Master Thesis Final - erim.eur.nl · this thesis: Generation Y, Generation X and the Baby Boomers. Researches have been done Researches have been done on this subject and generational

MASTER THESIS

NEW WORLDS OF WORK: CONSEQUENCES OF THE DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF GENERATIONAL ATTITUDES

W.S Leung – [email protected]

Coach: Dr. M. Schippers

Co-Reader: Prof. Dr. F.M. Go

AUGUST 31TH, 2011

2

PREFACE

This master thesis represents my final project before graduation of Master of Science

Business Administration – Human resource management at the Rotterdam School of

Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam. The copyright of this thesis rests with the

author and is an original work, no other sources but the quoted and referred to in the tekst and

reference list are used. The RSM Erasmus University is only responsible for the educational

coaching and cannot be held liable for the content.

Wing Sheung Leung

August 31th 2011

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

INTRODUCTION 9

1. PRACTICAL AND ACADEMIC RELEVANCE 10

1.1 PRACTICAL CONTRIBUTION 10 1.2 ACADEMIC CONTRIBUTION 10 2. RESEARCH MODEL 11

2.1 RESEARCH QUESTION 11 3. THEORY AND CONCEPTS 11

3.1 MODEL 1: EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION 12 3.2. GENERATIONAL WORKFORCE ATTITUDES 12 3.3. WORKPLACE SATISFACTION 15 3.4 EMPOWERMENT 16 3.5. RELATIONSHIPS AND TRUST: COLLEAGUES & MANAGER 17 3.6 MODEL 2: WORK-‐LIFE BALANCE 18 3.7 JOB FLEXIBILITY 19 3.8 EMPOWERMENT (SELF DETERMINATION) 20 3.9 CONCEPTUAL MODEL 21 4. METHODOLOGY 22

4.1 MEASUREMENTS 22 5. RESULTS 23

5.1 DESCRIPTION, CORRELATIONS & FACTOR ANALYSIS 23 5.2 PAIRED SAMPLE T-‐TEST 28 5.3 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE (ANOVA) 29 5.4 MULTIPLE LINEAIR REGRESSION 31 5.5 HYPOTHESIS TESTING 31 6. DISCUSSION 37

6.1 LIMITATIONS & FURTHER RESEARCH 44 7. CONCLUSION 45

BIBLIOGRAPHY 48

4

APPENDIX 52

APPENDIX A: SURVEY QUESTIONS 52 APPENDIX B: FACTOR ANALYSIS 57 APPENDIX C: ANOVA + PAIRED SAMPLE 63 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE (ANOVA) 66 APPENDIX D: MULTICOLLINEARITY AND REGRESSION 73

5

To my mom, who taught me to be a fighter.

6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Now the realization of this thesis has come to an end, I would like to take time to reflect back

on the past year. As my master at RSM did not start as smooth as planned (there where some

last minute enrollment issues), I was scared that it was a premonition. However, during this

year I have met wonderful new people, especially Anne, who has turned out to be a great

friend and HRM and thesisbuddy.

I would like thank my coach Michaèla Schippers for her enthusiasm ever since the

first email I sent, her support and that of my co-reader Frank Go were motivating me during

the process of this thesis. I could not have done it without their advice and guidance.

The meetings with the Erasmus@Work group were of tremendous help in times when

I was stuck. Peter van Balen, Erik van Heck, Marcel van Oosterhout, Nick van der Meulen

were always so helpful and their advice and motivating attitude always motivated me and

helped me to get out of the problems I have been dealing with. I enjoyed the meetings to the

fullest and would like to thank them and my fellow students for the times we shared in those

meetingrooms.

I would also like to thank my family and friends for not only putting up with me, but

encourage and support me. Despite the fact that in the past few months, stress sometimes

caused me to be intolerable company. I could not have done this without the support and love

from the people in my life and for that I am grateful.

7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Everyone has a picture in mind when you ask them ‘what does a workplace look like?’.

Traditional offices in which you arrive at 9am and leave by 6pm. You have your own fixed

place in the office. Though this is how a workplace generally looks like, much of it is likely

going to change with the introduction of ‘the new workplace’. This ‘new workplace’ differs

from the ‘old workplace’ as it assumes that work should no longer be bound to time and

space, this philosophy assumes the extensive use of technology as a supporting medium for

the new workplace. This is more efficient for organizations and also increases employee

satisfaction as the flexibility allows them to balance their work- and familylife. This research

focuses solely on the ‘new workplace’ as introduced by Microsoft (Microsoft, 2010), they call

it ‘the New World of Work’ (Het nieuwe werken). The realization of this philosophy is

different within every organization, therefore a more limited context is needed.

In this thesis we add another factor to this theorem: generations. In the current

workplace there are four generations actively participating of which three will be discussed in

this thesis: Generation Y, Generation X and the Baby Boomers. Researches have been done

on this subject and generational differences have been found. However, these researches have

been done in the ‘old workplace’ and the changes in the workplace are most likely going to

affect the current beliefs about generational differences. The question to be answered in this

research is Do Baby Boomers experience a lower level of employee satisfaction and work life

balance compared to Generation X and Y after the implementation of the New World of

Work?

The data used was collected from Microsoft in 2007 and 2008. The proposed issue is

that Baby Boomers, due to their lack of knowledge and unfamiliarity with technology, will

ultimately cause them to not be able to adjust as well to the ‘new workplace’ as the two

younger generations. Though generational differences are found during the data analyses of

this thesis, it appears that the results of this research do not supported the proposed

hypotheses. Baby Boomers appear to be more satisfied about their job and gain a better work-

life balance through the New Worls of Work compared to the more technology savvy

Generation Y. This could be due to the fact that the Generation Y in the sample were more

change resistant compared to the other two generations and the fact that this generation did

not have children yet, which lowers their need to balance work- and familylife.

Despite the limitations that are associated with this research (such as small and

unequal sample sizes), which causes generalizability to be questioned, these results do allow

8

an interesting thought to arise in which the assumption that the older generations due to their

lesser knowledge about technology will be less satisfied in the NWoW does not hold.

Future research could focus on the ‘new workplace’ and investigate whether the

generational differences change in this ‘new workplace’ or differ from the previous situation.

Moreover, if however that study would indicate that the younger generations are less satisfied,

a qualitative study might offer the understanding of the underlying factors for those results.

This study is the first combining generational effects with the concept of the ‘new

workplace’, though limited to the interpretation of Microsoft. It provides managers with

preliminary results about the perspectives of the different generation in this workplace

revolution. The academic contribution of this thesis is provided as it builds on the current

literature of generational effects on work-related factors. It provides an extra dimension to the

current literature as it involves a ‘new’ kind of workplace.

9

INTRODUCTION

The world is an ever-changing place. New ways of doing the old things arise once in a while.

Companies are always looking for innovative ways of doing business more productive and

efficient (Becker, 2002). Recently, new ways of working have been capturing the attention of

people from all layers of the society, from practitioners to journalists to academics. They are

intrigued with, as the Erasmus@Work Group defines, the idea that work could be ” not bound

to time and space”. Teleworking, videoconferences, virtual teams, and flexible work

schedules are all examples from the possibilities within this ‘New Worls of Work’ a term

invented Microsoft, one of the early adopters uses. It is said to increase job satisfaction, which

increases employee productivity. Flexible work schedules and a flexible workplace, supported

by the latest technology is how Microsoft defines their ‘New Worls of Work’ (NWoW) It is

an ambitious and mindset changing initiative as it changes the workplace as we now it upon

till now. Therefore it changes dimensions of work related to job satisfaction. The question that

therefore comes to mind is “Do the new ways of working suit everyone?”.

Researches have been indicating that the new ways of working significantly increases

job satisfaction (Erasmus@Work). However, does this new way of working increases

employee satisfaction in any given situation for any employee? Especially if we take into

account the fact that older generations are still in the workplace. In fact, it is the first time in

history that the workplace consists of so many different generations (Gursoy, Maier, & Chi,

2008). These older generations have been brought up in a different era, without the

technologies we have today and are used to the traditional office. Scholars have been

researching the generational differences and commonalities. Every generation has its own

needs as regards to the workplace, work conditions, intrinsic & extrinsic work values and so

on (Twenge et al., 2010)

As there is no general agreement on the time span for each generation, this thesis uses

the time spans definied by Smola and Sutton (2002). Their study is a time lag study, which is

one of the most conclusive ways to perform generational research, often their work is cited or

refered to which provides the confidence that they have set a solid definition.

This thesis aims to investigate the generational effects on the ‘new work place’, in

particular the New Worls of Work as interpreted by Microsoft. A greater understanding of the

different generations might allow practicioners the ability to manage generations better in the

New Worls of Work, where as academics could perceive this thesis as a preliminary study in

order to research the current beliefs of generational effects in a different context.

10

1. PRACTICAL AND ACADEMIC RELEVANCE

In this chapter the contribution of this thesis research to practice and theory is explained.

1.1 PRACTICAL CONTRIBUTION

The results of this thesis research could be used by practitioners of management to gain a

deeper understanding of the differences within their multi-generational workforce, which

allows them to manage them more effectively. Moreover, the results provide organizations

with a better understanding of the effects of adapting the new ways of working on employee

satisfaction within their ‘multi-generational’ workforce. With the market for talent becoming

increasingly scarce (Gardner, 2002), employers should gain a better understanding of their

‘multi-generational’ workforce and provide them with a work environment that suits them

best. This is crucial as a decreased level of employee satisfaction might harm the organization

as a whole due to a higher turnover rate and lower productivity (Judge et al., 2001).

1.2 ACADEMIC CONTRIBUTION

Both the ‘new’ workplace and the multi-generational workforce are recent developments and

affecting the workplace as we know. This study also aims to explore generational differences

in the new workplace, where flexible work schedules and workspaces and technology

dominate an employee’s work life. This thesis is therefore complimentary to the current

literature in generational research and the New Worls of Work (as introduced by Microsoft)

as this combination has not been researched before. The results of the analysis will provide a

deeper insight into generational differences and the effect of New Worls of Work on

employee satisfaction for employees from different generations. Finally, work-life balance is

a fairly new topic in the literature. This research provides an expansion of current studies.

11

2. RESEARCH MODEL

2.1 RESEARCH QUESTION

The questions raised in the introduction could be embodied in one research question:

Do Baby Boomers experience a lower level of employee satisfaction and work life balance

compared to Generation X and Y after the implementation of the New Worls of Work?

In order to gain a deeper understanding of the topic this thesis research will answer the

following sub-questions:

- Do Baby Boomers experience a lower workplace satisfaction, compared to Generation X

and Y, after the introduction of NWoW?

- Do every generation experience an increase of empowerment after the introduction of

NWoW?

- Do Baby Boomers experience a negative influence on their relationships with, and trust in,

their colleagues and managers after the introduction of NWoW, where as Generation X and Y

do not experience a negative influence?

- Does every generation experience increased job flexibility after the introduction of NWoW?

- Does every generation experience increased empowerment (self-determination) after the

introduction of NWoW?

- Do Baby Boomers experience a lower level of employee satisfaction, compared to

Generation X and Y, after the introduction of NWoW?

- Do Baby Boomers experience a lower level of work-life balance, compared to Generation X

and Y, after the introduction of NWoW?

3. THEORY AND CONCEPTS

In this literature review, all the variables and models within the research will be discussed.

This thesis comprises of two models of which the dependent variables are expected to be

related to one other. In model 1, one dependent variable (employee satisfaction), four

independent variables (workplace satisfaction, empowerment factors, relationships and trust:

colleagues; and relationship and trust: managers) and one moderating variable (generations)

will be presented. Model 2 consists of a dependent variable (work-life balance), three

independent variables (job flexibility, empowerment-self determination and acceptance of

12

mobile working). This section will elaborate on the constructs and definitions used in the

thesis. Per independent variable the relationships as described in the current literature with the

employee satisfaction and work life balance (dependent variables) and generations and new

ways of working (moderators) will be outlined. The new way of working as defined by

Mircrosoft is also introduced as an intervention; however, in every organization there is a

different definition of ‘the new way of working’. Therefore it must be stated that in this

research we only focus on the definition of the new ways of working used by Microsoft

(Microsoft, 2011).

3.1 MODEL 1: EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

Employee satisfaction or job satisfaction has been well covered by existing literature, mostly

due to its important position in processes such as organizational commitment and turnover

(Kinicki et al., 2002). Despite the large amount of publications on this topic, most authors

agree on the definition of employee satisfaction. Employee satisfaction is ‘‘an affective (that

is, emotional) reaction to one’s job, resulting from the incumbent’s comparison of actual

outcomes with those that are desired (expected, deserved, and so on.)’’ (Cranny, Smith and

Stone, 1992 cited in Weiss, 2002, p.174). A few decades earlier, Locke (1969) proposed a

definition which is almost equal to the one of Cranny Smith and Stone (1992 cited in Weiss,

2002) p.174). He stated that job satisfaction is “ the pleasurable emotional state resulting from

the appriasal of one’s job as achieving or facilitating the achievement of one’s job values”

(Locke, 1969). According to Locke, the job appraisal process consist of three different

elements, namely 1) the perception of the job; 2) an implicit or explicit value standard; and 3)

a conscious or subconscious judgment of the relationship between one’s perception(s) and

one’s value(s) (Locke, 1969). The following hypothesis is proposed:

H1: Generation X and Y experience a higher level of employee satisfaction after

implementation of the New Worls of Work, compared to Baby Boomers

3.2. GENERATIONAL WORKFORCE ATTITUDES

The moderating variable of the conceptual model are the generations, in particular their

‘generational workforce attitude’. It is a term adopted from Howe & Strauss (2007), which

entails the different attitudes of the generations in the workplace. Generations are possibly the

most debatable topic in research; scholars use different definitions, labels and birth years

13

when describing the generational category. Generational groups, in research, also referred to

as cohorts (Smola & Sutton, 2002), are defined by Gursoy, Maier & Chi (2008) as “people

born in the same general time span who share key historical or social life experiences”.

Although multiple definitions of the term ‘generation’ exists, most scholars agree that

generations are cohorts who differ from other cohort in their beliefs, values, behavior and

attitudes which have been developed due to the shared experiences during the different phases

and key developmental points in their lives (Meriac, Woehr, & Banister, 2010; Kowske,

Rasch, & Wiley, 2010; Smola & Sutton, 2002; Ryder, 1965).

According to Howe & Strauss (2007), each generation falls into one of the four

archetypes: prophet, nomad, hero or artist. These archetypes reoccur once in a while,

following a historical pattern. Generations who fall into the same archetype share a similar

age location in history, but also same attitudes towards family, cultures and values (Howe &

Strauss, 2007). Following their theory, history shapes the ‘type’ of generation, but generations

also shape history. Looking at the past era’s and the corresponding generations, a reasonable

predictions can be made for the future. Generations follow a predictable historical pattern

which allows us to predict how 40-year-olds in 20 years will behave; we merely should look

at the 20-year-olds of today (Howe & Strauss, 2007). According to Howe & Strauss (2007),

generations do not look like the generations who shaped them, but have more in common with

the generation who shaped the generation who shaped them (Howe & Strauss, 2007).

Currently, there is no clear defined time span for the generational cohorts. Scholars

use very different birth years in defining every generation (Markert, 2004). The table below

depicts the birth years and labels which are linked to the various generations in the literature.

Table 3.1. Generational Labels existing in the literature and their cohorts.

Labels Time span Authors

Baby Boomers 1943-1960 1946-1964 1947-1967 1944-1960

Kowske, Rasch, & Wiley (2010); Gursoy, Maier, & Chi (2008) Smola & Sutton (2002); Twenge et al. (2010) Crampton & Hodge (2007) Arsenault (004)

Generation X 1961-1981 1965-1977 1961-1980

Kowske, Rasch, & Wiley (2010) Smola & Sutton (2002) Gursoy, Maier, & Chi (2008) Twenge et al. (2010)

14

1965-1981

Generation Y, Millenials, Nexters, Generation Next, Generation Me, Internet Generation

1982-2003 1982-1999 1978-1995 1981-2000 1980 and higher

Kowske, Rasch, & Wiley (2010) Twenge et al. (2010) Smola & Sutton (2002) Gursoy, Maier, & Chi (2008) Jenkins, 2008; Rodriguez, Green, & Ree, 2003

Based on the aforementioned studies, this research will use the following birth years

and labels, namely the Baby Boomers (1946-1964), Generation X (1965-1977) and

Generation Y (1978-1995). These constructs are based on time lag study of Smola & Sutton

(2002). In their study they found that the time spans mentioned earlier are the most often

referred to in the academic literature. Moreover, their own study is also often used as a

reference by other authors. In generational research, time lag studies are the most conclusive

method of research, which makes compliance with their chosen time spans a logical choice.

Many differences exists between the aforementioned generations (Twenge et al.,

2010). In this paragraph short descriptions of the generations will be provided.

Baby Boomers – this generation was born in an era of economic prosperity and a relative free

expression (Lancaster & Stillman, 2002). They center their lives around work, care less about

a proper work-life balance and have a more collectivistic mindset (Twenge, 2010).

Generation X – grew up during the invention of personal computers and mobile phones,

Generation X are career builders with individualistic traits, more focus on work-life balance

and an appreciation for money, status and prestige (Twenge, 2010).

Generation Y – the generation which is most technology savvy, growing up with rapid

changing technology and social media. This generation values work-life balance most and

money and status are less of importance to them. They have a high self-esteem and are

assertive, which causes them to be perceived as arrogant and narcissistic by other generations

(Twenge, 2010)

Officially there is additional generation in the current workplace: the Traditionalists.

However, the data used in this research was collected at Microsoft, an organization which has

a lower average age among their employees, which renders this latter cohort redudant for this

research. The following section will elaborate on the independent variables of model 1.

15

3.3. WORKPLACE SATISFACTION

In literature, workplace satisfaction is studied as a fragmented phenomenon. Current studies

often mention separate characteristics of the workplace, which could influence workplace

satisfaction rather than studying workplace satisfaction as a whole. To distinguish workplace

satisfaction from the umbrella term employee satisfaction, we therefore could define it as “the

satisfaction of the characteristics of the physical working environment”. Examples are: noise

(Sundstrom et al., 1994), presence of ergonomic furniture and pc’s and the type of office

(open, cubicles, traditional) (Carlopio & Gardner, 1992), availability of necessary facilities

and level of privacy of one’s office. Moreover, research has shown a relationship between

perceived quality of the physical (work) environment and job satisfaction (Sundstrom et al.,

1994; Zalesny, Farace, & Hawkins, 1985, cited in Lee & Brand, 2005).

As mentioned earlier, workplace satisfaction is a fraction of employee satisfaction

(van der Voordt, 2004). This is supported by Lee & Brand (2005) who studied the influence

of workplace satisfaction on employee satisfaction based on an earlier study by Carlopio

(1996). He found evidence supporting the validity of the physical work environment construct

as a part of the job satisfaction construct.

The New Worls of Work poses significant influences on various dimensions of work.

Flexible working schedules, elaborate use of technology and the office, which was

traditionally used as a workplace, will be shifting to a meeting place (Microsoft). There have

been extensive studies on the differences between generations (Twenge et al., 2010). As

within Microsoft’s new workplace the level work-life balance improves, one could naturally

conclude that as generation Y values work-life balance the most (Twenge et al., 2010), the

new work situation would suit them more compared to the other generations. Furthermore, a

flexible workplace is offered, which allows more autonomy and self-management from

employees (Gephart Jr., 2002). Older generations have been found to need more guidance in

their career while younger generations are comfortable with a higher level of autonomy

(Twenge et al., 2010). Finally, the Traditionalists and Baby Boomers are more used to the

traditional office place, where ‘the office’ had a different meaning. Perceiving the office as a

meeting place instead of a place to work could lower their workplace satisfaction, as it does

not comply with their perception. The following hypotheses are proposed:

H2: Workplace satisfaction is positively related to employee satisfaction before and after the

introduction of NWoW.

H2a: After the Introduction of NWoW, workplace satisfaction will be lower for Baby

16

Boomers than for Generation X or Y.

H2b: The positive relationship between workplace satisfaction and employee satisfaction is

weaker for Baby Boomers than for Generation X or Y.

3.4 EMPOWERMENT

Empowerment is a term, which is frequently used by managers, but is hard to find a clear

definition on it (Honold, 1997). Empowerment in this research is perceived as ‘the

motivational concept of self-efficacy’ (Conger & Kanungo, 1988 as cited in Spreitzer, 1995).

Empowerment according to Conger & Kanungo (1988, as cited in Spreitzer, 1995) cannot be

explained in one concept but rather is a combination of four cognitions: meaning (the extent

to which one values a work goal or purpose), competence (a synonym for self-efficacy), self-

determination (the extent to which one is able to initiate and regulate his own actions, this

term is related to autonomy) and impact (the extent to which one’s actions influence strategic,

administrative or operating outcomes at work) (Spreitzer, 1995).

The relationship between empowerment and job satisfaction was initially given

attention during the quality of life movement (Blau & Alba, 1982, as cited in Spreitzer,

Kizilos, & Nason, 1997). The main focus of this movement was increasing employee

satisfaction by making them feel good about their work and job, it was therefore indicated that

job satisfaction was one of the outcomes of empowerment (Spreitzer, Kizilos, & Nason,

1997). Their empirical study found for each of the four aforementioned cognitions of

empowerment all significantly and positively related to job satisfaction.

Taking the generational perspective, it can be said that the change in empowerment in

Microsoft’s new workplace will be equally perceived by the different generations. All

generations value meaning in their jobs and to see impact of their work (Twenge et al., 2010).

Nonetheless, previous researches indicate differences. Twenge et al. (2010) performed a

national representative time-lag study in which they surveyed a large sample of high school

seniors about their work values every spring since 1976. They found that, as regards to

attaching meaning to one’s job, no significant difference could be found between the

generations. The level of freedom of supervision wished by the generations, provided the

authors with dissimilar results. Generation X appeared to value freedom of supervision more

compared to the Baby Boomers. Differences between Generation Y and Generation X were

smaller. Therefore the following hypothesis is proposed:

17

H3: Empowerment is positively related to employee satisfaction before and after the


H3a: After the introduction of NWoW all generations will experience an increased level of

empowerment.

H3b: The positive relationship between empowerment and employee satisfaction is weaker

for Baby Boomers than for Generation X or Y.

3.5. RELATIONSHIPS AND TRUST: COLLEAGUES & MANAGER

Trust is a concept which has a fairly common meaning, overall it could be described as ‘the

extent to which one is willing to ascribe good intentions to and have confidence in the words

and actions of other people’ (Cook & Wall, 1980). In general scholars agree that trust

between individuals and groups within organizations is an important factor for firm stability

and well being of its employees (Cook & Wall, 1980). In the survey used for this thesis

research, a distinction is made between trust in colleagues and trust in the manager.

Flaherty & Pappas (2000) have researched the relationship between trust in the

relationship between superior and subordinate and job satisfaction in a sales context and their

results showed a positive relationship between these two variables.

Teleworking changes the way people communicate and build relationships and trust

with each other and might not be something which is suitable for every generation. Trust is

important for any team, but crucial in virtual teams as trust keeps geographical distance from

turning into psychological distance (Snow, Snell & Davison, 1996 as cited in Jarvenpaa,

Knoll, & Leidner, 1998).

Baby Boomers rated social values (e.g. making friends at work) higher than

Generation Y (Twenge et al., 2010). The need to belong or to connect is an important part of

the intrisic motivation (Baumeister & Leary, 1995 as cited in Twenge et al., 2010). Though

the younger generations are more extravert, they place less value on social approval (Twenge

et al., 2010). However, Baby Boomers are less computer literate compared to the younger

generations (Krohn, 2004). Certainly some of them have learned to use computers and

technology for their work or in their private lives, but not all. Generation X was younger

when technology started to take over everyday life and have learned to take technology as

their second nature (Krohn, 2004). Generation Y on the contrary grew up with technology

and knows how to use it at work and in their private lives (Mooney, Wright Jr., & Higgins,

2010; Hershatter & Epstein, 2010). They will be more capable to communicate with

18

colleagues and managers and enhance relationships with the use of technology, despite the

physical distance between them and their colleagues and manager. One pitfall of teleworking

is the possible isolation (Cascio, 2000) which might harm the interpersonal relationships

(Raines & Leathers, 2001). It could be argued the younger generation with better

technological skills will be more capable to enhance the interpersonal relationships in the new

workplace introduced by Microsoft compared to the older generation, while this latter group

values the relationships more. Therefore the following hypotheses are proposed:

H4: Relationships and trust: colleagues is positively related to employee satisfaction before

and after the introduction of NWoW.

H4a: Relationships and trust: manager is positively related to employee satisfaction before

and after the introduction of NWoW.

H4b: After the implementation of NWoW as introduced by Microsoft, Relationships and trust

in manager and colleagues will be lower for Baby Boomers than for Generation X or Y.

H4c: The positive relationship between relationships & trust: colleagues and employee

satisfaction is weaker for Baby Boomers than for Generation X and weaker for Generation X

than for Generation Y.

H4d: The positive relationship between relationships & trust: manager and employee

satisfaction is weaker for Baby Boomers than for Generation X and Generation Y.

3.6 MODEL 2: WORK-LIFE BALANCE

As opposed to employee satisfaction, work-life balance is a less frequent researched topic.

The literature and research done on this subject is scarce and not as elaborate. Moreover, the

effect of the moderators NWoW and generations (explained in previous sections) are also less

studied.

Work-life balance, as the term suggests, defines the healthy balance between work and

private/family life. A healthy balance between these two elements of life is not only

important to one’s personal life but also for businesses (Hill et al., 2001). Though in earlier

studies work-life balance was classified as a ‘women’s’ issue, latter researches have shown

that men are as likely to have issues finding a balance between work life and family life (Hill

et al., 2001).

Moreover, work-life balance contributes to employee’s job satisfaction. Studies have

indicated that family-friendly programs at work and more flexbile work schedules increase

job satisfaction and productivity (Saltzstein et al., 2001).

19

In the New Worls of Work introduced by Microsoft, the use of technology and the

flexible work schedules and workplaces empower employees to decide where and when they

work. This mentality allows them to fit their work lives into their family lives for an optimal

balance.

However, work-life balance is not equally important across generations. In his review

article, Twenge (2010) found that over time, generations tend to be less work-centric. While

Baby Boomers clearly were more focused on their work, the younger generations Generation

X and Y center their lives around their family life. Therefore the following hypotheses is

proposed to illustrate the interaction between model 1 and model 2:

H5: Work-life balance is postively related to employee satisfaction before and after the


H5a: After the introduction of NWoW work-life balance will be lower for Baby Boomers than

for Generation X and Y.

H5b: The positive relationship between work-life balance and employee satisfaction is weaker

for Baby Boomers than for Generation X and Y.

3.7 JOB FLEXIBILITY

Job flexibility, expressed in flextime (the ability to rearrange one’s workhours within certain

guidelines offered by the company) and flexplace (giving employees varying degrees of

control over where their work is done) is positively related to work-life balance (Hill et al.,

2001).

Within the NWoW, this flexibility is provided, allowing employees to decide where

and when their work is performed. As Microsoft state themselves: “For centuries, managers

were leading by distrust. But more companies are starting to realize that leading by trust is

more succesful. We as Microsoft Netherlands believe that once an organization gives trust,

they will get this back.”

For Generation X and Y, who favor work-life balance and freedom of supervision

more compared to the Baby Boomers (Twenge, 2010), job flexibility, the freedom to decide

their own workplace and schedule is most likely to be of greater importance. Therefore we

propose the following hypothesis:

H6: Job flexibility is positively related to work-life balance before and after the introduction

of NWoW.

20

H6a: After the introduction of NWoW job flexibility all generations will experience an

increased level of empowerment.

H6b: The positive relationship between job flexibility and work-life balance is weaker for

Baby Boomers than for Generation X and Y.

3.8 EMPOWERMENT (SELF DETERMINATION)

Empowerment, as explained earlier in this thesis, encompasses four different factors. The

variable used in the second model is one of those factors: empowerment – self determination,

which is the extent to which one is able to initiate and regulate his own actions, a definition

proposed by Spreitzer (1995). One of the main resources of work-life balance is control. This

employee control stems from empowerment (Greenblatt, 2002). The feeling of empowerment

comes from the individual itself, compared to job flexibility, which is provided by the

organization. The new ways of working at Microsoft is likely to foster a higher level of

empowerment among their employees.

However, as mentioned earlier, though empowerment levels in the NWoW will

increase for every employee, especially Generation X and Y will profit from this due to their

preference for freedom of supervision. Put differently, Baby boomers have been brought up in

a work environment that highly respects authority and hierarchy. Therefore they do not have

the urge to be self-managing or to have greater control. While empowerment is welcomed by

every generation, the embrace will be greater for the two younger generations. This results in

the following hypotheses:

H7: Empowerment – self determination is positively related to work-life balance before and

after the introduction of NWoW.

H7a: After the introduction of NWoW all generations will experience an increased level of

empowerment – self determination.

H7b: The positive relationship between empowerment-self determination and work-life

balance is weaker for Baby Boomers than for Generation X and Y.

21

3.9 CONCEPTUAL MODEL

Below the conceptual model is depicted, which is based on the earlier theoretical discussion.

Figure 3.1 Conceptual model. The introduction of NWoW is an intervention and not a variable, therefore the line

is interrupted.

Generational

workforce

attitudes

Work place

satisfaction

Empowerment

Relationship &

Trust: Colleagues

Relationship &

Trust: Manager

Employee

Satisfaction

Introduction of

NWoW

(Microsoft)

Work-life

Balance

Job Flexibility

Empowerment

(self

determination)

Introduction of

NWoW

(Microsoft)

Generational

workforce

attitudes

22

4. METHODOLOGY

To answer the research question: Do employees from different generations all experience an

increased level of employee satisfaction after the implementation of the New Worls of Work?

And its sub-questions regarding the contributions of workplace satisfaction, empowerment,

relationships and trust: colleagues and relationships and trust: manager to employee

satisfaction to employee satisfaction, this thesis research will use existing datasets containing

a survey held by the Erasmus@Work within Microsoft in 2007 and 2008. It is an elaborate

survey, which addresses multiple variables including the variables used in this thesis research.

The samples sizes per data set are as follow: 255 respondents for 2007, 293 respondents for

2008. Below the separate measures per variable are explained. Finally the method of data

analysis will be provided.

4.1 MEASUREMENTS

In this section, short descriptions are provided per variable. All items mentioned are listed

under appendix A.

Employee satisfaction - Within the NWoW survey, employee satisfaction is measured

according to the survey instruments provided by Jun et al.(2006). The authors measure

employee satisfaction by four items with a five-point scale.

New Worls of Work – the new ways of working introduced by Microsoft (2011). The basic

idea is to work with flexible workschedules and workspaces, supported by the latest

technology.

Generational factor – As mentioned earlier, this research uses three generations: The Baby

Boomers, Generation X and Generation Y. In the survey they are asked what age they are.

The division per generation will be made according to the respondent’s age at the time of the

survey.

Workplace Satisfaction – measurements for workplace satisfaction are adapted from Lee &

Brand (2005) and developed by Erasmus@Work based on the descriptions of Hislop & Axtell

(2009). 10 out of 11 items were used for measuring distraction, control and satisfaction with

the workplace (Lee & Brand, 2005) and 3 out of 14 items were used for measuring privacy,

image and facilities of the location. All items are measured with a five point scale.

23

Empowerment – this variable is measured using Spreitzer’s (1995) proposed measures. The

four coginitions meaning, competence, self-determination and impact are measured with three

items per cognition (except for ‘meaning’ which is measured by two items) on a five-point

scale.

Relationships & Trust: colleagues & manager - Trust: colleagues & manager are both

measured using Cook & Wall’s (1980) measures of trust. For both colleagues and manager

there are four items which can be rated according to a five-point scale. Relationships:

colleagues & manager are measured according to the proposed model of measures of Mierlo

et al. (2006). For colleagues, there are five items with a five-point scale rating. For manager

there are four items with a four-point scale rating.

Work-life balance – measurements for work-life balance are the short version of the

measurements provided by Hill et al. (2001). This construct is measured with four items on a

five-point scale.

Job flexibility – is measured using an adapted version of the measurements by Hill et al.

(2001). Only three of the four proposed items are used, which are measured on a five point

scale.

Empowerment (self-determination) – this variable is measured using Spreitzer’s (1995)

proposed measures. There are four items, measured on a five point scale

Acceptance of mobile working – is measured using measurements developed by

Erasmus@Work (2007) (Raines & Leathers, 2001). There are three items, all measured on a

five point scale.

5. RESULTS

In this section the data analyses and results will be discussed.

5.1 DESCRIPTION, CORRELATIONS & FACTOR ANALYSIS

In order to be able to draw more conclusive results, both datasets from 2007 and 2008 were

paired, resulting in a sample size N = 109. Within this sample, there are equal numbers for

Generation Y, Generation X and Baby Boomers in 2007 and 2008, respectively N = 12, N =

86 and N = 11.

24

In this thesis research, factor analysis is used as an instrument to measure whether the

postulated items measure the construct they belong to. This is a common practice in social

science as social phenomena often can not be measured directly ( (Field, 2009). There are

several key values in factor analysis.

First, the Bartlett’s test of sphericity, which is conducted to test the null hypothesis

whether the original correlation matrix is equal to an identity matrix. If the test fails to reject

the null hypothesis, this would mean that the correlation matrix is an identity matrix in which

the postulated items of a construct are perfectly correlating with themselves but have no

correlation with the other items. In this thesis, we would like to reject the null hypothesis

which would mean that our items are correlating with one other suggesting they have a

common ground in explaining the construct. The Bartlett’s test of sphericity is significant at p

≤ .050. For every dataset used in this thesis, the 2007 sample, the 2008 sample and the paired

2007 and 2008 samples are highly significant p < .001. Therefore the null hypothesis is

rejected.

The second key test is the Kaiser-Meyer-Olking measure of sampling adequacy, in

short KMO, which is a value between 0 and 1. A value close to 1 indicates that the patterns of

correlation are quite compact and therefore factor analysis should provide us with distinct and

reliable factors (Field, 2009). Kaiser (1974, as cited by Fields, 2009) indicated several

categories of values. A value greater than 0.500 is faintly acceptable. A value between 0.500

and 0.700 is labeled as mediocre, values between 0.700 and 0.800 are good, values between

0.800 and 0.900 are great and values greater than 0.900 are superb. All KMO values in this

research are between .609 and .833, meaning the can be labeled to vary between mediocre and

great (table B1-B4).

Another value to look at is the eigenvalue. In factor analysis, when eigenvalue is

larger than 1, it indicates that the items are measuring merely one underlying concept. Each

eigenvalue has a percentage of variance explained linked to it, which means that if all

proposed items for a construct are indicated to be one factor in the factor analysis with an

eigenvalue over 1, the percentage linked to it explains how much variance is explained by all

the items together in one factor. The results of the eigenvalues indicates that the postulated

items indeed explain a percentage between 28.13 and 78.16 of their construct (table B1-B4,

appendix).

Communalities after extraction and factor loadings are important outcomes of factor

analysis as well. They indicate whether there is sufficient communality between the variables

and how much the item contributes to the explained variance of the factor (construct). A low

25

score on communalities and factor loadings could indicate that the specific item is has barely

any additional explanatory power to add to the sum of all items. In this case we do have some

rather low values for communalities if extracted and factor loadings (table B5, appendix).

This occurs mostly only with workplace satisfaction, a construct which is self-developed

based on existing scales. The items mostly indicating low communality and/or factor loading

are ‘I can adjust, re-arrange, and re-organize my furniture as needed’, ‘I determine the

organization/appearance of my work area’ and ‘I can personalize my workspace’, ‘I find it

difficult to concentrate on my work’, ‘I experience auditory distractions in my work area’, ‘I

have adequate privacy in my primary, individual work area’, ‘I experience auditory

distractions in my work area’. However, as they do correlate significantly (p ≤ .050) with

other items in the correlation matrix and the Cronbach’s Alpha hardly changes after their

elimination it is decided to keep them in the analysis, as despite their low explanatory power

they do contribute to the construct of workplace satisfaction.

Cronbach’s Alpha for assessing reliability scales was used to determine the degree to

which the measures probe the underlying constructs. As shown in the tables below, all

coefficients are at a sufficient level. The analysis of the correlations is done for all the

proposed relationships depicted in the conceptual model for both 2007 and 2008. In 2007, all

proposed independent variables in Model 1 have a significance level of p ≤ .010, except for

workplace satisfaction which has a not significant correlation coefficient of 0,111. In 2008,

after the introduction of the New Worls of Work at Microsoft, all proposed independent

variables have a significant level of p ≤ .050.

Table 5.1. Correlations and reliability scores Model 1 - 2007

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1.Employee

satisfaction

4,3670 ,55232 α =

,822

2. Workplace

satisfaction

3,1771 ,49637 ,111 α =

,807

3. Empowerment 4,0884 ,44165 ,361*** ,162* α =

,847

4. Relationship

colleagues

4,4628 ,58894 ,302*** ,301*** ,164* α =

,708

26

5. Relationship

manager

4,5807 ,54970 ,305*** ,063 ,194** ,593*** α =

,785

6. Trust in

colleagues

3,9771 ,42018 ,418*** ,253*** ,325*** ,228** ,593*** α =

,712

7. Trust in manager 3,9197 ,48218 ,479*** ,150 ,291*** ,183* ,306*** ,639*** α =

,804

Note: * p ≤ 0,100; ** p ≤ 0,050; *** p ≤ 0,010; two-tailed; N = 109; Cronbach’s alpha’s are displayed on

diagonals.


Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1.Employee

satisfaction

4,3601 ,52642 α =

,798

2. Workplace

satisfaction

3,6119 ,51018 ,228** α =

,859

3. Empowerment 4,1498 ,48730 ,526*** ,148 α =

,859

4. Relationship

colleagues

4,4180 ,55900 ,342*** ,119 ,312*** α =

,671

5. Relationship

manager

4,4666 ,68320 ,202** ,039 ,230** ,597*** α =

,818

6. Trust in

colleagues

4,0092 ,50681 ,309*** ,026 ,390*** ,432*** ,355*** α =

,810

7. Trust in manager 3,8761 ,54711 ,381*** ,093 ,297*** ,380*** ,438*** ,582*** α =

,846


diagonals.

Model two, which proposes a relationship between empowerment – selfdetermination

and jobflexibility and worklife balance, indicates strong correlation coefficients for both

27

independent variables (p ≤ .010). This, however, changes in 2008 where only jobflexibility

has a significant correlation with worklife balance (p ≤ .010).


Variable Mean SD 1 2 3

1. Worklife

balance

3,5917 ,71659 α = ,751

2. Jobflexibility 4,0948 ,58635 ,264*** α = ,815

3.

Empowerment-

Selfdetermination

4,3180 ,53361 ,284*** ,439*** α = ,745


diagonals.


Variable Mean SD 1 2 3

1. Worklife

balance

3,5917 ,71659 α = ,761

2. Jobflexibility 4,0948 ,58635 ,215*** α = ,846

3.

Empowerment-

Selfdetermination

4,3180 ,53361 ,118 ,522*** α = ,811


diagonals.

For the interaction between the models, the correlation between worklife balance and

employee satisfaction changes from a significant relationship (p ≤ .050) to a marginal

significant relationship (p ≤ .100).

28

Table 5. Interaction effect worklife balance and employee satisfaction 2007-2008

Variable Corelation coefficient

1. Worklife balance – Employee satisfaction 2007 ,197**

2. Worklife balance – Employee satisfaction 2008 ,163*

Note: * p ≤ 0,100; ** p ≤ 0,050; two-tailed; N = 109.

5.2 PAIRED SAMPLE T-TEST

For hypothesis testing, we will first describe the independent and dependent variables of both

models before and after the introduction of New Worls of Work. A paired sample t-test was

conducted to compare the means of the 2007-sample and the 2008-sample.

As depicted by table C1 (appendix), the results of the paired sample t-test suggest that

after the introduction of New Worls of Work, there was a significant difference in the scores

of workplace satisfaction 2007 (M= 3.1771, SD= .49637) and workplace satisfaction 2008

(M=3.6119, SD= .51018) conditions; t(108)= -7.008, p ≤ .001. Also jobflexibility had a

significant difference in the scores of jobflexibility 2007 (M= 4.0948, SD= .58635) and

jobflexibility 2008 (M= 4.2905, SD= .53306) conditions; t(108)= -1.290, p = .001.

With these preliminary results in mind we continued to conduct paired sample t-test

for each generation, the results shown in the tables below. For Generation Y, there were

significant differences for in the scores of; workplace satisfaction 2007 (M= 3.1923, SD=

.27928) and workplace satisfaction 2008 (M= 3.7244, SD= .34159) conditions; t(11)= -3.883,

p ≤ .001; jobflexibility 2007 (M= 3.7500, SD= .49492) and jobflexibility 2008 (M= 4.3056,

SD= .54045) conditions; t(11)= -2.419, p ≤ .050. There was also a marginal significant

difference for the scores of employee satisfaction 2007 (M= 4,1042, SD= ,53787) and

employee satisfaction 2008 (M=38125, SD=,54486) conditions; t(11)=1,984, p ≤ 0.100 (table

C2, appendix).

For Generation X, the paired sample t-test found significant results for workplace

satisfaction and job flexibility. The scores were: workplace satisfaction 2007 (M= 3.1637,

SD= .52872) and workplace satisfaction 2008 (M= 3.5778 SD= .53225) conditions; t(85)=

.000, p ≤ .001; jobflexibility 2007 (M= 4.0814, SD= .57834) and jobflexibility 2008 (M=

4.2597, SD= .53480) conditions; t(85)= -2.850, p = .050 (table C3, appendix).

For Baby Boomers, the paired sample t-test found significant results for the scores of

29

workplace satisfaction 2007 (M= 3.2657, SD= .43428) and workplace satisfaction 2008 (M=

3.7552, SD= .47645) (table C4, appendix).

5.3 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE (ANOVA)

Analysis of Variance is used to determine whether the means of the generations are all equal.

Homogeneity of variance is used to determine equal variance between the groups.

Homogeneity of variance tests the following hypotheses: H0 = There are no differences

between two or more variances and H1 there are differences between two or more variances.

When signifiance level p ≤ .050, H0 should be rejected and H1 is supported. Equal variances

is assumed when conducting ANOVA, therefore if homogeneity of variance is violated and

the desire is to use the results provided, Welch t-test is used. It is a modification of the t-test

of independent samples for assumption of unequal population variances, which allows

heterogenous variances to be tested with ANOVA.

When variance is homogenous the posthoc test used is Bonferoni as it assumes

unequal N among the groups. For heterogeneity of variance, Tamhane T2 will be used. While

the Games-Howell test was taken into account during the data analysis, the possibility exists

that this test will be too liberal for large unequal sample sizes. Therefore Tamhane T2 was

chosen.

The first results for the 2007 sample find significant differences for relationship

manager, trust in colleagues, trust in manager and workplace satisfaction. However,

relationship colleagues, relationship manager, trust in colleagues and trust in manager violate

the assumption of homogeneity of variance. Moreover, while employee satisfaction initially

indicated no significant differences, it violates the assumption of homogeneity. Therefore

Welch t-test was conducted for the aforementioned 5 variables, this test showed no significant

differences between the groups for trust in colleagues, but there were significant differences

between the variances for relationship colleagues, relationship manager, trust in manager and

employee satisfaction (table C5-C6, appendix).

Bonferroni was used as a post hoc test for workplace satisfaction. Workplace

satisfaction indicated significant differences between Generation Y – Generation X and

Generation Y – Baby Boomers. No significant differences were found between Generation X

and Baby Boomers (table C7, appendix).

Tamhane T2 indicated significant differences between between Generation Y-

Generation X and Generation Y-Baby Boomers for relationship manager and trust in

30

manager. No differences were found for these variables between Generation X and Baby

Boomers. The test also indicated a difference between Generation Y and Generation X for

relationship colleagues and employee satisfaction. No differences were found between

Generation Y-Baby Boomers and Generation X-BabyBoomers.

The ANOVA results for the 2008 sample showed significant differences for

empowerment, employee satisfaction and empowerment-self determination. However,

employee satisfaction violates the assumption of homogeneity of variance, which makes the

Welch T-test necessary to determine whether the ANOVA results are valid. The Welch T-test

indicated a significant difference and was therefore included in the post hoc testing using

Tamhane T2. (table C8-C9, appendix)

The Bonferroni post hoc test indicated significant differences between Generation Y-

Generation X and Generation Y-Baby Boomers for empowerment, no significant differences

were found for Generation X-Baby Boomers. For empowerment-self determination indicated

significant differences between Generation Y and Baby Boomers. The Tamhane T2 showed

significant differences between Generation Y-Baby Boomers for employee satisfaction.

However, no significant differences were found for Generation Y-Generation X or Generation

X-Baby Boomers. (table C10, appendix)

For the paired sample 2007, ANOVA showed significant differences between

empowerment, employee satisfaction, jobflexibility and empowerment-self determination for

2007 (table C11, appendix)

Bonferonni reveals significant differences between Generation Y-Generation X,

Generation X-Baby Boomers and Generation Y-Baby Boomers for empowerment. Employee

satisfaction only reveals a significant difference between Generation Y- Baby Boomers. For

jobflexibility, significant differences were found only between Generation Y-Baby Boomers

and Generation X-Baby Boomers. Significant differences existed only between Generation Y-

Baby Boomers for empowerment-self determination (table C12, appendix)

After the implementation of New Worls of Work at Microsoft, ANOVA results show

only significant differences between empowerment and employee satisfaction (table C13,

appendix)

Bonferroni post hoc testing shows for both variables significant differences for

Generation Y-Generation X and Generation Y-Baby Boomers. No significant differences

were found for Generation X-Baby Boomers (table C14, appendix).

31

5.4 MULTIPLE LINEAIR REGRESSION

Before analyzing the data using mulitple lineair regression, all independent variables are

mean-centered. This is done to increase the interpretability of the results and to decrease

multicollineairity.

Multicollinearity can be tested in two ways. Through the Variance Inflation Factor

(VIF) or the tolerance factor. When values of the latter two are respectively greater than 10 or

smaller than 0.100. For the datasets used the highest VIF value is 7,673 and the lowest

tolerance value is 0,130. This is lower than de established limits, therefore we can conclude

that multicollinearity is not an issue (table D1, appendix).

5.5 HYPOTHESIS TESTING

This section combines the data analyzing methods in the aforementioned paragraphs. The

results of those data analyses are used to determine whether a hypothesis is supported of

rejected (table D2-D5, appendix).

Hypothesis 1 predicted a higher level of employee satisfaction after the introduction of

NWoW and also a difference between the levels of employee satisfaction between the

different generations in which Baby Boomers would be less satisfied compard to the younger

generations. Th results of the paired sample t-test over the paired sample 2007-2008 revealed

that no significant differences existed in the scores of employee satisfaction 2007 (M= 4.3670,

SD= .55232) and employee satisfaction 2008 (M= 4.3601, SD= .52642) conditions; t(108)=

.151 p = .880. A one-way ANOVA was conducted to test for differences in the mean of

employee satisfaction in both 2007, F (2, 106) = 3.582, p = .031 and 2008 F (2, 106) = 10.613

p ≤ .001. Both samples are homogenous in variance 2007 p = .335 and 2008 p = .385 which

leads us to the Bonferonni post hoc test. The post-hoc comparisons for 2007 suggest that

generation Y (M = 4.1042, 95% CI [3.25, 5.00]) significantly differs from the Baby Boomers

(M = 4.7045, 95% CI [4.00, 5.00]). Comparisons between Generation X ((M = 4.3506, 95%

CI [2.50, 5.00]) and the other two where not statistically different at p < .050. For 2008,

Generation Y (M = 3.8125, 95% CI [2.75, 4.75]) significantly differs from Generation X (M

= 4,3924, 95% CI [3.50, 5.00]) and the Baby Boomers (M = 4,7045, 95% CI [3.75, 5.00]).

Comparisons between Generation X and Y were not statistically different at p < .050. Based

on the results, we conclude hypothesis 1 was not supported.

Hypothesis 2 indicated a positive relationship between workplace satisfaction and

32

employee satisfaction before and after NWoW. Regression analysis showed a non-significant

relationship between workplace satisfaction and employee satisfaction in 2007 (β = .082 , p =

.409) and a marginal significant positive relationship in 2008 (β= .135, p = .093), hypothesis

2 was not supported.

Hypothesis 2a predicted a difference in workplace satisfaction between the

generations after the introduction of NWoW, with a lower workplace satisfaction for Baby

Boomers compared to Generation X and Y. ANOVA for 2007 to test for differences F (2,

106) = .209 p = .811 and for 2008 F (2, 106) = .916 p = .403. Paired sample t-test indicated

significant increase of empowerment from 2007 (M= 3.1923, SD= .52872) to 2008 (M=

3.7244, SD= .34159) conditions; t(11) = -3.883, p = .003 for Generation Y. For Generation X

there is a significant increase from 2007 (M= 3.1637, SD= .41814) to 2008 (M= 3.5778, SD=

.53225) conditions; t(85) = -5.622, p = .000. For Baby Boomers there is a significant increase

from 2007 (M=3.2657, SD= .43428) to 2008 (M= 3.7552, SD= .47645) conditions; t(10) = -

2.983, p = .014. Hypothesis 2a was not supported.

Hypothesis 2b predicted a positive relationship between workplace satisfaction and

employee satisfaction with a weaker relationship for Baby Boomers compared to the younger

generations after the implementation of NwoW. For Generation Y, the relationship was non-

significant in 2007 (β = -.24, p = .964) and remained non-significant in 2008 (β = -.345, p =

.585). For Generation X, the relationship was non-significant in 2007 (β = .071, p = .535) and

became stronger and significant in 2008 (β = .279, p = .002). For Baby Boomers, the

relationship was non-significant (β = .271, p = .692) and remained non-significant in 2008 (β

= -.318, p = .783). These results reject hypothesis H2b.

Hypothesis 3 predicted a positive relationship between empowerment and employee

satisfaction before and after the NWoW. Regression analysis showed a marginal significant

positive relationship between workplace satisfaction and employee satisfaction in 2007 (β =

.196 , p = .055) and a highly significant positive relationship in 2008 (β= .387, p ≤ .001),

supporting hypothesis 3.

Hypothesis 3a predicted an increase in the level of empowerment for all generations

after the introduction of NWoW. Paired sample t-test indicated non-significant increase of

empowerment from 2007 (M= 3.6212, SD= .27908) to 2008 (M= 3.6597, SD= .30764)

conditions; t(11) = -.387, p = ,706 for Generation Y. For Generation X there is a non-

significant increase from 2007 (M= 4.1099, SD= .41814) to 2008 (M= 4.1739, SD= .47885)

conditions; t(85) = -1.313, p = .193. For Baby Boomers there is a non-significant increase

from 2007 (M= 4.4298, SD= .37503) to 2008 (M= 4.4962, SD= .29372) conditions; t(10) = -

33

.622, p = .548. Hypothesis 3a is not supported, but increases are indicated by the results.

Hypothesis 3b indicated a positive relationship between empowerment and employee

satisfaction, which is weaker for Baby Boomers than for Generation X or Y after the

implementation of NWoW. For Generation Y, regression analysis indicated that the

relationship was non-significant in 2007 (β =.117, p = .812) and remained non-significant in

2008 (β = .586, p = .303). . For Generation X, the relationship was non-significant in 2007 (β

= .035, p = .762) and became significant in 2008 (β = .308, p ≤ .001). For Baby Boomers the

relationship was non-significant in 2007 (β = -.171, p = .805) and was also non-significant

2008 (β = .343, p = .703), rejecting hypothesis H3b.

Hypothesis 4 predicts a positive relationship between relationship and trust colleagues

and employee satisfaction before and after the introduction of NWoW. Regression analysis

showed a non-significant positive relationship between relationship colleagues and employee

satisfaction in 2007 (β = .092 , p = .445) and a marginal significant positive relationship in

2008 (β= .192, p = .066). For trust, regression analsysis indicated a non-significant

relationship between trust and employee satisfaction in 2007 (β = .005, p = .969) and non-

significant relationship in 2008 (β= -.045, p = .666), rejecting hypothesis 4.

Hypothesis 4a predicts a positive relationship between relationship and trust manager

and employee satisfaction before and after the introduction of NWoW. Regression analysis

showed a non-significant relationship between relationship manager and employee

satisfaction in 2007 (β = -.019, p = .879) and a non-significant negative relationship in 2008

(β= -.089, p = .384). For trust, regression analsysis indicated a non-significant positive

relationship between trust and employee satisfaction in 2007 (β = .193, p = .116) and a

significant positive relationship in 2008 (β= .215, p = .015). Hypothesis 4a was not supported.

Hypothesis 4b postulates that after the introduction of NWoW, relationship and trust

in manager and colleagues will be lower for Baby Boomers than for the two younger

generations. Paired sample t-test indicated a non-significant decrease for relationship

colleagues from 2007 (M= 4.4828, SD= .56184) to 2008 (M= 4.3117, SD= .61190)

conditions; t(11) = .507, p = ,622 for Generation Y. For Generation X there is a non-

significant decrease from 2007 (M= 4.4274, SD= .06521) to 2008 (M= 4.3914, SD= .06054)

conditions; t(85) = .548, p = ,585. For Baby Boomers there is a non-significant decrease from

2007 (M=4.7176, SD= .45571) to 2008 (M= 4.6773, SD= .44810) conditions; t(10) = .265, p

= ,797. ANOVA for 2007 to test for differences betwee generations in relationshp colleagues

F (2, 106) = 1.196 p = .306 and for 2008 F (2, 106) = 1.330 p = .269. Both test indicate no

significant differences between the generations.

34

Paired sample t-test indicated a non-significant increase for relationship manager

from 2007 (M= 4.5194, SD= .51650) to 2008 (M= 4.6675, SD= .53884) conditions; t(11) = -

.743, p = ,473 for Generation Y. For Generation X there is a non-significant increase from

2007 (M= 4.5769, SD= .56927) to 2008 (M= 4.4427, SD= .66456) conditions; t(85) = 1.572,

p = .120. For Baby Boomers there is a non-significant decrease from 2007 (M= 4.6773, SD=

.44777) to 2008 (M= 4.4345, SD= .95565) conditions; t(10) = .944, p = ,367. ANOVA for

2007 to test for differences betwee generations in relationshp colleagues F (2, 106) = .243 p =

.785 and for 2008 F (2, 106) = .579 p = .562. Both test indicate no significant differences

between the generations.

Paired sample t-test indicated a non-significant increase for trust employees from 2007

(M= 4.0625, SD= .32201) to 2008 (M= 4.1042, SD= .41921) conditions; t(11) = -.804, p =

,438 for Generation Y. For Generation X there is a non-significant increase from 2007 (M=

3.9506, SD= .41977) to 2008 (M= 3.9680, SD= .52271) conditions; t(85) = -.276, p = .783.

For Baby Boomers there is a non-significant increase from 2007 (M=4.0909, SD= .51566) to

2008 (M= 4.2273 SD= .42507) conditions; t(10) = -.576, p = .578. ANOVA for 2007 to test

for differences betwee generations in relationshp colleagues F (2, 106) = .820, p = .443 and

for 2008 F (2, 106) = 1.528, p = .222. Both tests indicate no significant differences between

the generations.

Paired sample t-test indicated a non-significant decrease for trust manager from 2007

(M= 3.9583, SD= .50938) to 2008 (M= 3.7083, SD= .38188) conditions; t(11) = 1.393, p =

.191 for Generation Y. For Generation X, trust manager remained the same in means for 2007

(M= 3.9012, SD= .47632) to 2008 (M= 3.9012, SD= .53451) conditions; t(85) = .000, p =

1.000. For Baby Boomers there is a non-significant decrease from 2007 (M=4.0227, SD=

.52979) to 2008 (M= 3.8636 SD= .77753) conditions; t(10) = .641, p = .536. ANOVA for

2007 to test for differences betwee generations in relationshp colleagues F (2, 106) = .349, p =

.706 and for 2008 F (2, 106) = .653, p = .523. Both test indicate no significant differences

between the generations. Based on these tests, hypothesis 4b was rejected.

Hypothesis 4c predicts a positive relationship between relationship colleagues and

employee satisfaction which is weaker for Baby Boomers than for the two younger

generations after the implementation of NWoW. Regression analsysis was conducted to test

this hypothesis. For Generation Y there was a non-significant relationship in 2007 (β =.070, p

= .914) which remained non-significant in 2008 (β = .051, p = .935). For Generation X, the

relationship was non-significant in 2007 (β = .081, p = .560) as well as in 2008 (β = .181, p =

.119). For Baby Boomers the relationship was non-significant in 2007 (β = .276, p = .730) and

35

remained non-significant in 2008 (β = -.281, p = .753.

Regression analsysis was conducted to test the relationship between trust colleagues

and employee satisfaction For Generation Y there was a non-significant in 2007 (β =-.666, p

= .205) which remained non-significant in 2008 (β = -.656, p = .256). For Generation X, the

relationship were non-significant in 2007 (β = .207, p = .149) and in 2008 (β = .139, p =


remained non-significant in 2008 (β =.274, p = .684), rejecting hypothesis H4c

Hypothesis 4d predicts that the positive relationship between relationship and trust

manager and employee satisfaction is weaker for Baby Boomers than for Generation X and

weaker for Generation X than for Generation Y after the implementation of NWoW. For

Generation Y, regression analysis indicated that the relationship between relationship

manager and employee satisfaction was non-significant in 2007 (β =-.139, p = .834) and

remained non-significant in 2008 (β = .042, p = .955). For Generation X, the relationship was

non-significant in 2007 (β = -.023, p = .871) and remained non-significant in 2008 (β = -.092,

p = .425). For Baby Boomers the relationship was non-significant in 2007 (β = .085, p = .916)

and remained non-significant in 2008 (β = .014, p = .985).

Regression analysis indicated that the relationship between trust manager and

employee satisfaction was non-significant in 2007 (β =.361, p = .692) as well as in 2008 (β =

.061, p = .920) for Generation Y. For Generation X, the relationship was non-significant in

2007 (β = .172, p = .217) and remained non-significant in 2008 (β = .189, p = .131). For Baby

Boomers the relationship was non-significant in both 2007 (β = -.415, p = .728) and 2008 (β =

.401, p = .699). These results reject hypothesis 4d.

Hypothesis 5 predicts a positive relationship between work-life balance and employee

satisfaction before and after the introduction of NWoW. Regression analysis showed a

marginal significant positive relationship between workplace satisfaction and employee

satisfaction in 2007 (β = .118 , p = .216) and a highly significant positive relationship in 2008

(β= .196, p = ,039). Hypothesis 5 is supported.

Hypothesis 5a postulates a lower work-life balance for Baby Boomers as compared to

Generation X or Y after the introduction of NWoW. Paired sample t-test indicated that work-

life balance remained the same in 2007 (M= 3.1875, SD= .53433) and 2008 (M= 3.1875, SD=

.66679) conditions; t(11) = .000, p = 1.000 for Generation Y. For Generation X there is a non-


conditions; t(85) = -.187, p = .852. For Baby Boomers there is a non-significant decrease from

2007 (M=3.8182, SD= .59257) to 2008 (M= 3.6364, SD= .67420) conditions; t(10) = 1.234, p

36

= .245. ANOVA for 2007 to test for differences betwee generations in relationshp colleagues

F (2, 106) = 2.596 p = .079 and for 2008 F (2, 106) = 2.593 p = .080. Both tests indicate no

significant differences between the generations. Based on these results, hypotesis 5a is

rejected.

Hypothesis 5b predicts that the positive relationship between work-life balance and

employee satisfaction is weaker for Baby Boomers than for Generation X and Y. For

Generation Y, regression analysis indicated that the relationship between work-life balance

and employee satisfaction was non-significant in 2007 (β =.066, p = .853) and became

significant in 2008 (β = .849 p = .003). For Generation X, the relationship was non-significant

in 2007 (β = .065, p = .556) and remained non-significant in 2008 (β = .064, p = .559). For

Baby Boomers the relationship was non-significant in 2007 (β = -.037, p = .914) and

remained non-significant in 2008 (β = .180, p = .595). The regression analysis rejects

hypothesis 5b.

Hypothesis 6 predicts a positive relationship between jobflexibility and work-life

balance before and after the introduction of NWoW. Regression analsysis was conducted to

test this relationship between trust colleagues and employee satisfaction. In 2007 there was a

positive marginal significant relationship(β = .176 , p = .085) and a positive and marginal

significant relationship was found in 2008 (β= .212 , p = .061). Therefore hypothesis 6 was

supported.

Hypothesis 6a predicts that after the introduction of NWoW, all generations will

experience an increased level of jobflexibility. Paired sample t-test indicated significant

increase of job flexibility from 2007 (M= 3.7500, SD= .49492) to 2008 (M= 4.3056, SD=

.54045) conditions; t(11) = -.2.419, p = .034 for Generation Y. For Generation X there is a


conditions; t(85) = -2.850, p = .005. For Baby Boomers there is a non-significant decrease

from 2007 (M=4.5758 SD= .44947) to 2008 (M= 4.5152, SD= .50252) conditions; t(10) = -

.482, p = .640. ANOVA for 2008 indicated the following results: F (2, 106) = 1.128 p = .328.

Hypothesis 6A was not supported

Hypothesis 6b predicts that the positive relationship between jobflexibility and

workplace satisfaction is weaker for Baby Boomers than for Generation X and Y. For

Generation Y, regression analysis indicated that the relationship between jobflexibility and

workplace satisfaction was non-significant in 2007 (β =.058, p = .172) and remained non-

significant in 2008 (β = .220, p = .505). For Generation X, the relationship was non-

significant in 2007 (β = .122, p = .291) and was marginal significant in 2008 (β = .230, p =

37


remained non-significant in 2008 (β = .599, p = .210). These tests therefore rejected

hypothesis 6b.

Hypothesis 7 predicts a positive relationship between empowerment –

selfdetermination and work-life balance after the introduction of NWoW. Regression

analsysis was conducted to test this relationship between trust colleagues and employee

satisfaction. In 2007 there was a non-significant relationship (β = .064 , p = .525) and for

2008 a non-significant relationship was found (β= .007, p = .953), rejecting hypothesis 7.

Hypothesis 7a postulates that every generation will experience an increased level of

empowerment – self determination. Paired sample t-test indicated non-significant increase of

empowerment from 2007 (M= 4.0556, SD= .34329) to 2008 (M= 4.0833, SD= .45227)

conditions; t(11) = -.290, p = ,777 for Generation Y. For Generation X there is a non-


conditions; t(85) = -1.305, p = ,195. For Baby Boomers there is no change in the level of

empowerment from 2007 (M=4.6667, SD= .39441) to 2008 (M= 4.6667, SD= .42164)

conditions; t(10) = .000, p = 1.000. Hypothesis 7a was therefore not supported.

Hypothesis 7b suggests that the positive relationship between empowerment –

selfdetermination and work-life balance is weaker for Baby Boomers than for Generation X

and Y. For Generation Y, regression analysis indicated that the relationship between

jobflexibility and employee satisfaction was non-significant in 2007 (β = -.166, p = .629) as

well as in 2008 (β = -.204, p = .523). For Generation X, the relationship was non-significant

in 2007 (β = .104, p = .366) and remained non-significant in 2008 (β = .014, p = .915). For

Baby Boomers the relationship was non-significant in 2007 (β = -.443, p = .213) and

remained non-significant in 2008 (β = -.792, p = .109). These tests therefore rejected

hypothesis 7b.

6. DISCUSSION

When researching the topic of the New Worls of Work, most resources will indicate that it

will lead to an increase of employee satisfaction, the same conclusion reached by Baane,

Houtkamp & Knotter (2011). However, this relationship was not significant in this research

when conducting a paired sample t-test over the general samples of 2007 and 2008. Taking

the generations apart there were differences in the mean levels of employee satisfaction in

both 2007 and 2008. The results indicate that before NWoW, Generation Y significantly

38

differs from Baby Boomers with a lower overall mean for employee satisfaction. In 2008

Generation Y differs from both Generation X and Baby Boomers with a lower overall mean

for employee satisfction. Well it was expected that Baby Boomers would be less satisfied

with the NWoW. The non-significant results found in the paired sample t-test could be

explained by the mere fact that Generation X, which had an average mean of 4.361 (2007)

and 4.392 (2008), was the largest group with N=86 in the sample. As the two other

generations were obviously smaller, the overall mean of the entire sample was closer to the

mean of Generation X than to the other two generations. However, ANOVA did indicate

differences between the generations, though not quite as expected. However, it appears from

the data that Generation Y in this sample is more change-resistant in comparison to

Generation X and Y. The question ‘I would consider myself open to change’ has a mean of

3.83, 4.22 and 4.18 in 2007 for respectively Generation Y, Generation X and Baby Boomers.

Moreover, the question ‘Overall, changes in the workplace are for the better’ has a mean of

3.75/3.42, 3.62/3.63 and 3.45/3.73 for 2007/2008 respectively for Generation Y, Generation

X and Baby Boomers. We can therefore possibly ascribe the unexpected differences in

generations for employee satisfaction to the change-resistant behavior of Generation Y.

A non-significant and marginal (resp. 2007 and 2008) positive relationship was found

for workplace satisfaction and employee satisfaction,

A relationship exists between empowerment and employee satisfaction both before

and after NWoW. The relationship was marginal (2007) and highly significant (2008).

Empowerment increased for all generations, however non-significant. This could be ascribed

to the fact that this sample is not large enough to find significant result. However, an effect

was found. There was no weaker relationship between empowerment and employee

satisfaction for Baby Boomers in comparison to Generation Y and X.

A non-significant relationship between relationship and trust colleagues and employee

satisfaction was found. Moreover, there were no significant differences between the

generations for relationship and trust colleagues and manager. Furthermore, the predicted

positive relationship between relationship and trust colleagues and employee satisfaction was

not proven in this thesis, neither was the positive relationship between relationship and trust

manager and employee satisfaction supported.

As predicted,the positive relationship between work-life balance and employee

satisfaction was suppoted with a marginal (2007) and highly significant (2008) result. This is

in line with Saltzstein et al. (2010). Work programs which are more family-friendly and

provide with a greater job flexibility, which increases work-life balance, increase job

39

satisfaction. However, Baby Boomers did not have a lower work-life balance compared to the

younger generations. This could be ascribed to the fact that in this sample Generation Y had

no children, while the two older generations did have children (of varying ages). Therefore

work-life balance could be more important to them as Generation Y had no family to take

care of at home for which they had to be able to balance there work-life. The positive

relationship between work-life balance and employee satisfaction was not proven to be

weaker for Baby Boomers than for Generation X and Y.

A positive result was given for the positive relationship between jobflexibility and

work-life balance, which is in agreement with Hill et al. (2001) who argued that flexible

workschedules and therefore jobflexibility help employees balance their work- and family life

in an era of increasing workload. The impact of the increased workload on employees’

personal life is reduced by jobflexibility which eventually will benefit an organization’s

success. The results did not prove that every generation experienced an increased level of job

flexibility after the introduction of NWoW. The positive relationship between jobflexbility

and work-life balance is not proven to be weaker for Baby Boomers than for Generation X

and Y.

This thesis does not support the positive relatiosnhip between empowerment-self

determination and work-life balance. It was not supported that every generation will

experience a higher level of empowerment-selfdetermination. There is no evidence provided

by this thesis to support the hypothesis that the positive relationship between empowerment –

selfdetermination and work-life balance is weaker for Baby Boomers in comparison to the

two younger generations.

Table 6.1. The hypotheses tested in this thesis research

Hypothesis Supported/Not supported

Hypothesis 1 Not supported


Hypothesis 2a Not supported

Hypothesis 2b Not supported

Hypothesis 3 Supported


40





Hypothesis 4c Not supported

Hypothesis 4d Not supported

Hypothesis 5 Supported









Despite that few of the hypotheses are supported, the general data analyses do provide

prelimary findings on the generational differences within the context of the New Worls of

Work as introduced by Microsoft. The paired sample t-tests identified significant differences

between generations for various variables for the different samples.

In 2007, these differences existed for workplace satisfaction, relationship colleagues,

relationship manager, trust in manager and employee satisfaction. Remarkable to notice is that

Generation Y scores higher for all variables, compared to the older generations.

41

Figure 6.1. Significant generational differences in the 2007 sample

In 2008 the variables with significantgenerational differences changed into empowerment,

empowerment – self determination and employee satisfaction. In this sample, Baby Boomers

scored significantly higher than Generation Y, while no significant differences existed

between Baby Boomers – Generation X or Generation X – Generation Y. Most important

finding is to discover that in this research, opposed to the predicted hypothesis, Baby

Boomers were more satisfied compared to the younger generations.

Figure 6.2. Significant generational differences for the 2008 sample

42

In the paired sample, for 2007, the variables with significant generational differences

are empowerment, empowerment – self determination, employee satisfaction and

jobflexibility. Again, the Baby Boomers score higher compared to Generation Y and

Generation X. Another important notice is that while Baby Boomers and Generation X

experienced an increased level of employee satisfaction, Generation Y’s level of employee

satisfaction decreased.

Figure 6.3. Significant generational differences for the paired sample 2007

In the paired sample, for 2008, the only variables indicating significant generational

differences are empowerment and empowerment – self determination. Comparing with the

paired sample of 2007, only Generation Y became less satisfied in 2008, after the introduction

of NWoW as implemented by Microsoft. However, all generations appear to have an

increased level of empowerment.

43

Figure 6.4. Significant generational differences for the paired sample 2008

The aforementioned differences found in this thesis research indicate that differences do

exists, future research should reveal whether this was sample-specific or an actual

phenomenon appearing when introducing the ‘new workplace’ to generations. An elaboration

will be provided in the next chapter. However, these results are interesting to academics who

are interested in the NWoW from the generational perspective or generational researchers

who are interested in the NWoW. This thesis provides preliminary results, though future

researches will have to prove whether the results can be generalized.

Another important finding to managers is that both empowerment and work-life

balance are positively causally related to employee satisfaction and jobflexibility is positively

causally related to work-life balance . While theory and previous researches have indicated

such a relationship, in the context of the NWoW as introduced by Microsoft, both

relationships were supported. This is important as for NWoW, the increased jobflexibility is

one of the features offered to employees, which increases their work-life balance, which in

return increases employee satisfaction. Therefore it could be carefully concluded that NWoW

leads to an increased level of employee satisfaction, which benefits the organization by a

lower turnover rate and increased employee productivity (Judge et al., 2001).

44

6.1 LIMITATIONS & FURTHER RESEARCH

Due to time restrictions, this thesis study has severe limitations. The paired sample had a

sample size N = 109. This is a rather small sample. Moreover, regression analysis was

performed for the whole sample, but also for the separate generations. The sample sizes were

12, 86 and 11 (resp. Generation Y, Generation X and Baby Boomers), though there is no

consensus about the minimum sample size for regression most academics would agree that

these sample sizes are too small to find significant and reliable results. Furthermore the

differences in sample size were rather large between the generations, which could also cause

noise when analyzing the data. Future research will therefore have to prove whether the

generational differences found as mentioned in the previous section are generalizable or that

the results are sample-specific. Moreover it has to be noted that the philosophy about the ‘new

workplace’ is open to interpretation, therefore research should take into account the

possibility of company specific measures in the context of the ‘new workplace’.

Furthermore, data collection happened in 2007 before and 2008 after the New Worls

of Work was introduced at Microsoft. Such snapshot (short time span between the before and

after situation) might create a ‘honeymoon effect’, i.e., a view that may err as too positive and

thereby distorting reality (in which the changes are seen in a better light and people are

perhaps too positive over the new situation). Therefore, following Howe & Strauss (2007) it is

important to understand such snapshots in the context of historical patterns wherein the ‘new’

gets ‘old’ and might change the different attitudes of the generations in the workplace.

Moreover, this thesis is a cross-sectional study, which in generational research is often

subjected to the age confound. Answers given could differ due to the life stage or career stage

the respondent is in (Twenge, 2010), rather than the generation he or she belongs to. The most

conclusive study for generational research is a time-lag study which examines people of the

same age at different points in time, therefore eliminating the differences caused by life or

career stage. Difference could only be due to generational effects or time period (events which

has happened that effects the generation as a whole)(Twenge, 2010). This has been done

several times (Kowske et al., 2010; Smola & Sutton, 2002; Twenge, 2010) but this type of

research is rare as it requires a similar sample size containing people of the same age and the

same questions asked over different points in time (Twenge, 2010). Though cross-sectional

studies could indicate differences, it is arguable to what extent they are reliable and not

confounded. Even the aforementioned time-lag studies have there own weaknesses (Twenge,

2010).

45

Furthermore, limitations are caused by the data analysis software SPSS. The

differences in regression output between generations were compared quantitatively; there is

no statistical evidence whether the generational differences between the independent variables

and the dependent variables were statistifacally significant from each other. More

sophisticated software could allow more complicated analyses.

Finally, the data was collected from a one company in a specific industry and specific

country, namely Microsoft Netherlands in particular their sales employees. Employee of

Microsoft are knowledge workers and arguably more technology savvy. A research by

Ruigrok a market research organization found that while knowledge workers embrace the

New Worls of Work, ‘ordinary’ employees prefer their traditional fixed workplace instead of

flexplaces (Management Team, 2010). It is also obvious that generational differences are

subjected to cultural difference. A Dutch Baby Boomer might be more similar to a Dutch

Generation X’ er than to a Chinese Baby Boomer. Therefore the results of this thesis, and any

generational research should be interpreted within the cultural context.

Future researches in this topic could be done primarily with a larger and equal sample

across the generations. It is suggested to use more sophisticated software, which allows

identification of statistical differences between the relationship of an independent and

dependent variable between groups. Moreover, a qualitative study among the respondents of

the paired dataset might provide with additional information and motivation behind the

answers, allowing identification of underlying reasoning for the devious results. However,

despite the limitations, this thesis contains prelimary findings about the generational

differences within the New Worls of Work. Though the concept of work, which is not bound

to time and space is interpreted and implemented differently by every organization, it is

interesting to note that generations do experience differences. As this new way of working

alters the traditional workplace, work-related factors change along with it. Therefore previous

researches done on generational differences might not apply. New studies, adapted to this new

workplace, could be done to verify whether generational differences indicated in the past also

hold in the present day where work is no longer bound to a certain time and space

7. CONCLUSION

This thesis attempted to answer the research question “Do Baby Boomers experience a lower

level of employee satisfaction and work life balance compared to Generation X and Y after

the implementation of the New Worls of Work?”. Working under the assumption that the

46

Baby Boomers who grew up in a less technology advanced era will have more issues to adjust

to the New Worls of Work and the accompanying alterations in work-related factors will

therefore lower there employee satisfaction. However, the results indicate that the opposite

appears to be true. Baby Boomers have a higher employee satisfaction and work-life balance

compared to the younger generations, with Generation Y scoring lower in comparison to

Generation X.

In the final chapter of this thesis, the adjusted conceptual model will be presented,

based on the results given previously (figure 7.1). Unfortunately, none of the predicted

hypothesis including the generational factor as a moderator were proven in this research.

However, as mentioned earlier, the general analyses do point at differences between

generations in the New Worls of Work as introduced by Microsoft. Future researches should

indicate whether these prelimary results could be statistically proven as generalizability of this

research is rather low due to unequal and small sample sizes and unsophisiticated data

analyzing software.

Nonetheless, this research does confirms the relationships between empowerment and

employee satisfaction and work-life balance and employee satisfaction. The New Worls of

Work as introduced by Microsoft, but also the new workplace in which work is no longer

bound to time and space do allow these two variables, empowerment and work-life balance,

to be enhanced. Work-life balance is an issue which people have to deal with now that

technology pushes the workload and creates the expectations of people to be available 24/7.

The balance between family- and worklife is important and imbalance might create stress,

which in the end could have an impact on an organization’s success (Saltzstein et al., 2010).

47

Figure 7.1. The adjusted conceptual model based on this thesis’ results.

Jobflexibility

Work-life

balance

Empowerment

Employee

satisfaction

48

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Weiss, H. M. (2002). Deconstructing job satisfaction: Separating evaluations, beliefs and

affective experiences. Human Resource Management Review , 12 (2), 173-194.

van der Voordt, T. J. (2004). Productivity and employee satisfaction in flexible workplaces.

Journal of Corporate Real Estate , 6 (2), 133-148.

Baane, R., Houtkamp, P., & Knotter, M. (2011). Het nieuwe werken ontrafeld - Over Bricks,

Bytes & Behavior. Assen: Van Gorcum.

Cascio, W. F. (2000). Managing the virtual workplace. The Academy of Management

Executive , 14 (3), 81-90.

Carlopio, J. R. (1996). Construct validity of a physical work environment satisfaction

questionnaire. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology , 1 (13), 330-344.

Carlopio, J. R., & Gardner, D. (1992). Direct and interactive effects of the physical work

environment on attitudes. Environment and Behavior , 24 (5), 579-601.

Cinamon, R. G., & Rich, Y. (2010). Work family relations: antecedents and outcomes.

Journal of Career Assessment , 18 (1), 59-70.

Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment

and personal need non-fulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology , 53 (1), 39-52.

Erasmus@Work. (2007, 0 0). www.newWorlsofwork.nl. Opgeroepen op March 12, 2011, van

Erasmus@Work: www.newWorlsofwork.nl

Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. London: Sage Publictions Ltd.

Flaherty, K. E., & Pappas, J. M. (2000). The rol of trust in salesperson-sales manager

relationships. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management , 20 (4), 271-278.

Gursoy, D., Maier, T. A., & Chi, C. G. (2008). Generational differences: An examination of

work values and and generational gaps in the hospitality workforce. International Journal of

Hospitality Management , 27 (3), 448-458.

Gardner, T. M. (2002). In the trenches at the talent wars: Competitive interaction for scarce

human resources. Human Resource Management , 41 (2), 225-237.

49

Gephart Jr., R. P. (2002). Introduction to the brave new workplace: organizational behavior in

the electronic age. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 23 (4), 327-344.

Greenblatt, E. (2002). Work/life balance: wisdom or whining. Organizational Dynamics , 31

(2), 177-193.

Hershatter, A., & Epstein, M. (2010). Millennials and the world of work: An organization and

management perspective. Journal of Business and Psychology , 25 (2), 211-223.

Hill, E. J., Hawkins, A. J., Ferris, M., & Weitzman, M. (2001). Finding an extra day a week:

the positive influence of perceived job flexibility on work and family life balance. Family

Relations , 50 (1), 49-58.

Hislop, D., & Axtell, C. (2009). To infinity and beyond?: workspace and the multi-location

worker. New Technology, Work and Employment , 24 (1), 60-75.

Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2007, July-August). The next 20 years: how customer and

workforce attitudes will evolve. Harvard Business Review , 41-52.

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction-job

performance relationship: A qualiatative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin , 127

(3), 376-407.

Jarvenpaa, S. L., Knoll, K., & Leidner, D. E. (1998). Is anybody out there?: Antecedents of

trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems , 14 (4), 29-64.

Jenkins, J. (2008). Strategies for managing talent in a multigenerational workforce.

Employment Relations Today , 34 (4), 19-26.

Kinicki, A. J., Mckee-Ryan, F. M., Schriesheim, C. A., & Carson, K. (2002). Assessing the

construct validity of the Job Descriptive Index: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of

Applied Psychology , 87 (1), 14-32.

Kowske, B. J., Rasch, R., & Wiley, J. (2010). Millennials' (lack of) attitude problem: An

empirical examination of generational effects on work attitudes. Journal of Business and

Psychology , 25 (2), 265-279.

Krohn, F. B. (2004). A generational approach to using emoticons as nonverbal

communication. Journal of Technical Wiriting and Communication , 34 (4), 321-328.

50

Luth, K. (2010, november 10). Het nieuwe werken? Kenniswerker wil wel.

Lancaster, L. C., & Stillman, D. (2002). When Generations Collide. New York: HarperCollins

Publishers Inc.

Lee, S. Y., & Brand, J. L. (2005). Effect of control over office workspace on perceptions of

the work environment and work outcomes. Journal of Environmental Psychology , 25 (3),

323-333.

Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human

Performance , 4 (4), 309-336.

MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor

analysis. Psychological Methods , 4 (1), 84-99.

Markert, J. (2004). Demographics of age: Generational and cohort confusion. Journal of

Current Issues and Research in Advertising , 26 (2), 11-25.

Meriac, J. P., Woehr, D. J., & Banister, C. (2010). Generational differences in work ethic: An

examination of measurement equivalence across three cohorts. Journal of Business and

Psychology , 25 (2), 315-324.

Microsoft. (sd). Het Nieuwe Werken. Opgeroepen op February 16, 2011, van

http://www.microsoft.com/netherlands/het_nieuwe_werken/

Mooney, J. L., Wright Jr., H. R., & Higgins, L. N. (2010). Gen Y's addiction to web 2.0:

Problem or strategy? Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance , 22 (1), 63-73.

Sundstrom, E., Town, J. P., Rice, R. W., Osborn, D. P., & Brill, M. (1994). Office noise,

satisfaction and performance. Environment and Behavior , 26 (2), 195-222.

Saltzstein, A. L., Ting, Y., & Saltzstein, G. H. (2001). Work-family balance and job

satisfaction: The impact of family-friendly policies on attitudes of federal government

employees. Public Administration Review , 61 (4), 452-467.

Smola, K. W., & Sutton, C. D. (2002). Generational differences: Revisiting generational work

values for the new millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 23 (4), 363-382.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions,

measurement and validation. Academy of Management Journal , 38 (5), 1442-1465.

51

Spreitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. A., & Nason, S. W. (1997). A dimensional analysis of the

relationship between psychological empowerment and effectiveness satisfaction, and strain.

Journal of Management , 23 (5), 679-704.

Ryder, N. B. (1965). The cohort as a concept in the study of social change. American

Sociological Review , 30 (6), 843-861.

Raines, J. P., & Leathers, C. G. (2001). Telecommuting: The new wave of workplace

technology will create a flood of change in social institutions. Journal of Economic Issues , 35

(2), 307-313.

Rodriguez, R. O., Green, M. T., & Ree, M. J. (2003). Leading generation X: Do the old rules

apply? Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies , 9 (4), 67-75.

Twenge, J. M. (2010). A review of the empirical evidence on generational differences in work

attitudes. Journal of Business and Psychology , 25 (2), 201-210.

Twenge, J. M., Campbell, S. M., Hoffman, B. J., & Lance, E. C. (2010). Generational

differences in work values: Leisure and extrinsic values increasing, social and intrinsic values

decreasing. Journal of Management , 36 (5), 1117-1142.

52

APPENDIX

APPENDIX A: SURVEY QUESTIONS

Employee satisfaction is measured by the following items provided by Jun et al. (2006):

1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree

I would recommend this company to a friend

if he/she were looking for a job

ο ο ο ο ο

I feel personal satisfaction when I do my job

well

ο ο ο ο ο

I am proud to tell people that I am part of this

company

ο ο ο ο ο

This is the best organization for me to work

for

ο ο ο ο ο

Generational factor is measured by the age at the time of the survey

What is your age? … years

Workplace Satisfaction is measured by the collowing items adapted from Lee & Brand

(2005) and based on descriptions by Hislop & Axtell (2009):


I find it difficult to concentrate on my work ο ο ο ο ο

I experience auditory distractions in my work

area

ο ο ο ο ο

I experience visiual distractions in my work

area

ο ο ο ο ο

53

My work environment is too noisy ο ο ο ο ο

I determine the organization/appearance of

my work area

ο ο ο ο ο

I can personalize my workspace ο ο ο ο ο

I feel my work life is under my personal

control

ο ο ο ο ο

I can adjust, re-arrange and re-organize my

furniture as needed

ο ο ο ο ο

The variety of work environments needed for

my job is available to me

ο ο ο ο ο

Overall, my work area is appropriate for my

work

ο ο ο ο ο

I have adequate privacy in my primary,

individual work area

ο ο ο ο ο

Overall, I like my furniture ο ο ο ο ο

I like the style/quality of my furniture ο ο ο ο ο

Empowerment is measured by items provided by Spreitzer (1995):


The work I do is very important to me ο ο ο ο ο

The work I do is meaningful to me ο ο ο ο ο

I am confident about my ability to do my job ο ο ο ο ο

I am self-assured about my capabilities to

perform my work activities

ο ο ο ο ο

54

I have mastered the skills necessary for my

job

ο ο ο ο ο

I have significant autonomy in determining

how I do my job

ο ο ο ο ο

I can decide on my own how to go about

doing my work

ο ο ο ο ο

I have considerable opportunity for

independence and freedom in how I do my

job

ο ο ο ο ο

My impact on what happens in my

department is large

ο ο ο ο ο

I have a great deal of control over what

happens in my department

ο ο ο ο ο

I have significant influence over what

happens in my department

ο ο ο ο ο

Relationships: colleagues & manager are measured by the following items provided by

Cook & Wall (1980):

1 = Never 4 = Always

Can you count on your colleagues when you

encounter difficulties in your work?

ο ο ο ο

Do you get on well with your colleagues? ο ο ο ο

Are your colleagues friendly towards you? ο ο ο ο

Can you count on your supervisor when you

encounter difficulties in your work?

ο ο ο ο

Do you get on well with your supervisor? ο ο ο ο

55

Is your supervisor friendly towards you? ο ο ο ο

Trust: colleagues & manager are measured by the following items provided by Mierlo et

al. (2006):


Members of my team are sincere in its

attempts to meet the workers point of view

ο ο ο ο ο

Members of my team at work seems to do an

efficient job

ο ο ο ο ο

Members of my team can be trusted to make

sensible decisions for the firm’s future

ο ο ο ο ο

I feel confident that members of my team will

always try to treat me fairly

ο ο ο ο ο

Management is sincere in its attempts to meet

the workers point of view

ο ο ο ο ο

Management at work seems to do an efficient

job

ο ο ο ο ο

Management can be trusted to make sensible

decisions for the firm’s future

ο ο ο ο ο

I feel confident that the organization will

always try to treat me fairly

ο ο ο ο ο

Work-life balance is measured by the following items by Hill et al. (2001) (short

version):


How easy or difficult is it for you to balance

the demands of your work and your personal

ο ο ο ο ο

56

and family life? (divergent scale) 1 = Very easy, 5 = Very difficult

I have sufficient time away from my job to

maintain adequate work and personal/family

life balance

ο ο ο ο ο

When I take a vacation, I am able to separate

myself from work and enjoy myself

ο ο ο ο ο

All in all, how successful do you feel in

balancing your work and personal/family

life? (divergent scale)

ο ο ο ο ο

1 = Very unsuccesful, 5 = very succesful

Job flexibility is measured using the following items proposed by Hill et al. (2001):

1 = None, 5 = Complete flexibility

How much flexibility do you have in selecting

the location of where you work?

ο ο ο ο ο

How much flexibility do you have in

scheduling when you do your work (e.g.,

scheduling hours, time of day, etc.)?

ο ο ο ο ο

How much flexibility do you have in

scheduling what work you will do (e.g.,

content of work, processes used, etc.)?

ο ο ο ο ο

Empowerment (self-determination using following items proposed by Spreitzer’s (1995):


I have significant autonomy in determining

how I do my job

ο ο ο ο ο

I can decide on my own how to go about

doing my work

ο ο ο ο ο

57

I have considerable opportunity for

independence and freedom in how I do my

job

ο ο ο ο ο

APPENDIX B: FACTOR ANALYSIS

Table B1. Factor analysis 2007

Construct Bartlett’s

Test of

Sphericity

KMO Eigenvalue Communalities if

extracted

Factor

loading

Worklife balance Χ (6) =

341,956, p ≤

,000

,707 2,393 which

explains

59,83% of the

variance

≥ ,106 ≥ ,326

Relationship

Colleagues

Χ (3) =

165,141, p ≤

,000

,655 1,943 which

explains

64,78% of the

variance

≥ ,295 ≥ ,543

Empowerment Χ (55) =

1061,450, p ≤

,000

,831 4,407 which

explains

40,06% of the

variance

≥ ,181 ≥ ,425

Empowerment -

selfdetermination

Χ (3) =

171,798, p ≤

,000

,686 1,989 which

explains

66,31% of the

variance

≥ , 429 ≥ ,655

Relationship

manager

Χ (3) =

267,381, p ≤

,000

,697 2,184 which

explains

72,81% of the

variance

≥ ,434 ≥ ,659

Trust in manager Χ (6) =

325,077, p ≤

,000

,776 2,548 which

explains

63,7% of the

≥ ,433 ≥ ,658

58

variance

Trust in colleagues Χ (6) =

174,074, p ≤

,000

,751 2,150 which

explains

53,76% of the

variance

≥ ,337 ≥ ,580

Employee

satisfaction

Χ (6) =

397,477, p ≤

,000

,793 2,677 which

explains

66,93% of the

variance

≥ ,393 ≥ ,627

Job flexibility Χ (3) =

298,884, p ≤

,000

,664 2,192 which

explains

73,07% of the

variance

≥ ,352 ≥ ,593

Workplace

satisfaction

Χ (78) =

1204,45, p ≤

,000

,793 4,124 which

explains

31,72%of the

variance

≥ ,059 ≥ ,243

Table B2. Factor analysis 2008


Test of

Sphericity


extracted

Factor

loading


368,891, p ≤

,000

,730 2,409 which

explains

60,23% of the

variance

≥ ,150 ≥ ,387

Relationship

Colleagues

Χ (3) =

189,230, p ≤

,000

,623 1,901 which

explains

63,38% of the

variance

≥ ,207 ≥ ,455

Relationship

manager

Χ (3) =

373,937, p ≤

,000

,669 2,251 which

explains

75,05% of the

≥ ,435 ≥ ,660

59

variance


1415,745, p ≤

,000

,820 4,616 which

explains

41,96% of the

variance

,301 ,548

Empowerment -

selfdetermination

Χ (3) =

291,410, p ≤

,000

,714 2,178 which

explains

72,61% of the

variance

≥ ,555 ≥ ,745


490,473, p ≤

,000

,806 2,753 which

explains

68,82% of the

variance

≥ ,436 ≥ ,660


372,354 p ≤

,000

,804 2,150 which

explains

53,76% of the

variance

≥ ,485 ≥ ,696

Employee

satisfaction

Χ (6) =

385,719, p ≤

,000

,794 2,573 which

explains

64,33% of the

variance

≥ ,420 ≥ ,648


390,807 p ≤

,000

,695 2,300 which

explains

76,65% of the

variance

≥ ,533 ≥ ,730

Workplace

satisfaction

Χ (78) =

1718,682, p ≤

,000

,817 4,588 which

explains

35,29% of the

variance

≥ ,007 ≥ ,084

Table B3. Factor analysis paired sample 2007


Test of


extracted

Factor

loading

60

Sphericity


170,637, p ≤

,000

,763 2,589 which

explains

64,74% of the

variance

≥ ,200 ≥ ,447

Relationship

Colleagues

Χ (3) =

79,152, p ≤

,000

,669 1,943 which

explains

64,78% of the

variance

≥ ,332 ≥ ,577

Relationship

manager

Χ (3) =

78,816, p ≤

,000

,660 1,993which

explains

66,45% of the

variance

≥ ,303 ≥ ,550


480,423, p ≤

,000

,804 4,311 which

explains

39,19% of the

variance

≥ ,144 ≥ ,379

Empowerment -

selfdetermination

Χ (3) =

59,078, p ≤

,000

,632 1,857 which

explains

61,9% of the

variance

≥ ,226 ≥ ,475


119,693, p ≤

,000

,768 2,424 which

explains

60,59% of the

variance

≥ ,271 ≥ ,520


75,283, p ≤

,000

,729 2,130 which

explains

53,24% of the

variance

≥ ,248 ≥ ,498

Employee

satisfaction

Χ (6) =

167,303, p ≤

,000

,769 2,659 which

explains

66,49% of the

variance

≥ ,437 ≥ ,661


145,670, p ≤

,630 2,199 which

explains

≥ ,289 ≥ ,538

61

,000 73,3% of the

variance

Workplace

satisfaction

Χ (78) =

507,345, p ≤

,000

,722 3,657 which

explains

28,13% of the

variance

≥ ,000 ≥ ,090

Table B4. Factor analysis paired sample 2008


Test of

Sphericity


extracted

Factor

loading


121,993, p ≤

,000

,696 2,299 which

explains

57,46% of the

variance

≥ ,098 ≥ ,312

Relationship

Colleagues

Χ (36) =

67,413, p ≤

,000

,609 1,879 which

explains

62,63% of the

variance

≥ ,188 ≥ ,434

Relationship

manager

Χ (3) =

136,928, p ≤

,000

,691 2,276 which

explains

75,86% of the

variance

≥ ,511 ≥ ,715


521,209, p ≤

,000

,833 4,603 which

explains

51,15% of the

variance

≥ ,231 ≥ ,481

Empowerment -

selfdetermination

Χ (3) =

148,844, p ≤

,000

,728 2,345 which

explains

78,16% of the

variance

≥ ,615 ≥ ,784


198,444, p ≤

,784 2,767 which

explains

69,18% of the

≥ ,318 ≥ ,564

62

,000 variance


139,347, p ≤

,000

,791 2,566 which

explains

64,16% of the

variance

≥ ,432 ≥ ,657

Employee

satisfaction

Χ (6) =

149,179, p ≤

,000

,770 2,574 which

explains

64,35% of the

variance

≥ ,401 ≥ ,633


121,349, p ≤

,000

,701 2,227 which

explains

74,25% of the

variance

≥ ,529 ≥ ,727

Workplace

satisfaction

Χ (78) =

675,214, p ≤

,000

,784 4,317 which

explains

33,21% of the

variance

≥ ,015 ≥ ,124

Table B5. Communalities if extracted and reliability if extracted all samples.

Items Communalities

if extracted

(2007)

Communalities

if extracted

(2008)

Communalities

if extracted

(2007, paired)

Communalities

if extracted

(2008, paired)

I determine the

organization/appearance of my

work area

.008 .021 .003 .037

I can personalize my workspace .007 .028 .000 .008

I can adjust, re-arrange and re-

organize my furniture as needed

.061 .031 .072

I find it difficult to concentrate

on my work

- - .021 .015

I experience auditory

distractions in my work area

- - .054 .046

63

I experience visual distractions

in my work area

- - .007 .045

My work environment is too

noisy

- - .084

Cronbach’s Alpha if items not

extracted

.807 .806 .745 .808

Cronbach’s Alpha if extracted .814 .856 .721 .813

Note: communalities < .1 are mentioned.

APPENDIX C: ANOVA + PAIRED SAMPLE

Table C1. Paired sample t-test sample size N = 109.

Mean Std. Deviation t df Sig. (2-

tailed)

Pair 1 –Relationship

colleagues 2007-2008

,04474 ,61281 ,762 108 ,448

Pair 2 – Relationship

manager 2007-2008

,11410 ,78673 1,1514 108 ,133

Pair 3 – Trust in


-,03211 ,57544 -,583 108 ,561

Pair 4 – Trust in

manager 2007-2008

,04358 ,58713 ,775 108 ,440

Pair 5 – Workplace

satisfaction 2007-2008

-,43472 ,64761 -7,008 108 ,000*

Pair 6 – Empowerment

2007-2008

-,06144 ,42961 -1,493 108 ,138

Pair 7 – Employee


,00688 ,47441 ,151 108 ,880

Pair 8 – Jobflexibility

2007-2008

-,19572 ,60555 -3,374 108 ,001*

64


– selfdetermination

2007-2008

-,07339 ,59379 -1,290 108 ,200

Pair 10 – Worklife

balance 2007-2008

,00688 ,69925 ,103 108 ,918

Note: * p ≤ 0,01; two-tailed; N = 109

Table C2. Paired sample t-test Generation Y sample size N = 12.


tailed)



,11111 ,75923 ,507 11 ,622


manager 2007-2008

-,14806 ,69059 -,743 11 ,473

Pair 3 – Trust in


-,04167 ,17944 -,804 11 ,438

Pair 4 – Trust in

manager 2007-2008

,25000 ,62158 1,393 11 ,191



-,53205 ,47471 -3,883 11 ,003**


2007-2008

-,03851 ,34502 -,387 11 ,706

Pair 7 – Employee


,29167 ,50938 1,984 11 ,073*


2007-2008

-,55556 ,79561 -2,419 11 ,034**



2007-2008

-,02778 ,33207 -,290 11 ,777


balance 2007-2008

,00000 ,73855 ,000 11 1,000

Note: * p ≤ 0,1; ** p ≤ 0,05; two-tailed; N = 12.

65

Table C3. Paired sample t-test Generation X sample size N = 86.


tailed)



,03605 ,60981 ,265 85 ,585


manager 2007-2008

,13422 ,79178 ,548 85 ,120

Pair 3 – Trust in


-,01744 ,58510 1,572 85 ,783

Pair 4 – Trust in

manager 2007-2008

,00000 ,54638 -,276 85 1,000



-,41413 ,68316 ,000 85 ,000*


2007-2008

-,06400 ,45193 -5,622 85 ,193

Pair 7 – Employee


-,03198 ,48019 -,618 85 ,539


2007-2008

-,17829 ,58006 -2,850 85 ,005*



2007-2008

-,08915 ,63333 -1,305 85 ,195


balance 2007-2008

-,01453 ,71984 -,187 85 ,852

Note: * p ≤ 0,05; two-tailed; N = 86.

Table C4. Paired sample t-test Baby Boomers sample size N = 11.


tailed)



,04030 ,50488 ,265 10 ,797

66


manager 2007-2008

,24273 ,85264 ,944 10 ,367

Pair 3 – Trust in


-,13636 ,78552 -,576 10 ,578

Pair 4 – Trust in

manager 2007-2008

,15909 ,82366 ,641 10 ,536



-,48951 ,54422 -2,983 10 ,014*


2007-2008

-,06646 ,35441 -,622 10 ,548

Pair 7 – Employee


,00000 ,27386 ,000 10 1,000


2007-2008

,06061 ,41682 ,482 10 ,640



2007-2008

,00000 ,51640 ,000 10 1,000


balance 2007-2008

,18182 ,48850 1,234 10 ,245

Note: * p ≤ 0,05; two-tailed; N = 12.

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE (ANOVA)

Table C5. ANOVA for 2007-sample.

df F Sig.

Relationship

colleagues

Between groups

Within groups

Total

2

251

253

2,366 ,096

Relationship manager Between groups

Within groups

Total

2

251

253

4,161 ,017*

Trust in colleagues Between groups 2 3,804 ,024*

67

Within groups

Total

251

253

Trust in manager Between groups

Within groups

Total

2

251

253

8,888 ,000*

Workplace satisfaction Between groups

Within groups

Total

2

251

253

8,546 ,000*

Empowerment Between groups

Within groups

Total

2

251

253

,557 ,574

Employee satisfaction Between groups

Within groups

Total

2

251

253

2,892 ,057

Jobflexibility Between groups

Within groups

Total

2

251

253

2,927 ,055

Empowerment –

selfdetermination

Between groups

Within groups

Total

2

251

253

1,661 ,192

Worklife balance Between groups

Within groups

Total

2

251

253

,165 ,848

Note: * p ≤ 0,05

Table C6. Welch T-Test

Welch Statistica df1 df2 Sig.

Relationship

colleagues

1,951 2 51,209 ,024

Relationship

manager

15,388 2 64,736 ,000

Trust in employees 1,883 2 42,640 ,165

68

Trust in manager 12,301 2 46,229 ,000

Employee

satisfaction

4,493 2 48,165 ,016

a. Asymptotically F distributed

Table C7. Post hoc test: Bonferroni

Bonferonni Age_Groups Age_Groups Mean difference Sig.

Workplace

satisfaction

1,00 2,00

3,00

,39388

,57557

,002*

,000*

2,00 3,00 ,18169 ,211

Tamhane T2

Relationship

colleagues

1,00 2,00

3,00

,25340

,29423

,029*

,087

2,00 3,00 ,04083 ,977

Relationship

manager

1,00 2,00

3,00

,34000

,42420

,000*

,005*

2,00 3,00 ,08420 ,879

Trust in manager 1,00 2,00

3,00

,46546

,53441

,000*

,003*

2,00 3,00 ,06895 ,940

Employee

satisfaction

1,00 2,00

3,00

,30026

,29853

,015*

,167

2,00 3,00 -,00173 1,000

1 = Generation Y; 2 = Generation X; Baby Boomers = 3; the mean difference is significant at the 0,05 level.

Table C8. ANOVA for 2008 sample

69

df F Sig.

Relationship

colleagues

Between groups

Within groups

Total

2

290

292

1,058 ,349


Within groups

Total

2

290

292

1,207 ,301

Trust in colleagues Between groups

Within groups

Total

2

290

292

,451 ,638


Within groups

Total

2

290

292

,024 ,976


Within groups

Total

2

290

292

,1344 ,262


Within groups

Total

2

290

292

12,306 ,000*


Within groups

Total

2

290

292

3,296 ,038*


Within groups

Total

2

290

292

1,946 ,145

Empowerment –

selfdetermination

Between groups

Within groups

Total

2

290

292

3,421 ,034*


Within groups

Total

2

290

292

,952 ,387

Note: * p ≤ 0,05.

Table C9. Welch T-test

70

Welch Statistica df1 df2 Sig.

Employee

satisfaction

3,330 2 58,216 ,043

a. Asymptotically F distributed

Table C10. Post hoc test: Bonferroni/Tamhane T2

Bonferonni Age_Groups Age_Groups Mean difference Sig.

Empowerment 1,00 2,00

3,00

-,33270

-,50104

,000*

,000*

2,00 3,00 -,16834 ,071

Empowerment –

selfdetermination

1,00 2,00

3,00

-,18674

-,34096

,226

,028*

2,00 3,00 ,09403 ,306

Tamhane T2

Employee

satisfaction

1,00 2,00

3,00

-,12571

-,30850

,694

,049

2,00 3,00 -,15791 ,079


Table C11. ANOVA for paired sample 2007

df F Sig.

Relationship

colleagues

Between groups

Within groups

Total

2

106

108

1,196 ,306


Within groups

Total

2

106

108

,243 ,785


Within groups

Total

2

106

108

,820 ,443

71


Within groups

Total

2

106

108

,349 ,706


Within groups

Total

2

106

108

,209 ,811


Within groups

Total

2

106

108

12,197 ,000*


Within groups

Total

2

106

108

3,582 ,031*


Within groups

Total

2

106

108

6,375 ,002*

Empowerment –

selfdetermination

Between groups

Within groups

Total

2

106

108

4,022 ,021*


Within groups

Total

2

106

108

2,596 ,079

Note: * p ≤ 0,05

Table C12. Post hoc test: Bonferroni 2007 paired

Bonferroni Age_Groups Age_Groups Mean difference Sig.


3,00

-,48872

-,80854

,000*

,000*

2,00 3,00 -,31982 ,044*

Employee

satisfaction

1,00 2,00

3,00

-,25630

-,60038

,379

,027*

2,00 3,00 -,34408 ,147

72

Jobflexibility 1,00 2,00

3,00

-,33140

-,82576

,171

,002*

2,00 3,00 -,49436 ,020*

Empowerment -

selfdetermination

1,00 2,00

3,00

-,254523

-,61111

,344

,017*

2,00 3,00 -,35659 ,103


Table C13. ANOVA for paired sample 2008

df F Sig.

Relationship

colleagues

Between groups

Within groups

Total

2

106

108

1,330 ,269


Within groups

Total

2

106

108

,579 ,562


Within groups

Total

2

106

108

1,528 ,222


Within groups

Total

2

106

108

,653 ,523


Within groups

Total

2

106

108

,916 ,403


Within groups

Total

2

106

108

10,534 ,000*


Within groups

Total

2

106

108

10,613 ,000*

Jobflexibility Between groups 2 1,128 ,328

73

Within groups

Total

106

108

Empowerment –

selfdetermination

Between groups

Within groups

Total

2

106

108

3,064 ,051


Within groups

Total

2

106

108

2,593 ,080

Note: p ≤ 0,05

Table C14. Posthoc Bonferroni 2008 paired

Bonferroni Age_Groups Age_Groups Mean difference Sig.


3,00

-,51421

-,83649

,001*

,000*

2,00 3,00 ,14386 ,081

Employee

satisfaction

1,00 2,00

3,00

,14946

,20246

,001*

,000*

2,00 3,00 ,15531 ,141


APPENDIX D: MULTICOLLINEARITY AND REGRESSION

Table D1. Multicollinearity

Sample VIF Tolerance

2007 < 2.285 > .438

2008 < 2.813 > .356

Paired 2007 < 7.673 > .130

Paired 2008 < 6.569 > .247

Documents

Master Thesis Final - erim.eur.nl · this thesis: Generation Y, Generation X and the Baby Boomers. Researches have been done Researches have been done on this subject and generational