工作中的代际差异?荟萃分析和定性调查

IF 6.2 2区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS
Daniel M. Ravid, David P. Costanza, Madison R. Romero
{"title":"工作中的代际差异?荟萃分析和定性调查","authors":"Daniel M. Ravid, David P. Costanza, Madison R. Romero","doi":"10.1002/job.2827","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"SummaryDespite substantive criticisms of generations and mounting evidence suggesting that “generational differences” do not exist, generational characterizations remain widely popular among academics and practitioners who use them to explain employee thoughts and behaviors. The current research examined academic literature as a source that may have contributed to perpetuating generational stereotypes. In Study 1, we meta‐analyzed the generations literature to examine the extent that findings in this research conveyed a sense that generational differences exist. Results of the meta‐analysis revealed few systematic, meaningful differences among generations on a variety of outcomes. To follow up on why the generations literature generally promotes the idea of systematic differences despite the mixed and limited evidence for them, in Study 2, we conducted a qualitative investigation of the meta‐analyzed articles, looking for explanations about why research and practice using generations persist despite the lack of evidence. Results of the qualitative analysis showed that researchers often discounted null or equivocal findings and seldom raised questions about the underlying concept of generations. Our findings reinforce that researchers and practitioners should continue to seek better explanations for differences among workers, investigate the origins of generational stereotypes, and work to understand why academics and practitioners continue supporting and propagating this questionable concept.","PeriodicalId":48450,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Organizational Behavior","volume":"75 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Generational differences at work? A meta‐analysis and qualitative investigation\",\"authors\":\"Daniel M. Ravid, David P. Costanza, Madison R. Romero\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/job.2827\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"SummaryDespite substantive criticisms of generations and mounting evidence suggesting that “generational differences” do not exist, generational characterizations remain widely popular among academics and practitioners who use them to explain employee thoughts and behaviors. The current research examined academic literature as a source that may have contributed to perpetuating generational stereotypes. In Study 1, we meta‐analyzed the generations literature to examine the extent that findings in this research conveyed a sense that generational differences exist. Results of the meta‐analysis revealed few systematic, meaningful differences among generations on a variety of outcomes. To follow up on why the generations literature generally promotes the idea of systematic differences despite the mixed and limited evidence for them, in Study 2, we conducted a qualitative investigation of the meta‐analyzed articles, looking for explanations about why research and practice using generations persist despite the lack of evidence. Results of the qualitative analysis showed that researchers often discounted null or equivocal findings and seldom raised questions about the underlying concept of generations. Our findings reinforce that researchers and practitioners should continue to seek better explanations for differences among workers, investigate the origins of generational stereotypes, and work to understand why academics and practitioners continue supporting and propagating this questionable concept.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48450,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Organizational Behavior\",\"volume\":\"75 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Organizational Behavior\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2827\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Organizational Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2827","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要尽管对世代的实质性批评和越来越多的证据表明 "世代差异 "并不存在,但世代特征仍然在学术界和从业人员中广为流行,他们用世代特征来解释员工的思想和行为。目前的研究将学术文献作为可能导致代际刻板印象长期存在的一个来源。在研究 1 中,我们对代际文献进行了元分析,以考察这些研究结果在多大程度上传达了存在代际差异的感觉。荟萃分析的结果显示,代际之间在各种结果上几乎没有系统的、有意义的差异。在研究 2 中,我们对元分析文章进行了定性调查,以了解为什么尽管缺乏证据,但代际研究和实践仍然存在。定性分析的结果表明,研究人员经常忽略无效或模棱两可的研究结果,很少对 "代 "的基本概念提出疑问。我们的研究结果进一步表明,研究人员和从业人员应继续寻求更好的方法来解释工人之间的差异,调查世代刻板印象的起源,并努力理解为什么学术界和从业人员继续支持和宣传这一有问题的概念。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Generational differences at work? A meta‐analysis and qualitative investigation
SummaryDespite substantive criticisms of generations and mounting evidence suggesting that “generational differences” do not exist, generational characterizations remain widely popular among academics and practitioners who use them to explain employee thoughts and behaviors. The current research examined academic literature as a source that may have contributed to perpetuating generational stereotypes. In Study 1, we meta‐analyzed the generations literature to examine the extent that findings in this research conveyed a sense that generational differences exist. Results of the meta‐analysis revealed few systematic, meaningful differences among generations on a variety of outcomes. To follow up on why the generations literature generally promotes the idea of systematic differences despite the mixed and limited evidence for them, in Study 2, we conducted a qualitative investigation of the meta‐analyzed articles, looking for explanations about why research and practice using generations persist despite the lack of evidence. Results of the qualitative analysis showed that researchers often discounted null or equivocal findings and seldom raised questions about the underlying concept of generations. Our findings reinforce that researchers and practitioners should continue to seek better explanations for differences among workers, investigate the origins of generational stereotypes, and work to understand why academics and practitioners continue supporting and propagating this questionable concept.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.50
自引率
5.90%
发文量
98
期刊介绍: The Journal of Organizational Behavior aims to publish empirical reports and theoretical reviews of research in the field of organizational behavior, wherever in the world that work is conducted. The journal will focus on research and theory in all topics associated with organizational behavior within and across individual, group and organizational levels of analysis, including: -At the individual level: personality, perception, beliefs, attitudes, values, motivation, career behavior, stress, emotions, judgment, and commitment. -At the group level: size, composition, structure, leadership, power, group affect, and politics. -At the organizational level: structure, change, goal-setting, creativity, and human resource management policies and practices. -Across levels: decision-making, performance, job satisfaction, turnover and absenteeism, diversity, careers and career development, equal opportunities, work-life balance, identification, organizational culture and climate, inter-organizational processes, and multi-national and cross-national issues. -Research methodologies in studies of organizational behavior.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信