 2005). Of course, Millennials valued in unofficial organizational discourse.
who are astute and realize how their coworkers view them Empirical research by Twenge and colleagues (Twenge
and Campbell 2001; Twenge and Nolen-Hoeksema 2002)
may make concerted efforts to demonstrate their value and
willingness to contribute - just as employees who experi-and Twenge (2000) found that following more than a
ence concertive control from coworkers in team-based decade of historical events and cultural changes that neg-
organizations endeavor to conform to team normsatively
and impacted children's sense of well-being, the 1980s
expectations (Barker and Cheney 1994). Millennials may
adolescents and young adults have reported higher levels of
self-esteem and lower levels of depression. While those
not place as much value on "work" as their supervisors
studies gathered data only from college students, and levels
have, but they may find themselves accommodating the
demands of the workplace and behaving more of
like
confidence may change considerably once students enter
the workplace, other research also supports the conclusion
Boomers once they become committed to particular pro-
jects and goals. that Millennials are unusually and extraordinarily confident
of their abilities (George 2008; Greenfield 1998). Green-
At the same time, and as part and parcel of the mem-
field proposes that this confidence has been buoyed by an
bership negotiation process (Scott and Myers 2010), Mill-
ennials may be a source of change within their educational system with inflated grades and standardized
organizations in several ways. First, engagement with tests, in which many Millennials are expert in performing
well. The idea of paying their dues by working hard to
Millennial workers who spend more time with their fami-
demonstrate their worth before they are given significant
lies and friends, and have diverse personal interests outside
the workplace, may cause more senior workers to recon-tasks is likely to be resisted by Millennials, critics in the
sider their own values. Boomers especially, may find
popular literature contend (Marston 2007; Martin 2005).
themselves asking whether their extensive sacrifices have Millennials may surprise their Boomer and Gen X man-
brought about lasting happiness and other benefits that theyagers when, according to Gallup polls, they seek key roles
had hoped for (Collinson and Collinson 1997). Alreadyin significant projects soon after their organizational entry
some Boomers may have had this realization and might
and very early in the membership negotiation process (Ott
have taken cues from Millennials about how to create et al. 2008). Coworkers see them as overly confident and
inappropriately demanding, asking "Who do they think
balance between their personal and work lives; more
Boomers may follow. In addition, although recent they are?" (Alsop et al. 2009).
} Springer
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:225-238 229
Millennials' Expectations, Communicat

affirmation derives fr
and Team Relationships
messages Millennials h
and coaches throughou
Millennials' 2002).
attributes and expectations t
affect the development of workplace
A second important communication issue for Millenni- rel
team and organizational
als entering the workplacemembers
is their desire for open com- from
also have become focal
munication, issues
and lots of it - again, (e.g., Gu
more so than newcomers
Howe and Strauss 2007;
from previous Stein
generational cohorts, and Ber
according to some
Popular literature empirical
and studies (Gursoy et al. 2008; Martin 2005;research
empirical Remo
Millennial preferences
2006). For example, are
Millennials arelikely
unlikely to accept anto be es
cant for workplace organizational policy that information is communicated on and th
interaction
work relationships. First,
a "need-to-know basis." Regardless ofMillennials
their low-level e
tionships and frequent
positions, Millennial feedback from su
workers feel a need to be kept in the
for Human Resource Management
loop of information (George 2008). Notwithstanding [SHRM
they expect open supervisors'
communication
traditional preference for communication with from t
and managers, even about
other supervisors matters
and managers more than with subordi- norm
more senior employees (Gursoy
nates, as well as supervisors' tendency to emphasize et
task al. 200
Remo 2006; instructions
SHRM, in their downward communication
2009). Third, with sub- Mille
work in teams, in part
ordinates more thanbecause
socio-emotional content they
(Wert-Gray per
work to be more fun,
et al. 1991), somebut also
empirical research because
indicates that super- t
risk (Alsop 2008; Gursoy et
visors today are surprised al. expectation
by Millennials' 2008). that Alt
other generationssupervisors
may have
freely share shared
information such as strategic planssome
tions, what may bewhileimportant is management
they are being formulated by higher the wide
about Millennials' (George
expectations relative
2008). Expectations of this sort may be associated t
nicative partialities, based
with Millennials on by
also not being intimidated popular
individuals
explore these who are more senior, either
preferences below,in age or in status. Popular
paying s
their potential effects
literature suggests on Millennials
that as children, they were encouraged to and
tionships and performance.
befriend parents and friends of their parents (Howe and
Empirical studies
Strauss have
2007). As teens,found that M
they became comfortable
unlike employees oftheir
expressing previous generati
thoughts and opinions to adults, expecting
relationships with
credibilitysupervisors to be
despite their young age and lack of experiences
negotiating their (Tapscott
roles initially,
1998). They as
also have been encouraged by their well
term satisfaction in the organization
parents to challenge authority, and to assert themselves, (Jok
2009; Martin 2005). In general,
asking for preferential subord
treatment when they believe they
faction is higher when
can get supervisors
it (Howe and Strauss 2007). ar
communication with employees:
Initially, Millennials' shari
expectations for frequent, sup-
conveying bad news, evaluating
portive, and open communication, as well as job perfo
their lack of
creating supportivea climate,
formality regarding status, structure, soliciting
or propriety, may i
appropriate disclosures (Jablin
cause senior level workers 1987).
to feel disrespected by young Wh
that according to workers whom they believe
popular have not yet earned theseand
literature e
Millennials expectconsiderations.
communication Boomers may even resent Millennials'
with s
more frequent, implicit and
more explicit requests for communication
positive, and more and a
been the case with employees
information. What Millennials may notof prior
fully understand is ge
2009; Gursoy et al. 2008;
that increased Hill
communication 2002;
and knowledge Marst
is associated
2005; Remo 2006). Even
with increased acknowledgin
responsibility. Future research should
findings that, forexamine
both task
whether Millennials and
learn through non-task
interaction with
nates prefer others that they may not
supervisory be ready for that level of
communication
and encouraging rather than
responsibility (Pacanowsky 1988). Doneutral
they learn to mod- or
and Tompkins 1988), Millennials' need
erate their expectations and communicative requests? fo
from supervisors (and coworkers)
Another possible that
outcome that research should examine is is
and affirming in content feels
whether organizations change burdensom
their communication poli-
and seasoned organizational members.
cies as a result of Millennial expectations. In some cases, Po
and academic sources have
workers could become argued
privy to strategic and other tha
Springer
230 J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:225-238
information that could make

back at the station. them
Did they demonstrate a willingness to more in
competent, and thus better
listen and partners
display deference to their seniors? In general, as with t
tions. Management may
organizational members find
interact over timethat
and across a invest
with more responsibility concerning
variety of circumstances, they develop deeper work rela- broader
feelings of involvement, which
tionships and, typically, is
an ability and willingness a
to trust necessar
for organizational each other (Haas 1977). Over time, Generation
attachment (Myers X and and
More involvementBoomeralso may help keep
workers will likely come to value the contributions Mi
that Millennials
feeling bored by their work, can make (Smolaa and Sutton 2002).
primary rea
premature turnover,Related, as Millennials themselves are
according to promoted and are
popular lit
2008). given more responsibility, they too may come to under-
Increased organizational openness also might provide stand the importance of developing confidence in workers
additional and important opportunities for frank commu- prior to delegating significant tasks and responsibilities.
nication and problem solving between Millennial workers Thus, through ongoing interactions, Millennials may begin
and their supervisors. Enhanced interaction may lead to to realize the value of time for forging trust among
closer supervisor-subordinate working relationships, which coworkers and, concomitantly, may develop a shared sense
also may be important for Millennials' long-term rela- of temporality unique to their team and organization
tionship with the organization. Some empirical research (Ballard and Seibold 2003, 2004) with coworkers from
indicates that Millennials do not develop organizational other generational cohorts.
commitment as more senior workers have (Pasieka 2009; A third communication-related consideration for work-
Patalano 2008). Instead, some popular literature claims place interactions with Millennials is their comfort and
that, more than other generations, Millennials develop ease in working in teams. Semiautonomous and self-man-
commitment to individuals, especially supervisors with aged work teams have become commonplace in organiza-
whom they develop meaningful relationships (Marston tions because they enhance innovation, increase
2007). If this claim is true, strong commitments to super- productivity, and they often lower personnel costs (Lawler
visors may change Millennials' much publicized (though 1994; Lawler et al. 1995; O'Toole and Lawler 2006).
not entirely accurately discussed) tendency to switch jobs Millennials' entry is fortuitous for these organizations
and careers at every opportunity (e.g., Gursoy et al. 2008; because, according to empirical research and popular lit-
Remo 2006). erature, more than previous generations, Millennials value
Differences between Millennials' and other generations' teamwork and are accustomed to collaboration (Deloitte
beliefs about time also are worth noting for their commu- 2009; Gursoy et al. 2008; Raines 2002). Millennials report
nication implications. Empirical studies and polls have that working and interacting with other members of a team
found that Millennials are impatient about becoming rec- makes work more pleasurable (Alsop 2008), in part, a
ognized as valuable contributors (Gursoy et al. 2008; Pew consequence of group-based learning and project groups
Research Center 2007). Millennials, much like Generation throughout their years in school, and perhaps in part
X employees, have a much shorter time horizon than because more than previous generations, Millennials often
Boomers (who typically occupy positions of organizational socialize in groups as well (Howe and Strauss 2007).
power). Popular literature claims that more so than in Millennial workers are likely to be actively involved, fully
previous generations, they multitask, and view time as a committed, and contribute their best efforts to the organi-
valuable resource that should not be squandered (Deloitte zation when their work is performed in a collaborative
2009). Based on frequent praise from their parents and workgroup or team.
teachers, they have come to expect evaluation of their work Organizations have noted a downside to teams, how-
to be based on the outcomes they produce, not based on the ever, and for several reasons they are beginning to
age, experience, or tenure of the person who produced encourage Millennials to accomplish part of their work
them (Alsop 2008; Hill 2002). However, more senior outside workgroup boundaries (Alsop 2008). First, as
workers may not share this perspective, which can spark Alsop describes, Millennials find excessive comfort in
conflict and distrust. Millennials have not fully appreciated team-based direction, oversight, and decision making. If
that time on the job and "time in rank" can be crucial to they can work as members of a team, they can avoid the
perceptions of them as reliable by Boomer and Generation risk associated with independent thinking and decisions.
X coworkers. For example, Myers' (2005) study of muni- While it is true some types of decision making can be
cipal firefighters revealed that throughout probationary improved in group contexts (Shaw 1981), a group-reliant
firefighters' first year with the department, fellow crew mentality does not foster individual decision-making con-
members monitored not only how the new firefighters fidence, nor does it enable individuals to demonstrate their
performed on service calls, but also on more routine duties own creativity and ability. Another problem is that
Springer
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:225-238 231
teamwork as the Webmeetings

and group and instant messaging (Gorman
take et al. 2004;
time
agers know, some Tapscott 1998).
decisions - even in M
Many Millennials
level positions - must beare entering
made workplaces that include
quickly
virtual teams and telework (Hertel et al. 2005). Whether
benefit of group consensus.
In fact, Millennials
Millenniais will be productive in these may
themselves time- and space-
not
part of the flexible working arrangements
effectiveness of is self-manage
unclear. Millennials are
what may be theargued
darkto have someside
attitudes that
of are compatible,
teamwo and
2009), lies in the concertive
some attitudes that seem incompatible,
control with virtual orga-
exer
within the group.nizing and telework. Popular literature
Concertive controlindicates that em
members collectively
Millennials have develop
an affinity for CITs and their
computer medi- ow
ated communication is
(Barker 1993). Control (CMC); negotiated
they see work in flexible a
through formal terms
and informal
(especially where and when work is done); team-band they
causing members desire
to flexible develop
work schedules to accommodate
atheir desire
shared s
for work-life
bility for the team's success. Groupbalance (Randstad Work Solutions 2007; m
believe that they SHRM,
are 2009; Simmons 2008). These attitudes to
empowered and apti-gain
tudes should make virtual
other members, causing organizing and telework
workers to attrac-conf
agreed upon norms tive to Millennials.
(Barker At the same time, Millennials
1993). desire Futu
could examine how high levels Millennial respond
of supportive supervision and structure at work
group-based (Ondeck 2002),
control when both of which may
the be difficult
teamto obtain in is co
ogeneous members geographically
with distributed and technologically mediated
regard to age
influence. Popularsettings. Next we discuss Millennials
literature relative to virtual
suggests th
rule followers organizations
(Howe andand telework, their use of CITs and2003).
Strauss CMC to If
they are break down organizational boundaries,
more
susceptible to this and how organiza-
type o
ever, Millennial also are
tions might tap Millennials'described
technology-related expertise as s
individualistic (Pew Research
for their strategic advantage. Center 20
and thus perhaps less As globalization
prone and the prevalence
to,of even virtual organi- more
to, these communicative zations increase (Stohl forms
2001), Millennials areofespecially
contr
groups. Management will need to assess h likely to take advantage and extend the use of CITs, and
acteristics translate CMC specifically,
into to interact with other organizational
workgroup
performance. Future members, customers,
studies and suppliers.may
CMC is attractive to
find th
ennials no longer require Millennials for many reasons
the including the way that CMC
comfort of
and distributed decision-making, breaks down social boundaries by reducing thechoosing limita-
more independently. tions of physical boundaries on people's social contacts
(Postmes et al. 1998), increasing group participation (Fulk
and Collins- Jarvis 2001), and flattening organizational
Millennials and Communication/Information hierarchies (Walther 1995). Decreased social status dif-
Technologies ferences are inherent in this breakdown of social bound-
aries because CMC "muffles social context cues and
Millennials are the first generation to have been born intohence social differences" (Dubrovsky et al. 1991, p. 138),
households with computers and to have grown up sur- thereby potentially leading to a more egalitarian work-
rounded by digital media (Gorman et al. 2004; Raines place (Rice and Case 1983). Despite these potential out-
2002). Popular press and literature indicate that they are comes, when social cues are reduced, messages can be
more comfortable with new interactive and networked distorted or less clear (Schulman 2000). CMC also does
media than are older generations (Deloitte 2009; Gorman not eliminate all social and normative restraints (Postmes
et al. 1998) and it even "may amplify cultural rhetorical
et al. 2004; Pew Research Center 2007); they spend more
time with media per week than do other generations differences" (St. Amant 2002, p. 196). Since there are
(Consoli 2006; Pew Research Center 2007); and, while
important differences in values and attitudes between
Millennials are heavy media consumers, a large numbergenerations
of (Smola and Sutton 2002), many of which have
been detailed in our discussion thus far, it is possible that
them also create personal content on the Web (Marketing
Charts 2007). Millennials' comfort with new media tech-
CMC may intensify some generational differences. Future
research should explore under what circumstances this
nologies suggests that they bring to the workplace poten-
tially beneficial characteristics related to the use of
happens, since the amplification of generational differ-
ences through CMC could be a significant problem for
communication and information technologies (CITs), such
Springer
232 J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:225-238
organizations could also examinebecomes

CMC how Millennials' attitudes toward
as CITs
increasin
the workplace. change once they have experience in using CITs in the
Millennials' interactions
workplace (rather than with
just socially), andothers
how older gen- in
may also change erations'
the way
attitudes older
toward CITs might change asgenerat
a result of
nials themselves, perceive
Millennials' and
influence in the workplace. use
Millennials may CIT
discover that newer technology
inherent in the diffusion and is not always the most
implement
gies in organizations, and
efficient, nor organizational
the best media for developing and maintain- m
look to reduce ing workplace
their relationships (compared with face-to-face
uncertainties about t
consulting interactions with coworkers andothers,
with influential customers). or le
2003). This is a role in which Millenni
significant contributions to their or
coworkers. Gorman et al. and
Millennials, Communication, (2004)
Adversity have
Millennials "could essentially be emplo
CITs (p. 260), driving or
For the most supporting
part, the popular perception of Millennialsthe
is im
workplace CITs and
that they building competiti
have grown up in "good" times: they were valued
their organizations as a
as children, result
and they of
expect their careers their
to meet their basic int
and extensive experience with
financial needs and indeed to provide CITs.
comfortable life-In ef
could become resident experts
styles. While many concernin
Millennials have grown up in poverty
their more seniorandcoworkers opinions
have not been so privileged (approximately 20% of ab
what can work, American
and Millennials; the
how Child Trends Databank 2009),
organizatio
to improve operations andhave
many other Millennials marketing.
experienced relatively com- It
extent older employees perceive
fortable lifestyles. These Millen
Millennials have been raised by
of CITs in the workplace, and
extraordinarily involved parents to onwhat
who coached the side- ex
are able to advise, lines
evenand often interceded
mentor, on their children's behalf
older em
uses - prior to and during
(Raines CIT
2002). Empirical research implemen
demonstrates that these
Such interactions have thea generational
efforts have produced potential to
cohort that is high on in
erational relations and the communicative attitudes and self-efficacy and is unusually self-assured (Twenge 2009;
behaviors of organizational members (McCann and Giles Twenge and Campbell 2001). George (2008) adds that
2006). Conversely, helping older workers with CITs may these efforts to instill self-esteem coincided with a con-
influence Millennials' own attitudes about these technolo- sumer shift in the marketplace toward a focus on the
gies. They may become aware of the limitations of CITs, individual. Marketers targeted young people more inten-
such as reduced social cues in mediated communication sely than ever before, riding the self-esteem movement to
which can negatively affect outcomes (Daft and Lengel
offer these youth products ranging from cell phones and
1984, 1986). iPods with personalized accessories, to designer fashions
Since organizational members "influence and help complete with designer price tags. Product manufacturers
shape each other's perceptions and use of media" through and retailers realized that parents - flush with credit and
social processes (Contractor et al. 1996, p. 452), we can disposable income - were inordinately concerned with
expect that Millennials will influence the use of CITs their children's image and willing participants in the
within organizations as they enter and negotiate member- rampant consumerism. Parents also valued their children's
ship in the workplace. At the same time, Millennials' use of opinions as knowledgeable consumers, even involving
CITs also may be changed by interactions with others in them in grown-up purchases (from cars to family vaca-
the workplace. Older cohorts, specifically Boomers and tions). These experiences have contributed to Millennials'
older generations, still make up the majority of workers. high expectations and achievement orientation: they expect
Thus, senior colleagues' use of CITs - lacking by compar- to find work that is well paying and meaningful, and even
ison with Millennials (Randstad Work Solutions 2007) - to become famous, according to the popular literature
will likely influence, and perhaps limit, Millennials' ability (Alsop 2008; Marston 2007).
to utilize CITs in their organizations and may reduce Some claim that Millennials "need a good recession" to
Millennials' job satisfaction. Future research in this area realize just how good they have had it (George 2008). Save
will need to shed light on the functionality of newer CITs for the dot-com bust, many Millennials have lived in times
in organizations, the impact of CIT use on older genera- of relative prosperity and economic expansion (Marston
tions, and Millennials' potential to change the way CITs 2007)- until the global recession that began in 2008. What
are used to communicate intra-organizationally, as well as remains to be seen is whether years of protection and
for the strategic advantage of organizations. Research nurturing by well-meaning parents have left Millennials
) Springer
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:225-238 233
unable to cope with economic

of these experiences, Millennials may develop greaterhardsh
coming of age during the
awareness of the world current
around them. During these expe- econo
affect them and riences they areexpectations
their likely to have had exposure to cultural as the
place. Will it diversity,
make themto have developedgrateful
greater empathy for lower for a
them to develop asocioeconomic
stronger populations, and to become
workadvocates for ethic t
they feel the pressing
need to societalwork
issues (Pew Research Center 2007).
harder in or
more competitive When Millennials eventually enter organizations,
economy? Or,as awill it h
effects? Will the result
uncertainty
of these experiences they are likely to arrive
related
with a to
them to be even wealth of experiences
less committed that may serve them well in their
to their
less hard organizational roles. They may be more accepting of
working?
people from diverse
Some contend that ethnicities and backgrounds,
aspects ofandthe Mil
potentially more comfortable
system may actually work and more skilled
inin inter-their fa
employers' benefit
acting withduring
them. These experiences andeconomic
skills may gen- do
eralize toexperts
2008). Management helping Millennials develop note working that,
important, Millennials do customers,
relationships with coworkers, notandsee mon
other orga-
source of nizational
happiness. stakeholdersGeneration
Like (Mitchell et al. 1997). Second, as aX w
rewarded by result
work of the alternatives to full-time employment
arrangements that and of
flexibility and new technology
especially internships, (Martin
they probably will be more aware
of career paths and options
empirical studies indicate when they do more
that, enter organiza- lik
tions as full-fledged employees. The
ennials thrive on recognition andresult could be that
promoti
expect to becomeMillennials
involved carefully select theincareer projects
and job that will
most please them now and in the
impact on the organization, soonlong run. However,
after it is th
entry (Bosco and also Bianco
possible that increased knowledge mayGursoy
2005; only cause
them to be more susceptible
addition, many Millennials to the "job
are hopping" now thi
using
ascribed to them (Pasieka
jobs for added career 2009).
exploration, s
internships that offer opportunities to
career options. Another path for many M
not yet driven by Millennials' Achievement
pressure toOrientations,
support Parental them
is to treat the Communication,
first years and Leadership
beyond Aspirations their
college as a time to extend their educatio
degrees. In the popular literature, one of the characteristics com-
Some Millennials view their early adulthood as a time to monly attributed to Millennials, especially those with
make a difference in the world and in their community. If higher socioeconomic status, is a strong achievement ori-
the right job is not available, many are volunteering for entation (Howe and Strauss 2003; Luthar and Becker
organizations such as the Peace Corps or AmeriCorps 2002; Pew Research Center 2007). Although this may
(Jacobson 2007; Stone 2009). Indeed, while the number of sound like a contradiction - that Millennials are willing to
volunteers in the U.S. increased 2% between 2007 and volunteer their services and they feel rewarded by recog-
2008, the number of volunteers aged 16-24, comprised nition - it is not. Millennials want to be valued either as
mainly of Millennials, increased by 5.7% (Kochvolunteers 2009). or in their work. They have relied on financial
Some Millennials appear to be content to volunteer, or and material goods provided by their parents, but
freedoms
work in low-paying jobs, as long as they can continue eventually
to will require salaries to maintain their high
live with their parents, or as long as their parents are standards
able to of living (Pew Research Center 2007). Thus,
subsidize their standard of living (Alsop 2008). many What parents of Millennials (mostly Boomers) are pre-
remains to be seen is whether these values will change paring
over their children for financially rewarding career
time as Millennials marry, have children of their own, paths.
andDriven by intense vocational socialization from
when, or if, the wellspring represented by their parents parents (Myers et al. 2009), Millennials are focused on
dries up. personal achievement and success (Pew Research Center
At least two potential outcomes should be investigated 2007). In particular, many parents place pressure on
that could result during the current problematic job market Millennials to succeed (Howe and Strauss 2003). Some
from Millennials' time spent traveling, volunteering, empirical sources indicate that these parents have high
working as interns, or pursuing advanced degrees - out- standards for their Millennial children, insisting they take
comes that may have implications for the organizations in advanced college prep classes, helping them to prepare for
which they ultimately find employment. First, as a result college placement exams, and encouraging them to apply
Springer
234 J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:225-238
to prestigious colleges positive relationship (Luthar and

between leadership socialization and Bec
parents continue altruistic their leadership close
values, there is also a positive rela-
supervisio
their children enter tionship between the job market.
leadership socialization and both the
employers cite increasing value one places on extrinsic rewards and the expectancy
parental involv
recruitment (Gardner that leadership will2007). For
provide extrinsic rewards. both
It is likely
ennials, the first that job is
Millennials willexpected to be th
actively seek leadership opportunities.
for all the planning, As these young people become leaders,
stress, and they shared
will com- a
and Strauss 2003, p.altruistic
municate 133) they
values, but have en
like previous generations,
take an active role in their children's lives and continue to they are also likely to seek rewards for leadership roles.
push them to achieve personal, material success. As pre- Future research should seek to understand Millennials'
viously mentioned, Millennial are eager to develop close sources of leadership socialization more thoroughly, and
relationships with their supervisors whom many consider the values Millennials communicate once they have
to be their workplace parents, according to the popular achieved leadership roles.
literature (Alsop 2008). Future research also should examine the potential con-
Although previous generations may have significant nection between socialization about leadership and
socialization about volunteerism, which is, as noted earlier,
career ambitions, most Millennials strongly agree that they
a common activity among Millennials. While some ana-
are pressured to achieve (Ramey 2008). As a result of this
perceived intense socialization from parents, Millennials lysts contend that Millennials are self-centered, others
place a high value on and expect personal achievement.
argue that Millennials value community, civic duty, and
According to one Pew study (2007), 64% of Millennials
volunteerism. For instance, some popular literature authors
observe that Millennials are civic minded and collaborative
say that getting rich is the most important goal in life for
(Jacobson 2007; Raines 2002), and have been bombarded
their generation, and another 17% cite it as their genera-
tion's second most important goal. What is not yet knownwith messages that they should serve their community.
is whether and how this pressure will affect Millennials'Similarly, a study by the Harvard University Institute of
career strategies and interaction with coworkers. Politics (2008), found that 60% of Millennials report an
Sadaghiani and Myers (2009) proposed that socializing interest in public service to help the country. The Center
communication from parents about leadership also mightfor Information and Research on Civic Learning and
emphasize personal achievement and extrinsic (i.e., mate-Engagement (2009) also reports that Millennials are vol-
rial) success. Messages such as, "Leadership experience unteering at historically high rates. Their volunteerism
looks good on rsums," and "Leaders get special recog- might be linked to parents' leadership socialization if, as
Sadaghiani and Myers (2009) found, parents are encour-
nition from their followers," are examples of self-centered
discussions about leadership promoting extrinsic success.aging values related to altruism and helping others (at least
Parents' and Millennials' potential self-oriented messagesfrom leadership roles). Future research should investigate
focusing on extrinsic benefits associated with leadership,the role parents play in instilling Millennials' civic values
when combined with employers' expressed interest in and motivations toward volunteering. Are Millennials who
hiring leaders (NACE 2006), might influence Millennials are socialized toward volunteerism more likely to volun-
to place more value on egoism in leadership and to be teer, and are they more likely to hold altruistic leadership
values? In turn, how do these values affect Millennials'
motivated to lead for selfish, materialistic reasons rather
than out of a desire to benefit followers, or for the intrinsic
leadership aspirations and leadership behaviors (including
satisfaction of being a leader (Sadaghiani and Myers 2009). their discourse) when they enter the workplace and ascend
If an individual is motivated to lead only for personal to higher levels? Answers to these questions will be useful
for understanding and anticipating Millennials' leadership
benefit, he or she will likely not be able to effectively work
for followers when most needed. behaviors, and for developing leaders.
Based on their survey of 130 college juniors and seniors,
and contrary to their expectations and to what is suggested
by popular press reports, Sadaghiani and Myers (2009)Conclusion
found that parents did not emphasize egoism over altruism
(i.e., selflessness and a concern for followers) in sociali-
Millennials have distinctive characteristics that may make
zation communication about leadership. "Parents of Mill- interacting with them different from with previous cohorts,
ennials do talk about and encourage egoism and valuing but each modern generation has arrived in the workplace
extrinsic benefits, but they also talk about and encouragewith its own unique set of qualities (Noble and Schewe
altruism in leadership" (Sadaghiani and Myers 2009, p. 24;2003; Wade-Benzoni 2002). For example, empirical stud-
italics added). The researchers found that while there is aies support the stereotypes that Boomers are ambitious
Springer
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:225-238 235
workaholics who Open Access This article

may be is distributed under the terms of the of
critical cowo
share those valuesCreative Commons Attribution Noncommercial et
(McGuire License which
al.per- 2007),
mits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any
X workers are skeptics who
medium, provided the original like
author(s) and source are credited. to work
notoriously dislike meetings and gro
2005). What may be most different about
amount of References they
attention have received
their parents, but from scholars, the popu
the popular press.Albrecht, T. L., Burleson, B. R., & Goldsmith,related
Scholarship D. (1995). Supportive to
communication. In M. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook
nizational members can benefit by drawin
of interpersonal communication (pp. 419-449). Thousand Oaks,
ational communication
CA: Sage. research (e.g., Ch
Williams et al. 1997), although
Allen, B. J. (1995). "Diversity" and organizational communication. even th
explored situationalJournal
and of Applied Communication
other Research, 23,factors
1 43- 155. tha
Alsop, R. (2008). The trophy kids group up: How the Millennial
ences and stereotypical m expectations. A
generation is shaping up the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-
goal may be to focus Bass. on what each gen
team and organizational
Alsop, R., Nicholson, P., & Miller,performance
J. (2009). Gen Y in the workforce
commentary. Harvard Business
qualities affect workplace Review, 87(2), 43-49.
communication
Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (2002). Identity regulations as
relationships (McCann and Giles 2006).
organizational control: Producing the appropriate individual.
of such research is Journal
sadly of Managementnoteworthy
Studies, 39, 619-644. (M
2006). Babcock, L., & Laschever, S. (2003). Women don't ask: Negotiation
As we have suggested, Millennials are likely to be and the gender divide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ballard, D. I., & Seibold, D. R. (2003). Communicating and organizing
acutely affected by globalization, communication and
in time: A meso-level model of organizational temporality.
information technologies, economics, and socialization by Management Communication Ouarterlv. 16(3). 380-415.
very involved parents. They are likely to have different, Ballard, D. I., & Seibold, D. R. (2004). Communication-related
often broader, perspectives about the world marketplace, organizational structures and work group temporal experiences:
The effects of coordination method, technology type, and
supervisor-subordinate relationships, cultural diversity,
feedback cycle on members' construais and enactments of time.
performance of tasks, and ways that communication and Communication Monographs, 77(1), 1-27.
information technologies can be used to enhance organi- Barker, J. R. (1993). Tightening the iron cage: Concertive control in
zational performance and to maximize productivity. Many self-managing teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38,
408-437.
of these Millennial stances and behaviors can be viewed by
Barker, J. R., & Cheney, G. (1994). The concept and practices of
organizations as opportunities rather than obstacles. The discipline in contemporary organizational life. Communication
key for coworkers from older generations - especially Monographs, 61, 19-43.
those in positions of formal and informal power in orga- Black, J. S., & Ashford, S. J. (1995). Fitting in or making jobs fit:
Factors affecting mode of adjustment for new hires. Human
nizations - will be interacting with Millennials with a
Relations, 48, 421-437.
desire to understand, rather than with the aim of criticizing Bosco, S. M., & Bianco, C. A. (2005). The influence of maternal work
how Millennials are different. Trust and supportiveness patterns and socioeconomic status on Gen Y lifestyle choice.
between Millennials and coworkers will encourage them to Journal of Career Development, 32, 165-182.
Bouwhuis, I., & Rink, F. (2009, July). How mobility affects team
become more involved, committed, and better performing
performance: The role of voice in selection procedures on
in their organizations (Albrecht et al. 1995; Peterson and newcomer influence in teams. Paper presented at the annual
Albrecht 1996). Future research should investigate the conference of the Interdisciplinary Network for Group Research,
long-term effects of Millennials' membership in organi- Colorado Springs, CO.
Burgoon, J. K. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy viola-
zations. Which Millennial qualities have translated to
tions, and emotional communication. Journal of Language and
favorable changes, for example? How have organizational Social Psychology, 12, 30-48.
members modified their communication to manage conflict Burgoon, J. K., Berger, C. R., & Waldron, V. R. (2000). Mindfulness
between the cohorts? Another important area of research and interpersonal communication. Journal of Social Issues,
56(1), 105-127.
could examine how Millennials are affected by interaction
"Cara" (2009, February 26). Millennials want work/life balance...
with supervisors and coworkers. Will they adapt as they Oh, the horror! Retrieved from http://careers.washington.edu/
gain experience, and as a result of interaction with their Blog/2009/02/Millennials-Want-WorkLife-Balance-Oh-The-
Horror
Boomer and Generation X colleagues? Or, will they retain
Carless, S. ., & Wintle, J. (2007). Applicant attraction: The role of
their positive qualities, remaining optimistic, team ori-
recruiter function, work-life balance policies and career salience.
ented, and committed to balancing personal and work life? international Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 394-404.
Especially important, what are the effects of coworkers' Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and
relationships with Millennials on team performance and Engagement. (2009). Downward trend in high school volunteer-
ing. Retrieved from http://www.civicyouth.org/?p=338
organizational productivity?
Springer
236 J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:225-238
Gorman, P., Nelson,

Chao, G., O'Leary-Kelly, T., & Glassman,
., Wolf, A. (2004). The Millennial
S., Klein,
(1994). Organizational generation: socialization: Its con
A strategic opportunity. Organizational Analysis,
72(3), 255-270.
quences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 7
Chatman, J. ., & Flynn, F.J. L.,
Greenbaum, H. H., & Query, J. (2001).
Jr. (1999). Communication inThe i
graphic heterogeneity on
organizational workthe emergence
groups: A review and analysis of natural and
cooperative norms in work
work group studies. In L. R. teams.
Frey (Ed.), The handbook Academy
of group
Journal, 44, 956-974. communication theory and research (pp. 539-564). Thousand
Chen, Y., & King, . Oaks,. CA: Sage.(2002). Intra- and
Greenfield, P. M. (1998). Theas
communication satisfaction culturalaevolution of IQ. In U. Neisser
function of a
and age stereotypes. (Ed.), The rising curve: Long-term gainsJournal
International in IQ and other of
opment, 26, 562-570.measures (pp. 81-123). Washington, DC: American Psycholog-
Cheney, G., Christensen,ical Association.
L. T., Zorn, . ., Jr.
Gursoy, D., Maier, . ., & Chi,
Organizational Communication in C. G.
an (2008).age
Generational
of glob
reflections and practices.
differences: Prospect Heights,
An examination of work values and generational IL:
Child Trends Databank. (2009).
gaps in the Retrieved
hospitality workforce. International Journal ofOcto
Hospitality Management, 27, 458-488.
http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org
Clampitt, P. (2005). Haas, J. (1977). Learning real feelings:for
Communicating A study of high steel
manager
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
ironworkers' Sage.
reactions to fear and danger. Sociology of Work and
Collinson, D. L., Occupations, 4(2), 147-170.
& Colhnson, M. (1997). Delayen
space surveillance and its gendered
Harvard University Institute of Politics. (2008).effects.
Fall 2008 Survey. O
373-405. Retrieved from http://www.iop.harvard.edu/Research-Publica
Collinson, D. L., & Hearn, J. (1994). Naming men as men: tions/Polling/Fall-2008-Survey
Implications for work, organization and management, gender. Herriot, P. (2002). Selection and self: Selection as a social process.
Work and Organization, 7(1), 2-22. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, II,
Consoli, J. (2006, June). 'Millennial' big for media biz. Media Week. 385-402.
Retrieved July 19, 2009, from http://www.mediaweek.com/ Hertel, G., Geister, S., & Konradt, U. (2005). Managing virtual teams:
mw/news/recent_display .jsp?vnu_content_id= 1 002725634 A review of current empirical research. Human Resource
Contractor, N. S., Seibold, D. R., & Heller, M. A. (1996). Management Review, 15, 69-95.
Interactional influence in the structuring of media use in groups:
Hill, R. P. (2002). Managing across generations in the 21st century:
Influence in members' perceptions of group decision support Important lessons from the ivory trenches. Journal of Manage-
system use. Human Communication Research, 22(4), 451-481. ment Inquiry, 77(1), 60-66.
Hill, L. A. (2008). Where will we find tomorrow's leaders? Harvard
Cox, T. H. (1994). Cultural diversity in organizations. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler. Business Review, 23, 123-129.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1984). Information richness: A new Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennia Is rising. New York:
approach to managerial information processing. In B. Staw & L. Vintage Books.
L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2003). Millennial go to college: Strategies
6, pp. 191-233). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. for a new generation on campus: Recruiting and admissions,
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information campus life, and the classroom. Washington, DC: AACRAO.
requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2007). Millennial goto college (2nd ed.).
Science, 32, 554-571. Great Falls, VA: LifeCourse Associates.
De Vos, ., Buyens, D., & Schalk, R. (2003). Psychological contract Jablin, F. M. (1987). Organizational entry, assimilation, and exit. In
development during organization socialization: Adaptation to L. Putnam, K. Roberts, & L. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of
reality and the role of reciprocity. Journal of Organizational organizational communication (pp. 679-740). Newbury Park,
Behavior, 24, 537-559. CA: Sage.
Deloitte. (2009). State of the media democracy survey (3rd ed.). Jablin, F. M., & Krone, K. J. (1994). Task/work relationships: A life-
Downloaded on June 10, 2009, http://www.deloitte.com/us/ span perspective. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.),
realitycheck Handbook of interpersonal communication (2nd ed., pp. 621-
Dubrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, S., & Sethna, B. N. (1991). The 675). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
equalization phenomenon: Status effects in computer-mediated Jacobson, W. S. (2007). Two's company, three's a crowd, and four's a
and face-to-face decision-making groups. Human-Computer lot to manage: Supervising in today's intergenerational work-
Interaction, 6, 119-146. place. Popular Government, Fall, 2007.
Fulk, J., & Collins-Jarvis, L. (2001). Wired meetings: Technological Jokisaari, M., & Nurmi, J. E. (2009). Change in newcomers'
mediation of organizational gathering. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. supervisor support and socialization outcomes after organiza-
Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communi- tional entry. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 527-544.
cation: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 624- Kirby, E., & Krone, K. (2002). "The policy exists but you can't really
663). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. use it": Communication and the structuration of work-family
Ganesh, S., Zoller, H., & Cheney, G. (2005). Organizational policies. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30(1),
resistance and globalization from below. Communication Mono- 50-77.
graphs, 72, 169-191. Koch, W. (2009, July, 28). Economy low, 'generosity high': Ranks of
Gardner, P. (2007). Parent involvement in the college recruiting volunteers expanded in 2008. USA Today, p. Al.
process: To what extent? (Research Brief 2-2007). East Lansing, Lawler, E. E. (1994). From job-based to competency-based organi-
MI: Michigan State University Collegiate Employment Research zations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 3-15.
Institute. Lawler, E. E., Mohrman, S. ., & Ledford, G. E. (1995). Creating
George, L. (2008). Dude, where's my job? McLeans.Ca. Retrieved high performance organizations: Practices and results of
June 21, 2009, from http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/01/14/dude- employee involvement and total quality management in Fortune
where%E2%80%99s-my-job/ 1000 companies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
} Springer
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:225-238 237
Leets, L. (2001). Explaining Noble, S. M., & Schewe, perceptions

C. D. (2003). Cohort segmentation: Anof rac
nication Research, 28, 676-706.
exploration of its validity. Journal of Business Research, 56,
Luthar, S. S., & Becker, 979-987. B. E. (2002). Privileg
study of affluent youth. O'Toole, J., & Lawler, E. E. I. I. I. (2006).
Child The new American
Development,
Marketing Charts. (2007). workplace. New York: Palgrave.
Millennials demand
Ondeck, D. M. (2002). Intergenerational issues in the workplace.
Retrieved from http://www.marketingcharts.co
ennials-demand-on-demand-content-4654 Home Health Care Management & Practice, 74(15), 391-392.
Marston, C. (2007). Motivating the "What's in it for me?" workforce: Ott, ., Blacksmith, ., & Royal, . (2008, March 13). What
Manage across the generational divide and increase profits. generation gap? Job seekers for different generations often look
Hoboken: Wiley. for the same things from prospective employers, according to
Marston, C. (2009). Myths about Millennials: Understand the myths recent Gallup research, http://gmp.gallup.com
to retain Millennials. Retrieved June 23, 2009, from http:// Pacanowsky, M. (1988). Communication in the empowering organi-
humanresources.aboutcom/od/managementtips/a/millennial.myth. zation. In J. Anderson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 11 (pp.
htm 356-379). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Martin, C. A. (2005). From high maintenance to high productivity: Pace, R. W., & Faules, D. (1994). Organizational communication (3rd
What managers need to know about Generation Y. Industrial ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
and Commercial Training, 37, 39-44. Pasieka, S. A. (2009). Exploring the changing workforce: Under-
McCann, R. M., & Giles, H. (2006). Communication with people standing and managing the generation of Millennial workers.
from different ages in the workplace: Thai and American data. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University,
Human Communication Research, 32, 74-108. Prescott Valley, AZ.
McGuire, D., By, R. T., & Hutchings, K. (2007). Towards a model of Patalano, C. (2008). A study of the relationship between generational
human resource solutions for achieving intergenerational inter- group identification and organizational commitment: Generation
action in organizations. Journal of European Industrial Training, X vs. Generation Y. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nova
31, 592-608. Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL.
McPhee, R. D., & Zaug, P. (2000). The communicative constitution Peterson, L. W., & Albrecht, T. L. (1996). Message design logic,
of organizations: A framework for explanation. Electronic social support, and mixed-status relationships. Western Journal
Journal of Communication/La Revue Electronique de Commu- of Communication, 60, 291-309.
nication, 70(1-2). http://www.cios.org/getfile/MCPHEE_V10N Pew Research Center. (2007). How young people view their lives,
1200 futures, and politics: A portrait of "Generation Next."
Miller, K. (2009). Organizational communication: Approaches and http://people-press.org/report/300/a-portrait-of-generation-next
processes (5th ed.). Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or building
Miller, V. D., Johnson, J., Hart, Z., & Peterson, D. L. (1999). A test of social boundaries? SIDE-effects of computer-mediated commu-
antecedents and outcomes of employee role negotiation ability. nication. Communication Research, 25(6), 689-715.
Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27, 24-48. Raines, C. (2002). Connecting generations: The sourcebookfor a new
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory workplace. Berkeley, CA: Crisp Publications.
of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle Ramey, K. (2008). Undergraduate student perceptions of character-
of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, istics attributed to Millennial generation college students and
22, 853-886. implications for university recruitment and retention. Unpub-
Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1982). Group socialization: lished doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX.
Temporal changes in individual-group relations. In L. Berkowitz Randstad Work Solutions. (2007). The world of work 2007. Retrieved
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 15, pp. July 26, 2009 from: www.us.randstad.com/the%20world%
137-192). New York: Academic Press. 20of%20work%202007.pdf
Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (2001). Socialization in organiza- Redding, W. C, & Tompkins, P. K. (1988). Organizational commu-
tions and work groups. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: nication - Past and present tenses. In G. M. Goldhaber & G. A.
Theories and research (pp. 69-112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Barnett (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication (pp.
Erlbaum. 5-33). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Myers, K. K. (2005). A burning desire: Assimilation into a fire Remo, N. (2006). The effects of the reciprocity norm and culture on
department. Management Communication Quarterly, 18, 344- normative commitment for generation Y. Unpublished masters
384. thesis, University of Windsor, Windsor, ON, Canada.
Myers, K. K. (2006). Assimilation and mutual acceptance. In J. Rice, R. E., & Case, D. (1983). Computer-based messaging in the
Greenhaus & G. Callanan (Eds.), Encyclopedia of career university: A description of use and utility. Journal of Commu-
development (pp. 31-32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. nication, 33, 131-152.
Myers, K. K. (2009). Workplace relationships. In S. Smith & S. R. Rink, F., & Ellemers, N. (2009, July). Security as a source of
Wilson (Eds.), New directions in interpersonal communication innovation: How position (in)security of existing team. Paper
(pp. 135-156). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. presented at the annual conference of the Interdisciplinary
Myers, K. K., Jahn, J. L. S., Gailliard, B., Jahn, J., & Stoltzfus, K. Network for Group Research, Colorado Springs, CO.
(2009, May). Vocational anticipatory socialization (VAS) related Robinson, S. L., & Morrison, E. W. (2000). The development of
to science and math: A model of academic and career interests. psychological contract breach and violation: A longitudinal
Paper presented at the Organizational Communication Division study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 525-546.
of the International Communication Association, Chicago, IL. Rogers, . . (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York:
Myers, K. K., & Oetzel, J. G. (2003). Exploring the dimensions of Free Press.
organizational assimilation: Creating and validating a measure. Sadaghiani, K., & Myers, . . (2009). Parents' influence on
Communication Quarterly, 51, 438-457. leadership values: The vocational anticipatory socialization of
National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE). (2006). young millennial adults. Paper presented at the Western States
Job outlook 2007. http://www.naceweb.org/products/info_pages/ Communication Association 80th Annual Convention, Mesa,
joboutlookreport.htm AZ.
} Springer
238 J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:225-238
Schulman, C. (2000, December 18).

Stohl, C, & Cheney, G. (2001). Email:
Participatory The fu
processes/paradoxical
feud? Newsweek, p. 14. practices: Communication and dilemmas of organizational
Scott, C. R., Corman, S. R.,
democracy. & Cheney,
Management Communication Quarterly, G. (1998)
14, 349-
model of identification 407. in the organization.
Theory, 8, 298-336. Stone, A. (2009, April 13). 'Civic generation' rolls up sleeves in
Scott, C. W., & Myers, K.
record numbers. K. Electronic
USA Today. (2010). Towar
version. http://www.
theoretical perspective of membership
usatoday.com/news/sharing/2009-04- negoti
1 3-millenial_N.htm?csp=34
Tapscott,
tion, assimilation, and the D. (1998). Growing up digital:
duality of The structure.
rise of the net
Theory, 30, 79-105. Generation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Seibold, D. R., Kang, P.,
Twenge, J. M. Gailliard, B.
(2000). The age of anxiety? The birth M.,
cohort change in& Ja
Communication that damages
anxiety and neuroticism, teamwork: The
1952-1993. Journal of Personality and dar
In P. Lutgen-Sandvik Social
& Psychology,
B. Davenport 79, 1007-1021. Sypher (E
organizational communication: Processes,
Twenge, J. M. (2009). Change over time in obedience: The jury's still con
constructive ways of out, butorganizing (pp. 64,
it might be decreasing. American Psychologist, 267-28
28-
Routledge/Taylor & 31.
Francis.
Sennet, R. (2000). The
Twenge, J. M.,corrosion of
& Campbell, W. K. (2001). Age and birth cohort charact
consequences of work in
differences the
in self-esteem: new
A cross-temporal capitalism.
meta-analysis.
W. Norton & Company.
Personality and Social Psychology Review. 5. 321-344.
Shaw, M. (1981). Group
Twenge,dynamics: The
J. M., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2002). psycholo
Age, gender, race,
behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill. socioeconomic status, and birth cohort differences on the
Sias, P. M. (2009). Organizing relationships: Traditional and children's depression inventory: A meta-analysis. Journal of
emerging perspectives on workplace relationships. Thousand Abnormal Psychology, 111, 578-588.
Oaks, CA: Sage. Van Maanen, J., & Schein, . (1979). Toward a theory of
Simmons, K. S. (2008). Intergenerational communication in the organizational socialization. Research in Organizational Behav-
workplace. The Online Journal for Certified Managers. May/ ior, 1, 209-264.
June 2008. Wade-Benzoni, K. A. (2002). A golden rule over time: Reciprocity in
Slaughter, J. E., & Zickar, M. J. (2006). A new look at the role of intergenerational allocation decisions. Academy of Management
insiders in the newcomer socialization process. Group & Journal, 45, 1011-1028.
Organization Management, 31{2' 264-290. waitner, J. B. (1W3). Relational aspects or computer-mediated
Smola, K. W., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences: communication: Experimental observations over time. Organi-
Revisiting generational work values for the new millennium. zation Science, 6(2), 186-203.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 363-382. Wentworth, D. K., & Chell, R. M. (1997). American college students
Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). (2009). The and the protestant work ethic. Journal of Social Psychology, 137,
multigenerational workforce: Opportunity for competitive suc- 284-297.
cess. Retrieved July 26, 2009, from http://www.shrm.org/ Wert-Gray, S., Center, C, Brashers, D. E., & Meyers, R. A. (1991).
Research/Articles/Articles/Documents/09-0027_RQ_March_2009_ Research topics and methodological orientations in organiza-
FINAL_noad.pdf tional communication: A decade in review. Communication
St. Amant, K. (2002). When cultures and computers collide: Studies, 42, 141-154.
Rethinking computer-mediated communication according to Williams, ., Ota, H., Giles, H., Pierson, H. D., Gallois, C, Ng, S.,
international and intercultural communication expectations. et al. (1997). Young people's beliefs about intergenerational
Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 76(2), communication: An initial cross-cultural comparison. Commu-
196-214. nication Research, 24, 370-393.
Stauffer, D. (1997). For generation Xers, what counts isn't work orZemke,
all R., Raines, C, & Filipczak, B. (2000). Generations at work:
play. Management Review, 56(11), 7-19. Managing the clash of veterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in
Stein, P. H., & Beradinelli, E. (2009, April). Bridging the gaps among your workplace. New York: AMACOM American Management
generations. Fire Engineering. www.FireEngineering.com Association.
Stohl, C. (2001). Globalizing organizational communication. InZwilling,
F. M. (2009, April 5). Millennials at work: Facebook or
Jablin & L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational faceoff. http:^log.startupprofessionals.com/2009/04/millennials-
communication (pp. 323-375). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. at-work-facebook-or-faceoff.html
Springer

Millennials in The Workplace - 2010

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

Millennials in The Workplace - 2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Millennials in the Workplace: A Communication Perspective on Millennials' Organizational

Relationships and Performance

Millennials in the Workplace: A Communication Perspective

Published online: 5 March 2010

Abstract Stereotypes about Millennials, born between

be (Koch 2009; George 2008),

(Black and Ashford 1995;

and Sutton 2002). A turbulence

Millennials' Expectations, Communicat

information that could make

teamwork as the Webmeetings

organizations could also examinebecomes

unable to cope with economic

to prestigious colleges positive relationship (Luthar and

workaholics who Open Access This article

Gorman, P., Nelson,

Leets, L. (2001). Explaining Noble, S. M., & Schewe, perceptions

Schulman, C. (2000, December 18).

You might also like