Generational difference or age difference?

Kupperschmidt (2000) defines generations as “an identifiable group that shares birth years, age location, and significant life events at critical developmental stages”. A lot of published material such as books, articles and conference presentations can be found on generational differences and the serious consequences that can follow if organizations do not consider these in their management. For example, members of Generation Y are found to be independent, they enjoy challenging work, want immediate feedback and love freedom and flexibility. If they cannot find opportunities for ongoing education, socializing and creativity in an organization, they will go somewhere else. (C. A. Martin 2005.)

There is however those who are sceptical towards the significance of the generation gap, if it exists at all.Giancola (2006) reviewed a wide body of research on the theory of generational differences, found a lack of published research in academic journals on the issue and ends up suggesting that “the generational approach may be more popular culture than social science”.

He points out several other major issues with the generational approach, such as the findings which indicate that the factors that motivate the generations are surprisingly similar.

Another challenge pointed out by Giancola (2006) is that researchers do not agree on the birth periods for the different generations. For example the Baby Boomers have in recent research been classified as the people born 1946-1961 (Cennamo & Gardner 2008), 1945-1964 (Wong et al. 2008) and 1946-1964 (Chen & Choi 2008). The classification of generations should also consider the geographical aspect, as the generations, by the definition provided by Kupperschmidt (2000), share also location and significant life events. Therefore adapting generation classifications from other cultures can be misleading.

Another challenge in generational research is that some of the characteristics of generations are in fact more dependent on experience and life stage than on generational issues. Most of the older workforce has experienced changes in their work environment; they have for example seen their office change from a cellular office to an open office. Having experienced a private room is not self evident for their younger colleagues. Another aspect possibly influencing the workplace needs and preferences of older workers is ageing, which can be associated with decline in various abilities such as physical strength and agility, perception, memory, learning, hearing and sight (Erlich & Bichard 2008).

Whether influenced by generational differences or other issues, it is still important to understand if and how needs and preferences of office users of different age vary. In order to understand how to meet the workplace needs and preferences of the entire workforce, more information is required about the possible differences in workplace needs and preferences of employees of different ages. In this research we decided to examine workplace preferences of different age groups rather than defined generations, in order to avoid the risk of defining generations incorrectly or to make misleading conclusions about generational differences - which could in fact be consequences of e.g. experience and life stage.

4. Methodology

Understanding office users’ preferences concerning their workplace requires data from a scale of various real estate and workplace elements. For this research an internet based survey with email invitations was selected as the appropriate data collection method.

The questionnaire was developed by a group of researchers in cooperation with industrial specialists during spring 2009. The complete survey included a wide range of logical questions with multiple choice answers consisting of options that suit each respondent. Some open questions were added to the survey to get additional new insights. The survey consisted of questions in which the respondents evaluated given work environment attributes with a five step scale: not important, less important, neutral, important to some extent, and very important. This part of the questionnaire was further divided in to 4 sections based on the object of the questions: locational attributes, service attributes, office building attributes and workspace attributes. The questionnaire included 81 attributes which were divided in categories as shown

in Table 1. At the end of the questionnaire the respondents were asked to give background information of themselves such as age, gender, education and position.

Table 1: Attributes included in the questionnaire Category Amount of attributes

Location 12

Services 30 (of which 14 within walking distance and 16 in the office building)

Office building 21

Workspace 18

Total 81

The survey was carried out during spring 2009. It was sent via e-mail to office employees in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area (HMA), which is the most significant investment region for domestic and international investors in Finland. The questionnaire was sent to 4 275 employees in 21 organisations. A total of 1116 answers were received of which 1006 were taken in to further analysis. The return rate was 26,0 per cent.

The analysis started with a principal component analysis (PCA) to develop an understanding of the underlying features that office users prefer in a similar way. Through the PCA a total of 19 factors were extracted. In the extraction 8 attributes failed to load and were removed. The rotation method was Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

After the PCA the respondents were divided in to five groups based on their year of birth. The five groups were respondents born 1940-1949 (7,3 per cent of the respondents), 1950-1959 (27,5 per cent), 1960-1969 (28,8 per cent), 1970-1979 (23,9 per cent and 1980-1989 (12,5 per cent). Factor scores were extracted by regression analysis and used to identify where factor differences between the preferences of the age groups could be found. In order to confirm the analysis, DA was used to determine the relevant factors for the grouping of respondents to their respective age group. The potency index was then calculated for the resulting relevant factors to reveal the order of influence these factors had on the discriminant model. Stepwise estimation was used for construction of the discriminant model. The calculations were done with Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS).

5. Results

The Principal Component Analysis resulted in 19 factors that consist of 73 attributes. The factors and the attributes they comprise are presented in the attachment of this paper. Factor 1 comprises the majority of the sustainability attributes related to the building. Factor 2 includes elements from the virtual environment. Factor 3 consists of work related services while factors 7, 8, 11, 12, 13 and 17 include services that serve the individual. Factors 4, 14 and 18 describe the image of the building and area. Factor 5 supports commuting by car, while factor 10 refers

to arriving to work by bicycle. Factors 6 and 15 include elements concerning the possibility to influence on the work environment and factors 9, 16 and 19 describe collaboration and privacy attributes. The total variance explained was 67,1 %.

Analysis of the factor scores of the different age groups (Figure 2) and the potency indexes Table 2) indicate that there are some differences in the workplace preferences of different age groups. In order to give the reader a better overview of the preference differences, the results are presented in seven themes as follows: service preferences (factors 3,7,8,11,12,13 and 17), virtual and mobility preferences (factor 2), collaboration and privacy preferences (factors 9, 16 and 19), image preferences (factors 14,4,18), impact preferences (factors 6 and 15) sustainability preferences (factor 1) and commuting preferences (factors 5 and 10).

Table 2: Potency Indexes of the resulting relevant factors

Factor Potency Index Factor Potency Index

Factor 7 0,149 Factor 9 0,110

Factor 12 0,133 Factor 13 0,104

Factor 10 0,119 Factor 11 0,104

Factor 5 0,115 Factor 6 0,063

5.1 Service preferences

The services preference theme consists of factors 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13 and 17. The services included in the survey were both work related services, such as lobby, posting and meeting room services, and services that serve the individual. Based on the result, the variation in preferences concerning work related services was fairly low.

Bigger preference differences were however found concerning services that serve the individual.

Practical services such as daycare services in the area and building, laundry and car rental, were valued much higher by the group born in the 1970’s than the others. This can probably be explained by the fact that this age group is the one most likely to have children that attend day care. The older age groups value personal services, such as beauty, culture, bank and post services near the workplace, higher than the younger generations. The younger ones do on the other hand appreciate restaurants, cafés and bars in the area more than the older generations.

Figure 2: Factor scores

The restaurant and café offering in the building also seems to be more important for the younger employees than the older ones, but the difference is not significant.

The preferences concerning workout services (e.g. fitness center in the building) did not differ remarkably between the generations although, surprisingly enough, these services were more appreciated by the respondents belonging to the oldest and the two youngest age groups (40’s, 70’s and 80’s).

5.2 Virtual and mobility preferences

The virtual and mobility preference theme consists of factor 2, which comprises attributes of the virtual environment and the possibility to choose type of workplace according to the current task. Based on the results, there are small differences between the age groups, but these are not significant and the factor was not relevant in grouping the respondents in to their respective age groups.

The small differences that were found indicate that the younger age groups see the virtual environment and mobility a little bit more important than the older age groups. The group born in the 1980’s is the one that has indicated the virtual environment most important, followed by the respondents born in the 1970’s. However, the group that rated these issues least important compared to the others is the group of respondents born in the 1950’s and not the 1940’s, which could perhaps have been expected.

5.3 Collaboration and privacy preferences

The collaboration and privacy preference theme includes factors 9, 19 and 16. The issues covered by these factors are work environments that support team work and openness, that the workplace supports tasks that require privacy and the possibility to network with others in the building.

Based on the results the privacy preferences are very similar for all age groups. All respondents valued their privacy to the same extent, although it can be noted that the respondents born in the 1950’s valued privacy a bit more than the others. The difference is however not considerable.

Privacy preferences can perhaps be better explained based on the tasks the users are completing rather than age.

The collaboration and networking preferences did however count for a more considerable difference: the youngest group of respondents stand out as valuing work environments that support team working and socializing within the team much higher than all the other groups.

The two oldest age groups on the other hand value the possibility to network with others in the building much more than the younger ones, but based on the DA this factor was not relevant in grouping the respondents.

5.4 Image preferences

The image preferences consists of factors 4, 14 and 18 of which the two first factors portray the image of the area and building and the last one the importance of how the workspace supports the image and values of the organization.

The differences in image preferences between the groups are not considerable; none of the factors were relevant in grouping the respondents in to their respective age groups. Small differences can however be noted. An interesting finding is that the image of the area and building is seen most important by the youngest and the oldest age groups while the three other groups value this aspect less. The safety and cleanliness of the area is valued most by the three oldest groups while the respondents born in the 1970’s and 1980’s do not see this aspect as important as the others. A workspace that supports the image and values of the organization is perceived less important by the respondents born in the 1940’s and the 1950’s than by the others.

5.5 Impact preferences

The impact preferences refer to the possibility of the individual to be able to have an impact on his or her work environment. The theme includes factors 6 and 15 of which the first represents the possibility to adjust the indoor climate and the second includes the possibility to adjust furniture and have an influence on workplace development.

Neither of the two factors was relevant in grouping the respondents in to their respective age groups. The results indicate that being able to adjust the indoor climate is more important for the older age groups than the younger ones. The possibility to have an influence on workplace development and to adjust the office furniture is on the other hand valued most by the respondents born in the 1960’s, followed by the respondents born in the 1970’s and 1980’s, but the differences are not as significant as concerning the indoor climate.

5.6 Sustainability preferences

The sustainability preferences theme consists of factor 1 which covers the sustainability characteristics of the building and its management, such as energy efficiency, recycling, green cleaning and possible green building certificates.

Some differences were found in the preferences of the groups. The two oldest age groups see the sustainability characteristics of the building most important compared to the others while the respondents born in the 1970’s are ones valuing these features the least. The differences were however not significant and the sustainability factor was not relevant in grouping the respondents in to their respective age groups.

5.7 Commuting preferences

The commuting preferences theme consists of factor 5 which describes the preferences concerning issues that support commuting by car and factor 10 which contrary consists of attributes that support bicycling to work. Both factors were relevant in the grouping of the respondents. What really stands out is the youngest age group not caring much about issues that support commuting by car but highly valuing characteristics of the workplace that support riding a bicycle to work. Based on the results, the commuting issue is in general not important to the oldest respondents compared to the others.