The Millennial Generation: A New Breed of Labour?

Abstract

This article puts to the test the notion that younger generations, most notably the Millennials, value work less than older generations do. The analysis, deploying a linear probability model, is based on Statistics Finland’s Quality of Work Life Surveys, 1984 to 2013. Focusing on labour market entrants aged 15 to 29, we address two main themes: the value given to work, leisure and family life, and work commitment. Regardless of age, the value given to work has remained consistently high for the past three decades. At the same time, leisure and family life have gained increasing importance, not only among the Millennials but also among older generations. The Millennials are more prepared to change to a different occupational field than older employees, but this is not a new tendency, and therefore the generational gap remains unaffected. The evidence does not support the argument that the Millennials are less work-oriented than older generations.

Full text

https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017697158
SAGE Open
January-March 2017: 1 –14
© The Author(s) 2017
DOI: 10.1177/2158244017697158
journals.sagepub.com/home/sgo
Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of
the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
Article
Introduction
Defining generations and exploring their differences is a sub-
ject of much current debate that involves both political and
economic interests. In the employment context, one area of
special interest has been the recent generational shift, which
has seen the arrival in the workplace of the first digital natives,
“native speakers” of the digital language (Abrams & von
Frank, 2014; Howe & Strauss, 2000; Ng, Lyons, & Schweitzer,
2012; Tapscott, 1998; Zemke, Raines, & Filipczak, 1999).
Finland presents an interesting case in this context as the
population here is aging more rapidly than in other Western
countries (Laine & Maiväli, 2010; The Organisation for
Economic Co-Operation and Development [OECD], 2016a).
By the 2010s, baby boomers have exited the labour market.
In Finland, the baby boom generation comprises those who
were born in 1945 to 1950, while in the United Kingdom and
the United States, for instance, post-war fertility rates
remained elevated into the 1960s (Karisto, 2007). There are
still people in Finnish workplaces who were born in the
1950s, but for the most part, the population of working age
consists of younger and relatively small cohorts.
The focus in this article is on Generation Y or the
Millennials who were born in or after the 1980s and who
entered the labour market in the 2000s. They are higher edu-
cated than earlier generations, highly competent users of
information and communication technologies (ICTs), and
accustomed to the world of social media (Deal, Altman, &
Rogelberg, 2010; Hershatter & Epstein, 2010; Kowske,
Rasch, & Wiley, 2010). We compare the Millennials with the
following older generations: the Welfare State Generation
and Generation X, the young adults of the 1980s and 1990s.
These three generations started their employment careers
in very different economic climates. The young adults who
joined the Finnish labour market in the 1980s completed
their occupational training at a time when the expansion of
the welfare state was at its height and the job market was
exceptionally strong (Pyöriä, Melin, & Blom, 2005). This
trend was halted by the 1990s recession, and young people’s
future prospects were effectively hampered by mass unem-
ployment. In the early 2000s, normalcy was restored in the
labour market, but there was no return to the exceptionally
high employment rates of the 1980s (Pyöriä & Ojala, 2016).
So does Generation Y, the Millennials who are now enter-
ing the labour market, differ from the generations that went
before? There have been some quite far-fetched interpreta-
tions of the distinctiveness of this generation. For instance,
it has been suggested that young people do not value tradi-
tional wage employment to the same extent as their parents
(Cogin, 2012; Myers & Sadaghiani, 2010). The Millennials
generation, it is argued, expects to be able to work under a
new management culture, to contribute to innovation at the
697158SGOXXX10.1177/2158244017697158Pyöriä et al.
research-article2017
1University of Tampere, Finland
Corresponding Author:
Pasi Pyöriä, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere
33014, Finland.
Email: pasi.pyoria@uta.fi
The Millennial Generation: A New Breed
of Labour?
Pasi Pyöriä1, Satu Ojala1, Tiina Saari1, and Katri-Maria Järvinen1
Abstract
This article puts to the test the notion that younger generations, most notably the Millennials, value work less than older
generations do. The analysis, deploying a linear probability model, is based on Statistics Finland’s Quality of Work Life
Surveys, 1984 to 2013. Focusing on labour market entrants aged 15 to 29, we address two main themes: the value given to
work, leisure and family life, and work commitment. Regardless of age, the value given to work has remained consistently high
for the past three decades. At the same time, leisure and family life have gained increasing importance, not only among the
Millennials but also among older generations. The Millennials are more prepared to change to a different occupational field
than older employees, but this is not a new tendency, and therefore the generational gap remains unaffected. The evidence
does not support the argument that the Millennials are less work-oriented than older generations.
Keywords
Generation Y, Millennials, work attitudes, work commitment, work orientation, work values

2 SAGE Open
workplace level, and to reconcile work and leisure in novel
ways (Chou, 2012; Twenge & Campbell, 2012).
Furthermore, it is said the Millennials attach more value to
family life and to leisure than they do to wage employment
(Twenge, Campbell, Hoffman, & Lance, 2010). It is thought
that they are less committed than older wage earners to one
single employer, and that they place more value on opportuni-
ties for personal growth and development than on lifelong
employment (Broadbridge, Maxwell, & Ogden, 2007). The
Millennials are keen to shape and influence the culture, prac-
tices, and management of their current workplace and to find a
job with social relevance (Terjesen, Vinnicombe, & Freeman,
2007; Twenge, 2010).
Insofar as these characterizations are accurate, it is clear
that work organizations and management are going to have to
make changes, both in staff recruitment and in other areas
(Costanza, Badger, Fraser, Severt, & Gade, 2012). As more
and more workplaces face the challenge of integrating the
newest working generation with older colleagues, the work
environment may encounter productivity challenges if changes
are not made to accommodate employees with different atti-
tudes and expectations (Stewart, Oliver, Cravens, & Oishi,
2017). In the future, the most competent and skilled staff will
want to work for companies that embrace corporate social
responsibility rather than traditional owner-driven thinking
(McGlone, Spain, & McGlone, 2011). In these kinds of com-
panies, employees will have the best opportunities to grow and
develop themselves, to realize themselves in their own terms
within an inspiring workplace community, and to build up a
personal experience of a good and meaningful job.
However, we do not yet know whether the values of the
Millennials really are as different as has been suggested.
Representative surveys with extensive data sets on the work
orientation of this generation are still scarce (Giancola, 2006;
Macky, Gardner, & Forsyth, 2008). In particular, it is hard to
find studies that compare the Millennials with young people
of the 1980s and 1990s and that control for age and time-
period effects (Kowske et al., 2010; Krahn & Galambos,
2014; Parry & Urwin, 2011). Our article is intended to fill
this gap in the research literature. We have a unique and com-
prehensive data set spanning three full decades.
Using data collected by Statistics Finland in 1984 to 2013,
our aim is to find out how labour market entrants aged 15 to
29 and born at different times differ from each other. Our
main focus is on how these people value wage employment
and other areas of life, that is, family and leisure, as well as
on their readiness to change jobs. Drawing on the tradition of
sociological generation research, we ask whether it is possi-
ble to identify age group differences in attitudes to wage
employment over the past three decades.
Defining the Generations
The concept of generation has two basic meanings.
Generation may refer either to a familial generation or to a
social generation, that is, a cohort of people born in the same
date range. However, a cohort does not constitute a genera-
tion by virtue of its age alone, other than in a statistical sense.
In the sociological use of the concept, a generation is thought
to consist of a stratum who are born within a limited time
range and who share not only the same date of birth but also
similar sociocultural experiences (Edmunds & Turner, 2002;
Eyerman & Turner, 1998).
In his famous essay The Problem of Generations,
German sociologist of science Karl Mannheim (1952) iden-
tifies three stages of generation formation. The first prem-
ise for the formation of a generation is membership of the
same age group, but that alone is not enough. In addition,
there must exist some social and cultural factor that most
people in the age group share in common. Mannheim says
that youth is a particularly strategic time for the develop-
ment of generational consciousness. He also realized that
the key experience shared by a certain cohort at once unites
and divides generations. For instance, the 1990s recession
divided Finland’s Generation X youths who had been born
two decades earlier into two groups, the survivors and the
marginalized (Kalela, Kiander, Kivikuru, Loikkanen, &
Simpura, 2001).
In the third stage of generation formation, people from a
certain age cohort are drawn together to pursue a common
goal or way of life. The generation is mobilized. For instance,
young people in the 1960s were brought together by student
radicalism and left-wing activism (Kolbe, 2008). However,
Mannheim’s mobilized generation is a problematic concept
for purposes of analysing the age groups in focus here. As a
result of the recession, Generation X did not go to the barri-
cades in protest against mass unemployment and public sec-
tor cutbacks, even though the economic crisis became a key
experience for them. The Welfare State Generation had no
real reason to be radicalized, either.
The Millennials generation is even harder to define in
Mannheim’s terms. New social movements such as environ-
mental and animal welfare groups, anti-economic globaliza-
tion groups and the precariat movement, for instance, have all
proved to be too fragmented and too marginal to be able to
mobilize today’s youth, or even to provide them a common
point of experience. Young people in today’s Finland can be
described as a culturally “atomised” generation (Salasuo &
Poikolainen, 2016).
In contrast to Mannheim, many present-day scholars do
not consider mobilization to be central to the development of
intragenerational and intergenerational divisions (France &
Roberts, 2015; Wyn & Woodman, 2006). A discursively
shared world of experiences suffices to unite and to divide
generations and at once to explain generational differences
(Aboim & Vasconcelos, 2014; Kupperschmidt, 2000).
Indeed, most studies define generation as a group whose
members share a common experience and an awareness of
the distinctiveness of their own age cohort vis-à-vis others
(Costanza et al., 2012; Parry & Urwin, 2011).

Pyöriä et al. 3
We have here chosen to follow the post-Mannheimian inter-
pretation. As well as comparing Millennials with older genera-
tions, we also explore the shared world of experiences of those
cohorts born since the early 1980s. Our analysis is focused on
work orientation, that is, on individual values and attitudes
related to wage employment, but we also consider the traits and
characteristics of the Millennial generation more widely.
The concept of work orientation was originally estab-
lished by British sociologist John Goldthorpe, Lockwood,
Bechhofer, and Platt (1968) in their classical study The
Affluent Worker. Work orientation reflects the meaning of
work to the trajectory of the individual’s life course more
broadly. A distinction is typically made between three types
of work orientation: an employee with an instrumental orien-
tation to work regards work primarily as a source of income,
an employee with a bureaucratic orientation is committed to
career development, and an employee with a solidarity orien-
tation identifies with the workplace community.
There are other theories of work orientation (see, for
example, Turunen, 2011), but Goldthorpe’s broad view is in
line with generation research. It is useful to compare atti-
tudes to work with other important life values, in our case
family and leisure (see also Alkula, 1990). The value attached
to different spheres of life is not a zero-sum game, but those
spheres constitute a mutually complementary network that
structures the individual’s life trajectory.
Research Questions and Data
Our analysis is divided into two main themes: (a) the value
attributed to wage employment, home and family life, and lei-
sure; and (b) readiness to change jobs in either the same or dif-
ferent occupational field. We want to find out how young labour
market entrants have differed in these respects over the past
three decades (the survey items are detailed in Appendix A).
The analysis is based on pooled data from Statistics
Finland’s Quality of Work Life Surveys collected in 1984,
1990, 1997, 2003, 2008, and 2013. These are extensive
cross-sectional studies with a very high response rate (68%-
89%), involving between 3,000 and 5,000 people and cover-
ing the entire wage and salary earning population residing in
Finland. The surveys have been conducted in the form of
personal face-to-face interviews, lasting on average a little
over an hour (Lehto & Sutela, 2009; Sutela & Lehto, 2014).
Cross-sectional studies often explain attitudes to work by
reference to age rather than generation (Cennamo & Gardner,
2008; Wong, Gardiner, Lang, & Coulon, 2008). Here, by
contrast, we want to compare the attitudes of people repre-
senting different generations when they were the same age in
the early stages of their employment careers. At each cross-
sectional point, we focus on examining wage earners aged 15
to 29 and compare them with all older age groups (30-64).
The research literature has no unambiguous definition for
young wage earners (Eurofound, 2013). We justify our
choice of age limits here based on Finnish employees’ high
level of education. In particular, the average age of university
graduation in Finland—around 26 to 28 years—is higher
than in other European countries.
Because of the cross-sectional time points there is some
overlap in the dates of the generations in focus, but in view of
the limitations of the data set these dates are quite closely in
line with those used in the earlier research literature. It is impor-
tant to bear in mind that there is no consensus about how gen-
erations are defined. Generation X is usually defined as
comprising people born in the late 1960s and 1970s, and the
Millennials as those born later. Howe and Strauss (1997, 2000),
for instance, define the Millennials generation as comprising
those born in 1982 to 2004 (cf. Smola & Sutton, 2002).
At our time points, young people in 2013 belong to the
Millennials generation (those born in 1984-1998), and young
people in the 1997 data set belong to Generation X (born in
1968-1982). The young people included in the 1984 data set
are described as the Welfare State Generation; they were born
in 1955 to 1969. During this period, Finland became urban-
ized, the business and industry structure was modernized, and
Finland developed into a fully-fledged Nordic welfare state
(Pyöriä et al., 2005).
Although our decision to focus on the age group 15 to 29 is
in line with the age bands used in earlier research, this demar-
cation is not without its problems. All the cohorts in our data set
do not constitute a generation. The young people in the 1990,
2003, and 2008 data sets fall in the middle ground between the
generational categories outlined above. Furthermore, it is note-
worthy that the generational consciousness of the youngest
respondents in our material is still in the process of developing,
and their work orientation may reflect a more general under-
standing of the meaning of work rather than their own personal
experiences from the world of work. However, young people
aged 15 are officially of working age, and our data set repre-
sents comprehensively even the very youngest wage earners
(Lehto & Sutela, 2009; Sutela & Lehto, 2014).
In numerical terms, though, our data set includes only few
people from the youngest age group. This is because the
sample was collected among wage earners, and most younger
people are still studying. The 1984 data set comprises 1,324
wage earners aged 15 to 29 (29% of all respondents). At later
cross-sectional time points the figures are lower, reflecting
the rapid aging of the population: 1,048 in 1990 (26%), 594
in 1997 (20%), 778 in 2003 (19%), 814 in 2008 (19%), and
744 in 2013 (15%). In each year, women and men are equally
represented among the wage earners aged 15 to 29.
Method
The following empirical investigation is based on linear regres-
sion analysis. We use a linear probability model (LPM), that is,
a basic general linear model (GLM) with binary dependent vari-
ables. In the context of our inquiry, this offers considerable
advantages over logistic regression, the method most typically
used in the social sciences.

4 SAGE Open
In logistic regression, the odds ratios are not easy to under-
stand intuitively, and they are often mistaken for probabilities,
which they are not. LPMs, in contrast, allow for the assessment
of the possibility of an event (on a scale from 0 to 1, the mean
estimates practically refer to shares as percentages). They can
also be used to compare results across groups, samples, and
time points (Mood, 2010), making the method particularly suit-
able for the present analysis. According to Hellevik (2009), the
violation of the linearity assumption between independent and
dependent variables can, where necessary, be overcome by
dichotomizing independent variables. The potential violation
of homoscedasticity assumption with linear models does not
seem to be of practical importance because the basic tests used
with these kinds of models are robust (Hellevik, 2009).
Furthermore, LPMs enable more intuitive analysis of within-
group differences (here carried out with F tests, post hoc tests,
and by analysing the means within groups when statistically
significant differences are found).
The individual factors controlled for in our empirical model
are age group (those aged 15-29 and older), gender, and level of
education (basic, secondary, and higher). Family status (partner-
ship and children under 18) is taken into account in the analyses
concerning the value attached to different areas of life (family
status shows little correlation with intentions to change jobs).
Since our focus is on younger people, we also adjust for whether
or not the respondent is studying while working in gainful
employment. Furthermore, we consider whether the respondent
has only recently entered the labour market, and adjust for the
number of years in gainful employment (newcomers 0-2 years).
We describe the respondent’s labour market position by tak-
ing into account the type of employment contract (temporary
contract), perceived threats to the security of employment (one
or more of the following: threat of layoff, dismissal or unem-
ployment), perceived opportunities for employment in the open
labour market, a spell of unemployment during the preceding
5-year period, and income level (classified annually into income
tertiles). Furthermore, we consider whether the job is varied or
monotonous. We also control for the cross-sectional time point.
We are aware of the difficulty of inferring, in a cross-sec-
tional context, whether the phenomenon in focus is explained
by age, cohort, or time-period effects (Krahn & Galambos,
2014; Yang & Land, 2008). Therefore, in Tables 1 and 2, we
examine how each age group differs from older respondents
as an interaction between age and time point. Furthermore,
we examine the interactions for age and educational level,
gender, simultaneous studying and working, and recent entry
into the labour market (0-2 years). Not only age and time
point but also age and education as well as age and gender,
produced noteworthy interactions, and therefore they were
included in the final model. To establish the impact of the
time point, we studied the above three interactions with post
hoc tests (Appendix B).
The background variables in the model do not correlate too
strongly with one another, and therefore there are no multicol-
linearity problems caused by excessively high correlations
(Appendix C). Only age and “newcomer” status correlated at
the level of 0.4, which is somewhat high, but not a barrier to
keeping both variables in the model. Chi-square significance
values were set as follows: *p ≤ .05, **p ≤ .01, ***p ≤ .001.
Results
Young Adults’ Work Orientation
Generations are most commonly referred to in the context of
political debates where different age groups are pitted against
one another. More often than not, it is young people who
come out as the underdogs. Not only in Finland
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
1984*** 1990*** 1997 2003 20082013
30+ yrs. 15–29 yrs.
Figure 1. Value attached to gainful employment (very important) in 1984-2013 (%).

Pyöriä et al. 5
Table 1. Value Attached to Gainful Employment, Family, and Leisure in 1984-2013.
Considers the following aspects of life very important
Gainful employment Family Leisure
Mean 0-1 (SE)F(df) Sig. Mean 0-1 (SE)F(df) Sig. Mean 0-1 (SE)F(df) Sig.
Grand mean .502 (.011) (= estimated 50%) .820 (.007) (= estimated 82%) .383 (.010) (= estimated 38%)
Age
15-29 years Ns .837 (.008) 25.798(1)*** .409 (.011) 35.289(1)***
30-64 years .801 (.008) .351 (.011)
Time point
1984 .512 (.013) 9.839(5)*** .728 (.009) 111.446(5)*** .287 (.012) 84.771(5)***
1990 .449 (.014) .752 (.009) .311 (.013)
1997 .534 (.014) .814 (.010) .339 (.014)
2003 .501 (.014) .898 (.010) .387 (.013)
2008 .485 (.014) .859 (.010) .473 (.013)
2013 .527 (.014) .864 (.010) .482 (.013)
Post hoca1990, 2008 < 1984, 1997, 2003,
2013
1984 < 1990 < 1997 < 2003,
2008, 2013
1984 < 1990, 1997 < 2003 <
2008, 2013
Interaction term Age × Year 3.317(5)**b2.523(5)*bns
Interaction term Age × Education 6.011(2)**bns ns
Interaction term Age × Gender 12.829(1)***b19.254(1)***bns
Education
Basic .526 (.012) 6.426(2)** ns .353 (.012) 8.092(2)***
Secondary .500 (.011) .384 (.010)
Higher .478 (.014) .402 (.013)
Post hocaBasic > Secondary > High Basic < Secondary < High
Gender
Woman .490 (.011) 7.904(1)** .872 (.008) 363.416(1)*** .359 (.011) 29.845(1)***
Man .513 (.012) .767 (.008) .401 (.011)
Spouse
Yes .474 (.011) 52.074(1)*** .914 (.008) 1,352.706(1)*** .359 (.011) 35.089(1)***
No .529 (.011) .724 (.008) .401 (.011)
Children
Yes Ns .873 (.008) 509.369(1)*** .325 (.011) 276.190(1)***
No .766 (.007) .435 (.010)
Employed during studies
Yes .456 (.016) 32.550(1)*** ns .413 (.016) 20.092(1)***
No .547 (.009) .346 (.009)
Years employed
0-2 years .460 (.016) 23.492(1)*** ns ns
3– years .542 (.010)
Type of employment
Temporary .487 (.012) 7.966(1)** ns ns
Permanent .516 (.011)
Threats
1-3 threats ns ns .372 (.010) 4.720(1)*
No threats .388 (.010)
Has been unemployed
Yes .512 (.012) 6.022(1)* ns .368 (.011) 8.692(1)**
No .491 (.011) .392 (.010)
Employability
Poor ns ns ns
Good
(continued)

6 SAGE Open
Table 2. Readiness to Change Jobs in the Same or a Different Occupational Field in 1984-2013.
Would change jobs for the same pay to:
The same/a different field The same field A different field
Mean 0-1 (SE)F(df) Sig. Mean 0-1 (SE)F(df) Sig. Mean 0-1 (SE)F(df) Sig.
Grand mean .583 (.011) (= estimated 58%) .223 (.009) (= estimated 22%) .360 (.009) (= estimated 36%)
Age
15-29 years .610 (.012) 28.705(1)*** ns .388 (.010) 31.395(1)***
30-64 years .554 (.012) .336 (.010)
Time point
1984 .587 (.013) 10.627(5)*** .239 (.011) 6.724(5)*** .349 (011) 6.051(5)***
1990 .636 (.014) .241 (.011) .395 (.012)
1997 .586 (.014) .239 (.012) .348 (.013)
2003 .537 (.014) .196 (.012) .340 (.012)
2008 .572 (.014) .209 (.012) .363 (.012)
2013 .575 (.014) .199 (.012) .376 (.013)
Post hoca1990 > 1997, 2008, 2013 > 2003
1984 < 1990
1984, 2003, 2013 < 1990, 1997 2003 < 1984, 2008 < 1990, 2013
1997 < 1990, 2013
Interaction term Age × Year ns ns 2.243(5)*b
Interaction term Age × Education 16.370(2)***bns 17.750(2)***b
Interaction term Age × Gender 11.573(1)***bns 4.170(1)*b
Education
Basic .565 (.012) 3.561(2)* .186 (.010) 20.183(2)*** .379 (.011) 9.481(2)***
Secondary .592 (.011) .219 (.009) .373 (.010)
Higher .590 (.014) .257 (.012) .333 (.012)
Post hocaBasic < Secondary < High Basic < Secondary < High Basic < Secondary < High
Gender
Woman .600 (.011) 19.126(1)*** .196 (.010) 54.527(1)*** ns
Man .564 (.012) .245 (.009)
Spouse
Yes .567 (.011) 15.408(1)*** ns .345 (.010) 23.560(1)***
No .597 (.012) .378 (.010)
Considers the following aspects of life very important
Gainful employment Family Leisure
Mean 0-1 (SE)F(df) Sig. Mean 0-1 (SE)F(df) Sig. Mean 0-1 (SE)F(df) Sig.
Job content
Monotonous .487 (.012) 11.456(1)*** ns ns
Varied .516 (.011)
Wage level
Lowest tertile .470 (.011) 29.557(2)*** ns .362 (.010) 7.426(2)***
Middle tertile .492 (.012) .381 (.011)
Highest tertile .542 (.013) .397 (.012)
Post hocaLow < Middle < High Low < High
Adjusted R2.019 .141 .057
Model F(df) Sig. 17.930(28)*** 143.931(28)*** 53.377(28)***
N24.353 24.353 24.353
Note. Linear probability model with ANOVA mean estimates. For dummy variables, the post hoc results are the same than F test results.
aPost hoc comparisons (Sidak adjustments) shown when statistically significant within groups at p value level ≤ .05.
bSee Appendix B for further analysis.
Table 1. (continued)
(continued)

Pyöriä et al. 7
Table 2. (continued)
Would change jobs for the same pay to:
The same/a different field The same field A different field
Mean 0-1 (SE)F(df) Sig. Mean 0-1 (SE)F(df) Sig. Mean 0-1 (SE)F(df) Sig.
Children
Yes .607 (.012) 52.000(1)*** ns .385 (.010) 56.557(1)***
No .557 (.011) .339 (.009)
Employed during studies
Yes ns ns ns
No
Years employed
0-2 years ns ns ns
3– years
Type of employment
Temporary .564 (.012) 11.990(1)*** .246 (.010) 36.331(1)*** .318 (.011) 91.312(1)***
Permanent .600 (.011) .195 (.009) .406 (.010)
Threats
1-3 threats .646 (.012) 269.650(1)*** .252 (.010) 96.271(1)*** .394 (.010) 90.080(1)***
No threats .518 (.011) .189 (.009) .329 (.010)
Has been unemployed
Yes ns ns ns
No
Employability
Poor .573 (.012) 6.470(1)* .184 (.010) 141.521(1)*** .389 (.011) 67.429(1)***
Good .592 (.010) .257 (.009) .335 (.009)
Job content
Monotonous .679 (.012) 532.785(1)*** .205 (.010) 18.908(1)*** .474 (.011) 916.061(1)***
Varied .485 (.011) .236 (.009) .250 (.009)
Wage level
Lowest tertile .548 (.011) 21.397(2)*** .199 (.009) 13.407(2)*** .349 (.010) 4.147(2)*
Middle tertile .594 (.012) .225 (.010) .370 (.010)
Highest tertile .604 (.013) .238 (.010) .366 (.011)
Post hocaLow < High Low < Middle < High Low < Middle < High
Adjusted R2.047 .027 .059
Model F(df) Sig. 44.136(28)*** 25.317(28)*** 55.941(28)***
N24.353 24.353 24.353
Note. Linear probability model with ANOVA mean estimates. For dummy variables, the post hoc results are the same than F test results.
aPost hoc comparisons (Sidak adjustments) shown when statistically significant within groups at p value level ≤ .05.
bSee Appendix B for further analysis.
but throughout Europe and rest of the world there is growing
concern about youth unemployment, the length of time that
young people spend studying, and young people’s attitudes to
work (Eurofound, 2013; France, 2016; Helve & Evans, 2013;
Ng, Lyons, & Schweitzer, 2017).
In reality, young people in Finland, including students,
are an important part of the labour force, and they have
important skills and the right kind of attitude. One distinc-
tive feature of the Finnish education system is that many
students gain valuable work experience while they are still
studying. Even though young people in Finland complete
their education (and higher education in particular) at a later
age than young people in Europe on average, they quickly
settle into a career path that matches their skills and qualifi-
cations (Kivinen & Nurmi, 2014).
Our results show there are no grounds for concern over
young people’s work orientation: It is not growing weaker.
During the periods under study, the appreciation of gainful
employment has remained constant even among young people,
although they have consistently attached slightly less value to
work than older people. Over half of the age group 15 to 29
valued work as a very important area of life at every time point
in our data set, except for 1990, which saw a temporary dip in
the value attached to gainful employment (Figure 1).
In 1990, the economy was still benefiting from strong
cyclical trends and a climate of optimism, but in 1991 to

8 SAGE Open
1993 the economy collapsed and the country drifted into
mass unemployment. It seems that the general trend in the
appreciation of gainful employment closely follows the
cyclical movements of the economy. When the times are
good, the value attached to employment falls, and vice
versa. This is confirmed by the model presented in Table
1. The post hoc test shows that both time points that rep-
resent the zenith of economic upturn—1990 and 2008—
have statistically significantly lowered levels of value
given to gainful employment in comparison to all other
time points.
When interpreting the results, it is important to observe
that young people aged 15 to 29 and older age groups differ
statistically significantly in their appreciation of gainful
employment only in 1984 and 1990, but not in later years
(Figure 1). In the model presented in Table 1, no direct effect
of age was found. The generational difference that was vis-
ible in Figure 1 is confirmed only for 1990, when interac-
tions are examined between age group and time point
(Appendix B). In other words, it can be said that in the
1980s, the Welfare State Generation attached somewhat less
value to employment than older age groups, but in the case
of Generations X and Y, the difference is not statistically
significant. The evidence, therefore, does not support the
suggestions that young people’s work orientation is growing
weaker.
It is somewhat surprising that a higher education does not
predict a high appreciation of work, but on the contrary the
association tends to weaken (Table 1). Those with a basic edu-
cation attach more value to gainful employment than those
with a higher education (see also Stam, Verbakel, & De Graaf,
2013). This ties in with the rising overall level of education. In
the 2013 data set, 46% of the respondents had a tertiary degree,
compared with just 13% in 1984. In Finland, educational
achievement is no longer as significant a factor as it used to be.
Although education continues to provide protection against
labour market risks (Koerselman & Uusitalo, 2014; Pyöriä &
Ojala, 2016), unemployment has increased among the higher
educated, too, which probably explains our result.
The interaction between age and education is significant in
the model shown in Table 1. The more detailed analysis in
Appendix B reveals an interesting feature about the differentia-
tion of young people’s work orientation by educational level.
That is, young people aged 15 to 29 with a basic education value
employment less than older age groups with the same level of
education. Among young people with a tertiary degree, the situ-
ation is the exact opposite. They value gainful employment more
than older people with a tertiary degree (Figure 2). We assume
that an effort given to studying for a higher degree at a young age
is reflected in this finding: Higher educated labour market new-
comers are keen to start their careers.
According to Table 1, men value work more than women do.
Here, however, we find an interesting interaction effect con-
cerning age. Whereas younger men value employment less than
older male employees, the quite opposite holds for younger
women: Older female employees respect work less than their
younger colleagues. At the same time, between young men and
women, the gender difference does not exist (Figure 3).
Table 1 also shows that there is a statistically highly sig-
nificant difference between a high level of earnings and a
high appreciation of employment: The higher the wages, the
more people value their work. Simultaneous employment
and studying and a short experience of gainful employment
(less than 2 years), on the other hand, reduce the value
attached to employment. People not living in a partnership
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
BasicSecondary Higher
30+ yrs. 15–29 yrs.
Figure 2. Estimated share of employees valuing gainful employment
as “very important” (scale 0 = less, 1 = very important).
Note. Illustration of the post hoc test finding on Age × Education (Table 1;
Appendix B).
30+ yrs. 15–29 yrs.
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Ma
nW
oman
Figure 3. Estimated share of employees valuing gainful
employment as “very important” (scale 0 = less, 1 = very important).
Note. Illustration of the post hoc test finding on Gender × Education
(Table 1; Appendix B).

Pyöriä et al. 9
value work more, but it makes no difference whether or not
the respondent has children.
Work Orientation in Relation to Family and
Leisure
Next, we move on to examine the appreciation of employment
in relation to the importance attached to family and leisure.
Although we are primarily interested in attitudes to work, the
inclusion of family and leisure in the same model allows us to
analyze areas of life that complement work orientation. This
choice is in line with Goldthorpe’s theory. Goldthorpe et al.
(1968) understood that the development of work orientation is
associated with the individual’s social and cultural background
and with the values adopted in that context.
The most significant generational difference stems from the
emphasis placed by young people on family and leisure, even
though the most significant background factor of having a fam-
ily is taken into account. It is worth noting, however, that from
1984 to 2013, the value attached to family and to leisure has
increased among all wage earners (the post hoc results pre-
sented in Table 1 point to almost linear increase up to 2003
concerning family, and up to 2008 concerning leisure). A mod-
est interaction effect between age and time point shows that in
recent years (2003, 2008, and 2013, see Appendix B) young
people attach more value to family in comparison to older gen-
erations. The interaction term on gender shows that young
women in particular value their family highly (age difference is
not found among men, however, see Appendix B).
The results described above reflect a more general change
in values that probably have to do with increasing overall
wealth and affluence. We have witnessed a growing trend
toward post-materialistic values in affluent economies
(Inglehart, 1997, 2008). This is confirmed by the observation
that people with a higher education and with the highest
incomes tend to attach more value to leisure (see post hoc
results for education and wage level, Table 1). In Goldthorpe
et al.’s (1968) terms, work no longer has the same instrumen-
tal value that it did before, at least for people who have the
most resources to invest in their leisure.
Unfortunately, we were unable to incorporate in our
model an indicator describing job satisfaction, because the
data set is not fully comparable in this respect (in 1990 job
satisfaction was inquired in a slightly different way than in
other years). We can, however, observe on the basis of our
data and earlier research that job satisfaction does matter to
wage earners of all ages (see also Kowske et al., 2010;
Westerman & Yamamura, 2007). If people are not satisfied
with their job, then both their work orientation and the value
they attach to the family will decline. The most crucial factor
is how work and family are reconciled. Even though it is dif-
ficult to establish a potential causative link, low job satisfac-
tion and a pessimistic future outlook probably reflect
adversely on the individual’s family life. If, on the other
hand, people are doing well at work, they are more likely to
enjoy a good family life as well (Hakanen, Peeters, &
Perhoniemi, 2011; Ylikännö, 2010).
All in all, the appreciation of wage employment has remained
quite stable over the past three decades. At the same time, both
family and especially leisure have gained significantly in impor-
tance. Family and leisure are most important of all to young
people, but this has not undermined the value attached to gainful
employment. This can be interpreted by suggesting that young
people are keen to have both diversity and balance in their lives.
Readiness to Change Jobs
Next, we move on to the question of work commitment from
the point of view of readiness to change jobs, assuming that
the respondent would be able to change jobs for the same pay.
According to Table 2, young people are keener to change jobs
than older age groups, namely, to different occupational
fields, even when studying and limited work experience (less
than 2 years) are adjusted for. This result reflects young peo-
ple’s life situation. Youth has always been a stage of life char-
acterized by transition and search for direction (Helve &
Evans, 2013). Young people need to find their place in the
labour market, weigh educational options, and try out their
wings in different occupations.
It is useful to look at the interactions more closely to find
out what they reveal about the readiness to change jobs.
First, there are statistically significant interactions for age
and educational level that focus on aims at changing jobs to
a different occupational field (Table 2; Appendix B). Young
people aged 15 to 29 with a basic and secondary education
are more likely to contemplate changing jobs than older age
groups. Among the tertiary educated, there is no correspond-
ing statistically significant age group difference.
Second, there is a gender and age differentiation on overall
aims at changing jobs, and on aims at changing to a different
field. The interaction effect points to young women who are
more prepared to change jobs as compared to women aged 30
or more (Appendix B). Among men, the age gap is lower.
Third, there is a minor interaction effect that differentiates
between age and time point among young employees
(Appendix B). It seems that representatives of the Welfare State
Generation and Generation X, at ages 15 to 29, were more will-
ing than older wage earners to change jobs to a different occu-
pational field. Surprisingly, we found no confirmation for our
assumptions that Generation Y is willing to change jobs, even
though young people today are showing greater individuality
than before in their transitions from education to the labour
market, and even though they are better placed than before to
make independent choices and even to get employers to com-
pete for their services to secure a better contract and to pledge
their commitment. On the contrary, the results seem to indicate
that the Millennials are highly committed to the workplace,
once they have found their own field.
Concerning other measures that are adjusted for, readiness
to change jobs is most strongly predicted by the nature of the
job, that is, job monotony and threats to employment security

10 SAGE Open
(Table 2). A temporary contract adds to people’s readiness to
change jobs within the same occupational field, but reduces
intentions to move to another occupational field. One possible
explanation could lie in this distinctive feature of the Finnish
labour market: Temporary contracts are most common among
highly educated public sector employees. Professionals, nurses,
social workers, and teachers, for instance, must all have a
higher degree to work in Finland. For them, moving to another
occupational field is not a realistic option, but they will first and
foremost want to find a permanent job within their own field.
This is supported by the observation in Table 2 which shows
that people with a tertiary degree are particularly keen to find
another job within their own field. This result points at profes-
sional closures within the academic labour market.
All in all, the results indicate that neither young nor old
people are a homogeneous group. Work commitment varies
by work content and educational level both among younger
and older wage earners.
Conclusion and Discussion
In this article, we have discussed the work orientation, apprecia-
tion of family and leisure, and the workplace commitment of
young people in Finland over the past three decades. The life-
world of the Welfare State Generation who lived their youth in
the 1980s was structured by a rising educational level, the growth
of white-collar employment and a general climate of optimism.
During the economic upturn of the 1980s, people transitioned
quickly from graduation to a stable labour market position.
Born in the late 1960s and early 1970s, Generation X
entered the labour market in a very different situation com-
pared with both those who were born one decade earlier and
those who came a decade later. Generation X grew up into
adulthood in the shadow of the 1990s great recession. Their
key experiences were mass unemployment and the growth of
social inequalities (Kalela et al., 2001). The Millennials who
transitioned into adulthood in the 2000s entered a labour mar-
ket where normalcy had been restored, but again this genera-
tion experienced increasing uncertainty as a result of the
financial crisis that started to unfold in late 2008 (Pyöriä &
Ojala, 2016). Despite the financial crisis, the Finnish labour
market has continued to perform quite well, and there has
been no new wave of mass unemployment: In the age group
15 to 29, too, unemployment has remained below the EU
average (Eurofound, 2013).
During the period under review, the mobilization of young
people in Finland, in Mannheim’s sense, has remained very
limited. The Welfare State Generation has had no reason to
mobilize. Generation X, who grew up in the shadow of the
1990s recession, would have had good reason to become
radicalized, but these young people did not go to the barri-
cades. The great recession certainly left its mark on them, but
it did not diminish their commitment to wage employment.
In the case of Generation Y, too, there has been little more
than marginal mobilization, and for this generation it is even
difficult to identify a shared key experience.
The Millennials share in common a high level of compe-
tence in ICT and social media use, but this is an experience
that cuts across age group boundaries. Finland is a highly
advanced information society and all working age people use
ICTs more or less regularly. New social movements have
also been quite fragmented. Even the most recent financial
crisis has not prompted major demonstrations as it has in
Spain, Italy, Greece, and other European crisis countries,
where youth unemployment has soared to more than 50%.
When we consider all of this against our key research finding
that neither the value attached to work nor workplace commit-
ment has weakened and that age has no significant bearing on
either of these factors, there is good reason to ask whether a
wage-earning generation of Millennials even exists (see also
Zabel, Biermeier-Hanson, Baltes, Early, & Shepard, 2016). An
increasing appreciation of leisure, home and family life hardly
suffices as a key experience for a generation, either. We main-
tain that this result is not indicative of conflicts between work,
family and leisure, but rather that they are mutually supportive.
Young people who embarked on their careers in the strong
labour market of the early 2000s have had more resources for
self-realization than older generations did. It is no longer
necessary for them to orient to work as a value in itself.
Instead, they may consider it more important to identify with
the work community, that is, in Goldthorpe et al.’s (1968)
terms to adopt a solidarity orientation.
Finland is a relatively affluent European country. Household
net assets have increased rapidly since the childhood of the
baby boom generation. Even though young people’s assets
have grown less than those of older people, mainly by virtue of
the assets tied to housing property, the younger generations are
wealthier than their predecessors. It is clear that this has left its
mark on the values and attitudes of young people. The appre-
ciation of leisure and family has increased because people are
in the position to invest more in them.
International comparisons have found similar genera-
tional differences as those we have described here. These dif-
ferences are not tied to a certain age group, but comparisons
over time suggest that changing values do not swing back as
young people get older (Inglehart, 2008). Insofar as young
people today attach more value to leisure and family than
they do to gainful employment, it is unlikely that this will
change with advancing age.
It is an interesting question for further research how the
recent financial crisis and the uncertainty it is causing will
affect future attitudes to gainful employment. We suspect
that the value attached to work will at least not weaken in the
immediate future. On the contrary, fears of unemployment
may well add to the appreciation of work as young people
have more to lose financially than earlier generations.
All in all, young people today have good working con-
ditions and their attitudes to work are conservative rather
than radical, despite the problems they are facing in the
labour market both in Finland and elsewhere in Europe. In
Finland, youth unemployment in the wake of the 1990s
recession remained at a higher level than previously, and

Pyöriä et al. 11
short-term contracts increased more rapidly among young
people than in the population on average (Helve, 2013;
Ranta, 2013).
Although the majority young Finns are content with their
future prospects, there are signs of new social divisions that
stem from unemployment and social exclusion. In this
respect, there is an important pattern of gender differentiation
that calls for a more detailed investigation not only in Finland
but also in other European countries. An increasing number
of young men are left without a job, training or education
(OECD, 2016b, pp. 358-359), reflecting the plight caused by
the financial crisis and politics of austerity. Nonetheless, it
seems that Finland (as well as the other Nordic countries) has
been quite successful in preventing the marginalization of
young people from the labour market (Eurofound, 2013). The
Nordic labour market model has shown that it performs well
even under conditions of economic crisis.
The work orientation of the generations studied here
shows more signs of permanence and continuity than they do
of difference and conflict. Our results do not support the
claim, widespread in popular media, that the Millennials and
their distinctive characteristics will be forcing work organi-
zations into radical changes. The “generational contract” of
our society, according to which the common denominator in
the continuum of generations is reciprocity, does not seem to
be in jeopardy.
Appendix A
Items Adopted From the Finnish Quality of Work
Life Surveys by Statistics Finland (1984, 1990,
1997, 2003, 2008, and 2013)
1. Value attached to work, family, and leisure time:
A1. To begin with, I shall list some core aspects of life which
are of varying importance to different people. How important
are these aspects of life to you personally: Is gainful employ-
ment very important, quite important or not very important to
you? What about home and family life? And leisure interests?
2. Readiness to change jobs:
F12. If you could change jobs for the same pay, would you
change to: The same occupational field; A different occupa-
tional field; Or would you not change at all?
Appendix B
Pairwise Comparison Test Results for the Statistically Significant Interactions (as Presented in Tables 1 and 2) Between Respondents
Aged 15-29 and 30-64.
Mean difference (SE): 15-29
years to 30-64 years F(df) Sig.
Values
Gainful employment very important: Age × Education Basic −.046 (.019) 6.087(1)*
Secondary −.013 (.011) 1.283(1)ns
Higher .058 (.022) 6.679(1)**
Gainful employment very important: Age × Year
(change over time)
1984 −.033 (.018) 3.274(1)ns
1990 −.059 (.021) 8.158(1)**
1997 .028 (.024) 1.299(1)ns
2003 .021 (.021) 1.047(1)ns
2008 .021 (.020) 1.054(1)ns
2013 .019 (.021) .879(1)ns
Gainful employment very important: Age × Gender Men −.030 (.014) 4.360(1)*
Women .029 (.013) 4.663(1)*
Family very important: Age × Gender Men .013 (.009) 2.445(1)ns
Women .059 (.009) 39.764(1)***
Family very important: Age × Year (change over time) 1984 .034 (.012) 8.277(1)**
1990 .015 (.014) 1.173(1)ns
1997 .013 (.016) .648(1)ns
2003 .059 (.014) 17.504(1)***
2008 .064 (.014) 21.724(1)***
2013 .032 (.014) 5.334(1)*
Readiness to change jobs
In the same/to a different occupational field: Age ×
Education
Basic .133 (.019) 50.560(1)***
Secondary .048 (.011) 17.244(1)***
Higher −.012 (.019) 0.443(1)ns
In the same/to a different occupational field: Age ×
Gender
Men .030 (.013) 5.068(1)*
Women .082 (.013) 41.140(1)***
(continued)

12 SAGE Open
Appendix C
Mean difference (SE): 15-29
years to 30-64 years F(df) Sig.
To a different occupational field: Age × Education Basic .123 (.016) 56.231(1)***
Secondary .035 (.010) 11.622(1)***
Higher .003 (.017) .033 (1) ns
To a different occupational field: Age × Year (change
over time)
1984 .068 (.015) 20.005(1)***
1990 .033 (.018) 3.418(1)ns
1997 .073 (.021) 12.244(1)***
2003 .082 (.018) 20.098(1)***
2008 .030 (.018) 2.925(1)ns
2013 .024 (.018) 1.695(1)ns
To a different occupational field: Age × Gender Men .038 (.012) 10.530(1)***
Women .066 (.011) 33.567(1)***
Note. Adjustment: Sidak. Negative mean value difference reflects lower mean value for respondents aged 15-29.
Appendix B (continued)
Correlation Matrix.
Spearman’s rho
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
1. Age 1
2. Education −.086** 1
3. Time point −.116** .341** 1
4. Gender −.026** .075** .033** 1
5. Spouse −.243** .074** .017** −.018** 1
6. Children −.239** .103** −.019** −.001 .354** 1
7. Employed during studies .250** −.024** −.085** .042** −.115** −.083** 1
8. Employed 0-2 years .434** −.119** −.060** .008 −.234** −.174** .248** 1
9. Temporary contract .232** .012 .002 .093** −.112** −.070** .149** .270** 1
10. Threats .005 .018** .116** −.015* −.013* −.001 −.029** .020** .250** 1
11. Has been unemployed .189** −.050** .013* −.027** −.080** −.038** −.01 .102** .309** .277** 1
12. Poor employability −.219** −.137** −.029** .100** .034** −.119** −.094** −.083** −.077** .049** −.037** 1
13. Monotonous work .110** −.153** −.027** .001 −.073** −.039** .057** .098** .011 .063** .077** .067** 1
14. Wage level −.246** .311** −.013* −.296** .138** .124** −.084** −.214** −.201** −.073** −.212** −.072** −.164** 1
15. Work values −.043** −.035** −.011 −.063** −.013* .008 −.058** −.058** −.040** .01 .007 .012 −.023** .060** 1
16. Family values −.083** .088** .143** .131** .303** .221** −.046** −.068** −.017** .012 −.028** −.006 −.035** .008 .109** 1
17. Leisure time values .078** .075** .164** −.044** −.086** −.140** .041** .047** .025** −.001 −.006 −.032** −.001 .016* .059** .073** 1
18. Readiness to change jobs .051** .042** .008 .005 −.021** .040** .028** .024** .016** .110** .039** −.034** .147** .022** −.058** −.023** .009 1
19. . . . in the same field .021** .092** −.004 .041** .002 .023** .025** .004 .067** .063** .019** −.091** −.044** .045** −.013* −.003 −.015* .539** 1
20. . . . to a different field .038** −.037** .012 −.032** −.026** .024** .009 .023** −.043** .066** .027** .045** .206** −.016* −.053** −.023** .024** .637** −.306**
*Correlation is significant at the .05 level, two-tailed. **Correlation is significant at the .01 level, two-tailed.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research and/or authorship of this article: The financial sup-
port of the Finnish Work Environment Fund (114326) and the
Academy of Finland (277376) is gratefully acknowledged.
References
Aboim, S., & Vasconcelos, P. (2014). From political to social
generations: A critical reappraisal of Mannheim’s classical
approach. European Journal of Social Theory, 17, 165-183.
Abrams, J., & von Frank, V. (2014). The multigenerational work-
place. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Alkula, T. (1990). Work orientations in Finland: A concep-
tual critique and empirical study of work-related expecta-
tions (Commentationes scientiarum socialium 42). Helsinki,
Finland: University of Helsinki.
Broadbridge, A., Maxwell, G., & Ogden, S. (2007). Experiences,
perceptions and expectations of retail employment for
Generation Y. Career Development International, 12, 523-544.
Cennamo, L., & Gardner, D. (2008). Generational differences in
work values, outcomes and person-organisation values fit.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 891-906.
Chou, S. Y. (2012). Millennials in the workplace: A conceptual
analysis of Millennials’ leadership and followership styles.
International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 2, 71-83.
Cogin, J. (2012). Are generational differences in work values
fact or fiction? Multi-country evidence and implications. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23,
2268-2294.

Pyöriä et al. 13
Costanza, D. P., Badger, J. M., Fraser, R. L., Severt, J. B., & Gade,
P. A. (2012). Generational differences in work-related atti-
tudes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology,
27, 375-394.
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.
Edmunds, J., & Turner, B. S. (Eds.). (2002). Generational con-
sciousness, narrative and politics. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Eurofound. (2013). Working conditions of young entrants to the
labour market. Dublin, Ireland: European Foundation for the
Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.
Eyerman, R., & Turner, B. S. (1998). Outline of a theory of genera-
tions. European Journal of Social Theory, 1, 91-106.
France, A. (2016). Understanding youth in the global economic cri-
sis. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.
France, A., & Roberts, S. (2015). The problem of social genera-
tions: A critique of the new emerging orthodoxy in youth stud-
ies. Journal of Youth Studies, 18, 215-230.
Giancola, F. (2006). The generation gap: More myth than reality.
Human Resource Planning, 29, 32-37.
Goldthorpe, J., Lockwood, D., Bechhofer, F., & Platt, J. (1968).
The affluent worker: Industrial attitudes and behaviour.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hakanen, J., Peeters, M. C. W., & Perhoniemi, R. (2011).
Enrichment processes and gain spirals at work and at home: A
3-year cross-lagged panel study. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 84, 8-30.
Hellevik, O. (2009). Linear versus logistic regression when the
dependent variable is a dichotomy. Quality & Quantity, 43,
59-74.
Helve, H. (2013). From higher education to working life: Work
values of young Finns in changing labour markets. In H.
Helve & K. Evans (Eds.), Youth and work transitions in
changing social landscapes (pp. 119-137). London, England:
The Tufnell Press.
Helve, H., & Evans, K. (2013). Youth and work transitions in
changing social landscapes. London, England: The Tufnell
Press.
Hershatter, A., & Epstein, M. (2010). Millennials and the world of
work: An organization and management perspective. Journal
of Business and Psychology, 25, 211-223.
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (1997). The fourth turning: What the
cycles of history tell us about America’s next rendezvous with
destiny. New York, NY: Broadway Books.
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great
generation. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Inglehart, R. F. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization:
Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 countries.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Inglehart, R. F. (2008). Changing values among Western publics
from 1970 to 2006. West European Politics, 31, 130-146.
Kalela, J., Kiander, J., Kivikuru, U., Loikkanen, H. A., & Simpura,
J. (2001). Down from the heavens, up from the ashes: The
Finnish economic crisis of the 1990s in the light of economic
and social research. Helsinki, Finland: Government Institute
for Economic Research.
Karisto, A. (2007). Finnish baby boomers and the emergence of
the third age. International Journal of Ageing and Later Life,
2, 91-108.
Kivinen, O., & Nurmi, J. (2014). Labour market relevance of
European master education: From university enrolment to pro-
fessional employment in 12 countries. European Journal of
Education, 49, 558-574.
Koerselman, K., & Uusitalo, R. (2014). The risk and return of
human capital investments. Labour Economics, 30, 154-163.
Kolbe, L. (2008). From memory to history: Year 1968 in Finland.
Scandinavian Journal of History, 33, 366-381.
Kowske, B., Rasch, R., & Wiley, J. (2010). Millennials’ (lack of)
attitude problem: An empirical examination of generational
effects on work attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology,
25, 265-279.
Krahn, H. J., & Galambos, N. L. (2014). Work values and beliefs of
“Generation X” and “Generation Y.” Journal of Youth Studies,
17, 92-112.
Kupperschmidt, B. R. (2000). Multigeneration employees:
Strategies for effective management. Health Care Manager,
19, 65-76.
Laine, V., & Maiväli, M. (2010). Finland: Adjusting to an ageing
population. ECFIN Country Focus, 7, 1-7.
Lehto, A.-M., & Sutela, H. (2009). Three decades of working con-
ditions: Findings of Finnish quality of work life surveys 1977–
2008. Helsinki: Statistics Finland.
Macky, K., Gardner, D., & Forsyth, S. (2008). Generational dif-
ferences at work: Introduction and overview. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 23, 857-861.
Mannheim, K. (1952). Essays on the sociology of knowledge.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
McGlone, T., Spain, J. W., & McGlone, V. (2011). Corporate social
responsibility and the Millennials. Journal of Education for
Business, 86, 195-200.
Mood, C. (2010). Logistic regression: Why we cannot do what
we think we can do, and what we can do about it. European
Sociological Review, 26, 67-82.
Myers, K. K., & Sadaghiani, K. (2010). Millennials in the work-
place: A communication perspective on Millennials’ organiza-
tional relationships and performance. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 25, 225-238.
Ng, E. S., Lyons, S. T., & Schweitzer, L. (2012). Managing the new
workforce: International perspectives on the Millennial gen-
eration. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Ng, E. S., Lyons, S. T., & Schweitzer, L. (2017). Millennials
in Canada: Young workers in a challenging labour market.
In E. Parry & J. McCarthy (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook
of age diversity and work (pp. 325-344). Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave.
The Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development.
(2016a). OECD Economic Surveys: Finland, January 2016.
Paris, France: Author.
The Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development.
(2016b). Education at a Glance 2016. Paris, France: Author.
Parry, E., & Urwin, P. (2011). Generational differences in work
values: A review of theory and evidence. International Journal
of Management Reviews, 13, 79-96.
Pyöriä, P., Melin, H., & Blom, R. (2005). Knowledge workers in
the information society: Evidence from Finland. Tampere,
Finland: Tampere University Press.
Pyöriä, P., & Ojala, S. (2016). Precarious work and intrinsic job
quality: Evidence from Finland, 1984–2013. The Economic
and Labour Relations Review, 27, 349-367.

14 SAGE Open
Ranta, M. (2013). Finnish young adults’ financial well-being in
times of uncertainty. In H. Helve & K. Evans (Eds.), Youth and
work transitions in changing social landscapes (pp. 58-67).
London, England: The Tufnell Press.
Salasuo, M., & Poikolainen, J. (2016). From local cliques to sub-
cultures and late modern youth interpretations of young peo-
ple’s group behavior in Finnish youth research. In T. Hoikkala
& M. Karjalainen (Eds.), Finnish youth research anthology
1999–2014 (pp. 565-584). Helsinki: Finnish Youth Research
Network Publications 172.
Smola, K. W., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences:
Revisiting generational work values for the new millennium.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 363-382.
Stam, K., Verbakel, E., & De Graaf, P. (2013). Explaining variation
in work ethic in Europe. European Societies, 15, 268-289.
Stewart, J. S., Oliver, E. G., Cravens, K. S., & Oishi, S. (2017).
Managing Millennials: Embracing generational differences.
Business Horizons, 60, 45-54.
Sutela, H., & Lehto, A.-M. (2014). Työolojen muutokset 1977–
2013 [Changes in working conditions 1977–2013]. Helsinki:
Statistics Finland.
Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the net genera-
tion. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Terjesen, S., Vinnicombe, S., & Freeman, C. (2007). Attracting
generation Y graduates: Organisational attributes, likelihood to
apply and sex differences. Career Development International,
12, 504-522.
Turunen, T. (2011). Work orientations in flux? Comparing trends
in and determinants of subjective work goals in five European
countries. European Societies, 13, 641-662.
Twenge, J. M. (2010). A review of the empirical evidence on gen-
erational differences in work attitudes. Journal of Business
Psychology, 25, 201-210.
Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, S. M. (2012). Who are the Millennials?
Empirical evidence for generational differences in work values,
attitudes and personality. In E. S. Ng, S. T. Lyons, & L. Schweitzer
(Eds.), Managing the new workforce: International perspec-
tives on the Millennial generation (pp. 1-19). Cheltenham, UK:
Edward Elgar.
Twenge, J. M., Campbell, S. M., Hoffman, B. J., & Lance, C. E.
(2010). Generational differences in work values: Leisure and
extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values decreas-
ing. Journal of Management, 36, 1117-1142.
Westerman, J., & Yamamura, J. H. (2007). Generational prefer-
ences for work environment fit: Effects on employee outcomes.
Career Development International, 12, 150-161.
Wong, M., Gardiner, E., Lang, W., & Coulon, L. (2008). Generational
differences in personality and motivation: Do they exist and what
are the implications for the workplace? Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 23, 878-890.
Wyn, J., & Woodman, D. (2006). Generation, youth and social
change in Australia. Journal of Youth Studies, 9, 495-514.
Yang, Y., & Land, K. C. (2008). Age-period-cohort analysis of
repeated cross-section surveys: Fixed or random effects.
Sociological Methods Research, 36, 297-326.
Ylikännö, M. (2010). Employees’ satisfaction with the balance between
work and leisure in Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark—
Time use perspective. Research on Finnish Society, 3, 43-52.
Zabel, K. L., Biermeier-Hanson, B. B. J., Baltes, B. B., Early, B. J.,
& Shepard, A. (2016). Generational differences in work ethic:
Fact or fiction? Journal of Business Psychology. Advance
online publication. doi:10.1007/s10869-016-9466-5
Zemke, R., Raines, C., & Filipczak, B. (1999). Generations at work:
Managing the clash of Veterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in
your workplace. New York, NY: AMA Publications.
Author Biographies
Pasi Pyöriä is a senior lecturer (sociology) at the Faculty of Social
Sciences, University of Tampere, Finland. His research interests
include employment precariousness, flexible work arrangements,
and work careers.
Satu Ojala is a postdoctoral researcher (social policy) at the Faculty of
Social Sciences, University of Tampere, Finland. Her research interests
include job quality, flexible work arrangements, and time use research.
Tiina Saari is a postdoctoral researcher (sociology) at the Faculty
of Social Sciences, University of Tampere, Finland. Her research
interests include knowledge work, work commitment, and psycho-
logical contracts.
Katri-Maria Järvinen is a university instructor (social policy) at the
Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Tampere, Finland. Her
research interests include temporary and atypical work arrangements.