generations in organizations

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Research in Organizational Behavior 31 (2011) 177–205

Generations in organizations§

Aparna Joshi *, John C. Dencker 1, Gentz Franz 2

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 247 D LER Building, 504 East Armory Avenue, Champaign, IL 61820, United States

Available online 29 October 2011

Abstract

Despite a rich tradition of scholarship across many disciplines, organizational research on the topic of generations has been

relatively scarce. In this article we develop a framework for studying generations in organizations that draws on multiple

conceptualizations across multiple disciplines. Our framework distills two distinct critical elements that give ‘generations’ agency

in organizational settings – chronology (the idea that a unique location in time creates a ‘generation’) and genealogy (the idea that

generations are linked through the transmission/descent of ideas/values/skills/knowledge). After an historic overview of the

evolution of the topic of generations, we review generational research across the fields of political sociology, family sociology,

psychology, social anthropology, cultural sociology, demography, and gerontology. Our framework elucidates how linkages

between generations, based on chronology and genealogy, can be characterized in organizations and how the nature of

intergenerational contact and transfer predicts a wide range of organizational outcomes such as change/innovation, conflict,

turnover, and socialization. We outline the implications of this framework for future research on generations in organizations.

# 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. An historic view of generational research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

1.1. Early origins: from the ancients to kinship and cohorts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

1.2. Mannheim’s legacy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

1.3. Age, period, and cohort effects: critiques of Mannheim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

1.4. Emerging controversies and continuing contradictions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181

2. Multiple perspectives on ‘generations’ in organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

2.1. Generations based on chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

2.1.1. Age-based generations: successive entry into adulthood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

2.1.2. Life stage: successive entry into family roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

2.2. Organizational approaches to ‘chronological generations’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

2.2.1. Age in organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

2.2.2. Tenure in organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

2.3. Generations based on genealogy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

2.4. Organizational approaches to ‘genealogical generations’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

§ We are deeply indebted to Art Brief and Barry Staw for valuable feedback on an earlier draft of this paper.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 217 333 1483; fax: +1 217 244 9290.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Joshi), [email protected] (J.C. Dencker), [email protected] (G. Franz).1 Tel.: +1 217 333 2383; fax: +1 217 244 9290.2 Tel.: +1 217 778 4951; fax: +1 217 244 9290.

0191-3085/$ – see front matter # 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.riob.2011.10.002

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01913085

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2011.10.002

mailto:[email protected]



http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2011.10.002

A. Joshi et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior 31 (2011) 177–205178

2.5. Multiple approaches to inter-generational relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

2.5.1. Intergenerational relationships in terms of conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

2.5.2. Intergenerational relationships in terms of reciprocity/beneficence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

2.6. Summary of multiple research perspectives on generations and intergenerational interactions . . . . . . . . . . 189

3. An integrative framework for studying generations in organizations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

3.1. ‘Generational imprints’ as a function of organizational chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

3.1.1. Generations based on successive entry into organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

3.1.2. Generations based on successive passage through organizational roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

3.1.3. Generations based on a discrete organizational event . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

3.2. Genealogical linkages between generations: transfer of generational imprints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

3.2.1. Duplications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

3.2.2. Mutations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

3.2.3. Deletions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

4. Organizational contingencies and outcomes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

4.1. Organizational contingencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

4.1.1. Structural characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

4.1.2. Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194

4.2. Organizational outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

4.2.1. Socialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195

4.2.2. Organizational turnover and conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196

4.2.3. Organizational innovation and change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

‘‘Old age also sets men apart, so that they form a distinct category. But it is above all by their memory that the old make themselves necessary in this

field. . . ( f or example) Arrows cannot possibly be shot with any real success if the archer does not know the incantations that will direct them to their

target. It is the old that have the secret and they are careful how they let it go.’’

- Balinese legend, as retold by Simone de Beauvoir (1972: 81)

Warren (retired employee): I wanted to make sure you didn’t have any more questions about those pre-teen mortality risk models that I was working

on? I know they seem pretty straight forward at first, but. . .

Gary (Warren’s replacement): Nope, no, I think I’ve got a pretty good handle on things. You did a super job of handing everything over. Just super.

Smooth sailing all the way.

Warren: Because, I have been concerned about some of those items that I walked you through slipping through the cracks. You know, it’s kind of been

nagging at me.

Gary: Nope. A business degree from Drake oughta be worth somethin’! If anything bubbles to the surface, Warren, I will be sure to give you a holler.

You can bet on that. Oooh, I gotta get to a meeting out west. You wanna take the elevator down with me?

As he is ushered out of the office building, Warren sees the files he had handed over to Gary near the dumpster.

- from the film, About Schmidt (Payne, 2002)

In contemporary societies, generational issues are ubiquitous and the popular rhetoric on generations continues to

intensify. However, organizational scholars have remained largely silent on this topic, even as prevailing approaches to

defining generational groups, which are reified by the popular media and press, remain grossly inadequate for

understanding the complex manifestations of generational differences in the workplace. Our review serves as a call to

organizational scholars to reclaim an arena fertile with rich traditions of scholarship across many disciplines, yet,

overrun by populist and largely untested assumptions regarding generations and generational differences.

As the opening quotes remind us, several critical organizational challenges today are rooted in generational dynamics,

with managers likely to see generational phenomena as having a significant impact on outcomes such as recruitment,

retention, succession planning, communication, skill transfer, and knowledge-sharing. Recent age-based trends have also

fuelled vigorous dialogue on generational dynamics in the workplace. For example, between the years 1979 and 2007 the

proportion of workers over the age of 65 increased by over 100% and the projected increase for this segment of the labor

force between the years 2006 and 2016 is likely to be over 80% (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007).

Barring a few notable exceptions (e.g., Wade-Benzoni, 2002), the recalcitrance of organizational scholars to

grapple with generational issues lies in the inherent messiness of the conceptualization of generations, as well as in

characterizing inter-generational relationships. For instance, multiple approaches to understanding the type and nature

A. Joshi et al. / Research in Organizational Behavior 31 (2011) 177–205 179

of generational dynamics across several social science disciplines exist; these conceptualizations vary not only across

but also within these disciplines (Biggs, 2007; Gilleard & Higgs, 2000; Kertzer, 1983). Nevertheless, in this article, we

argue that these multiple approaches and perspectives are fertile ground for developing a theory of generations for

organizations. In particular, integrating multidisciplinary perspectives, we aim at arming organizational researchers

with a generational theory of the workplace – a theory that offers many promising directions for future research and

addresses several key organizational challenges.

The central question we seek to answer in our review is: what makes ‘generations’ organizationally relevant

entities? In order to answer this question, we develop a framework that identifies how generations can be specified and

measured in organizational settings and can predict a range of organizational outcomes. In our review of various

conceptualizations of generations, we distill two distinct critical elements that give ‘generations’ agency in

organizational settings – chronology (the idea that a unique location in time creates a ‘generation’) and genealogy (the

idea that generations are linked through the transmission/descent of ideas/values/skills/knowledge). That is, we

contend that generational differences are rooted in temporal distinctions between individuals who occupy unique

locations in a chronological order. Preceding and succeeding generations are also linked through the unique imprints

(e.g., the set of knowledge, skills, and values) that they acquire and are in a position to transfer based on their location

in a temporal order. We draw on past accounts of generations to identify three aspects of temporality in organizations

that can shape the nature of generational imprints: those based on organizational entry, those based on passage through

organizational roles or positions, and those based on discrete organizational events. We then lay out specific heuristics

to trace the transfer of these imprints between preceding and succeeding generations. These chronological and

genealogical themes distinguish ‘generations’ from other demographic categories such as gender, race, and socio-

economic class.

The remainder of this article is structured as follows. We begin with an historic overview of the evolution of the

topic of generations followed by a review of generational research across the fields of political sociology, family

sociology, psychology, social anthropology, cultural sociology, demography, and gerontology. We then identify a

number of streams in the organizational literature that correspond to varied conceptualizations of generations and

discuss various approaches to characterizing inter-generational relationships. Finally, we propose a framework of

generations in organizations that recognizes the two predominant themes of chronology and genealogy across multiple

conceptualizations. Our framework elucidates how linkages between generations can be characterized and how the

nature of intergenerational contact and transfer predicts a wide range of organizational outcomes such as change/

innovation, conflict, turnover, and socialization. We conclude by outlining the implications of this framework for

future research on generations in organizations.

1. An historic view of generational research

1.1. Early origins: from the ancients to kinship and cohorts

The notion of a generation is long-standing in recorded history, with some scholars finding references to the

‘generations’ in ancient Greek texts (e.g., Nash, 1978), while others going further back to identify generational

references in ancient Egyptian texts (e.g., Redford, 2003). In these pre-modern conceptualizations, generations were

associated with distinct phases in mythology that connected human activity to the workings of nature or the universe in

general. In ancient Egypt, generational references were illustrated by elaborate rituals or rites of passage that marked

life, death and the afterlife. For the ancient Grecians the history of civilization was illustrated by detailed accounts of

four generations or periods in history – the golden period (offspring of Cronos, characterized as forever young), the

silver generation (offspring of the Olympians), the bronze generation (a warlike cohort) and the iron generation (a

heroic generation) (Burnett, 2011). In these accounts ‘‘the concept of generations expresses and indicates both the

passage of time and change, as well as boundary markers (of) what we can understand as being ‘kinds of people’ who

lived in ‘kinds of time’’’ (Burnett, 2011, p. 11).

The critical difference between ancient and modern references to generations lies in a break from generations as

an attempt to understand the universe to generations as an acknowledgement of ‘the individual’ in relation to

society. An additional development with the advent of industrialization was the change in the conceptualization of

‘time’ as a linear (rather than a cyclical) force representing a movement forward in an historic trajectory (Adam, 1990;

Urry, 1996). Together these factors account for our understanding of the human lifespan as a passage of finite time


that is characterized by sequential and linear phases – childhood, adulthood, and old age. As discussed below, these

factors also help to account for present day understanding of the lifecourse, of the movement of age-based

cohorts through the lifecourse, and of the acquisition of a distinct consciousness of belonging to a unique generation

(Burnett, 2011).

Pre-modern approaches to generations have crystalized into two important strands evidenced in the modern concept

of generations – the notion of ‘kinship’ (lineage through blood or marriage) and the notion of a ‘cohort’ (a group

sharing a common socio-historic context). The kinship-based view has been a predominant focus in anthropological

accounts of generations. For example, Ardner (1989) has operationalized kinship as a form of recruitment that

societies use in order to accommodate newcomers. Based on this notion, after birth a person can be provided a specific

location in a web of kinship-based interrelationships. Other anthropological studies view kinship as an exchange

mechanism across generations in terms of property transfer, inheritance, bequeathed obligations, habitation,

healthcare, and disposal of the dead (Finch, 1989).

Although generational research can be traced back to these kinship-based approaches, they offer only a partial view

of generations; other substantively different conceptualizations emerged over time. As Burnett (2011) argues, the

anthropological focus on ‘kin’ has come at the cost of acknowledging ‘kith’ (networks of one’s contemporaries i.e.,

cohorts). As we discuss below, the work of Karl Mannheim in the early 20th century revived the notion of ‘kith’ (as

opposed to kin) and became an enduring legacy in our understanding of generations. In particular, with the advent of

modernity and particularly following World War 1, the cohort-based view rose in prominence as generations became

symbols of a common historic experience and mass mobilization.

1.2. Mannheim’s legacy

Mannheim argued that the concept of generations contains two essential components – common location in a

historic time period and a distinct consciousness that is the result of important events of that time. In doing so, in his

‘Essay on the Problem of Generations’ Mannheim (1928, 1952) claimed generations as a sociological rather than a

biological issue. His arguments rested on the assumption that social processes were a product of group-based social

mobilization and that generations represented collectives that propelled social change. That is, generations ‘‘share a

common location in the social historic process, (which) thereby limit them to a specific range of potential experience,

predisposing them for a certain historically relevant action. . .’’ (Mannheim [1928] 1952, p. 291). In other words,

Mannheim’s work identified generations as agents of social change – a view that dominates the sociological views on

generations even today.

It is important to note that Mannheim’s (and others such as Ortega y Gasset, 1933) expositions of generations

developed at a time when societies approaching modernity experienced a weakening of kinship ties and associated

roles and relationships, and faced the ‘youth problem’ – a lack of integration of society’s young adult males (Meja &

Kettler, 1993). This conceptualization positioned the younger generations as challengers of the status quo and the older

generations as preservers of tradition (Wohl, 1980). A second important dimension of Mannheim’s theory is that

generations as a collective are historically and socially aware of their location in time. This critical consciousness

emerged as a result of every new generation trying to fit into existing traditions and social patterns and, in doing so,

bringing about social change. As such, the notion of a generational consciousness distinguishes Mannheim’s view

from a traditional cohort-based view and is related to the Durkheimian notion of a ‘collective consciousness’. That is,

germane to Mannheim’s generational theory is the idea that every generation collectively encounters a set of events

during young adulthood that shapes their consciousness and distinguishes them from younger and older generations

(Burnett, 2011; Scott & Zac, 1992).

As we discuss below, the notion of a generational consciousness has informed a stream of research on collective

memories (i.e., shared memories of events that inform future life experience) in subsequent scholarship on this topic.

Yet, there are a number of challenges to Mannheim’s approach that need be considered. For example, scholars such as

Kertzer (1983) have critiqued Mannheim’s approach and argued that his two-dimensional conceptualization of

generations confounds the age, period and cohort effects (which we discuss below), and is methodologically suspect.

We also discuss the views of social gerontologists such as Gilleard and Higgs (2005) who have argued that growing

economic prosperity, better health, and access to technology across age groups have blurred age-based generational

demarcations. Nevertheless, Mannheim’s work remains one of the most powerful and lasting legacies on the topic of

generations.


1.3. Age, period, and cohort effects: critiques of Mannheim

Challenges in defining a generation trace in no small part to a long scholarly tradition of combining information

from several different generational categories. For example, elements of cohorts, the life-stage, and historical aspects

of generations can be seen in Mannheim’s pioneering study (cf. Kertzer, 1983; Troll, 1970). Yet, many accounts create

confusion by using generations and other terms such as age groups interchangeably when they refer to different

attributes (Kertzer, 1983) – a problem that is magnified by difficulties in assessing empirically whether generational

outcomes are due to cohort, period, or age effects.

The age-period-cohort problem arises because an individual’s age, the cohort in which she is located, and the

historical period are confounded (Blossfeld, Hamerle, and Mayer 1989). Each of these factors has a specific cause: age

effects result from the aging process (i.e., becoming older); period effects are a consequence of external influences that

vary over historical time; and cohort effects are a function of being born at certain time periods. However, estimating

effects of each factor is challenging, in that, age effects often cannot be separated from period or cohort effects in many

types of extant data. As an illustration, Morgan (1998) demonstrated that what appeared to be a glass-ceiling effect in

cross-sectional analyses was instead a cohort effect. Specifically, in her study of engineers over a 7-year period, she

found that earnings penalties for women were more a function of when they started their careers (that is the cohort to

which they belonged) than a function of how long they worked – with no earnings penalties for women in younger

cohorts.

1.4. Emerging controversies and continuing contradictions

In the face of these continuing epistemological and methodological challenges, some scholars in the area of social

gerontology have begun to challenge the notion that distinct generational differences exist – proposing instead that

generational boundaries have blurred and ‘‘networks of cultural sub-groups’’ have emerged in their place (Gilleard &

Higgs, 2000). For example Biggs (2007) notes, ‘‘If definitions of adult aging and identity are currently in flux, then we

need to critically examine the contingency of generations as an explanatory force’’ (p. 708). In addition, researchers

have noted that growing access to technology, common avenues for leisure, and longer working lives, have enhanced

commonalities across rather than differences between generations (Bourdieu, 1977; Corsten, 1999). Based on this

view Gilleard and Higgs (2005) conceptualize generations as a ‘‘set of dispositions that generate and structure

individual practices, which emerge and are defined by the forces operating within a particular generational field

(timeframe)’’ (p. 70). This approach suggests that generations should not be considered as fixed forms, and recognizes

that changing conditions may change the dynamics of relationships within and between generational groups over time.

To illustrate this conceptualization of generations, scholars have examined the evolution of the ‘‘youth culture’’

from the end of World War II to the present day in Europe and the U.S. (Capuzzo, 2001). In the post-war era, youth

culture was defined in terms of a set of practices of leisure and consumption engaged in by teenagers and young people

across social classes. With the advent of commercial mass media fueled by expansion of markets and freer availability

of credit, these practices began to proliferate across age categories so that the boundaries of the ‘‘youth culture’’ began

to disappear. By the onset of the 21st century, consumer surveys in the U.K. showed that leisure activities were more

common than distinct across age groups. Although elements of the original youth culture remained, they were

transformed into a ‘‘mass consumer society’’ that encompassed multiple age groups (Gilleard & Higgs, 2000).

Based on these arguments, distinct cohorts are considered less relevant and appropriate for conceptualizing

generations than are cultural sub-groups that are based on a common set of values, beliefs, life-style preferences, and

consumption patterns that prevail through the process of aging. Gilleard and Higgs (2005) note that certain aspects of

modernity, such as the greater economic prosperity among the elderly, greater control over economic resources among

retirees, greater access to technology and common lifestyles across age, have reduced typical generational differences.

Consider that today an 8-year-old as well as an 80-year-old can access the Internet and create a Facebook account with

an online identity that may mask all other differences between them. In organizational settings, Gilleard and Higgs’

(2005) arguments raise questions regarding conceptualization of generations that are solely based on age and suggest

that ‘generations’ may be more complex, context-dependent, and multidimensional than previously acknowledged.

Despite the conceptual and methodological challenges identified by sociologists such as Kertzer (1983) and

gerontologists such as Gilleard and Higgs (2005), we note that the concept of generations is alive and well. Not only

has the concept (in its simplest forms) remained the subject of popular culture and media, but academic interpretations


of the construct have become more sophisticated and complex as a result of prior controversies (see Joshi, Dencker,

Franz, & Martocchio, 2010). Therefore, in the following section we outline the rich and varied perspectives that have

prevailed in research on generations. We also offer critical elements for assessing this concept in organizations and

provide important avenues for future research.

2. Multiple perspectives on ‘generations’ in organizations

This section is organized on the basis of two important and enduring themes in generational research – chronology

and genealogy. Our review also identifies corresponding organizational research relevant to these themes. These two

themes form the building blocks for our framework for identifying generations as organizationally relevant entities.

Appendix A summarizes the key research reviewed in this section.

2.1. Generations based on chronology

A key element in extant research on generations is the notion that generations are entities that emerge based on

passage through a chronological order. As we discuss below, this order may be based on successive entry into the portal

of adulthood (age-based generations) or the life-stage (life course-based generations). Successive entry into the portal

of adulthood is associated with specific formative events that lead to enduring collective memories unifying a distinct

generation and distinguishing one generation from another (Schuman & Scott, 1989). Successive entry into a

particular life-stage is associated with norms and expectations regarding appropriate behaviors for individuals for that

life-stage; these behaviors and expectations are shaped either by social institutions (the sociological perspective;

Mayer & Tuma, 1990) or by changes in cognitive and physical abilities through the process of aging (the psychological

view; Baltes, Staudinger, & Lindenberger, 1999). Based on these sociological and the psychological perspectives,

successive entry into a life-stage can be seen as the basis for a unique generation which is differentiated from other

generations that occupy different stages in the life course (e.g., youth, working adults, married adults, retirees, etc.).

Although organizational research has rarely drawn on these views, we extend these theoretical perspectives to a

discussion of organizational research relevant to successive entry into adulthood (age cohorts) and successive entry

into the organization (tenure cohorts). These perspectives help us establish the link between location in a chronological

order and the formation of common attitudes and behaviors that unite a generation and distinguish one generation from

another.

2.1.1. Age-based generations: successive entry into adulthood

Mannheim’s pioneering research on generational identities indicates that the beliefs established through shared

formative experiences influence the attitudes and behaviors of individuals at later points in time (Mannheim, 1928,

1952). In this formulation, the sense of belonging to a group due to a shared experience indicates that a generation is

not only a social creation, but also is a function of historical experiences, as the formation of unique generational

memories is argued to occur when a cohort of individuals transitions into adulthood.

Scholars have built on Mannheim’s notions to demonstrate that critical events can have an important influence on

identities formed during the transition into adulthood (or ‘formative years,’ between the ages of 12–29) – assuming

that this transition was demarcated by a novel historical event (Schuman & Scott, 1989). Specifically, Schuman and

Scott asked a representative national sample of individuals to recall critical historical events that were very important

to them, and then to explain the rationale for their choices among these events. With these data, they found that

different cohorts recall different events, with formative experiences playing a key role in individuals’ ‘‘collective

memories’’. In their later research Schuman and colleagues have also drawn attention to the stability of collective

memories associated with these events over time (Schuman & Rodgers, 2004). For example, individuals who

experienced the Great Depression during the formative years of their lives developed specific attitudes towards their

finances and retirement that lasted later in life. Individuals for whom the Civil Rights movement was a formative

experience developed specific attitudes towards equal rights and employment that were stable during the course of

their lifetimes. As we discuss later, organizational research on age and age cohorts relies on the assumption that

individuals similar in age share similar attitudes and values. The research on collective memories draws attention to

formative experiences as the basis for a common set of values and attitudes for individuals who share a unique location

in a chronological order.


2.1.2. Life stage: successive entry into family roles

While collective memories based on formative experiences are an important facet of generations, other historical

and contextual factors also shape the formation of a generation (Mayer, 2004). Mannheim’s formulation indicates that

the sense of belonging to a group is not only socially created, but also a function of the life course and historical

experiences (e.g., Mayer & Tuma, 1990). Life course-based perspectives on generations suggest that passage through

various life stages leads to the formation of a generation due to the influence of various social institutions (such as

family, education, and work) that are relevant to a particular life stage at a particular time in history (Mayer & Tuma,

1990).

The notion of the life course has been used in a number of disciplines. Psychologists have assessed life span aspects

to examine changes in behavior and cognitive patterns from childhood to old age (Baltes & Staudinger, 1996). In life

span psychology, researchers often examine the lives of individuals from birth to death focusing on changes in

cognitive ability, memory, and emotion over time (Baltes et al., 1999). In contrast to sociological approaches, which

typically consider the influence of social and structural factors (e.g., culture and institutions) on outcomes over an

individual’s life, life span psychologists often consider the impact of nature (biology) and nurture (environment)

during the course of a person’s lifetime.

In many sociological accounts, a life stage or life course-based generation typically refers to individuals within a

specific age group who are also at a common stage in their life course. This research has shed light on how various

institutions shape individual lives through the interrelated domains of family, education and work at various points in

the life stage leading to a common set of expectations and behaviors for individuals belonging to various age-based

generations (Mayer & Tuma, 1990). These perspectives suggest that in order to understand generations, it is important

to consider relevant institutions, such as the government (which in some countries specifies a legal retirement age and

creates laws prohibiting child labor), welfare state policies (with respect to retirement or unemployment) (Mayer &

Schoepflin, 1989), and cultural norms associated with appropriate age categorizations and expectations of ‘youth’,

‘adulthood’, ‘middle-age’ and ‘old age’ (Cameron, 1969; Hagestad, 1990; Kohli, 1994; Lawrence, 1996; Marini,

1984).

Thus, various social institutions exert control over behavior through socialization and/or social sanctions, so that

norms associated with various age groups become institutionalized and taken-for-granted. For instance, optimal age

norms describe collective notions about the ‘‘ideal’’ age to experience certain life transitions and events (e.g.,

marriage, retirement); and prescriptive and proscriptive age norms describe collective notions about when these

specific life transitions should (or should not) occur (Settersten & Mayer, 1997). In short, progress along certain life

trajectories is often age-based, but transitions across life stages is also socially determined with some transitions seen

as more appropriate while others are seen as less so if they violate time tables by occurring too late or too early. For

example, in organizations, Lawrence (1987) has examined how age distributions lead to age-based norms regarding

appropriate timetables for career progression (for example, being considered too old or too young for a job level).

These perspectives suggest that apart from formative experiences in early adulthood (Schuman & Scott, 1989), social

norms and expectations regarding the timing of life transitions and expected behaviors in various life stages can

influence the formation of generations. In conclusion, the research on life course-based generations draws attention to

various social institutions and related cultural norms that dictate appropriate and expected behavior for individuals

who share a common location in a chronological order (i.e., a generation) and provides a basis for a common set of

behaviors and expectations for a generation.

2.2. Organizational approaches to ‘chronological generations’

2.2.1. Age in organizations

Organizational research on age demography relies on the assumption that chronological age is associated with a set

of attitudes, values and preferences that are shared by individuals who are similar in age – thereby differentiating one

age cohort from another (Lawrence, 1988; Zenger & Lawrence, 1989). As we discussed in the previous section, this

assumption can be further understood and clarified by drawing on generational research on collective memories and

the life course (e.g., Mannheim, 1952; Schuman & Scott, 1989; Mayer & Tuma, 1990).

Age demography research provides ample empirical evidence relating age similarity to work group members on

individual level outcomes such as turnover, satisfaction, and commitment (e.g., Jackson et al., 1991; Wagner, Pfeffer,

& O’Reilly, 1984; Wiersema & Bird, 1993; Zenger & Lawrence, 1989). At the work group level, research has


examined the effects of age composition (i.e., the distribution of various age cohorts within a work group) on outcomes

such as conflict, social integration, communication, innovation and performance (e.g., Bantel & Jackson, 1989;

O’Reilly, Caldwell, & Barnett, 1989; Pelled, 1996).

More recently, Lawrence and Zyphur (2011) demonstrated the importance of age/tenure/job level-based faultlines

in organizations, employing a latent class cluster analysis of over 2000 employees in a large utility firm. Their results

indicate that clear faultlines developed around age, tenure and job level – rather than around gender and ethnicity. The

authors note that faultlines based jointly on age, tenure, and job level represent ‘‘years of shared experience’’ which

serve as a basis for cohort formation and emerge as significant predictors of interpersonal ties (Lawrence & Zyphur,

2011). Taken together, research on collective memories associated with age, life course perspectives on generations,

and organizational research on age similarity and age diversity, suggests that membership in an age-cohort can be a

basis for a shared identity and age-based differences can be a basis for conflict at interpersonal and at work group

levels.

Organizational research that directly refers to popular notions of age-based generations is limited and faces

numerous challenges, however. Most research on this topic tends to take for granted that arbitrary cohorts, such as

‘Millennials’ and ‘Baby Boomers’, exist as fixed forms, and that individuals in a cohort share common values and

display common attributes (e.g., Ng & Gossett, in press; Parry & Urwin, 2010; Twenge & Campbell, 2008). To date,

this research has failed to articulate any clear rationalization for how or why these cohorts were established in their

current form. An added difficulty with these popular conceptualizations is that researchers are not able to distinguish

whether a particular value orientation or generational characteristic is a matter of age, life-stage or period in history.

For example, the many popular accounts of ‘Millenials’ being ‘entitled’ may simply be a function entering the

workforce during a particularly strong labor market cycle. After the economic crisis of 2008, it is likely that the same

‘generation’ would display very different characteristics and work-related preferences.

Studies that have attempted to validate popular age-based categories of generations report mixed success. Smola

and Sutton (2002) studied generational differences among employees across 54 manufacturing and service firms in

the US in terms of work values such as desirability of work outcomes, pride in craftsmanship and the moral

importance of work. Results based on data collected in 1974 and 1999 indicate that there were generational

differences along some but not all of these work values. Taking a similar cohort-based view, Egri and Ralston (2004)

compared age-based cohorts among 774 Chinese and 784 US managers. Findings indicated significant cohort

differences based on personal value orientations in the Chinese sample. The Social Reform generation (economic

reform under Deng Xiaopeng) reported significantly higher openness to change than the other three generations:

Republican era (pre-Communist China), Consolidation (associated with era of the establishment of Communist

party), and Cultural Revolution (associated with intensified attacks on Westernization and Confucianism by the

Communist Party).

Among Egri and Ralston’s US participants, however, findings were mixed. The study found that Generation

Xers (born between 1965 and 1979) were more likely to value openness to change and self-enhancement than

either the Baby Boomers (born between 1946 and 1964) or the Silent era generation (born between 1925 and

1945) (contrary to the hypothesis which predicted that Baby Boomers would assign the highest importance to

these values). No significant differences emerged with regard to other values such as conservation and self-

transcendence. Finally, and contrary to expectations, comparisons across the US and Chinese samples indicated

that the younger cohorts in the two countries shared less in common than the oldest cohorts included in the sample

(Egri & Ralston, 2004).

An underlying ‘collective consciousness’ theme runs through research applying popular generational notions,

although these studies do not acknowledge Mannheim’s legacy and subsequent research on collective generational

memories. As an exception, and in a direct application of Mannheim’s perspectives and collective memories

research, Dencker and colleagues (2008) proposed that responses to several benefits and compensation practices

could be better understood by recognizing generational differences that are shaped by collective memories of

formative events such as the Vietnam war, the JFK assassination, the Civil Rights movement. Building on the notion

of collective memory, research on the psychological contract, and affective events theory, they developed a two stage

framework that (1) emphasized that collective memories are a function of the level and nature of significance that

individuals attach to key historic events, and (2) highlighted critical antecedents and consequences of generational

memories in age diverse organizations. However, there have been no further empirical extensions of this research in

work settings.


In summary, attempts at establishing generational differences in personal and work values based on popular

accounts of generations are one step in establishing the validity of these conceptualizations. Note, however, that even

in the research reviewed above, assumptions regarding specific cohorts’ value orientation only received marginal

support. Apart from a lack of evidence for their validity, a serious concern with these formulations of generations is

that they are strongly associated with and reinforce stereotypes of older versus younger employees. Consider the

implications of a manager working with employees representing multiple age groups. After discerning the age of her

employees, the manager could arrive at a set of ‘generation-based’ conclusions, and behave accordingly (e.g., ‘‘I know

that this Millennial feels highly entitled and might expect ‘spa days’ from me if I don’t set her right’’ or ‘‘This Boomer

is not going to be happy with the new electronic filing of insurance claims’’). We contend that it is time to retire these

popular classifications of ‘generations’ in organizational research and focus instead on (1) identifying how generations

manifest in organizational settings taking into consideration employees’ experience both inside and outside the

organization, (2) specifying the implications of intergenerational interactions for organizational outcomes, and (3)

employing longitudinal research designs to track how collective memories of formative experiences lead to the

formation of a generation with implications for subsequent behavior and attitudes in a specific organizational context.

2.2.2. Tenure in organizations

Although formative and life course experiences associated with age may shape generations, in an organizational

setting, successive entry into the organizational portal is also a relevant factor shaping generations. Organizations exert

normative control over employee behaviors through the process of socialization and training of new entrants. Thus, the

formative experience of entering an organization at the same time, coupled with common expectations and behaviors

shaped through organizational socialization, can create long lasting bonds among individuals within a tenure cohort.

Perhaps the most prominent understanding of tenure effects in organizations comes from the area of organizational

demography, which proposes that tenure-based cohorts produce two types of effects in organizations – conflict across

cohort groups, and solidarity and mutual sponsorship within these groups (cf. Pfeffer, 1992).

A number of studies on organizational tenure distributions, team tenure composition, and tenure dissimilarity at the

dyadic level support this contention. Across a variety of settings, research has shown that tenure distributions in

organizations are predictive of turnover and conflict (Pfeffer, 1992). In organizations, membership in a tenure-based

cohort can serve as a basis for generational identification and can influence interactions between individuals belonging

to different tenure cohorts in work groups. For example, in a study of internal and external technical communications

of R&D teams, research showed that group members tended to communicate externally with individuals outside the

team based on tenure similarity (Zenger & Lawrence, 1989).

Studies on group tenure heterogeneity (i.e., groups representing multiple tenure cohorts) in organizations also argue

that individuals entering organizations at the same time share similar experiences (Pfeffer, 1983), and develop similar

values and patterns of communication (Wagner, Pfeffer, & O’Reilly, 1984), which in turn may create stronger in-group

identification, lower conflict, and higher levels of cooperation with other cohort members. At the work group level,

several studies have found support for this perspective. For example, Pelled, Eisenhardt, and Xin (1999) found that

tenure heterogeneity was positively related to conflict in teams, a result corroborated by Knight et al. (1999) who found

that tenure heterogeneity was positively related to interpersonal conflict and negatively associated with agreement

seeking behavior in teams. In addition, McCain and colleagues found that in academic departments with larger cohort

sizes and greater cohort gaps, inter-generational conflict was exacerbated and led to higher rates of faculty resignations

at senior and junior levels (McCain, O’Reilly, & Pfeffer, 1983).

A tenure cohort approach to defining generations is attractive because it is a parsimonious way to measure

generational cohorts in organizational settings and to specify the outcomes of cohort solidarity and inter-cohort gaps

(Pfeffer, 1992). Although tenure research in organizations has measured cohorts based on a linear and continuous time

frame (albeit with varying gaps between them), the cohort-based view may also be important in situations where a

single organizational event causes a ‘before-after’ generation. For example, Gusfield’s (1957) study of the Woman’s

Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) is an early example of an extra-organizational event that triggered conflict

between senior and junior cohorts. Thus, the notion that a single event creates a cohort that overwhelms tenure-based

distinctions is also a critical direction for future research. For example, in our ongoing research, we have found

(anecdotally) that an Initial Public Offering (IPO) can create a before–after divide between employees who were

vested in company stock and those who joined after the IPO had been launched and did not have the same stock

options. Similarly, a reduction in force (RIF) or a merger/acquisition may force a drastic change in the tenure


landscape within an organization, with cohort lines being drawn solely on the basis of this event; a theme we discuss

later in this paper.

Overall, we propose that chronology-based conceptualizations (either successive entry into adulthood or successive

entry into an organization) are critical for framing generations in organizations because they allow us to theorize about

how location in an organizationally relevant chronology may influence outcomes such as conflict, succession,

turnover, or change. Yet, while critical, these perspectives alone are insufficient for understanding the relevance of

generations in organizations. As we argue below, in order to fully comprehend generations as organizationally relevant

entities, we also need to consider inherent linkages that exist between generations. To develop this viewpoint, we

return to genealogical conceptualizations of generations.

2.3. Generations based on genealogy

To identify how genealogical linkages develop between generations we turn to kinship-based views on generations.

The kinship definition of generations stresses blood relationship and marriage as central for defining lineage and

descent. Kinship-based views on generations have focused on the mode of transmission across generations, and have

been used in research on value transmission, social mobility and immigration. Thus, in contrast to the cohort-based

views discussed in the previous section, this stream of research focuses on the genealogical linkages and transmission

of values and resources across generations. For example, Aldous and Hill (1965) examined the transmission of cultural

values across three-generation triads of children-parents-grandparents and found that the family structure was an

essential mechanism for the transmission of cultural values and that transmission was more likely through same-sex

lineages (e.g., daughter–mother–grandmother) rather than cross-sex lineages. Kalish and Johnson (1972) tracked the

mothers and grandmothers of 55 women and found only modest differences in values between the three generational

groups. Skvoretz and Kheoruenromne (1979) examined whether parents transmit values of their social class to their

children, however, the findings were unclear in this regard.

More recently, Bengtson (2011) and colleagues have considered multigenerational families and the process of the

transmission of values between grandparents, parents and children. Applying a longitudinal qualitative and survey-

based methodology, their research tracked 25 multigenerational families and approximately 2000 survey respondents

in eight waves between the years 1970 and 2005. The study identified how different parenting styles, closeness of

relationships, and alignments between children and grandparents (rather than parents) positively or negatively

impacted the transmission of values (Bengtson, 2011). These studies exemplify kinship-based approaches to the study

of generations where each parent, child and grandparent generation is linked genealogically and functions as a locus

for the transmission of values or resources.

Although the studies reviewed above were not conducted in organizational settings, they suggest that generations

can also be a basis for the transmission of values and resources. However, some scholars have noted that these

genealogical conceptualizations of generations are not able to resolve the methodological dilemmas associated with

age-period-cohort effects that we discussed earlier (see Kertzer, 1983). Yet the genealogical perspective provides

insight into how effectively, or ineffectively, one generation transmits its values and ideas to the next generation.

Further, they add a necessary component to our theorizing on generations in organizations – while generations are

separated by their position in a chronological order, successive generations are also intrinsically linked through the

potential transfer of values, skills, and resources that were acquired based on location in that order.

2.4. Organizational approaches to ‘genealogical generations’

In the organizational context, the closest approximation to kinship-based research is on the movement of

individuals or groups between and across specific positions or roles. For instance, incumbency in a particular job-level

or functional role is associated with a set of common experiences, attitudes, knowledge and skills that are formed as a

result of occupying a job/role for a finite amount of time (consider research on CEO succession). Incumbents and

successors are often linked through the potential of transfer of resources and skills between them. In this area, two

streams of research are relevant to genealogical approaches to generations in organizations. The first stream of

research has examined how individuals enter into specific decision-making scenarios that have implications for future

generations – thereby demonstrating the inter-temporal resource interdependence between generations (Tost,

Hernandez, & Wade-Benzoni, 2008; Wade-Benzoni, 2002; Wade-Benzoni, Hernandez, Medvec, & Messick, 2008).


The second stream of research highlights the transfer of organizational blueprints by individuals who leave firms to

begin new startups (Phillips, 2002) and the transfer of position imprints between incumbents and successors in

organizational roles (Burton & Beckman, 2007).

In organizational research, Wade-Benzoni’s work on intergenerational decision-making best exemplifies a kinship-

based approach, and directly acknowledges incumbency in a role or position as a generational construct (Wade-

Benzoni, 2002). Specifically, Wade-Benzoni (2002) defined a generation based on occupancy in ‘‘a role that may be an

office, status, or set of responsibilities, and the time period in that role is limited in the sense that one generation does

not occupy the role indefinitely. At some point, generational transition occurs, whereby one generation succeeds

another and comes to occupy the roles formerly occupied by the generation that it replaced. The amount of time that

one generation occupies a role can be either fixed (a class of MBA students is an example) or flexible (for instance,

directors of departments in an organization.’’ (see Wade-Benzoni, 2002, p. 1012). Building on this definition, Wade-

Benzoni and her colleagues have drawn on multiple perspectives grounded in psychology such as empathy,

perspective-taking, mortality salience, and social learning to understand the specific mechanisms and conditions under

which a present generation gives up a benefit or takes on a burden on behalf of a future generation. Our

acknowledgement of successive entry into an organizational position as an aspect of organizational generations in the

next section is directly based on Wade-Benzoni’s (2002) seminal conceptualization of generations.

This line of research also offers critical insights into the relevance of incumbency-based generations, and into the

nature of intergenerational allocations of resources in organizations. As a recent exemplar, Wade-Benzoni, Sondak,

and Galinsky (2010) conducted a series of experiments that examined the role of resource valence in intergenerational

attitudes and allocations – and found that compared to the allocation of benefits, individuals were more concerned

about the legacy and ethicality of decisions related to passing on burdens. Individuals also felt stronger moral emotions

while allocating burdens to future generations. The authors noted that the relatively higher concerns associated with

the allocation of burdens, rather than benefits, reflect concerns regarding one’s legacy and the moral implications of

this type of allocation. This research suggests that the ‘present’ generation (e.g., an individual/group occupying a

leadership role) is in a position to pass on valued resources as well as burdens to successive generations and draws

attention to the emotional responses and moral dilemmas that are associated with this type of inter-generational

transmission of resources and burdens (Wade-Benzoni et al., 2008).

The theme of inter-generational transmission based on incumbency in a particular role/position can also be found in

organizational genealogical research. Beginning in the 1980s, sociologists began to revive research on the transfer of

routines and resources when employees left firms to launch new startup firms (Brittain & Freeman, 1980; Hannan &

Freeman, 1986; Romanelli, 1989). Based on data from Silicon Valley law firms over a 50-year period, Phillips (2002,

2005) showed that founders not only transferred routines and experiences that they developed in their original firms to

their new firms, but did so in a way that had important societal ramifications. Specifically, practices related to gender

integration tended to be replicated by these individuals in the new startups that they created (Phillips, 2002, 2005).

A similar theme is also found in research on CEO and top executive succession. In this area, the bulk of research has

focused on the effects of change in leadership on organizational performance and the effects of various types of CEO

successions (voluntary or forced, internal or external succession) (Carroll, 1984; Virany, Tushman, & Romanelli,

1992). Related to the genealogical theme, some research has examined changes in organizational structures and

strategy-making as outcomes of CEO succession. For example, Miller (1993) found that new leadership was

associated with changes in the diffusion of authority, organizational structure, and processes in the organization. Miller

also found that in organizations which were performing poorly at the time of transition, a change in leadership led to

increased information processing.

Staw, Barsade, and Koput (1997) reported similar findings in their study of 132 California banks over a 9-year

period. They found that following executive turnover, there was a shift in how the bank dealt with problematic loans.

The data suggest that these bank executives ‘protected’ some poorly performing accounts, but upon their departure the

bank was able to appropriately recognize and write off the previously protected bad loans. This type of research echoes

the organizational genealogy literature, suggesting that what an incumbent does, or does not do, directly influences

subsequent actions and strategy following his/her departure. Even more directly relevant to this theme is research on

the transfer of position imprints and its effects on successor’s turnover. Extending the genealogical view to

understanding successor turnover in new firms, Burton and Beckman (2007) examined whether legacies left by first

incumbents constrained new position holders. This study found that it was difficult to duplicate the initial position

holder’s imprint when the position holder had an atypical background.


Overall the organizational literature reflecting a genealogical theme has the following implications for a theory of

generations in organizations: (1) incumbency in organizational roles/positions is associated with a set of experiences,

skills, values and resources that current incumbents can potentially transfer to their successors; (2) individuals (e.g.,

the CEO) and/or groups (e.g., the top management team) passing through organizational roles represent incumbency-

based generations; and (3) these generations are separated by a unique location in a chronological order and are linked

through the transfer of resources, values, and organizational routines.

2.5. Multiple approaches to inter-generational relationships

The above review indicates that conceptualizations of generations are diverse. Such diversity is also evident in

approaches to characterizing inter-generational relationships, which at some broad level can be divided into two

dominant traditions. The first tradition views generations as inherently positioned in conflict with one another, which

could potentially lead to organizational turnover and change. A second research tradition focuses primarily on the

nurturance and beneficence of inter-generational transfers which could potentially contribute to the continuity of

organizational routines, practices, and cultural values.

2.5.1. Intergenerational relationships in terms of conflict

The characterization of inter-generational relationships in terms of conflict has been a predominant view across

multiple research traditions. The traditional psychoanalytic understanding of generations draws on Freudian

interpretations of the parent-child relationship (de Beauvoir, 1970). Based on this conception, relationships between

generations are shaped by the Oedipal rivalry between the same-sex parent and child, with the resolution of this

conflict leading to the development of the adult identity. Extending the Freudian perspective, de Beauvoir argues that

the Oedipal theme underlying intergenerational relationships has recurred throughout history and is illustrated in

rituals among ancient tribes and societies.

Interestingly and perhaps relevant to current organizational challenges with knowledge transfer across generations,

de Beauvoir (1972) provides numerous examples of how various tribal societies develop customs designed to maintain

the status of older generations. The opening quote based on a Balinese legend provides one such example and is an

insight into the motivations behind the possible hoarding of specific skill sets and knowledge by older generations to

maintain their relevance and control over organizational resources. Conversely, de Beauvoir also provides examples of

rituals that ‘cast away’ older and infirm members of society during periods of scarcity. The rivalry hypothesis suggests

that relationships between generations are inherently conflictual and driven by the younger generation’s need to

obliterate the old and occupy the positions of power in society, and the older generation’s motivation to retain such

positions.

By far the most significant and influential body of scholarship on the conflict-based view of generations is in the

area of political sociology and social stratification. Sociologists have viewed generations as a dimension of societal

stratification and proposed that generational differences are replacing class as the arena of social conflict and change

(Becker, 1991; Turner, 1998). This domain of scholarship has viewed generations as a collective strategy to secure and

maintain access to income and occupational prestige.

In general, intergenerational conflict can be activated during times of crisis such as war or economic recession, and

may be illustrated by reactions to military drafts or retirement legislation (Turner, 1998). In the US context the

controversies and debates around social security represent a classic intergenerational conflict around a fast-depleting

resource (see Ferguson, 2004). Fiscal pressures are increasing on social security systems in contemporary societies

due to demographic trends with the number of workers paying into the program continuing to decline relative to those

receiving benefits. For example, in the U.S., the number of workers paying into the program was 5.1 per retiree in

1960; 3.3 in 2007, and 2.1 by 2035 (projected) (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2007). Further, with increasing life

expectancy and growing unemployment due to the economic crisis, inflows into the social security fund are likely to

further decline as outflows increase (Walsh, 2010).

In effect, the social security challenge represents a zero-sum generational dilemma that is a consequence of large

aging cohorts and smaller subsequent cohorts that have contributed toward the system but have less likelihood of

benefitting from it. That is, the younger cohorts not only accept a greater burden than older cohorts in terms of paying

into the system, but also perceive that they will receive less than they contributed. Such challenges have already begun

to play out in organizations, as for instance, a lack of resources has led to a shift from defined benefit to defined


contribution systems. Moreover, challenges at the societal level are not limited to retirement systems, but could also

play out with increasing levels of debt, which arguably represents a transfer of wealth from future to current

generations (assuming that current generations are unable to pay off such debt). As we discussed in the previous

section, Wade-Benzoni and colleagues’ (2008) work highlights similar dilemmas in the passing of benefits and

burdens between generations.

As these dilemmas indicate, conflict-based approaches to intergenerational interactions remain extremely relevant

in the current societal context and have, in part, driven current policy interest in aging and generational conflict. As we

will discuss in more detail below, similar zero-sum dilemmas may occur in organizational settings during periods of

resource scarcity. For example, more tenured cohorts may push to offer shorter-term contracts or reduce retiree

benefits for newcomers, whereas newcomers may claim that senior cohorts are more expensive and should be targeted

for lay-offs as they contribute to the organization’s legacy costs.

2.5.2. Intergenerational relationships in terms of reciprocity/beneficence

In contrast, other streams of generational research have challenged the assumption of inter-generational conflict

that is germane to cohort-based views on generations. For example, Irwin (1998) notes that ‘‘the idea of generation as a

collective strategy to secure and maintain resources implies that generation groups aim to secure advantage over other

generations. . . To see generations as cohesive and distinct entities which are structurally at odds with each other is to

neglect the relations through which successive generations are bound in the reproduction of social life’’ (Irwin, 1998,

p. 307).

Lending support to Irwin’s view, research in the area of family sociology and studies focusing on intra-familial

relationships find that, within families, there is very little evidence of conflict and rivalry between generations. Rather,

relationships between members of multiple generations are characterized by inter-generational transfer of economic

resources and nurturance (Bengtson & Schrader, 1982; Roberts, Richards, & Bengtson, 1991). Furthermore, drawing

on sociology and social psychology, mainstream social gerontology emphasizes the ‘‘protective value’’ of generations

and proposes that social conflict-based perspectives do not acknowledge the potential for intergenerational

beneficence seen at the level of families (see Biggs, 2007).

Research in the sphere of family sociology (Bengtson & Schrader, 1982; Roberts et al., 1991) posits six key

dimensions of inter-generational solidarity: structure (level of dispersion), association (frequency of social contact and

shared activities), consensus (actual or perceived agreement of values and opinions), function (exchange of finances or

support), and norms (strength of obligation toward family members). While these dimensions were developed in the

context of multigenerational families, they provide a rubric for characterizing inter-generational interactions in

organizations. For example, how dispersed are organizational members representing multiple generations? Do

organizational practices encourage/discourage frequent contact and shared activities for individuals representing

various organizational generations? How divergent are the values of employees, for example, with less than 5 years of

experience compared to those with 15 or more years of tenure? Do long-tenured organizational members mentor or

support the newcomers? Together these varied views suggest that intergenerational interactions can be viewed on a

spectrum ranging from intergenerational beneficence and reciprocity to rivalry and conflict. The nature of

intergenerational interactions can have important implications for organizational change, turnover, and culture.

2.6. Summary of multiple research perspectives on generations and intergenerational interactions

Since its early origins, generational research has crystalized into two strands – one that has highlighted the notion of

‘‘kith’’ (i.e., the shared experience of a cohort of peers) and another that has highlighted the notion of ‘‘kin’’ (i.e., in

terms of descent and lineage-based linkages) (Burnett, 2011). The pendulum of generational research has swung

between these two conceptualizations with anthropological views emphasizing ‘‘kinship’’ and sociological

perspectives emphasizing ‘‘cohorts’’ as a basis for generations. We note that despite methodological challenges and

epistemological debates in both these research traditions, generational research continues to thrive in the social

sciences.

Research on collective memories and life course-based views on generations have highlighted how successive entry

into adulthood and various life stages shapes a common set of attitudes, values, and behaviors underlying a generation.

Organizational research on age and tenure demography also supports the view that successive entry into adulthood (a

basis for age-based cohorts) and successive entry into organizations (a basis for tenure-based cohorts) is associated


with common attitudes and values that differentiate one cohort from another. Together these perspectives help us

establish a link between location in a chronological order and the formation of common attitudes and behaviors that

unite a generation and distinguish one generation from another.

Kinship-based research has suggested that apart from a unique location in a temporal order, generations are

also characterized by genealogical linkages to preceding and succeeding generations and that these linkages serve

as conduits for the transfer of values and resources. Organizational research also suggests that individuals

form unique imprints based on incumbency in organizational positions and that the ‘present’ generation (e.g., an

individual/group occupying a leadership role) is in a position to pass on valued resources as well as burdens to

successive generations.

Based on our review of generational scholarship across multiple disciplines we conclude that generations in

organizations represent the following two characteristics: (1) organizational generations are a property of individuals

who share a unique location in a temporal order and (2) organizational generations are connected across this temporal

order through the inter-generational transmission of ideas, skills, knowledge, and values. Finally, we note that

perspectives on intergenerational interactions are as varied as conceptualizations of generations across disciplines.

These varied approaches view intergenerational interactions as a basis for conflict/rivalry or as a basis for

intergenerational reciprocity/beneficence with implications for organizational turnover, change, and innovation.

These various elements inform a framework for studying generations in organizations which we discuss in the next

section.

3. An integrative framework for studying generations in organizations

In this section we outline a framework that specifies how generations develop unique imprints based on

location in a chronological order and the various ways in which these imprints may be transferred to succeeding

generations. Based on past definitions of temporality in organizations (Ancona, Okhuysen, & Perlow, 2001) we

differentiate between three types of organizational generations: those based on (1) successive entry into an

organization, (2) successive passage through an organizational role/position and (3) a discrete organizational

event. Generational imprints may be the properties of individuals or groups. However, for the sake of theorizing,

we note that the transfer of imprints is more likely at the level of interpersonal succession between incumbents,

successors or predecessors.

3.1. ‘Generational imprints’ as a function of organizational chronology

Unlike demographic differences based on attributes such as race or gender, generational differences are based on a

unique location in a temporal order or chronological sequence. For example, with regard to tenure-based cohorts,

Pfeffer (1992) notes that ‘‘the concept of cohorts in organizations explicitly introduces the idea of groups of people

moving through time and positions carrying with them the effects of history modified by subsequent experiences’’ (p.

343). With regard to incumbency-based generations, Wade-Benzoni (2002) refers to occupancy in organizational roles

for a finite period of time, whereby one generation succeeds another and comes to occupy the roles formerly occupied

by the generation that it replaced. Thus, the temporal theme unites these two very different conceptualizations of

generations in organizations. We draw on past accounts of both cohort and kinship-based views of generations to

identify three types of organizational generations below.

3.1.1. Generations based on successive entry into organizations

As we discussed in the previous sections, in numerous social science accounts, generations are defined as cohort of

individuals who enter the same institutional context – such as an organization or an educational system – at the same

time (McCain et al., 1983; Pfeffer, 1992; Ryder, 1965; Turner, 1989). Individuals entering an organization during the

same time interval undergo similar training and socialization experiences, and enter into similar employment

contracts. An entering cohort also tends to have a given body of human capital, which they obtained from their parents

and the educational system. Once they are on the job, they expand their human capital in a variety of ways – through

training, promotions, and experience on the job.

Recent research shows that extra-organizational factors such as the nature of downturns or upturns in business

cycles have long-term effects on cohorts of individuals entering organizations, in terms of employment contracts,


wages and promotion rates. These effects last over time, with cohorts entering organizations during positive

business cycles reaping benefits throughout their careers (Kwon, Milgrom, & Hwang, 2010). Thus, every new

cohort entering an organization is likely to have a unique set of imprints based on either the extra-organizational

environment and/or the types of socialization and training that individuals experience collectively at the time of

entry.

3.1.2. Generations based on successive passage through organizational roles

Incumbency in a role that is associated with a set of experiences, attitudes, knowledge and skills, formed as a result

of occupying a job/role for a finite amount of time can also be an aspect of generational identity in the workplace

(Wade-Benzoni, 2002) – and hence form the basis for a generational imprint. Incumbency in a role is relatively

dynamic, as individuals move through different roles and associate with others in complementary roles (Sluss &

Ashforth, 2007). Given the increasing adoption of non-hierarchical, networked, and modular work arrangements

(Cappelli, 2008; DiMaggio, 2001), this form of generational imprint would be relevant in a number of work settings.

For example, consider individuals who hold the same rank in the military or employees who are assigned to a particular

functional role (e.g., deans or department heads in a university). In both cases, individuals occupying a certain job

level/role will develop a common set of attitudes and values. However, these individuals will hold these positions for a

finite amount of time and will be replaced by successors to whom they may pass on the values, skills or attitudes they

developed in those roles.

The literature on position imprints also suggests that an individual occupying a role is often in a position

to shape that role and provide it with a unique imprint. This imprint may be based on the human and social capital

that an individual brings to a role as well as to the environmental pressures that the individual faces when he/

she occupies that role. As a specific instance, consider the recent CEO succession between Anne Mulcahy and

Ursula Burns at Xerox. During the 2 years Ursula Burns was being groomed to become the CEO of Xerox, then

CEO Anne Mulcahy worked to develop critical skills in her would-be successor. It is logical to assume that while

Burns has ultimately become her ‘own’ CEO based on her own experience and her response to environmental

pressures while leading the company, her approach has also been influenced by the imprint passed along by her

predecessor.

3.1.3. Generations based on a discrete organizational event

As noted, in periods of economic uncertainty, sudden events such as layoffs, takeovers, mergers and firm

dissolutions are fairly widespread and may overwhelm other aspects of an individual’s work experience. Significant

events such as these can create ‘before and after’ generations as in Gusfield’s (1957) study, and as some of our own

research shows. For instance, as part of a larger research project, we (the authors) conducted a case study of a software

firm (Infotech) which had recently opened a new office in a mid-western city. This new office was comprised almost

entirely of employees who had recently been laid off by another software firm in the region (Knowtech). When the

employees were laid off from Knowtech, they decided to collectively market themselves to Infotech as a ‘‘package’’; a

group which knew the community, would require no relocation cost, and possessing a well-established organizational

structure. In-depth interview-based data gathered from these employees indicated that there existed a strong bond

based on the common experience of being laid off together, then banding together to market themselves, and

ultimately finding a new employer together. This common set of experiences formed a unique imprint which continues

to define these employees as a group.

Thus, like entry into organizations and passage through organizational roles, significant events also create lasting

and collective imprints that characterize one generation in an organization and distinguish it from the next. As the case

study described above suggests, the process of negotiating with the new company, organizing a collective approach to

going on the job market, and developing a combined strategy to respond to the challenge created a unique and shared

experience for the employees. This experience obliterated other temporal differences such as time of entry into the

organization and became the trigger for the creation of a ‘before-after’ generation. As with entry into an organization

or role, this discrete event created a specific generational imprint for the employees experiencing the event and

distinguished this group from individuals subsequently entering the organization. Yet, it is possible that this

‘‘Knowtech cohort’’ may be in a position to pass on their collective memories and experiences to future generations

who may have to face job uncertainty at some point in Infotech’s future. Below we discuss how these generational

imprints may be transferred between generations.


3.2. Genealogical linkages between generations: transfer of generational imprints

Once a generational imprint is created based on a location in a temporal order, the next step is to specify how these

imprints – formed at various stages in a temporal order – are transferred to successors. To develop a framework for

understanding the genealogical connections across generations we draw on the biological terminology of vertical gene

transfers between parents and offspring. While biology concerns itself with the transfer of physical matter (DNA), our

aim is to illustrate the similarities in the process of transferring generational imprints, (e.g., values, knowledge, ideas,

and strategies) from one generation to the next within an organization.

Our conceptualization of generational transfers differs substantively from past work on intergenerational

allocations of legacies and burdens (e.g., Wade-Benzoni et al., 2008). Generational imprints represent the set of

knowledge, skills, and values that develop in a particular role or upon experiencing an event or entering an

organization. In a sense it is literally the DNA associated with a generation rather than a resource that is available

publicly, which every generation has a right over, and has the ability to withhold or share with future generations (such

as social security or environmental resources). Intergenerational linkages create points of transfer for resources, skills,

and values that constitute each generation’s imprint. Earlier we reviewed research on the transfer of political values or

religious beliefs across generations (Bengtson, 2011). As this research shows, values and resources are rarely

transferred intact across generations. These resources can undergo a transformation even as they are transferred and

successors may directly adopt, change or resist the transfer of the previous generation’s imprint.

Elsewhere, we (Joshi, Dencker, Franz, & Martocchio, 2010) have developed a framework that considers a range of

inter-generational relationships broadly ranging from transmitive to resistive, that could characterize the extent of

transfer of skills or resources between generations. In the sections below we take a step back and, (1) through the lens

of the genetic theme, discuss various ways in which generational imprints can be transferred, and (2) drawing on

research in the area of family sociology, organizational genealogy and CEO succession propose three ways in which

generational imprints may flow between incumbents and successors in organizations. That is, based on the language of

vertical gene transfers we propose that there are three mechanisms through which the unique imprint developed by one

generation is handed over to the next – duplications, mutations, and deletions.

3.2.1. Duplications

Duplications refer to the exact replication of genes during genetic transfer. At first blush it may seem that

duplications of generational imprints are unlikely in modern organizations that face dynamic environments. However,

in some circumstances, the values and skills developed in a job can be duplicated by the successor. One instance of this

occurrence is in situations where the normative context does not allow too many deviations from the predecessor’s

imprint on a role/job. In the context of position imprints, Burton and Beckman’s (2007) work suggests that temporal

closeness to the position originator and similarity between the incumbent and successor in terms of educational/

functional backgrounds might create situations where duplications of generational imprints are more likely.

One might also find duplicated generational imprints in organizations facing a strong normative context (either

occupational or organizational) and/or those dealing with extreme or emergency situations. For example, in a recent

ethnographic study of film crews and SWAT teams, Bechky and Okhuysen (2011) discuss the concept of

‘organizational bricolage’. Their research suggests that these types of groups deal with sudden events by developing a

shared task-knowledge and a set of common expectations regarding workflow. Although not directly related to the

topic of generations, this research suggests that when the context places a high value on shared understanding and

common knowledge of processes, duplications of imprints across incumbents, predecessors and successors is highly

likely.

Finally, research suggests that the forces driving duplication within organizations may differ. In particular, Watkins

(2009) proposes two possible successor archetypes that can be adopted following transition in an organization and may

predict the type of generational transfer. ‘Hero’ type successors emerge during periods of organizational crisis and

may deviate significantly from the predecessor’s imprint. During periods of growth or munificence, on the other hand,

‘steward’ type successors may be focused on consensus building are more likely to duplicate the success established

by his/her predecessor(s). As a practical exercise, one might consider a recent CEO transition (such as in HP),

determine the direction of the company at the time of the incumbent’s departure (succeeding or struggling), and

identify whether a ‘hero’ or ‘steward’ was selected as a successor.


3.2.2. Mutations

During vertical gene transfers, mutations occur as a result of errors in copying one set of genes to another, or when

cells are dividing or copying DNA in a way that could result in the breakdown or realignment of DNA strands. Due to a

variety of environmental and individual factors, it is more likely that generational imprints will undergo mutations as

they are passed on from incumbents to successors. In a generational sense, mutations are defined as adaptations of

generational imprints by successive generations. For example, in the case of the transfer of religious values in families,

researchers note that some progeny may move towards a more zealous adoption of religious practice and others toward

a more flexible approach toward religious observances (Bengtson, 2011). These types of patterns are also evident in

research on CEO succession which notes that new CEOs, who lack the experience, resources and reputation of their

predecessors, tend to change the nature of decision making authority into a more decentralized form, with greater

reliance on organizational information systems (Miller, 1993). Thus, mutations in generational imprints may be

evident in the manner that work routines and structures are adopted by successors.

Changes in the organizational context and the need to adapt to a changing economic environment would most likely

lead to changes in imprints during generational transfers. For instance, during the CEO transition between Jack Welch

and Jeffrey Immelt at General Electric, the economic environment faced by the company had changed significantly

leading to a change in GE’s strategy under Immelt, that was reflected in moving away from its Capital businesses (a

legacy from Jack Welch’s tenure) and returning to GE’s manufacturing foundations by increasing the number of

manufacturing jobs and product offerings (Lohr, 2010).

3.2.3. Deletions

Deletions are a specific type of mutation that can occur during gene transfers when a particular strand of DNA is simply

deleted and does not get passed on to progeny. The opening vignette from the film ‘About Schmidt’ illustrates these

situations, where the knowledge and skills of a retiring cohort may be simply considered irrelevant by new incumbents.

Like mutations, deletions are also a possible outcome of changing organizational circumstances. Earlier we reviewed the

literature on intergenerational conflict. This research suggests that as generations struggle to obtain/retain status and

access over social resources, intergenerational relationships may lead to conflict, thereby increasing the likelihood of

resistance to the legacies of past generations as opposed to passive acceptance (Biggs, 2007; de Beauvoir, 1970).

As Freudian accounts of aging note, many societal rituals represent the casting away of the elderly, suggesting a

rejection of the past or the desire of the elderly to not remain a burden (de Beauvoir, 1970). Recall that Mannheim’s

(1952) seminal generational analysis was also a response to the ‘youth problem’ which was seen as a rejection of

tradition by young adults as societies approached modernity (Burnett, 2011). Additionally, deletions may be the result

of a predecessor who is unwilling to ‘hand over’ resources and responsibilities to the new incumbent (see Joshi et al.,

2010 for a detailed discussion of situations in which resistance to either accepting or passing on generational imprints

are likely).

4. Organizational contingencies and outcomes

4.1. Organizational contingencies

The study of human genes and genetic transfers is incomplete without a consideration of the environment in

shaping the nature of a genetic imprint as well as transfer. Similarly, our understanding of generational imprints and

transfers is also incomplete without considering the organizational contingencies that might shape both the nature of

the imprinting as well as its transfer. That is, we propose that both generational imprints and their transfers are shaped

by organizational contingencies in ways that have consequences for several organizational outcomes. Although a

number of such contingencies might exist, we focus on two key illustrative cases here, namely structural

characteristics and resources.

4.1.1. Structural characteristics

Organizational structures are likely to place important constraints on the nature of generational imprints, as well as

on their transfer between incumbents and successors in a temporal order. One important dimension in this regard,

based on Burns and Stalker’s (1961) classic distinction, is the extent to which organizational structures are

bureaucratic or mechanistic.


Organizations characterized by bureaucratic structures rely on well-developed internal labor markets (ILMs)

(Doeringer & Piore, 1971) that govern upward career mobility. Managerial jobs in these settings are organized

hierarchically, with the number of jobs in a given hierarchical level declining with each successive level (i.e., the

common pyramid-shaped job structure) (Stewman & Konda, 1983). Employees typically enter ILMs in lower-level

portals, and progress upward along a job ladder through promotions to higher-level vacant positions, with vacancies

created when the incumbent in a higher-level job departs that position (e.g., due to promotion or employment

separation) (White, 1970). Promotions in these systems are governed in no small part by seniority in a job, with upward

mobility following a roughly uniform schedule over time. These organizations also implement extensive training,

formal socialization and performance monitoring (Burns & Stalker, 1961).

As an example of a bureaucratic organization, consider firms in the oil refinery industry or aerospace firms where

the nature of the occupation places a premium on experience and firm-specific skills and extensive training and

performance monitoring are critical for job performance. In these organizations, more senior positions tend to be more

insulated from lay-offs since these positions are more expensive for the firm to fill. In these cases generational imprints

are likely to be based on formal organizational training and socialization. Generational transfers are likely to follow

patterns of duplication or slight mutations rather than deletions in generational imprints.

By contrast, market-based or organic organizations tend to be relatively informal, with fewer institutional

structures, overlapping responsibilities, greater generalization of roles and more flexible career mobility patterns

(Burns & Stalker, 1961). These organizations tend to have relatively few job levels and rely on external labor markets

to fill gaps in skills or talent. In addition, jobs are often defined and designed around individuals, rather than firm-

specific skills, knowledge, and abilities that tend to be key components of jobs in internal organization systems. As a

result, career patterns are more amorphous, and potentially less constrained by rules and procedures. Training and

performance monitoring are less critical for job performance. In addition, lay-off related decisions are more contingent

upon business needs rather than seniority in the firm.

Consider as an example of an organic organization, a high-technology or bio-technology firm that, in order to be

competitive, must rely on more flexible career paths and external hiring. Organizational demography research would

predict that the nature of demography and related generational imprints and transfers would vary in this setting. In

settings like these where the replication of job activities is passed over in favor of the unique abilities of individuals,

generational imprints are less likely to be a function of formal socialization and training and more likely to be a

function of an idiosyncratic shaping of the position or role (Miner, 1990). It is also likely that duplicated generational

transfers are less likely in these settings compared to mutations or deletions of generational imprints. In contrast to

generational transfers in a highly mechanistic organizational context, incumbents in organic settings may have some

knowledge regarding his/her predecessor’s job, however, an exact duplication would be almost impossible because of

the idiosyncratic nature of jobs, and mutations of generational imprints will be more likely. In these settings, we would

expect the incumbent to deviate from the predecessor’s imprint and infuse it with their own unique imprint.

4.1.2. Resources

We also argue that organizational resources will have a non-trivial influence on generational imprints and

generational transfers in organizations that, in turn, will vary according to the scarcity of the resources as well as who

controls these resources. At a given point in time, organizations will face substantial challenges in securing needed

resources. These challenges can be seen as lying along a continuum ranging from high levels of resource constraints to

high levels of slack. There are a number of factors influencing the extent to which a firm’s resources are constrained.

For instance, firms in declining industries may face multiple pressures, whereas firms in growing industries face

favorable environments in terms of profitability. Still other firms may feel little industry pressures on resources as they

have ‘‘cash cows’’ that ensure sufficient slack to run the business. Nevertheless, the scarcer an organization’s resources

are, the greater the likelihood of conflict among its members. Moreover, the nature of this conflict will be affected by

which members have greater control over the resources (cf. Pfeffer, 1992).

Regardless of the factors influencing resource constraints, the extent of such constraints faced by a firm will

influence intergenerational relations in its workplace. Perhaps the main effect is that firms will find that (latent)

generational identities and preferences become more salient when resource constraints increase and/or when control

over the distribution of resources comes into question. By contrast, intergenerational conflict will become less likely

the greater the slack in resources that a firm has, particularly if the control over the resources in an organization is

perceived as being equitable by most of its members. For example, organizational demographers have shown how


employment growth and decline influence career mobility in organizations, with growth having a positive effect on

promotion rates and decline having a symmetrical negative effect on upward mobility rates (Stewman, 1988). These

sociological notions have a number of implications for generational transfers, suggesting for instance, that tension and

conflict between generations is more likely in declining organizations. Moreover, because promotion opportunities

decrease as job level increases, incentives from generational groups in higher levels to preserve their positions likely

will conflict with pressures from generations in lower levels for upward opportunities. Deletions and mutations are

more likely in these resource-constrained environments.

In sum, based on the discussion above we propose that the organizational structure – along with the level of growth

or constraints characterizing a particular organizational setting – will jointly influence the nature of generational

imprints and generational transfers in organizations.

4.2. Organizational outcomes

We contend that many organizational challenges can be better understood and addressed by recognizing underlying

generational dynamics. In fact, the framework developed in this article offers an explanation for a wide range of

organizational issues because many of these issues are inherently generational; they are rooted in temporal differences

between individuals or groups and illustrate genealogical transfers between generations. For instance, at the firm level,

the transfer of routines as a function of CEO succession represents the transfer of a generational imprint from the

incumbent to a successor and the nature of the transfer might have implications for organizational change, conflict, and

turnover. Similar dynamics may be observed at lower levels in firms with regard to the transfer of role imprints across

current and future position holders. These phenomena have implications for the nature of knowledge transfer that

occurs in organizations and for organizational practices related to socialization and mentoring. In this section we

discuss the generational themes underlying several key organizational phenomena.

4.2.1. Socialization

Our framework indicates that a critical feature of many organizational generations is organizational entry – thus

suggesting the need to explore links between generations and organizational socialization. Entry into an organization

can be a stressful time, either because of the newness of the situation (e.g., a freshman beginning a university

education), or the expanded work load in a new job (e.g., a newly appointed Fortune 100 CEO). Not surprisingly

therefore, newcomer retention and assimilation has been a critical challenge in organizations (Bauer, Bodner,

Erdogan, Truxillo, & Tucker, 2007), and studies report that organizations make significant financial investments in

newcomers, yet experience significant turnover during the first six months of employees’ tenure (Chao, 1997; Wanous,

1980).

Although little if any research exists on the relationship between generations and organizational socialization, the

extensive research on the entry process provides scholars with some important insights for developing this link. Past

research suggests that organizations adopt a variety of socialization methods ranging from institutionalized to

individualized, depending on the level of assimilation intended between the newcomer’s personal identity and

organizational identity (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Jones, 1986). In some organizations socialization is individualized and

informal so that newcomers develop their own imprints in their new roles. In other organizations socialization

practices may be highly institutionalized and require the newcomer to divest herself of her own personal identity. In

these organizations, newcomers are less likely to develop their individualized role imprints.

Socialization research has referred to role orientation as an outcome of organizational socialization, and has

found that individual role innovations are less likely when organizations adopt institutionalized practices that

involve collective socialization, segregation from the rest of the organization, and formal training on a range of

acceptable responses regarding work-related problems (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). In these instances, current

incumbents in organizational roles provide a basis for role orientation. This type of ‘custodial’ role orientation

would strengthen the possibility of duplication of generational imprints between current incumbents and successors

(Jones, 1986).

More recent socialization research has examined the role of newcomers’ information seeking behavior in the

process of assimilation (Bauer et al., 2007; Morrison, 1993), coupled with the responses of the old guard to newcomers

(Moreland & Levine, 1989). Consider one CEO’s socialization experience: ‘‘I didn’t have the time to make decisions

based solely on personal observations from being on the job. I needed the benefit of corporate history and an insider to


calibrate my observations with the historical realities of what happened before and some of the organizational

dynamics.’’ (Neff & Citrin, 2005, p. 97). We propose that both newcomers’ information seeking and old guard

responses to newcomers represent types of generational transfers that occur in organizations. In organizations where

the normative context requires greater old guard participation in newcomer socialization, possibilities of duplications

of generational imprints may be higher relative to organizations where newcomers follow more individualized

information seeking tactics. Thus, the process of organizational socialization itself is a mechanism for generational

imprinting because it creates a set of experiences by virtue of organizational entry at a particular time either as a

collective or individually.

We also maintain that socialization is a mechanism for generational transfers and that the nature of these transfers is

contingent on the type of socialization that takes place in organizations. Although the focus of the socialization

literature has been on newcomer assimilation, satisfaction, and adjustment, we surmise that applying a generational

lens allows for viewing it as a process for organizational change and learning as well. Through the process of

socialization and contact between successors and incumbents in various organizational roles, mutations in practices

and processes may be observed. Going back to the discussion of intergenerational solidarity (Silverstein & Bengtson,

1997), researchers could identify various dimensions of ‘solidarity’ between incumbents and successors and study its

impact on generational transfers between them. We propose that scholars should aim at a greater integration between

socialization and generational research in order to more effectively examine these dynamics.

4.2.2. Organizational turnover and conflict

Organizational demographers have paid substantial attention to the effects of cohort dynamics on organizational

conflict and turnover. Pfeffer (1992) provides a detailed analysis of organizational conflict as an outcome of the size of

and gap between tenure-based cohorts. These conflicts are rooted in the desire of one cohort to maintain access over

organizational resources to the detriment of others. Gusfield’s classic (1957) analysis of the Women’s Christian

Temperance Union (WCTU) shows that in the wake of repeal of prohibition in 1933, two very different responses

based on the time of entry in the organization emerged from the WCTU. Cohort-based conflict driven by the older

members’ desire to maintain power and control in the organization led to turnover among younger members and

ultimately a decline of the WCTU (Gusfield, 1957). That is, as illustrated in Gusfield’s analysis, conflict between older

and younger cohorts reflected a resistance on the part of older cohorts to change the organization’s practices in the face

of a societal event (the repeal of prohibition) – leading to turnover among younger cohorts. In a similar fashion,

McCain et al.’s (1983) classic study of turnover demonstrated that the proportion of individuals who entered an

academic department at the same time and the gap between such cohorts significantly influenced faculty resignations

in departments.

More recently, in an ethnographic study of a French railroad company, Flamant (2007) found that members of

younger and older cohorts interpreted the organization of work and cooperation between different job stations very

differently, with disagreements becoming highly salient between cohorts following reorganization. Flamant notes that

the nature of the conflict reflected concerns among senior workers regarding increased competition from younger

workers, leading to a greater distrust of younger workers and a need to reinforce their subordinate position in the

organization. Younger workers in turn were motivated to retaliate and guard against negative age-based stereotypes

about them (Flamant, 2007). These cohort-based views of organizational conflict suggest that generational imprints

that emerge as a result of shared experiences in organizations might place generations irrevocably at odds with each

other.

As noted earlier, political sociologists view conflict as a natural outcome of intergenerational dynamics and an

engine for societal change (Turner, 1989). Genealogical views of generations in organizations also indicate that

generational imprints and transfers often result in organizational conflict and turnover. Accounts of CEO or top

executive succession have examined the influence of CEO succession type on conflict and turnover (e.g., Friedman

& Olk, 1995; Wiersema & Bantel, 1993). For example, Shen and Cannella (2002) note that a ‘follower’ succession

(where the predecessor and incumbent are internal) involves the departing CEO’s strong influence over the choice of

successor. In ‘follower’ successions, continuity plays a stabilizing role and succession is unlikely to have a negative

impact on top executive turnover or organizational performance. This is consistent with the leadership succession

experience at Xerox: when Burns succeeded Mulcahy in a very transparent, deliberate, and iterative internal process

there was no turnover among other top executives (Mulcahy, 2010). In contrast, ‘contender’ successors, who emerge

as a result of power struggles with their predecessors, are likely to restructure the organization in a new direction in


order to prove their worthiness and subsequent turnover is likely to have implications for organizational

performance.

Going back to the GE example, Immelt’s succession led to turnover among other contenders for the role

(McNerney and Nardelli) and a new direction for GE’s strategy in terms of expansion in manufacturing businesses,

R&D expenditure, and global ventures (McGinn, 2010). This example is consistent with literature on the potential

positive consequences of turnover, which include improved organizational performance, innovation (Staw, 1980)

and the voluntary attrition of poor performers (Becker & Cropanzano, 2011). Finally, outsider successions have been

found to predict turnover and reduce organizational performance. While a variety of reasons could account for these

negative outcomes, it has been proposed that employees view an external hire as a lack of trust in its existing

leadership (Goldsmith, 2009). Consider the tumultuous tenures of Fiorina at Hewlett-Packard and Nardelli at Home

Depot (both outsider CEO successors).

The generational framework offered in the previous section is also relevant for research on leadership succession.

The outcomes discussed in relation to these types of CEO successions reflect the three types of transfers we discussed.

Follower successions might reflect duplications of imprints, contender successions could reflect mutations in

generational imprints, and outsider successions might imply deletions in imprints. A possible extension of this

research would be to consider whether the nature of a CEO/top executive’s generational imprint is likely to predict the

type of succession. It is likely that a combination of the CEO’s imprint (tenure in the organization, functional

background, and industry experience) and environmental contingencies is likely to predict the nature of succession

(Burton & Beckman, 2007). In circumstances where there is a misfit between CEO imprint and actions necessary to

meet environmental changes, deletions, and strong mutations in generational transfer are more likely (see

Giambatista, Rowe, & Riaz, 2005). It would also be interesting to extend these upper echelons’ views of generational

transfers to examine patterns at lower levels in the organization, as well as to identify sources of conflict and turnover

in organizations. Applying our framework, future research might consider whether mutations, deletions or

duplications of generational imprints are likely to predict intentions to turnover or satisfaction with the job among

new incumbents.

4.2.3. Organizational innovation and change

The illustrations of CEO successions in companies such as GE and Xerox suggest that generational transfers are

mechanisms for organizational change and innovation. In their discussion of religious transfer across multigenerational

families, Bengtson (2011) identifies three types of responses from children towards their parents’ religion – religious

zealots, religious rebels or prodigals. They also note that parents who are religious zealots may have children who are

rebels (Bengtson, 2011).

These insights from the area of family sociology open possibilities for studying generational transfers and their

impact on organizational change and innovation. They raise additional questions regarding the effects of an

incumbent’s generational imprint and the nature of generational transfer on organizational change and role

innovations. When do successors respond as zealots, prodigals or rebels? What implications do these various

approaches to succession have for organizational change and innovation? In this regard, CEO successions have been

viewed as important predictors of aspects of organizational transformation such as changes in the strategic direction,

structure and nature of decision making in the firm. For example, Miller (1993) found that new leadership in the upper

echelons was associated with changes in the nature of information processing and decision-making in organization.

Wiersema (1995) argued that the rise in corporate restructuring activities in the 1980s was a result of non-routine

executive succession. Romanelli and Tushman (1994) found that CEO succession predicted organizational

transformation in a longitudinal study of 25 firms in the semi-conductor industry (see also Boeker, 1997). Similarly,

Simons (1994) found that new CEOs introduced new strategic initiatives, implementation targets and strategic agendas

in small business units across multiple industries.

Applying a socialization framework to CEO succession, Fondas and Wiersema (1997) developed a conceptual

framework that took into account a CEO’s prior work experience, education, personality, role requirements and

socialization on organizational change and strategic direction – thereby addressing the issue of generational imprinting

that we discussed in the previous section. We propose that the framework developed in this paper provides insights for

the succession literature beyond the insider/outsider focus that has predominated as an antecedent of organizational

change and innovation. Moreover, the change outcomes considered in past literature have focused primarily on

succession at the upper levels of the organization. Integrating the succession literature with our generational


framework would lead to insights into the nature of generational imprints at the middle and lower management levels

in relation to changes in organizational routines and structures.

Finally, perhaps the closest overlap between family sociology-based views of generations and organizational

research, particularly in relation to change and innovation, comes from long-standing research on family-owned

businesses. Although, a full-fledged review of this area is outside the scope of this paper, we believe that the study of

change and innovation as an outcome of genealogical transfers can benefit from insights from family-owned

businesses. In an analysis of the life cycles of family owned business, Gersick, Davis, Hampton, and Lansberg (1997)

argued that founding families developed blueprints of businesses based on a shared vision or a powerful dream

regarding their business operations. However, as offspring and extended family members take over the business this

original blueprint undergoes changes. These insights are also found in the organizational genealogy literature that we

reviewed earlier. Combining these views with the position imprinting research (e.g., Burton & Beckman, 2007) allows

for expanding our insights into organizational change as an outcome of generational imprints and transfers.

5. Conclusion

Over the past millennium the topic of generations has shifted from the realm of mythology and religion, to biology

and more recently to sociology. Our focus in this paper was to situate ‘generations’ in the realm of organizations and to

consider how generations acquire agency in organizational settings. Towards this end, based on the enduring ‘kith’

versus ‘kin’ dialectic in generational research, we developed a framework that unites both strands of research. Our

framework proposes that in organizations the notion of ‘kith’ or cohorts is important to understand how generational

imprints emerge by virtue of location in a chronological sequence, and the notion ‘kin’ or genealogy is relevant for

understanding how these imprints are transferred across generations. We argue that these transfers propel

organizational change and innovation and underlie organizational socialization processes.

Despite the challenges associated with studying generations, we contend that this area of research is of great

importance to organizational scholars, for generations lie at the very heart of a wide range of organizational

phenomena. Topics ranging from organization change, socialization, career development, succession planning, and

newcomer integration are all inherently shaped by generational dynamics.

Where does the future of organizational generational research lie? Organizations offer a microcosm for

understanding how location in a chronological order can lead to a unique generational imprint that may be the property

of an individual or a group. The opportunity to grapple with the effects of temporality on the formation of knowledge/

skills/experience and developing an understanding of how the transfer of these imprints influence other organizational

processes is an exciting avenue for future research.

We also contend that the future of generational research does not lie in broad age-based generalizations as

generations. Combining age with generational research obscures age effects with period and cohort effects. While

examining age diversity itself is important, as is the study of aging and its implications for organizations, confounding

this discussion with generational dynamics is problematic on several fronts. As we have noted before, age-based

generational research tends to apply untested stereotypes regarding age that would not be appropriate with regard to

any other demographic attribute such as gender or race. Consider an organizational handbook on ‘How to Manage your

Asian-American Employee’. Yet, popular approaches to generations continue to generalize with regard to very broad

age groups resulting in a proliferation of such toolkits with regard to ‘Millennials.’ Moreover, as gerontologists (e.g.,

Gilleard & Higgs, 2005) note, with growing access to technology, longevity and prosperity among the aged, the very

notion of aging and what it means to be older is in flux. Thus, our plea to future generational scholars would be to

disentangle this research from the study of age and aging in organizations. Rather, future research efforts may be

directed towards understanding how formative events and institutional factors shape the formation of a generation in

organizations.

Further, our framework suggests that generational research is essentially context driven; organizational generations

cannot exist devoid of the context in which they are embedded. Although age may be an important component of

generational imprints, its relevance in a specific organizational context needs to be established. For example, the extent

to which age shapes collective memories of organizational and societal events, as well as its implications for

organizationally relevant attitudes and behaviors, is a fruitful direction for further research.

Our framework also calls for pushing generational research towards examining the formation, evolution, and

organizational outcomes of dyadic or triadic relationships over time in organizational settings between predecessors,


incumbents and successors. Several critical organizational outcomes can be understood by examining the nature of

generational imprints and transfers that emerge within specific organizational settings. We hope that future

generational research in organizations follows this less travelled path; a path that we believe will yield greater insights

into what generations mean and where generational challenges lie in organizations.

Appendix A. Multiple perspectives related to generations in organizations

Theoretical background: Conceptualization

of generations

Illustrative research

Sociology and Social

Gerontology

(Age-Based

Generations)

Age-based generations

Generational imprint

based on cultural

values developed

during formative

years of one’s life

Mannheim (1952, 1928)

� Seminal work on generations which expanded the construct

from biological to sociological significance

� Argued that generations share a common location in history,

which would determine a collective historically dictated action

� Each new generation attempts to fit into existing traditions and

critical patterns, thereby becoming agents of social change

Schuman and Scott (1989)

� An extension of Mannheim’s work, study included a sample of

1400 Americans in 1985 to recall critical historical events which

were important to them

� The data from these responses suggest that different age cohort

recall different events, and that these formative experiences

(‘‘collective memories’’) play a key role in the adoption of

values and attitudes

� Responses also suggest that the formation of unique generational

collective memories occur most saliently when a cohort of

individuals transitions into adulthood

Smola and Sutton (2002)

� Study of generational differences in workplace values across

54 manufacturing and service firms in the US

� Data were gathered for individuals in two distinct time

periods – 27–40-year olds in 1974 and 1999; 41–65-year olds

in 1974 and 1999

� Results suggest that while some differences exist (i.e., younger

workers wanted to know ‘what’s in it for me?’), the most significant

changes were across time, not between generations. In 1999,

independent of age, people desired more work life balance,

and failed to believe that working harder makes him/her a

better person, compared to the same responses gathered in 1974

Egri and Ralston (2004)

� Comparison of age-based cohorts among 774 Chinese managers

and 784 US managers

� The Social Reform generation in China (defined by the economic

reform of Deng Xiaoping) reported significantly higher openness

to change than older generations

� Generation X in the US (born between 1965 and 1979) were found

to value openness to change and self-enhancement than its

older generations

� Comparisons between the US and Chinese samples indicate

that the younger generations have less in common than the

older generations

Dencker, Joshi, and Martocchio (2008)

� An organizational application of Schuman and Scott’s theory

of collective memory

� Proposes that diversity in employee preference of benefits and

compensation and other HRM practices could be better understood

by recognizing the generational differences that occur within the

workforce based upon the collective memories and consequent

values and attitudes of those memories


Appendix A (Continued )


of generations


Social Stratification and

Political Sociology

(Cohort-Based Generations)

Age/Tenure cohorts

Generational imprint

based on membership/

shared experiences

as a cohort

Gusfield (1957)

� Case study of inter-cohort conflict within the Women’s Christian

Temperance Union (WCTU)

� Division between ‘old guard’ and ‘young Turks’ surfaced following

the repeal of prohibition in the US

� Those in support of continuing prohibition-type values sought to hold on to

power as the opposing cohort attempted to reach out to the public

� The failure to adapt and resolve differences ultimately led to the

decline of the WCTU

Ryder (1965)

� Cohort defined as a group of individuals who experience the same

event within the same time interval

� Each cohort is distinct in character as a result of the context

provided by its unique collective occupation of time

� Extends the concept of cohort beyond age to a focus on shared

temporal experience (which could occur independent of age)

� Each succeeding cohort serves as the mechanism whereby change

can occur

Wagner, Pfeffer, and O’Reilly (1984)

� Study of top management team turnover from 1976 to 1980 across

31 Fortune 500 companies (599 executives)

� Results suggest that individuals who join the company at the same time

(as a TMT) develop similar values and patterns of communication,

resulting in strong in-group identification, lower conflict, and

higher levels of cooperation with other cohort members

� The more demographically distant an individual in the TMT

(demographic distance defined by age and date of entry), the

greater the likelihood of turnover

Turner (1989)

� Presents three dimensions of social stratification (economic class,

political inequalities, and culture life-styles) which impact age

cohorts in society

� As people mature they take on obligations which tie them to the

social system (e.g., marriage, children, careers)

� Status within the social system grows along a curve; with age

comes greater distinction, but in old age as retirement looms,

status wanes

� As distinct cohorts simultaneously occupy different points on the status

curve at any given time, a strain on resources and entitlements may emerge

Pfeffer (1992)a

� Review of multiple studies on organizational tenure distribution,

team tenure composition, and tenure dissimilarity

� Studies provide the conclusion that tenure-based cohorts produce

two types of effects – conflicts (gaps) across cohort groups

and solidarity and mutual sponsorship within cohort groups

Pelled et al. (1999)

� 45 teams (317 employees) from three major corporations working

on complex and time-constrained projects

� Functional background diversity drives task conflict

� Tenure diversity positively associated with emotional conflict

� Age diversity negatively associated with emotional conflict

Zenger and Lawrence (1989)

� Study of internal and external group communication among

engineers and engineering managers

� Individuals communicate with out-group members based on

tenure similarity

� Within groups, age similarity is more predictive than tenure

similarity of technical communication frequency


Appendix A (Continued )


of generations


Lawrence and Zyphur (2011)

� Latent class cluster analysis of over 2000 employees in a

large utility firm

� Faultlines surfaced between employees based on age, tenure,

and career level (rather than gender and ethnicity)

� Results provide the conclusion that years of shared experience

may be strong predictor of interpersonal ties, thereby diminishing

the impact of presupposed divisive demographic attributes

Family Sociology and Gerontology

(Kinship and Descent-Based

Generations)

Incumbency in job/role

Job-level incumbency

Functional role incumbency

Founders’ imprint/legacy

Generational imprint based

on experiences in job-level

or functional role

Ardner (1989)

� Establishes ‘kinship’ as a concept of recruitment which is

utilized by societies to acclimate new members

� Each new person/member is granted definition as a ‘kind’ of

person due to where they enter in relation to others

(in terms of location and time)

� Kinship systems bind members into networks based on affinity

and similarity

Phillips (2002)

� Examination of the transfer of resources and routines from parent

to progeny law firms in Silicon Valley over a 50-year period

� The transfer of resources and routines from parent to progeny

firms increases the survival chances of progeny, but decreases

survival chances for parent firms

� Founders play significant role in the transfer of routines and

experiences from parent to progeny (including societal level

outcomes, such as the role of women in leadership roles)

Wade-Benzoni (2002)

� Set of lab experiments conducted with MBA students and university

staff members wherein participants made business decisions

based on real-life scenarios

� Decisions rested on whether or not individuals would ‘pass

along’ burdens or benefits to the next generation

� Results show that regardless of whether a generation inherits a

benefit or a burden, they will pass along what was given to

them (instead of trying to create the opposite result)

Burton and Beckman (2007)

� Multi-year longitudinal study gathering data on 1400 silicon

valley executives across 169 unique firms

� Examination of the impact that predecessors’ imprint has on

successor success

� Results suggest that the greater the similarity of successor and

predecessor, the more likely the imprint will be duplicated by the

successor, leading to decreased likelihood of successor turnover

Wade-Benzoni et al. (2010)

� Series of experimental lab studies examining the role of resource

value in intergenerational allocation

� Results suggest that participants felt stronger emotions (negative)

about passing along burdens to the next generation than the

positive emotions associated with passing along benefits

� Authors conclude that concern for burden rather than benefit

suggests individual caution regarding one’s moral legacy

Bengtson (2011)

� Longitudinal, mixed methods approach tracking 25 different

families across 4 generations between the years 1970 and 2005

� Data and interviews reveal that parenting styles, closeness of

relationships, openness, and alignments between children and

grandparents all impact the successful transmission of religion

and values across generations


References

Adam, B. (1990). Time and social theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Aldous, J., & Hill, R. (1965). Social cohesion, lineage type, and intergenerational transmission. Social Forces, 43, 471–482.

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). Organizational socialization tactics: A longitudinal analysis of links to newcomers’ commitment and role

orientation. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 847–858.

Ancona, D., Okhuysen, G., & Perlow, L. (2001). Taking time to integrate temporal research. Academy of Management Review, 26, 512–529.

Ardner, E. (1989). In M. Chapman (Ed.), The voice of prophecy and other essays. Oxford: Blackwell.

Baltes, P., & Staudinger, U. (1996). Interactive minds: Life-span perspectives on the social foundation of cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Baltes, P., Staudinger, U., & Lindenberger, U. (1999). Lifespan psychology: Theory and application to intellectual functioning. Annual Review of

Psychology, 50, 471–507.

Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference?

Strategic Management Journal, 10, 107–124.

Bauer, T., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D., & Tucker, J. (2007). Newcomer adjustment during organizational socialization: A meta-analytic

review of antecedents, outcomes, and methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 707–721.

Bechky, B. A., & Okhuysen, G. A. (2011). Expecting the unexpected? How SWATofficers and film crews handle surprises. Academy of Management

Journal, 54(2), 239–261.

Becker, H. A. (1991). A pattern of generations and its consequences. In H. A. Becker (Ed.), Dynamics of cohort and generations research (pp. 201–

225). Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.

Becker, W. J., & Cropanzano, R. (2011). Dynamic aspects of voluntary turnover: An integrated approach to curvilinearity in the performance-

turnover relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 233–246.

Bengtson, V. (2011). Families and faith: Generations and the transmission of religion. East Wauschakonshin, PA: John Templeton Foundation Press.

Bengtson, V. L., & Schrader, S. S. (1982). Parent–child relations. In Mangen, D. J., & Peterson, W. A. Eds. Handbook of research instruments in

social gerontology. Vol. 2 (pp.115–185). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Biggs, S. (2007). Thinking about generations: Conceptual positions and policy implications. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 695–711.

Blossfeld, H. P., Hamerle, A., & Mayer, K. U. (1989). Event history analysis: Statistical theory and applications in the social sciences. London:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Boeker, W. (1997). Strategic change: The influence of managerial characteristics and organizational growth. Academy of Management Journal,

40(1), 152–170.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brittain, J., & Freeman, J. (1980). Organizational proliferation and density dependent selection. In J. Kimberly & R. Miles (Eds.), The organization

life cycle (pp. 291–338). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Burnett, J. (2011). Generations: The time machine in theory and practice. Surrey, Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company.

Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.

Burton, M. D., & Beckman, C. M. (2007). Leaving a legacy: Position imprints and successor turnover in young firms. American Sociological Review,

72, 239–266.

Cameron, P. (1969). Age parameters of young, adult, middle aged, old, and aged. Journal of Gerontology, 24(2), 201–202.

Cappelli, P. (2008). Employment relationships: New models of white-collar work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Capuzzo, P. (2001). Youth culture and consumption in contemporary Europe. Contemporary European History, 10, 155–170.

Carroll, G. R. (1984). Dynamics of publisher succession newspaper organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 93–113.

Chao, G. T. (1997). Complexities in international organizational socialization. International Journal of Assessment and Selection, 5, 9–13.

Corsten, M. (1999). The time of generations. Time and Society, 8, 249–272.

de Beauvoir, S. (1970). Old age. London: Penguin.

de Beauvoir, S. (1972). The coming of age. New York: GP Putnam’s Sons.

Dencker, J. C., Joshi, A., & Martocchio, J. J. (2008). Towards a theoretical framework linking generational memories to workplace attitudes and

behaviors. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 180–187.

DiMaggio, P. (2001). The twenty-first century firm: Emerging patterns in Western enterprise. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Doeringer, P. B., & Piore, M. J. (1971). Internal labor markets and manpower analysis. Lexington, MA: DC Heath.

Egri, C. P., & Ralston, D. A. (2004). Generation cohorts and personal values: A comparison of China and the Unites States. Organization Science,

15(2), 210–220.

Ferguson, N. (2004). Colossus: The rise and fall of the American empire. London: Allen Lane.

Finch, J. (1989). Family obligations and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Flamant, N. (2007). A generation clash or organizational conflict? ‘‘Two trains a-running.’’. Sociologie du Travail, 49(2), 110–128.

Fondas, N., & Wiersema, M. (1997). Changing the guard: The influence of CEO socialization on strategic change. Journal of Management Studies,

34(4), 561–584.

Friedman, S. D., & Olk, P. (1995). Four ways to choose a CEO: Crown heir, horse race, coup d’etat, and comprehensive search. Human Resource

Management, 34, 141–164.

Gersick, K. E., Davis, J. A., Hampton, M. M., & Lansberg, I. (1997). Generation to generation: Life cycles of the family business. Boston: Harvard

Business School Press.

Giambatista, R. C., Rowe, W. G., & Riaz, S. (2005). Nothing succeeds like succession: A critical review of leader succession literature since 1994.

The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 963–991.


Gilleard, C., & Higgs, P. (2000). Cultures of ageing: Self citizen and the body. Harlow: Prentice-Hall.

Gilleard, C., & Higgs, P. (2005). Contexts of ageing: Class cohort and community. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Goldsmith, M. (2009). Succession: Are you ready (memo to the CEO). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Gusfield, J. R. (1957). The problem of generations in an organizational structure. Social Forces, 35, 323–330.

Hagestad, G. O. (1990). Social perspective on life course: Some emerging trends in the family realm. Family Relations, 37, 405–410.

Hannan, M., & Freeman, J. (1986). Where do organizational forms come from? Sociological Forum, 1, 50–57.

Irwin, S. (1998). Age, generation and inequality: A reply to the reply. British Journal of Sociology, 49(2), 305–310.

Jackson, S. E., Brett, J. F., Sessa, V. I., Cooper, D. M., Julin, J. A., & Peyronnin, K. (1991). Some differences make a difference: Individual

dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 675–689.

Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustments to organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29,

262–279.

Joshi, A., Dencker, J. C., Franz, G., & Martocchio, J. J. (2010). Unpacking generational identities in organizations. Academy of Management Review,

35(3), 392–414.

Kalish, R. A., & Johnson, A. I. (1972). Value similarities and differences in three generations of women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 34, 49–54.

Kertzer, D. I. (1983). Generation as a sociological problem. Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 125–149.

Knight, D., Pearce, C. L., Smith, K. G., Olian, J. D., Sims, H. P., Smith, K. A., et al. (1999). Top management team diversity, group process, and

strategic consensus. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 445–465.

Kohli, M. (1994). Work and retirement: A comparative perspective. In M. W. Riley, R. L. Kahn, & A. Foner (Eds.), Age and structural lag (pp. 80–

106). New York: Wiley.

Kwon, I., Milgrom, E. M., & Hwang, S. (2010). Cohort effects in promotions and wages: Evidence from Sweden and the United States. Journal of

Human Resources, 45(3), 772–808.

Lawrence, B. S. (1987). An organizational theory of age effects. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 5, 37–71.

Lawrence, B. S. (1988). New wrinkles in the theory of age: Demography, norms, and performance ratings. Academy of Management Journal, 31,

309–337.

Lawrence, B. (1996). Organizational age norms: Why is it so hard to know one when you see one? Gerontologist, 36(2), 209–220.

Lawrence, B., & Zyphur, M. (2011). Identifying organizational faultlines with latent class cluster analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 14,

32–57.

Lohr, S. (2010 December). GE goes with what it knows: Making stuff. New York Times. BU1.

Mannheim, K. ([1928] 1952). The problem of generations. In K. Mannheim (Ed.), Essays on the sociology of knowledge (pp. 276–322). London:

Routledge.

Marini, M. M. (1984). Age and sequencing norms in the transition to adulthood. Sociological Forces, 63, 229–244.

Mayer, K. U. (2004). Whose lives? How history, societies, and institutions shape life courses. Research in Human Development, 1, 161–187.

Mayer, K. U., & Schoepflin, U. (1989). The state and the life course. Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 187–209.

Mayer, K. U., & Tuma, N. B. (1990). Life course research and event history analysis: An overview. In K. U. Mayer & N. B. Tuma (Eds.), Event

history analysis in life course research (pp. 3–20). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

McCain, B. E., O’Reilly, C., & Pfeffer, J. (1983). The effects of departmental demography on turnover: The case of a university. Academy of

Management Journal, 26, 626–641.

McGinn, D. (2010). Looking back on the most famous horse race of all. Harvard Business Review, 88(10), 48.

Meja, V., & Kettler, D. (1993). Introduction. In K. H. Wolff (Ed.), From Karl Mannheim (pp. 7–26). London: Transaction Publishers.

Miller, D. (1993). Some organizational consequences of CEO succession. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 644–659.

Miner, A. S. (1990). Structural evolution through idiosyncratic jobs: The potential for unplanned learning. Organization Science, 1(2), 195–210.

Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1989). Newcomers and oldtimers in small groups. In P. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (pp. 143–186).

Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Morgan, L. A. (1998). Glass-ceiling effect or cohort effect? A longitudinal study of the gender earnings gap for engineers, 1982 to 1989. American

Sociological Review, 62, 479–493.

Morrison, E. W. (1993). Newcomer information seeking: Exploring types, modes, sources, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36,

557–589.

Mulcahy, A. (2010). Why succession shouldn’t be a horse race. Harvard Business Review, 88(10), 47–51.

Nash, L. (1978). Concepts of existence: Greek origins of generational thought. Daedalus, 107(4), 1–21.

Neff, T. J., & Citrin, J. M. (2005). You’re in charge-now what? The 8 point plan New York: Crown Business.

Ng, E. S. W., & Gossett, C. W. Career choice in public service: An exploration of fit with the millennial generation. Public Personnel Management, in press.

O’Reilly, C. A., Caldwell, D. C., & Barnett, W. P. (1989). Work group demography, social integration, and turnover. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 34, 21–37.

Ortega y Gasset, J. (1933). The modern theme. New York: WW Norton.

Parry, E., & Urwin, P. (2010). Generational difference in work values: A review of theory and evidence. International Journal of Management

Reviews, 13(1), 79–96.

Payne, A. (2002). About Schmidt [Film]. Los Angeles: New Line Cinema.

Pelled, L. (1996). Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An intervening process theory. Organization Science, 7, 615–631.

Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1–28.

Pfeffer, J. (1983). Organizational demography. In Cummings, L. L., & Staw, B. M. Eds. Research in organizational behavior. Vol. 5 (pp.299–

357). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.


Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Phillips, D. (2002). A genealogical approach to organizational life changes: The parent–progeny transfer among silicon valley law firms, 1946–1996.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 474–506.

Phillips, D. (2005). Organizational genealogies and the persistence of gender inequality: The case of silicon valley law firms. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 50, 440–472.

Redford, D. B. (2003). The Oxford essential guide to Egyptian mythology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Roberts, R. E., Richards, L. N., & Bengtson, V. L. (1991). Intergenerational solidarity in families: Untangling the ties that bind. In S. K. Pfeifer & M.

B. Sussman (Eds.), Marriage and family review. 16. Families: Intergenerational and generational connections. Part one. Binghamton, NY:

Haworth.

Romanelli, E. (1989). Organization birth and population variety: A community perspective on origins. In Cummings, L., & Staw, B. Eds. Research in

organizational behavior. Vol. 11 (pp.211–246). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Romanelli, E., & Tushman, M. L. (1994). Organizational transformation as punctuated equilibrium: An empirical test. Academy of Management

Journal, 37(5), 1141–1166.

Ryder, N. B. (1965). The cohort in the study of social change. American Sociological Review, 30, 843–861.

Schuman, H., & Rodgers, W. (2004). Cohorts, chronology, and collective memories. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68, 217–254.

Schuman, H., & Scott, J. (1989). Generations and collective memories. American Sociological Review, 54, 359–381.

Scott, J., & Zac, L. (1992). Generations, collective memory and events in Europe. Paper to British Sociological Association annual conference.

University of Kent.

Settersten, R. A., & Mayer, K. U. (1997). The measurement of age, age structuring, and the life course. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 233–261.

Shen, W., & Cannella, A. A. (2002). Revisiting the performance consequences of CEO succession: The impacts of successor type, postsuccession

senior executive turnover, and departing CEO tenure. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 717–733.

Silverstein, M., & Bengtson, V. L. (1997). Intergenerational solidarity and the structure of adult child–parent relationships in American families.

American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 429–460.

Simons, R. (1994). How new top managers use control systems as levers of strategic renewal. Strategic Management Journal, 15(3), 169–189.

Skvoretz, J. V., & Kheoruenromne, U. (1979). Some evidence concerning the value hypothesis of intergenerational status transmission: A research

note. Social Science Research, 8(2), 172–183.

Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2007). Relational identity and identification: Defining ourselves through work relationships. Academy of

Management Review, 32, 9–32.

Smola, K. W., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting generational work values for the new millennium. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 23, 363–382.

Staw, B. M. (1980). The consequences of turnover. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 1(4), 253–273.

Staw, B. M., Barsade, S. G., & Koput, K. W. (1997). Escalation at the credit window: A longitudinal study of bank executives’ recognition and write-

off of problem loans. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 130–142.

Stewman, S. (1988). Organizational demography. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 173–202.

Stewman, S., & Konda, S. L. (1983). Careers and organizational labor markets: Demographic models of organizational behavior. American Journal

of Sociology, 88(4), 637–685.

Tost, L. P., Hernandez, M., & Wade-Benzoni, K. A. (2008). Pushing the boundaries: A review and extension of the psychological dynamics of

intergenerational conflict in organizational contexts. In Martocchio, J. J. (Ed.). Research in personnel and human resource management. Vol. 27

(pp.93–147). .Troll, L. E. (1970). Issues in the study of generations. Aging and Human Development, 1, 199–218.

Turner, B. S. (1989). Ageing, status politics, and sociological theory. British Journal of Sociology, 40, 588–606.

Turner, B. S. (1998). Ageing and generational conflict: A reply to Sarah Irwin. British Journal of Sociology, 49, 299–304.

Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, S. M. (2008). Generational differences in psychological traits and their impact on the workplace. Journal of Managerial

Psychology, 23, 862–877.

Urry, J. (1996). Sociology of time and space. In B. S. Turner (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to social theory (pp. 369–428). Oxford: Blackwell.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2007). Statistical abstract of the United States. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Labor.

Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1, 209–264.

Virany, B., Tushman, M. L., & Romanelli, E. (1992). Executive succession and organization outcomes in turbulent environments: An organization

learning approach. Organization Science, 3(1), 72–91.

Wade-Benzoni, K. A. (2002). A golden rule over time: Reciprocity in intergenerational allocation decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 45,

1011–1028.

Wade-Benzoni, K. A., Hernandez, M., Medvec, V., & Messick, D. (2008). In fairness to future generations: The role of egocentrism, uncertainty,

power, and stewardship in judgments of intergenerational allocations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 233–245.

Wade-Benzoni, K. A., Sondak, H., & Galinsky, A. D. (2010). Leaving a legacy: Intergenerational allocations of benefits and burdens. Business Ethics

Quarterly, 20(1), 7–34.

Wagner, W. G., Pfeffer, J., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1984). Organizational demography and turnover in top management groups. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 29, 74–92.

Walsh, M. W. (2010 March). Social security to see payout exceed pay-in. New York Times A1.

Wanous, J. (1980). Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection, and socialization.

Watkins, M. D. (2009). Picking the right transition strategy. Harvard Business Review, 87(1), 47–53.

White, H. (1970). Chains of opportunity: System models of mobility in organizations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Wiersema, M. F. (1995). Executive succession as an antecedent to corporate restructuring. Human Resource Management, 34(1), 185–202.


Wiersema, M. F., & Bantel, K. A. (1993). Top management turnover as an adaptation mechanism: The role of the environment. Strategic

Management Journal, 14, 485–504.

Wiersema, M. F., & Bird, A. (1993). Organizational demography in Japanese firms: Group heterogeneity, individual dissimilarity, and top

management team turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 996–1025.

Wohl, R. (1980). The generation of 1914. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

Zenger, T. R., & Lawrence, B. S. (1989). Organizational demography: The differential effects of age and tenure distribution on technical

communications. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 353–376.

generations in organizations

Documents