Why age matters in the work preferences of public employees: A comparison of three age-related explanations

Public Personnel Management

Volumn 39, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 1-14

  Bright, Leonard ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77951174630     PISSN: 00910260     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/009102601003900101     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. United States Office of Personnel Management (2006). Federal workforce overview, FY 1994-2004. Special Focus Research Brief.
2. Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivational theory and industrial and organizational psychology, In Dunnette and Hough (Eds.). Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Vol. 1) (pp 75-170).
3. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press;
4. Vroom, V H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, N.Y: Wiley.
5. Holley, Field, & Holley (1978). Age and reactions to jobs: An empirical study of paraprofessional workers. Aging and Work, 1,33-40;
6. Jurkiewicz, C., & Brown, R. G. (1998). GenXers vs. boomers vs. matures. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 18,18-37;
7. Proenca & Shewchuk (1998). Are older workers really different? The effects of age, tenure, and education on work preferences of registered nurses. International Journal of Public Administration, 21,1603-1627;
8. Saba, Guerin, & Wils (1998). Managing older professionals in public agencies in Quebec. Public Productivity and Management Review, 22,15-34.
9. Saba, Guerin, & Wils (1998). Managing older professionals in public agencies in Quebec. Public Productivity and Management Review, 22,15-34. Ibid.
10. Hall & Mansfield (1975). Relationship of age and seniority with career variables of engineers and scientists. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 201-210;
11. Holley, Field, & Holley (1978). Age and reactions to jobs: An empirical study of paraprofessional workers. Aging and Work, 1, 33-40;
12. Jurkiewicz, C., & Brown, R. G. (1998). GenXers vs. boomers vs. matures. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 18, 18-37;
13. Saba, Guerin, & Wils (1998). Managing older professionals in public agencies in Quebec. Public Productivity and Management Review, 22,15-34.
14. Holley, Field, & Holley (1978). Age and reactions to jobs: An empirical study of paraprofessional workers. Aging and Work, 1, 33-40.
15. Hall & Mansfield (1975). Relationship of age and seniority with career variables of engineers and scientists. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 201-210;
16. Rhodes (1983). Age-related differences in work attitudes and behavior: A review and conceptual analysis. Psychological Reports, 93, 328-367.
17. Rhodes (1983). Age-related differences in work attitudes and behavior: A review and conceptual analysis. Psychological Reports, 93, 328-367. Ibid.
18. Aldag, R, & Brief, A, (1977). Age, work values, and employee reactions. Industrial Gerontology, 4, 192-196;
19. Proenca & Shewchuk (1998). Are older workers really different? The effects of age, tenure, and education on work preferences of registered nurses. International Journal of Public Administration, 21,1603-1627;
20. Rhodes (1983). Age-related differences in work attitudes and behavior: A review and conceptual analysis. Psychological Reports, 93, 328-367.
21. Proenca & Shewchuk (1998). Are older workers really different? The effects of age, tenure, and education on work preferences of registered nurses. International Journal of Public Administration, 21, 1603-1627.
22. Janson, R & Martin, J. (1982).Job satisfaction and age: A test of two views Social Forces, 60, 1089-1102;
23. Jurkiewicz, C., & Brown, R. G. (1998). GenXers vs. boomers vs. matures. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 18, 18-37;
24. Lancaster, L., & Stillman, D., (2002). When generations collide: Who they are, why they clash, bow to solve the generational puzzle at work. New York, N.Y: Harper Business;
25. Wright & Hamilton (1978). Work and age: Some evidence for the job change hypothesis. Social Forces, 56, 1140-1158;
26. Zemke, R., Raines, C., & Filipczak (2000). Generations at work: Managing the clash of veterans, boomers, Xers, and nexters in you workplace. New York, N.Y: AMACOM
27. Lancaster, L., & Stillman, D., (2002). When generations collide: Who they are, why they clash, how to solve the generational puzzle at work. New York, N.Y: Harper Business
28. Janson, R & Martin, J. (1982). Job satisfaction and age: A test of two views. Social Forces, 60, 1089-1102;
29. Rhodes (1983). Age-related differences in work attitudes and behavior: A review and conceptual analysis. Psychological Reports, 93, 328-367;
30. Wright & Hamilton (1978). Work and age: Some evidence for the job change hypothesis. Social Forces, 56, 1140-1158.
31. Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E.H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1, 209-264.
32. Jurkiewicz, C., & Brown, R. G. (1998). GenXers vs. boomers vs. matures. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 18, 18-37.
33. Jurkiewicz, C. (2000). Generation X and the public employee. Public Personnel Management, 29, 55-74.
34. Rhodes (1983). Age-related differences in work attitudes and behavior: A review and conceptual analysis. Psychological Reports, 93, 328-367.
35. Janson, R & Martin, J. (1982). Job satisfaction and age: A test of two views. Social Forces, 60, 1089-1102.
36. Wright & Hamilton (1978). Work and age: Some evidence for the job change hypothesis. Social Forces, 56, 1140-1158.
37. The author received a list of approximately 1600 employees. Nine hundred and eighty employees were randomly selected from this lists and mailed a survey package
38. In 2003, the following are the approximate demographic characteristics of the jurisdiction in terms of gender and race: 46% female, 53% male, 84% White, 2% Black, 9% Hispanic, and 3% Asian, and .05% Native American. Based on these figures, this study under sampled the male employees. A correlation analysis was used to determine if male participation was significandy related to their age. The analysis revealed that age was not the reason why the male employees participated in this study. Hence, it was determined that the under sampling of the male participants does not meaningfully affect the analysis
39. Howe, N. & Strauss, W (1991). Generations: The history of America's future, 1584 to 2069. New York, N.Y: Perennial;
40. Hu, L. & Bender, P. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In Hoyle, R (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76-99). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publication.
41. The survey items and factor scores are available from the author upon request
42. Hu, L & Bender, P (1995). Evaluating model fit. In Hoyle, R (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76-99). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publication.
43. Curran, P. J., West, S. G, & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1, 16-29.
44. Chronological age was used to create the generational-cohort variable. This is the reason why chronological age and generational-cohort are highly correlated. However, multicolinearity was not a problem because between these variables because chronological age was not used in conjunction with the generational-cohort variable in any of the analysis in this study.
45. Rhodes (1983). Age-related differences in work attitudes and behavior: A review and conceptual analysis. Psychological Reports, 93, 328-367.