Content uploaded by Jane Brodie Gregory
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jane Brodie Gregory on Aug 25, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [chad thompson]
On: 09 November 2012, At: 07:15
Publisher: Psychology Press
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK
The Psychologist-Manager
Journal
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hpmj20
Managing Millennials: A
Framework for Improving
Attraction, Motivation, and
Retention
Charles Thompson a & Jane Brodie Gregory b
a Taylor Strategy Partners
b PDRI
To cite this article: Charles Thompson & Jane Brodie Gregory (2012): Managing
Millennials: A Framework for Improving Attraction, Motivation, and Retention, The
Psychologist-Manager Journal, 15:4, 237-246
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10887156.2012.730444
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any
representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to
date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be
independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable
for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection
with or arising out of the use of this material.
Downloaded by [chad thompson] at 07:15 09 November 2012
The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 15: 237–246, 2012
Copyright © The Society of Psychologists in Management
ISSN: 1088-7156 print / 1550-3461 online
DOI: 10.1080/10887156.2012.730444
Managing Millennials: A Framework for
Improving Attraction, Motivation,
and Retention
Charles Thompson
Taylor Strategy Partners
Jane Brodie Gregory
PDRI
As Millennials move into the workforce, stories decrying the perceived neediness,
disloyalty, sense of entitlement, and overall casualness in Millennials’ approach to
work continue to surface in both the popular and academic press. Organizations have
begun to pay attention as well, recognizing that managers are having trouble manag-
ing their “young people.” In this article, the authors consider common stereotypes of
employees from the Millennial generation in the context of the educational, political,
economic, and social contexts present during their formative years, suggesting that
management style may be the key to successfully leveraging Millennial employees’
talents.
INTRODUCTION
Generational research has a long heritage (Strauss & Howe, 1991) both within
and beyond the context of work. The terms associated with each generation
(Baby Boomers, Generation X) have made their way into the broader lexicon,
in part because this research provides useful heuristics for understanding broad
groups of people. Of course, these must be recognized as generalizations
and certainly not applicable to everyone born in a specific time period. For
industrial/organizational psychologists, these lines of research are particularly
Correspondence should be sent to Charles Thompson, Taylor Strategy Partners, 5430 Data Court,
Suite 200, Ann Abor, MI 48108. E-mail: chad.thompson@taylor-strategy.com
Downloaded by [chad thompson] at 07:15 09 November 2012
238 THOMPSON AND GREGORY
interesting, given the field’s focus on understanding how people interact with
their work and co-workers. As Millennials [also referred to as Generation Y
and generally defined as people born between 1980 and the mid to late 1990s
(Levenson, 2010)] move into the workforce, signs of strain have started to show
in several places. The popular press has been full of stories decrying the perceived
neediness, disloyalty, sense of entitlement, and overall casualness in Millennials’
approach to work. Organizations have begun to pay attention as well, recognizing
that managers (who at this point are typically from other generations) are having
trouble managing their “young people.”
Demographic data show that Millennials are not going away anytime soon.
Within the next decade, Millennials are on track to account for over half of the
U.S. workforce (Pew Research Center, 2010). Our contention is that a deeper
understanding of the broader educational, economic, social, and political con-
texts in which Millennials came of age is critical to gain a perspective on their
behavior in the workplace. We believe that organizations and managers who take
context into consideration and place their stereotype-based judgments aside will
find greater success attracting, engaging, and retaining this new generation in the
workforce. While some pronounced differences exist between Millennials and
other generations, these are unlikely to change in the near term. Of course, some
of the characteristics currently associated with Millennials are attributed to each
generation as they come of age. However, we believe some of these traits will
endure and, therefore, argue that successful organizations and managers will need
to adapt their practices and expectations if they want to attract, motivate, and retain
top Millennial talent. In the current article we review common perceptions about
Millennials derived from the popular and business press and compare these with
recent empirical research in an effort to present possible explanations for these
unique characteristics of the generation. Finally, we argue that as a manager of
Millennials, the key to attracting, motivating, and retaining these employees lies
within you.
MILLENNIALS AT WORK
The Millennial generation has been exposed to educational, economic, social,
and political contexts that are unique from previous generations. For example,
this generation has been shaped by, among other things, helicopter parents, fre-
quent positive feedback and reassurance, significant leaps in technology, and
political and economic turmoil. While some empirical research has, in fact,
demonstrated marked difference in attitudes, preferences, and expectations of
Millennials compared to other generations (Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010; Ng,
Schweitzer, & Lyons, 2010), questions still abound concerning the attraction,
retention, and organizational commitment of Millennials (Hershatter & Epstein,
Downloaded by [chad thompson] at 07:15 09 November 2012
MANAGING MILLENNIALS 239
2010; Twenge, 2010). Research has demonstrated that good work–life balance
(Twenge, 2010), meaningful work (Lancaster & Stillman, 2002; Ng, 2010; Yang &
Guy, 2006), and sufficient attention/recognition (Corporate Leadership Council,
2005; Hershatter & Epstein, 2010; Ng et al., 2010) can contribute to Millennial
loyalty and retention. However, more and more research is pointing to the crit-
ical nature of relationships at work for Millennial satisfaction and retention.
More specifically, relationships with immediate managers may be the key to fully
leveraging, motivating, and retaining Millennials (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010;
Lancaster & Stillman, 2002; Ng et al., 2010). Indeed, research has shown for years
that people don’t leave jobs, they leave managers (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999;
Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, & Rhoades, 2002). Given
Millennials’ propensity to change jobs (Pew Research Center, 2010), we expect
poor manager–direct report relationships to drive even more turnover than ever.
In the current article we draw on what work has been done regarding
Millennials in the workplace to argue that the key to Millennial commitment and
retention is the relationship with the immediate manager. Millennials have gener-
ally been raised in environments that are rich with feedback, individual attention,
praise, guidance, and direction (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010; Ng et al., 2010) and
a focus on outcomes over process. As a result, they expect the same level of feed-
back, praise, and guidance, as well as a focus on their individual development in
the context of work. Managers essentially fill the role of the guiding parent once
Millennials enter the workforce (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010; Ng et al., 2010).
Differences in work values and motivations may account for many of the com-
mon stereotypes associated with Millennials. Members of other generations view
Millennials through their own “lens.” For example, because of big differences
in comfort with and use of technology between the generations (Pew Research
Center, 2010), older generations may view logging into Facebook as “messing
around,” and not consider that the employee may be looking up a colleague’s cell
phone number or posting an update that is relevant to their work. In the current
article, we explore how those potential differences may have been formed, the
resulting stereotypes, and how managers and organizations can and should adapt.
COMMON MILLENNIAL STEREOTYPES
Disloyal
Many view frequent job or career changes as a sign of disloyalty or self-serving
behavior. Millennials do appear to be especially prone to switching jobs or
careers, and nearly 60% of employed Millennials have changed jobs at least once
already in their careers (Pew Research Center, 2010). Similarly, the same research
found that 6 out of 10 employed Millennials thought it very unlikely they would
Downloaded by [chad thompson] at 07:15 09 November 2012
240 THOMPSON AND GREGORY
remain with the same employer for their entire careers. Among many human
resource professionals, such “job hopping,” especially early in a career, confirms
this common Millennial stereotype. Feelings of loyalty to an organization come
at least in part from the psychological contract between employers and employees
(Rosseau, 2001). The recession that began in 2007 and is still impacting orga-
nizations around the world, struck just as the leading edge of Millennials were
beginning to establish their careers. Millennials saw older employees who had
“paid their dues” shown the door and were asked to significantly increase their
own productivity (Bauerlein & Jeffery, 2011) while compensation was flat at
best (Krantz & Hansen, 2010). These factors likely served to cement what many
Millennials already believed: the psychological contract is dead. As a result, we
believe Millennials are much less likely to stay with employers simply because
they think it is the “right thing to do.” Quite the opposite, we believe Millennials
will expect organizations to continually re-engage them and remind them of
why they should stay. This represents a tremendous shift in thinking for human
resource departments.
As a group, Millennials are engaged in “knowledge work” at a higher percent-
age than other generations. This is likely due to several factors, including being
the most educated generation (Pew Research Center, 2010) and recent macroe-
conomic trends (e.g., the movement away from a manufacturing-based economy
and toward a service-based economy). By definition, knowledge work can be done
from more places and the tools for success reside more within the heads of the
workers than in the capital provided by organizations. This factor alone would
contribute to Millennials having increased ownership over their work and fueling
a more mobile and protean career. As a result, organizations and managers should
focus on helping Millennials understand how their knowledge and capabilities
have the greatest impact when deployed within their organization rather than at a
competitor.
Additionally, Millennials may feel justified in their lack of loyalty to organi-
zations, given the near alienation they have experienced in the recent job market.
Recent graduates, for example, are emerging from four years of college saddled
with debt and unable to find gainful employment (Lee, 2011). Having fulfilled the
basic expectations that have, in the past, paved the way for successful careers (e.g.,
college, internships, etc.), it should come as no surprise that this cohort would feel
jaded or disloyal toward a job market they feel has left them high and dry.
Needy
Millennials are frequently portrayed as “needy” and “high maintenance.” At work,
this typically translates to a high need for feedback and a desire to be told (or
“spoonfed”) exactly how to tackle a certain problem or complete a task. As one
author put it, “You have to give feedback to Millennials at least once a month”
Downloaded by [chad thompson] at 07:15 09 November 2012
MANAGING MILLENNIALS 241
(Zeigler, 2011). Given what research has shown about the value of frequent and
specific feedback (Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1979; Steelman, Levy, & Snell, 2004),
giving feedback once a month does not seem in any way unreasonable. What their
perceived “neediness” suggests, however, is that good feedback practices are even
more important when working with Millennials.
Changes in education, namely a focus on outcome-based education, could help
to explain this stereotype. Millennials have learned that outcomes matter more
than the process by which those outcomes are achieved. The No Child Left Behind
Act (2001) significantly increased the focus on standards in education (and, specif-
ically, performance and measurement against those standards) than had previously
been in place. As administrators saw their district budgets become dependent in
part upon test scores, the focus of American public education quickly shifted from
learning to performance. Frequency of feedback increased as teachers wanted to
ensure students could correctly answer questions based on the content they were
being taught. Millennials have become accustomed to this hyper-feedback, and
come to work with the expectation that their managers will not be any different.
They have largely been shaped to believe that there is no time for the student to
focus on anything other than the outcome.
Millennials have learned to expect feedback, and if feedback is not being
given, may expect that something is wrong. For managers who have long equated
empowerment with less oversight, this may be difficult to deal with. Instead of
being perceived as needy, organizations may be better served to view this as a
willingness to learn and do a good job.
Entitled
The Millennial generation also grew up with unprecedented levels of positive rein-
forcement and positive attention. Parents, and in some cases society at large, have
moved toward rewarding children for participation, rather than performance—
leading some to refer to this generation as “trophy kids” (Alsop, 2008). As a result,
the popular press has latched on to this notion that Milllennials have a strong
and unreasonable sense of entitlement (Deal, Altman, & Rogelberg, 2010). The
appearance of an entitlement complex is largely fueled by Millennials’ lack of hes-
itation to be vocal about their expectations and ask for what they want (Levenson,
2010). Millennials are perceived as having inflated self-esteem, unrealistic and
grandiose expectations for prime work, promotions, and rewards, and a general
lack of patience and willingness to drudge through unglamorous components
of work.
Confront a Millennial about this sense of entitlement, however, and he or she
may describe it instead as an intense ambition that stems from years of pressure
and high expectations (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010). True entitlement is defined
as an expectation of receiving something in exchange for doing nothing (Twenge,
Downloaded by [chad thompson] at 07:15 09 November 2012
242 THOMPSON AND GREGORY
2010) and has been coupled—particularly in discussion of Millennials—with
higher rates of narcissism, materialism, and diminished work ethic. Ironically, this
sense of entitlement has been shown to stem from the way in which Millennials
were raised (Corporate Leadership Council, 2005; Ng et al., 2010; Twenge,
2006); thus, in many cases, the same generation that is criticizing Millennials is
responsible for shaping who they are today.
Casual
Millennials have been impacted by a number of changes that may contribute to
their being perceived as more “casual.” This perception is likely fueled by, for
example, Millennials’ desire for a less formal work environment (especially in
terms of dress), and in many cases, to not have to come into an office at all
(Career Center at Cal State Fullerton, & Spectrum Knowledge, 2008). We argue
that advances in technology and societal shifts around work–life balance may
be impacting Millennials’ expectations about their work. For a generation of
technology-enabled knowledge workers, work is no longer a place you go,but
a thing you do.
Technology has broken down time and geographic barriers, enabling relation-
ships to be maintained far more easily than in the past. For these knowledge
workers work can literally be performed anywhere, as long as a cell phone sig-
nal and Internet access are available. Social networking has allowed Millennials
to keep in touch with many more people than may have been practical before
[could you imagine writing letters to or calling 229 people, the average num-
ber of friends a person has on Facebook? (Hampton, Goulet, Rainie, & Purcell,
2011)]. Technology has enabled relationships to be easy, and according to recent
research, Millennials see this as defining their generation (Pew Research Center,
2010). The ease with which Millennials establish relationships and the open and
casual nature of many of those relationships, is likely to carry over to the work-
place. This may be true even with managers and supervisors, who in a previous
generations commanded respect simply by virtue of their position.
The movement toward a desire for more work–life balance, which started with
Generation X, has accelerated with Millennials (Pew Research Center, 2010). The
mindset of Millennials is that if they are performing and producing, what they are
wearing or where they do the work not only doesn’t matter, it shouldn’t mat-
ter. The combination of mobile technology and the prominence of knowledge
work has led to what we call “work–life blending” (Illingworth, 2004), in which
employees alternate between work and personal responsibilities throughout the
day, night, and even weekend. This is a contrast to the work–life balance (in
which workers continue to compartmentalize work and life demands, but seek
to find a manageable balance between the two) that has been so strongly empha-
sized in recent years. Millennial employees seem to be most comfortable with this
Downloaded by [chad thompson] at 07:15 09 November 2012
MANAGING MILLENNIALS 243
meshing of work, social, and family responsibilities (Weinograd & Hais, 2011),
which may contribute to the stereotypes of being casual or lazy. Where possible,
organizations would be wise to adopt an outcome and performance-based focus
and dwell less on face time in the office during traditional working hours.
MANAGING THE (APPARENTLY) UNMANAGEABLE
These and other stereotypes suggest that some employers consider Millennials to
be “unmanageable” (Warner, 2010). The appearance of a sense of entitlement, the
high need for feedback and guidance, the expectation for personalized attention,
and the proclivity for informal interactions and work relationships likely embody
some managers’ worst nightmares. To further complicate matters, in addition to
these off-putting stereotypes, concerns also abound regarding the attraction, moti-
vation, and retention of talented Millennial employees. But the reality is that, as
noted previously, within the next decade Millennials will comprise the major-
ity of the U.S. workforce. In other words: if organizations are going to succeed,
managers need to adopt leadership and management styles that complement their
young employees’ work styles.
Drawing on existing management research, we contend that managers who
can adopt a leadership style rooted in the individual consideration domain of
transformational leadership—one that promotes relationships and meeting indi-
vidual needs—are the managers who will most successfully attract, motivate, and
retain their Millennial employees. This approach to managing entails coaching,
mentoring, developing, and providing frequent feedback to employees (Avolio &
Bass, 1995). Managers who adopt an individual consideration approach to work-
ing with their employees will offer the personalized, development-orientation
attention (Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen, 2003) that seems to be so
desired by Millennials. Similarly, because of its foundations in development, posi-
tivity, and maximizing potential, we believe that a coaching approach to managing
will also result in successful motivation and retention of Millennials. Past research
has demonstrated strong relationships between individual consideration, coaching
behaviors, and effective use of developmental feedback (Gegner, 1997; Gregory &
Levy, 2011; Levy, Cober, & Miller, 2002).
We expect that managers who are able to adapt to this management paradigm
will see the largely negative stereotypes of Millennials transform into valuable
strengths. Suddenly the disloyal employee is entrepreneurial and externally-
focused (a valuable characteristic in today’s market). The needy 20-something
is eager to learn and open to developmental feedback that will help him take his
skills and performance to the next level. The entitled recent graduate is ambitious,
confident, and open about her expectations for reward in exchange for strong
performance. The causal, informal young attorney forges genuine relationships
Downloaded by [chad thompson] at 07:15 09 November 2012
244 THOMPSON AND GREGORY
with clients that lead to client retention and increased referrals. Additionally, the
manager who is able to develop a strong and genuine relationship with his or
her Millennial employees will reap the benefit of their loyalty and commitment.
Hershatter and Epstein (2010) note that Millennial employees who feel looked
after and like they are receiving ample personalized attention cultivate loyalty to
the organization and, particularly, to their manager.
Drawing on existing research on transformational leadership, coaching, and
feedback, we present a series of recommendations for managers who wish to adopt
a management style that will aide in the attraction, motivation, and retention of
Millennials. We advise that managers should:
• Invest the time and effort in cultivating genuine and meaningful relationships
with their employees. Past research has demonstrated that such relationships
provide the foundation for effective coaching (Gregory & Levy, 2011).
• Engage in behavior that builds mutual trust with their employees. Trust has
been shown as a critical factor for establishing strong relationships with
employees (Brower, Schoorman, & Tan, 2000; Gregory & Levy, 2011) and
also has significant implications for how inclined employees are to accept
and further seek feedback (Ilgen et al., 1979; Steelman et al., 2004).
• Adopt a coaching approach to working with their employees. While we are
not advocating coaching as a blanket solution, we do believe that a coaching
approach centered on developing, growing, and giving decision rights and
personal responsibility to employees will appeal to Millennials’ desires for
feedback and autonomy. We also suggest that Millennials who are simply
“looking to be given an answer” will gain new skills in critical evaluation
and seeking out answers on their own with frequent coaching.
• Assume an individual consideration approach to working with their employ-
ees. Specifically, managers should work to tailor their relationships and
interactions to the unique needs of their individual employees. Previous
research has shown that managers who lead with individual considera-
tion cultivate more effective coaching relationships with their employees
(Gregory & Levy, 2011) and have employees who are inclined to seek more
feedback on their performance (Levy et al., 2002).
CONCLUSION
We acknowledge that significant empirical research is still needed in this domain.
Our intention in the current article is to begin to draw together extant research on
the Millennial generation in the workplace with the vast array of critical pieces
regularly appearing in the popular press, and to make coherent and actionable rec-
ommendations for practice based on other strong bodies of research. We believe
Downloaded by [chad thompson] at 07:15 09 November 2012
MANAGING MILLENNIALS 245
that the ideas and recommendations laid out in the current article can be used by
managers, HR professionals, and management consultants to nurture a more har-
monious workplace for Millennial employees and their managers who fear, loathe,
avoid, or embrace them. The critical next step is to gather data to support or refute
our notions that appropriate management styles can assuage the potential pitfalls
of this large and idiosyncratic generation. In particular, we recommend that future
research examine the extent to which work values—what you are looking to get
out of your work—may vary across generations. Once these differences are under-
stood, a wide variety of human capital programs may be enhanced (e.g., coaching,
development, feedback, performance management).
REFERENCES
Alsop, R. (2008, October 21). The “trophy kids” go to work. Wall Street Journal, pp. D1.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis:
A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership. Leadership
Quarterly,6, 199–218.
Bauerlein, M., & Jeffery, C. (2011). All work and no pay: The great speedup. Mother Jones. Retrieved
from http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/06/speed-up-american-workers-long-hours
Brower, H. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Tan, H. H. (2000). A model of relational leadership: The
integration of trust and leader–member exchange. Leadership Quarterly,11, 227–250.
Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First, break all the rules. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Career Center at Cal State Fullerton, & Spectrum Knowledge. (2008) The Gen Y Perceptions Study.
Fullerton, CA: Author.
Corporate Leadership Council. (2005). HR considerations for engaging Generation Y employees.
Washington, DC: Corporate Executive Board.
Deal, J. J., Altman, D. G., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2010). Millennials at work: What we know and what
we need to do (if anything). Journal of Business and Psychology,25, 191–199.
Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional,
and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological
Bulletin,129, 569–591.
Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived
supervisor support: Contributions to perceived organizational support and employee retention.
Journal of Applied Psychology,87, 565–573.
Gegner, C. (1997). Coaching: Theory and practice. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of San
Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Gregory, J. B., & Levy, P. E. (2011). It’s not me, it’s you: A multi-level examination of variables that
impact employee coaching relationships. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research,63,
67–88.
Hampton, K. N., Goulet, L. S., Rainie, L., & Purcell, K. (2011). Social networking sites and our
lives. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/∼/media//
Files/Reports/2011/PIP%20-%20Social%20networking%20sites%20and%20our%20lives.pdf
Hershatter, A., & Epstein, M. (2010). Millennials and the world of work: An organization and
management perspective. Journal of Business and Psychology,25, 211–223.
Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior
in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology,64, 349–371.
Downloaded by [chad thompson] at 07:15 09 November 2012
246 THOMPSON AND GREGORY
Illingworth, B. (2004). Trust and technology: Work–life blending at Unisys. Strategic HR Review,
4, 8–9.
Krantz, M., & Hansen, B. (2010, April 4). CEO pay soars while workers’ pay stalls. USA
Today. Retrieved from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/story/CEO-
pay-2010/45634384/1
Lancaster, L. C., & Stillman, D. (2002). When generations collide: Who they are.Why they clash. How
to solve the generational puzzle at work. New York: Harper Business.
Lee, J. S. (2011, August 31). Generation limbo: Waiting it out. The New York Times. Retrieved
from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/01/fashion/recent-college-grads-wait-for-their-real-careers-
to-begin.htm?pagewanted=au
Levenson, A. R. (2010). Millennials and the world of work: An economist’s perspective. Journal of
Business and Psychology,25, 257–264.
Levy, P. E., Cober, R. T., & Miller, T. (2002). The effect of transformational and transactional
leadership perceptions on feedback-seeking intentions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,32,
1703–1720.
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, E. S. W., Schweitzer, L., & Lyons, S. T. (2010). New generation, great expectations: A field study
of the millennial generation. Journal of Business and Psychology,25, 281–292.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: Qualifications for Teachers and Professionals, 20 U.S.C. § 6319
(2008).
Pew Research Center. (2010). Millennials: A portrait of Generation Next. Washington, DC: Author.
Retrieved from http://pewresearch.org/millennials/
Rousseau, D. M. (2001). Schema, promise and mutuality: The building blocks of the psychological
contract. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 511–541.
Steelman, L. A., Levy, P. E., & Snell, A. F. (2004). The feedback environment scale (FES):
Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
64, 165–184.
Straus, W., & Howe, N. (1991). Generations: The history of America’s future, 1584 to 2069.New
York: William Morrow.
Twenge, J. M. (2006). Generation me: Why today’s young Americans are more confident, assertive,
entitled and more miserable than ever before. New York: Free Press.
Twenge, J. M. (2010). A review of the empirical evidence on generational differences in work attitudes.
Journal of Business and Psychology,25, 201–210.
Warner, J. (2010, May 28). The why-worry generation. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/magazine/30fob-wwln-t.html?pagewanted=au
Weinograd, M., & Hais, M. D. (2011). Millennial momentum: How a new generation is remaking
America. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers.
Yang, S. M., & Guy, M. E. (2006). Gen Xers versus boomers: Work motivators and management
implications. Public Performance and Management Review,29, 267–284.
Zalesnik, A. (1977). Managers and leaders: Are they different? Harvard Business Review,55, 67–80.
Zeigler, E. R. (2011, July 20). Millennials need fun, flexibility at work. CNN.com. Retrieved from
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-20/living/hot.schedules.millenials_1_millennials-grade-inflation-
happy-worker?_s=PM:LIVING
Downloaded by [chad thompson] at 07:15 09 November 2012
A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from The Psychologist-Manager Journal
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
