"Generational Work Ethic Differences: From Baby Boomers to Gen Z"

(2023) Journal of Managerial Issues (35(4), 401-422)

Charles F. Seifert, Ph.D.

Professor of Management
Siena College
515 Loudon Road
Loudonville, New York 12211

Raymond K. Van Ness, Ph.D.

Associate Professor and Coordinator of Strategic Management
State University of New York at Albany
University at Albany, BB341
1400 Washing Avenue
Albany, New York 12222

Erik R. Eddy, Ph.D.

Professor of Management
Siena College
515 Loudon Road
Loudonville, New York 12211

Cheryl Buff, Ph.D.

Professor of Marketing
Siena College
515 Loudon Road
Loudonville, New York 12211

Caroline P. D’Abate, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Management
Skidmore College
815 North Broadway
Saratoga Springs, New York 12866
 GENERATIONAL WORK ETHIC DIFFERENCES:
FROM BABY BOOMERS TO GEN Z

ABSTRACT

This study examines work ethic differences between Baby Boomers (57-75 years old) and

Generation Z (Gen Z; 25 years old and under). The Multidimensional Work Ethic Profile (MWEP) is

used to operationalize seven dimensions of work ethic. Findings indicate that the level of work ethic

varies dramatically by generation. Specifically, the work ethic of Baby Boomer respondents varies

significantly from the work ethic for Gen Z respondents across nearly every MWEP dimension. This

may have important implications for corporate leaders, who are typically Baby Boomers, as they often

lead new Gen Z employees, but also for reducing conflict that may arise between older and younger

employees.

Keywords:

Work ethic, work commitment, generational differences

Field of Specialization:

Organizational behavior

2
INTRODUCTION

Work ethic is commonly viewed as a construct incorporating work-related attitudes and values

(Li et al., 2020; Porter, 2010) and has evolved with contributions from Judeo-Christian beliefs, Martin

Luther, John Calvin, Puritans, Benjamin Franklin’s utilitarianism, as well as the writings of early 20th

century scholar, Max Weber (Porter, 2010; Weber, 1958). Weber, who is often credited with

developing the concept of Protestant work ethic (PWE; Chusmir and Koberg, 1988; Hill and Petty,

1995; Hirschfeld and Field, 2000; Kalberg, 1996; Porter, 2010; Rosenthal et al., 2011; Smrt and Karau,

2011) highlighted the value of work commitment suggesting devotion to work is tied to personal worth

(Zellars and Kacmar, 1999). Weber raised questions as to why some people place a greater importance

on work and appear more conscientious than others, and sociologists such as Karl Mannheim have put

additional attention on generational changes in values, particularly for how “shared consciousness”

(Rauvola et al., 2019: 2) is brought on when those in a certain age group develop similar attitudes and

values as they experience a common socio-cultural world (Connolly, 2019; Festing and Schäfer, 2014;

Kalleberg and Marsden, 2019; McElroy and Morrow, 2010). Taken together, generational differences

in work ethic has evolved as a rich and impactful literature, with the question of how values and

attitudes shape workplace behavior emerging as a commonly explored issue in the field of

management and organizational behavior (Gursoy et al., 2008; Hansen and Leuty, 2012).

LITERATURE REVIEW

Generational Similarities and Differences

The existence of differences in the overall work ethic between generations of workers is

generally accepted (Cogin, 2012; Hirschfeld and Field, 2000; Loscocco and Kalleberg, 1988) and

supported by generation theory which argues that to understand the profile of prototypical individuals

in a generation, we can “generalize cohort differences to the mean cohort level of each generation”

(Goh and Lee, 2018: 21). Admittedly, there are a few studies suggesting generations may be more
3
alike than different (Hansen and Leuty, 2012), and some have suggested Gen Z and Baby Boomers

might share the same competitive nature or strong work ethic (Agovino, 2022; Seemiller and Grace,

2016). Regardless, with their labor force participation increasing, it is important to examine similarities

and differences in work ethic across generations, so managers should “seek to understand how well the

organization provides important work-related factors” for different cohorts of employees (Mencl and

Lester, 2014: 269).

Finding research-based studies about work-related generational differences is not difficult.

Early studies found differences in the work ethic of younger and older individuals (Cherrington, 1977;

Cherrington et al., 1979; Loscocco and Kalleberg, 1988; Taylor and Thompson, 1976), and researchers

continue to contribute to this growing literature (Hansen and Leuty, 2012; McElroy and Morrow, 2010;

Mencl and Lester, 2014; Yi et al., 2015). That said, as Gen Z is just beginning to enter the workforce,

there is less research data on similarities and differences between these new labor force participants

and their generational predecessors. Ortega et al. (2019), however, provide a useful research review of

generational characteristics including Gen Z. Their summation of the literature describes Baby

Boomers as idealistic, optimistic, and positive, as well as intellectually arrogant with a sense of self

that is superior, powerful, and important. In contrast, they describe key literature findings about Gen Z

as valuing intelligence/knowledge more than a degree, talkative and tech-oriented, motivated by

challenging assignments, valuing a flexible schedule, and wanting to avoid meetings (Ortega et al.,

2019). Earlier focus group data suggests that Baby Boomers characterize themselves as being in

charge, having a “live to work” philosophy, and respecting authority (Gursoy et al., 2008).

Furthermore, they hold core values about hard work as the key to success with “a strong traditional

8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. work ethic” (Seemiller and Grace, 2016: 2). Conversely, Gen Z data suggests

they are loyal, career minded, entrepreneurial, compassionate, responsible, technologically savvy, and

community minded (Hampton and Keys, 2017; Pueschel et al., 2020; Seemiller and Grace, 2016).
4
Survey results of 1000 recent college graduates from the National Association of Colleges and

Employers suggests Gen Z works to live (instead of lives to work like Baby Boomers); Gen Z carries a

different attitude about work – it’s not just being happy to get a job anymore, it’s a sense of

assertiveness in expecting to know details of what a job will entail before signing on (Maurer, 2022).

Researchers have also identified cohorts within the Gen Z generation. In a sample of 41 Gen Zers, they

identified one group of “Go Getters” were focused on career advancement, another group of “Chill

Worker Bees” desired a comfortable workplace environment, and a third group called “Social

Investors” are focused on finding work-life balance (Leslie et al., 2021, p. 171).

Of course, some of the labels ascribed to different age groups could be seen as stereotyping, but

the scholarly research literature backs up many of these claims with evidential data. So, when the

Society for Human Resource Management describes Gen Z as feeling more emotionally distressed

than Baby Boomers (25% of Gen Z compared to 8% of Boomers) and wanting more purpose and

meaning in their work, employers start listening to find new ways to attract and retain younger workers

with wellness programs, student debt repayment, and more flexibility (Avogino, 2022). But there is

more researchers and practitioners still need to learn about Gen Z.

Reasons Why Generational Differences Matter

HR experts are lining up to share opinions on how the workforce is changing (e.g., Agovino,

2022; Deichler, 2021; Dua et al., 2022). With Baby Boomers sitting in many management positions,

leading younger employees (Gursoy et al., 2013), and holding a high degree of institutional memory

and expert knowledge, they have a considerable impact on the workplace and (given the economy and

Covid-19 pandemic) some are choosing to stay in the labor force longer (U.S. Bureau of Labor

Statistics, 2022). That many Baby Boomers and Gen Zers are working alongside each other or, at

times, with older workers reporting to younger managers, makes understanding their work values more

relevant in an effort to reduce conflict (Cogin, 2012). The momentum behind this need is even greater
5
since Baby Boomers are projected to make up about 27% of the U.S. workforce in 2025, with Gen Z

comprising almost 20% in 2025 (a number that will rise over time as Gen Z ages up; Department of

Labor, as cited in Lettink, 2019). As Hess notes, “organizational leaders can no longer assume that

traditional management practices work” and need to understand generational differences to guide

“redesigns of organizational structure and culture…to adapt job-to-employee fit for all employees”

(2020: 628). The adverse consequences of a knowledge shortfall are enormous, particularly when

taking a person-organization fit perspective (Mencl and Lester, 2014) since mismatches between job

design and employees can negatively affect job attitudes (Porter, 1969; Cennamo and Gardner, 2008;

Mahmoud et al., 2021). Hence, understanding the work ethic of employees is a requirement for any

company as values drive worker engagement, job/organizational commitment, and economically

prosperous cultures (Hansen, 1963; Hofstede, 1984; Li et al., 2020; Mahmoud et al., 2021; Porter,

2010; Woehr et al., 2007).

The Current Research

While much is already known about generational differences in work attitudes and values,

questions remain. First, while there is considerable literature on earlier generations in the workplace,

there is less available on this newest cohort to enter the labor force (Goh and Lee, 2018; Leslie et al.,

2021; Mencl and Lester, 2014). A search on APA PsycINFO in early 2023 identifies only 36 journal

articles published between 2000-2022 on Gen Z with ties to work, career, and job issues. Instead, much

of the published research compares Baby Boomers to Generation X or Millennial employees (e.g.,

Festing and Schäfer, 2014; Gursoy et al., 2008; Gursoy et al., 2013; Mencl and Lester, 2014; Twenge

et al., 2010), and, as noted by Yi et al. (2015), the literature often focuses on only one generational

cohort. Furthermore, some of the emerging data on Gen Z is from non-U.S. samples (e.g. China and

Australia; Goh and Lee, 2018; Tang et al., 2020), so while there is a dearth of literature on Gen Z,

6
there is also a need for additional research on how this generation differs from other generations as

they enter the U.S. workforce in droves.

Another concern is that some of the extant literature on generational differences explores

narrow definitions of work values (e.g., central life interest, motivational factors or aspects of a job;

Jurkiewicz, 2000; Kalleberg and Marsden, 2019; Yang and Guy, 2006). Published findings may,

therefore, be incomplete or misleading since they focus on only one or two dimensions of work ethic

(Miller et al., 2001). One way to combat this is to employ an instrument with a broader definition of

work values, such as the Multidimensional Work Ethic Profile (MWEP; Meriac et al., 2010; Miller et

al., 2001; Ortega et al., 2019; Van Ness et al., 2010).

Add to these concerns that “empirical evidence regarding generational differences in the

workplace is still scarce and further research is needed” (Festing and Schäfer, 2014: 268). This

sentiment is shared by Twenge et al. (2010) and Mencl and Lester (2014) who note a need for more

empirical data to reduce stereotyping, to increase understanding of generational cohorts, and to identify

similarities so synergies can be emphasized. If organizations continue to assume that they can employ

their existing methods of motivating and engaging Gen Z as they’ve used with older generations,

managers will have ignored the potential for differing values and will not achieve the results they

expect (Cogin, 2012). Therefore, the goal of the current research is to address gaps in the literature and

to replace stereotypes with evidence-based understanding. The current research seeks results that will

“present HR practitioners, employers, and managers with a new perspective” on employee “workplace

perceptions and proclivities” (Leslie et al., 2021: 171). Understanding the values of “the generational

mix” working today will enable organizations to build “a positive and productive work environment”

(Guérin-Marion et al., 2018 : 56).

Seven Dimensions of Work Ethic

7
 Work ethic refers to an individual’s commitment to the importance of hard work; one’s values,

attitudes, and beliefs about work factor into this ethic (Li et al., 2020). A variety of measurement

approaches have been developed over the years. The often-utilized lottery question which focuses on

the value of work as more than just a means to financial reward (i.e., “If you were to get enough

money to live comfortably as you would like for the rest of your life, would you continue to work or

would you stop working?”; de Voogt and Lang, 2017 : 399) and the Work Values questionnaire

(WVal) which assesses the importance of personal values at work (e.g., success, status/power, job

security; Consiglio et al., 2017) are just two examples. The current study employed the widely used

Multidimensional Work Ethic Profile (MWEP) in its shorter 28-item format as it provides a

comprehensive measure of work ethic, assessing seven conceptually distinct components or

dimensions in a succinct, reliable, and valid instrument (Meriac et al., 2013). The MWEP has seven

dimensions: Leisure, Wasted Time, Self-Reliance, Work Centrality, Delay of Gratification, Belief in

Hard Work, and Morality/Ethics (Miller et al., 2001) and has been applied in studies of work ethic

across a variety of contexts (e.g., entrepreneurs, correctional officers, nurses; Gorman and Meriac,

2016; Jobe 2014a; Tipu and Ryan, 2016) as well as in studies of generational differences (e.g., Jobe,

2014b). Discussion of each component of the MWEP, with related hypotheses, follows.

Self-Reliance. Self-reliance is described as a reliance on internal resources to provide direction

to actions. It enables self-expression, independent thinking, clarifies self-identity, and paves a path for

pursuit of one's own goals. In the work environment, it is considered an individual's drive toward

independence without the need to rely on others in task accomplishments and has been shown to be

related to intrinsic motivation (Grabowski et al., 2021).

Self-reliant individuals are independent and do not look toward others for standards of

behavior. As such, they are less likely to require restraint of their behaviors in order to meet an external

standard (Meriac, 2012). They are also more likely to desire autonomy in their behaviors (Miller et al.,
8
2001) and interactions with others. Recent research found that self-reliance is negatively related to

perceived level of ego depletion, and given the noted negative effects of ego depletion (e.g., increased

counterproductive work behavior, decreased work engagement), organizations would be well served to

reduce the likelihood that individuals experience depletion (Bazzy, 2018). Therefore, the following

hypothesis is presented:

Hypothesis (1): Generation has a significant effect on the dimension of self-reliance, such that

Baby Boomers will report greater self-reliance than Gen Z.

Morality/Ethics. This dimension is defined as the tendency to engage in just and moral

behavior. In both the Protestant Work Ethic and in the Islamic Work Ethic, one does not take from the

employer what is not due and one is expected to conscientiously and attentively provide reciprocating

services for benefits derived (Cf. Miller et al., 2001; Murtaza et al., 2016). The terms “ethics” and

“morality” are often used interchangeably as a way of referring to the manner in which people act or

are expected to act. In this study of work ethic, “morality and ethics” are combined to describe the

belief in a just and moral existence (Miller et al., 2001).

Morality/ethics literature with students as subjects has received considerable attention. Recent

examples include moral reasoning and moral development (Bruess and Pearson, 2002; Pearson and

Bruess, 2001; Snodgrass and Behling, 1996), academic ethics (Gbadamosi, 2004), academic

dishonesty (Rawwas et al., 2004), management education and business ethics (Heath et al., 2019), and

ethical decision making (Nill and Schibrowsky, 2005). Moral awareness has also recently been shown

to influence sustainable performance (Hussain et al., 2021). A recent study published in the Journal of

Business Ethics (Weeks and Schaffert, 2019) focused on meaningfulness of work, how employees can

seek opportunities for moral development, and on the provision of a meaningful workplace. Their

mixed method study found that generations define meaningfulness differently, with Millennials

focusing on serving others and seeing lives improved while Baby Boomers focus on helping others
9
achieve goals and reaching personal goals. Moreover, different generations were found to carry

stereotyped views about whether other generations value meaning and ethical value in their work.

While there may be variability between different sources of finding meaning in a job, their data

demonstrated “all employees are seeking meaning” (Weeks and Schaffert, 2019: 1057). Since

researchers have identified “stereotypes about young people as less giving and kind” and that older

individuals carry some “cynicism” about the moral values of younger generations (Hookway and

Woodman, 2021: 842), understanding Gen Z’s and Baby Boomers’ attitudes toward the morality and

ethics of work continues to be needed. Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis (2): Generation has a significant effect on the dimension of morality/ethics, such

that Baby Boomers will place greater importance on morality than Gen Z.

Leisure. Leisure is defined as a desire for more discretionary time or "downtime" (McNall et

al., 2009) and is presumed to include a desire for a flexible work schedule and enhanced freedom from

work restrictions. In the 21st Century, workers are bombarded with endless emails, virtual impromptu

meetings, and a need to be accessible in off-hours; these demands on an individual's time and attention

may diminish the work satisfaction of an employee and increase their desire for downtime (Cf.

Rojewski and Hill, 2017; Ter Hoeven et al., 2016). Indeed, a large-scale longitudinal study of over

16,500 students demonstrated that leisure values have increased over time (particularly between Baby

Boomers and Millennials; Twenge et al., 2010).

A strong pro-leisure orientation may be the antithesis of a strong pro-work ethic (Buchholz,

1978a; Miller et al., 2001; Tsaur and Yen, 2018; Weber, 1958) as workers have been known to trade

their leisure time for their jobs (Schor, 1992) and as work can be a defining element in an individual’s

identity (Porter, 2010). Other studies find that a high leisure orientation and a high work ethic are not

necessarily opposite ends of a spectrum (Furnham, 1990; Furnham and Rose, 1987; Pryor and Davies,

1989; Tang, 1993). These studies propose that individuals who receive fulfillment from work are not
10
necessarily excluded from receiving fulfillment from leisure activities and vice versa. Thus, one could

have a strong leisure ethic as well as a strong work ethic.

While there are contradictory findings in the literature, recent research suggests that, across a

range of studies, younger employees rate work as less central to their lives and value leisure more

(Twenge, 2010). Furthermore, while Baby Boomers are labeled as workaholics, Gen Z is identified by

their desire for work-life balance (Purdue University Global, n.d.). So, although the literature reveals

some contradictory findings, the overall evidence supports the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis (3): Generation has a significant effect on the dimension of leisure, such that Gen Z

will desire greater leisure time than Baby Boomers.

Hard Work. This is the intense focus on completing tasks and it is motivated by a belief that

concentrated effort is the proper method of working. It is a presumption that one becomes a better

person and can achieve goals and objectives through a sustained commitment to productivity. Research

suggests that an individual who is committed to hard work perceives it as an important and worthy

activity (Fluegge-Woolf, 2014), works long hours to achieve organizational goals (Tipu and Ryan,

2016), and takes pride in the quality of their contributions to organizational success (Van Ness et al.,

2010). There is a belief in the virtue of hard work (Jonck et al., 2017) as an individual committed to

hard work can overcome almost any obstacle, achieve personal goals, and become a better person

(Miller et al., 2001). Furnham (1984) found that individuals who subscribe to the tenants of the

Protestant work ethic are strongly predisposed to a hard work commitment, and Buchholz (1978b)

found that hard work is a belief system almost indistinguishable from other views such as Marxist-

related and humanistic belief systems.

Older and younger employees may have different perceptions of what actually comprises hard

work. In a study of four generational cohorts (i.e., Traditionalists, Baby Boomers, Generation X and

Generation Y), Cogin (2012) reported “the value placed on ‘hard work’ showed a clear pattern of
11
decline with younger generations” (Cogin, 2012: 2287). In fact, hard work was found to be the most

important work value for Baby Boomers, while for Generation Y it was leisure (Cogin, 2012). In

addition, data recently collected from 350,000 U.K. workers demonstrates that Baby Boomers work

about 30 shifts per month at an average of 8.2 hours/shift while Gen Z works 18 shifts per month at an

average length of 7.4 hours – that’s about 45% more hours for Baby Boomers than their Gen Z

counterparts (HRnews, 2021). Along these same lines, Purdue University Global (n.d.) notes that Baby

Boomer’s worldview is focused on sacrificing through “paying one’s dues” to achieve success, while a

recent study of Chinese Gen Z student interns found that hard work was valued (Tang et al., 2020),

The results could be driven by cultural values, so questions remain about U.S. Gen Z’s attitudes

(Smola and Sutton, 2002). Although there have been conflicting findings, the data available thus far

would support the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis (4): Generation has a significant effect on the dimension of hard work, such that

Baby Boomers will place greater value on hard work than Gen Z.

Centrality of Work. This is a mindset that work for the sake of working has its own rewards. In

other words, work centrality is characteristic of an individual who considers work-engagement crucial

to a complete and fulfilling life. Work centrality is also a determinant in psychological contracts, work

engagement, job satisfaction, and turnover intention (Bal and Kooij, 2011). It has been found to be

predictive of dimensions of organizational citizenship behavior (Meriac and Gorman, 2017).

A study of work ethic across career stages discovered significant differences in multiple

dimensions of work ethic; however, it found no evidence to suggest differences in centrality of work

(Pogson et al., 2003). However, an earlier study by van der Velde et al. (1998) suggested that there is a

connection between age and centrality of work. Their research involved studying three age groups of

young adults: 18-year-olds, 22-year-olds, and 26-year-olds. They concluded that each group became

more work centered over time. Similarly, a generational shift in the centrality of work has been
12
demonstrated in a student sample with more students in recent years indicating “work is just making a

living” and fewer students responding in recent years that “work is a central part of life” (Twenge and

Kasser, 2013). Smola and Sutton (2002) found that younger generations were less likely to believe that

work should be a central part of their life; focus group data confirmed this finding with Baby Boomers

living to work and younger employees working to live (Gursoy et al., 2008). Twenge (2010) reports

Baby Boomers reflect higher work centrality while Generation X and Generation Y view work as less

central to their lives. Similarly, Twenge et al. (2010) found differences in work centrality amongst

generations with Baby Boomers scoring significantly higher than Generation X and Millennials.

Exploring the differences in work ethic among three generations of nurses, Jobe (2014a) found that

Baby Boomers had the highest mean scores in centrality of work and wasted time. In a rare

generational study including Gen Z, centrality of work was rated significantly lower for Gen Z than the

other generations tested (Baby Boomers, Gen X, Gen Y; Ortega et al., 2019). Based on the results of

this literature, the following is hypothesized:

Hypothesis (5): Generation has a significant effect on the dimension of centrality of work, such

that Baby Boomers will see work as more central to life than Gen Z.

Wasted Time. Wasted time refers to the extent of value an individual places on the productive

use of time. In the context of a work environment, it signifies a continuum with one end representing a

high commitment to the efficient allocation of time to task accomplishment and the other to a laissez-

faire approach to the value of work productivity where idle time is not considered problematic. The

efficient and constructive use of time is consistent with a strong work ethic (Herman, 2002), and it has

been long understood that improved performance is inexorably linked to efficient use of time

(Mudrack, 1999). Poor time management and procrastination have been identified as an obstacle to

productivity (Dembo and Eaton, 2000).

13
 While a number of studies investigate how workers waste time (Aftab, 2003; Bauza, 2006;

Donkin, 2002; Gimein, 1999; Libet et al., 2001), there is little scholarly literature regarding the value

different generations place on work productivity versus accepting wasted time. Since Baby Boomers

are focused on efficiency (Purdue University Global, n.d.) and efficient use of time can be a learned

skill, it is hypothesized that:

Hypothesis (6): Generation has a significant effect on the dimension of wasted time, such that

Baby Boomers will place a greater emphasis on productivity than Gen Z.

Delay of Gratification. Delayed gratification is described as the tendency to postpone rewards

until a later time. It is the ability to defer short-term rewards in order to achieve a future goal. An

individual with this ability is able to choose and sustain a course of action for the achievement of a

long-term goal even though there are tempting alternatives for short-term gratification (Reynolds and

Schiffbauer, 2005). Impulsive behaviors are subdued, and the individual possesses a faith and trust in

management's willingness and ability to sustain an environment in which long-term goals are

achievable (Liu and Yu, 2017).

Delay of gratification has been studied relative to socioeconomic status and impulse buying

(Wood, 1998), job performance over time (Liu and Yu, 2017), affective decision-making and

perspective taking (Prencipe and Zelazo, 2005), gender (Silverman, 2003; Witt, 1990), life themes and

motivations among students re-entering a university environment (Bauer and Mott, 1990),

organizational satisfaction and commitment (Witt, 1990), procedural justice and distributive justice

relationship (Joy and Witt, 1992), and impulsive choices and problem behaviors (Wulfert et al., 2002).

A few studies have examined the differences between generations. Results of these studies suggest that

delay of gratification is greater for baby boomers than for other generations (Meriac et al., 2010;

Phillips, 2016; van der Walt et al., 2017; Witt, 1990; Wulfert et al., 2002;). Based on the literature

results, the following is hypothesized:

14
 Hypothesis (7): Generation has a significant effect on the dimension of delay of gratification,

such that Baby Boomers will emphasize delay of gratification more than Gen Z.

METHODS

Sample and Procedures

Two samples were used for this study. The first sample, college juniors and seniors, was

selected from a small northeastern college. Participation in the survey was voluntary and administered

via an online survey. There were no inducements for participation. Anonymity was guaranteed and no

identifying items were included on the questionnaire.

The second sample, workforce professionals, was drawn from businesses in a wide range of

industries, including manufacturing, merchandising, general services, financial services, technologies,

drugs, medical supplies, and banking. The surveys were distributed to individuals via an online survey.

The online survey collection was selected as it provided for efficiency (Kaplowitz et al., 2004) as well

as speed and flexibility (Best et al., 2001).

The combined total sample size was 131 individuals. The sample size of Baby Boomers was

68, with a mean age of 58.47 (SD = 1.31). This age falls right in the middle of Pew Research Center’s

defined ages for Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964; Dimock, 2019) The Baby Boomer sample had a

gender distribution of 46% female and 54% male. The sample size of Gen Z was 63, with a mean age

of 22.46 (SD = 1.77), again falling directly within the guidelines for Gen Z (Dimock, 2019). The Gen

Z sample had a gender distribution of 48% female and 52% male.

Variables

Generation. This investigation uses “age” as a way to classify generational cohorts (i.e., Baby

Boomers 57-75 years old and Gen Z 25 years old and under), an approach that has been utilized by

15
other researchers studying generations and work ethics (e.g., Joshi et al., 2010; Weeks and Schaffert,

2019).

Work Ethic. The short form for the multidimensional work ethic profile (Meriac et al., 2013)

was used to measure the seven dimensions of work ethic. The scale had 28 items, in random order, and

used a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 5 = Strongly Agree to 1 = Strongly Disagree. The

seven dimensions measured in the study were Self-Reliance, Morality/Ethics, Leisure, Hard Work,

Centrality of Work, Wasted Time, and Delay of Gratification. Each dimension was assessed using four

items. The survey and the scales have previously been subjected to psychometric validation (Meriac et

al., 2013). Chronbach’s alphas were computed for the sample which yielded the following levels of

reliability: Self-Reliance (0.84), Morality/Ethics (0.91), Leisure (0.79), Hard Work (0.86), Centrality

of Work (0.90), Wasted Time (0.81), and Delay of Gratification (0.67). All reliabilities, with the

exception of Delay of Gratification, were within the acceptable range. As will be discussed later in the

analysis section, the Delay of Gratification dimension also had the smallest effect size (partial eta

squared).

RESULTS

The means, standard deviations, and two-tailed Pearson correlations were calculated for the

seven dimensions of work ethic. The results can be seen in Table 1. Cronbach alpha calculations are

inserted on the table’s diagonal axis. The means and standard deviations for all variables by generation

can be found in Table 2.

---------------------------------------------

Insert Table 1 and Table 2 about here

---------------------------------------------

16
 A Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was used to assess the main hypotheses. The

results of the analysis can be found in Table 2. There was a statistically significant overall effect of

generation (Baby Boomers vs. Gen Z (F (1, 129) = 29.142, p < 0.001). The overall effect was large

with the Partial Eta2 of 0.184 and generation accounted for approximately 18% of the variance in the

overall work ethic dimension. Based on the significance of the overall relationship, individual

univariate F-tests were completed to assess the individual effects of generation on the various

hypothesized dimensions of work ethic. As shown in Table 3, there were statistically significant

differences for all seven dimensions of work ethic. However, the direction of the effect for Leisure and

Delay of Gratification was not in the hypothesized direction. Therefore, the results provide support for

Hypotheses 1, 2, and 4 – 6.

---------------------------------------------

Insert Table 3 about here

---------------------------------------------

In addition to the statistical significance of the relationships, it is important to note the effect

size of the relationships. According to Field (2013), of the supported hypothesized relationships, two

would be considered medium effects (Self-Reliance, η2 = 0.06; Hard Work, η2 = 0.07) and three would

be considered large effects (Morality, η2 = 0.16; Centrality, η2 = 0.27; Wasted Time, η2 = 0.23). The

only relationships that would have been considered small effect sizes are for the two hypotheses that

were not supported (Leisure, η2 = 0.04; Delay of Gratification η2 = 0.03).

DISCUSSION

The extant literature supports that “the fundamentally different experiences and events faced by

different generations during their developing years may produce different expectations and preferences

about work” (Twenge et al., 2010: 1121). The current research supports these general findings. Except
17
for Leisure and Delay of Gratification, five of the seven subcomponents differed across the two

generations examined with effect size findings in the ‘medium’ to ‘large’ range. This suggests that

work ethic is an important variable for organizations to consider when hiring, training, evaluating

performance, and building organizational culture – and the findings are of particular importance

considering the uniqueness of the present moment in time. The intersection of Gen Z and Baby

Boomers in organizations comes as Gen Z enters the workforce and as Baby Boomers near retirement

(Goh and Lee, 2018), as The Great Recession’s effects are still felt, and as younger workers and the

Covid-19 Pandemic’s effects are driving workplace and lifestyle change (Lowrey, 2017; Maurer, 2022;

Parker et al., 2022).

Study Limitations and Directions for Future Research

It is important to note limitations of the current study as these limitations may be addressed in

future research. First, the current research focused only on age/generation. Cultural differences, socio-

economic status, race/ethnicity, education level, and gender (Festing and Schäfer, 2014; Hansen and

Leuty, 2012; Kalleberg and Marsden, 2019; Mencl and Lester, 2014; Twenge and Kasser, 2013; Yi et

al., 2015) may also account for variance in work values and should be included in future analyses.

Second, a reevaluation of the MWEP may be needed. There is the distinct possibility that it is

time to examine the work ethic construct and assess if questions need to be modified and if additional

variables or factors need to be incorporated. Since the scale was originally validated in 2002,

considerable changes have been made to the ways in which work is being completed and there are very

different expectations from employers regarding when and how work is being completed (see Chang,

2022). For example, Leisure and Delay of Gratification had the smallest effect sizes and the lowest

reliability (both below 0.80). Perhaps there is the need to reevaluate those subscales in future research,

and since multicollinearity between subcomponents may be causing these issues, future research could

address these concerns.

18
 Another direction for future research is to incorporate the meaningfulness of work, measured

with the Comprehensive Meaningful Work Scale (Lips-Wiersma and Wright, 2012) to studies of work

ethic. Such data could provide useful insights to the different ways older and younger workers find

meaning in their work. Finally, studies about work ethic and generational differences need to be

repeated periodically, as new generations enter the workforce and older generations retire. Future

research should be directed at longitudinal and replication studies, using the MWEP, CMWS, or other

scales to continue to understand how values change and how those shifts shape organizations over

time.

Implications for Practice

In terms of practical implications, the more that is known about how employees of different

generations value work in their lives, the more organizational leaders can adjust policies and practices

accordingly. The cost of not addressing generational differences in work values is substantial (Cogin,

2012), with turnover (Gursoy et al., 2013) and quiet quitting (Harter, 2022) affecting organizational

profitability and performance. The differences in work ethic identified between Baby Boomers and

Gen Z provides organizations an opportunity to become more aware and attuned to the commonalities

among and differences between cohorts of employees – and to act on at knowledge. For example,

results of the current study find commonalities across generations in the areas of morality and

centrality of work. Leaders could further explore these commonalities, attempt to assess why it is these

commonalities exist, and then use this as a stepping-stone for building greater understanding across

generations.

There are further steps that organizations can take to bridge the generation gap. Employers

should engage their employees (young and older) in understanding their specific lifestyle and work

values; doing so will enable Baby Boomer and Gen Z employees to have a voice in workplace and job

design (maybe using Appreciative Inquiry; Gursoy et al., 2008), so that they can contribute to the
19
organization effectively and positively (Baum, 2020; Cennamo and Gardner, 2008; Mencl and Lester,

2014). Organizations could also adjust their recruitment and benefit packages to appeal to diverse work

values across age groups; doing so can lead to “increased employee productivity, morale and employee

retention” (Mahmoud et al., 2020 : 394). For instance, employers might offer more paid time off,

mentoring, coaching, work-life balance, amenities such as meditation rooms or laundry services, and a

clear career path or a hybrid work arrangement to appeal to both work-central and nonwork-central

employees (Gursoy et al., 2013; Maurer, 2022; Twenge et al., 2010).

In sum, learning more about the work-related ethics of different generations can enable

organizations to better “recruit and retain” employees (Weeks and Schaffert, 2019: 1049). However, it

is not just about appealing to a diverse workforce. Despite the fact that the current research found that

generations can differ in work ethic, other studies identified the misinformed stereotypes generations

hold about each other (e.g., Baby Boomers believe younger workers care more about money than

finding meaning in their work, or Millennials and Generation X think Baby Boomers are “only in it for

the money”; Weeks and Schaffert, 2019: 1052). Managers and organizations should, therefore,

promote conversations about work-related ethics, possibly through both mentoring and reverse

mentoring relationships. Doing so will promote understanding, dispel stereotypes, and build a more

supportive organizational culture; without such leadership, how employees of different generations

treat each other in the workplace could be affected (Weeks and Schaffert, 2019) and outcomes such as

concerning job attitudes, less organizational commitment, and increased turnover rates could occur

(Cennamo and Gardner, 2008).

20
 REFERENCES

Aftab, P. 2003. “The Privacy Lawyer: Cyberloafing and How it Affects Productivity.” Information
Week (November 10): 120.
Avogino, T. 2022, July 16. “Stressed, Indebted and Idealistic, Gen Z Pushes Further into the
Workforce.” Retrieved on February 10, 2023 from https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/all-
things-work/pages/gen-z-pushes-further-into-the-workforce.aspx
Bal, P. M., and D. Kooij. 2011. “The Relations Between Work Centrality, Psychological Contracts,
and Job Attitudes: The Influence of Age.” European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology 20(4): 497-523.
Bauer, D. and D. Mott. 1990. “Life Themes and Motivations of Re-entry Students.” Journal of
Counseling and Development 68(5): 555-560.
Baum, T. 2020. “A Changing World of Work. What Can We Learn from the Service Sector about
Employing Millenials (and Gen Z)?” Organizational Dynamics 49: 1-8.
Bauza, M. 2006. “Lost Productivity: Wasting Time On The Clock: Survey Says Workers Spend 2
Hours a Day Goofing Off.” Knight Ridder Tribune Business News (July 31): 1.
Bazzy, J. D. 2018. “Work Ethic Dimensions as Predictors of Ego Depletion.” Current Psychology 37:
198–206.
Best, S., B. Krueger, C. Hubbard and A. Smith. 2001. “An Assessment of The Generalizability of
Internet Surveys.” Social Science Computer Review 19(2): 131-145.
Bruess, B. and F. Pearson. 2002. “The Debate Continues: Are There Gender Differences in Moral
Reasoning as Defined by Kohlberg?” College Student Affairs Journal 21(2): 38-53.
Buchholz, R.1978a. “The Work Ethic Reconsidered.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 31(4):
450-459.
Buchholz, R. 1978b. “An Empirical Study of Contemporary Beliefs About Work in American Society”
Journal of Applied Psychology 63(2): 219-227.
Cennamo, L., and D. Gardner. 2008. “Generational Differences in Work Values, Outcomes and
Person-Organisation Values Fit.” Journal of Managerial Psychology 23(8): 891-906.
Chang, A. 2022. “Workplaces are in Denial Over How Much Americans Have Changed.” Retrieved on
February 16, 2023, from https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/mar/21/workplaces-
are-in-denial-over-how-much-americans-have-changed
Cherrington, D. J. 1977. “The Values of Younger Workers.” Business Horizons 20(6): 18-30.
Cherrington, D. J., S. Condie and J. England. 1979. “Age and Work Values.” Academy of Management
Journal 22(3): 617-623.
Chusmir, L. and C. Koberg. 1988. “Religion and Attitudes Toward Work: A New Look at an Old
Question.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 9(3): 251-262.

21
Cogin, J. 2012. “Are Generational Differences in Work Values Fact or Fiction? Multi-country
Evidence and Implications.” The International Journal of Human Resource Management
23(11): 2268–2294.
Connolly, J. 2019. “Generational Conflict and the Sociology of Generations: Mannheim and Elias
Reconsidered.” Theory, Culture & Society 36(7-8): 153-172.
Consiglio, C., R. Cenciotti, L. Borgogni, G. Alessandri and S. Schwartz. 2017. “The WVal: A New
Measure of Work Values.” Journal of Career Assessment 25(3): 405-422.
Deichler, A. 2021, July 16. “Though Socially Conscious, Gen Z Remains Practical.” Retrieved on
February 10, 2023 from https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/behavioral-
competencies/global-and-cultural-effectiveness/pages/though-socially-conscious-generation-z-
remains-practical.aspx
Dembo, M. and M. Eaton. 2000. “Self-Regulation of Academic Learning in Middle-Level Schools.”
The Elementary School Journal 100(5): 473-490.
de Voogt, A., and W. Lang. 2017. “Employee Work Ethic in Nine Nonindustrialized Contexts: Some
Surprising Non-POSH Findings.” Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on
Science and Practice 10(3): 398-403.
Dimock, M. 2019. “Defining Generations: Where Millennials End and Gen Z begins.” Retrieve on
January 28, 2023, from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-millennials-
end-and-generation-z-begins/
Donkin, R. 2002. “Trust Me, I’m One of Your Employees: Time-Wasting and Lack of Commitment
May be Caused by Managers’ Obsession with Monitoring Performance and Their Failure to
Enthuse Staff.” Financial Times (September 5): 12.
Dua, A., K. Ellingrud, M. Lazar, R. Luby, and S. Pemberton. 2022, October 19. “How does Gen Z See
Its Place in the Working World? With Trepidation.” Retrieved on February 10, 2023, from
https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/sustainable-inclusive-growth/future-of-
america/how-does-gen-z-see-its-place-in-the-working-world-with-trepidation
Festing, M., and L. Schäfer. 2014. “Generational Challenges to Talent Management: A Framework for
Talent Retention based on the Psychological-Contract Perspective.” Journal of World Business
49: 262-271.
Field, A. 2013. Discovering Statistics with IBM SPSS Statistics. Newbury Park, CA: Duxbury
Fluegge-Woolf, E. R. 2014. “Play Hard, Work Hard: Fun at Work and Job Performance.” Management
Research Review 37(8): 682-705.
Furnham, A. 1984. “Work Values and Beliefs in Britain.” Journal of Occupational Behaviour (5): 281-
291.
Furnham, A. 1990. “A Content, Correlational, and Factor Analytic Study of Seven Questionnaire
Measures of the Protestant Work Ethic.” Human Relations 43(4): 383-399.
Furnham, A. and M. Rose. 1987. “Alternative Ethics: The Relationship Between the Wealth, Welfare,

22
 Work and Leisure Ethic.” Human Relations 40(9): 561-574.
Gbadamosi, G. 2004. “Academic Ethics. What Has Morality, Culture and Administration Got to do
with its Measurement?” Management Decision 42(9): 1145-1161.
Gimein, M. 1999. “Do Workers Online Mean Time’s A-Wastin’ in the Workplace?; Computers:
Reports of Misuse of Cyberspace May Raise Red Flags to the Boss, but the Cost of Alienating
Employees Could be Even Greater.” Los Angeles Times (December 2).
Goh, E., and C. Lee. 2018. “A Workforce to be Reckoned With: The Emerging Pivotal Gen Z
Hospitality Workforce.” International Journal of Hospitality Management 73: 20-28.
Gorman, C. A., and J. P. Meriac. 2016. “Examining the Work Ethic of Correctional Officers Using a
Short Form of the Multidimensional Work Ethic Profile.” The Prison Journal 96(2): 258-278.
Grabowski D, A. Chudzicka-Czupała, and K. Stapor. 2021. “Relationships Between Work Ethic and
Motivation to Work from the Point of View of the Self-Determination Theory. PLoS ONE
16(7): e0253145.
Guérin-Marion, C., I. Manion, and H. Parsons. 2018. “Leading an Intergenerational Workforce: An
Integrative Conceptual Framework.” International Journal of Public Leadership 14(1): 48-58.
Gursoy, D., C.G. Chi, and E. Karadag. 2013. “Generational Differences in Work Values and Attitudes
among Frontline and Service Contract Employees.” International Journal of Hospitality
Management 32: 40-48.
Gursoy, D., T.A. Maier, and C. G. Chi. 2008. “Generational Differences: An Examination of Work
Values and Generational Gaps in the Hospitality Workforce.” International Journal of
Hospitality Management 27: 448-458.
Hampton, D. C., and Y. Keys. 2017. “Gen Z Students: Will They Change Our Nursing Classrooms?”
Journal of Nursing Education and Practice 7(4): 111-115.
Hansen, N. 1963. “The Protestant Ethic as a General Precondition for Economic Development.” The
Canadian Journal of Economic and Political Science 29(4): 462-474.
Hansen, J. C., and M. E. Leuty. 2012. “Work Values Across Generations.” Journal of Career
Assessment 20(1): 34-52.
Harter, J. 2022, September 6. “Is Quiet Quitting Real?” Retrieved on February 16, 2023, from
https://www.gallup.com/workplace/398306/quiet-quitting-real.aspx
Heath, T., L. O’Malley, and C. Tynan. 2019. “Imagining a Different Voice: A Critical and Caring
Approach to Management Education. Management Learning 50(4): 427–448.
Herman, S. 2002. “How Work Gains Meaning in Contractual Time: A Narrative Model for
Reconstructing the Work Ethic.” Journal of Business Ethics 38(1/2): 65-79.
Hess, J. P. 2020. “The latest Millennials (1995-2000): Examining Within-Group Work
Ethic.” International Journal of Organizational Analysis 28(3): 627–642.
Hill, R. and G. C. Petty. 1995. “A New Look at Selected Employability Skills: A Factor Analysis of
23
 Occupational Work Ethic.” Journal of Vocational Educational Research 20(4): 59-73.
Hirschfeld, R. and H. Field. 2000. “Work Centrality and Work Alienation: Distinction Aspects of
General Commitment to Work.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 32(7): 789-800.
Hofstede, G. 1984. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Hofstede, G. 1983. “The Cultural Relativity of Organizational Practices and Theories.” Journal of
International Business Studies 14(2): 75-89.
Hookway, N., and D. Woodman. 2021. “Beyond Millennials v Baby Boomers: Using Kindness to
Assess Generationalism Across Four Age Cohorts in Australia.” The Sociological Review
69(4): 830-845.
HRnews. 2021, July 23. “The Older You Get, The Harder You Work.” Retrieved on February 20,
2023, from https://hrnews.co.uk/the-older-you-get-the-harder-you-work/
Hussain, M., H. Hassan, Z. Iqbal, A. Niazi and Y. Hoshino. 2021. “Moral Awareness: A Source of
Improved Sustainable Performance.” Sustainability 13(23): 13077.
Jobe, L. 2014a. “Generational Differences in Work Ethic Among 3 Generations of Registered Nurses.”
The Journal of Nursing Administration 44(5): 303-308.
Jobe, L. 2014b. “Generational Differences in Work Ethic Between Baby Boomers, Generation X, and
Millenial Registered Nurses.” Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and
Engineering 75(5-B)(E).
Jonck, P., F. van der Walt and N.C. Sobayeni. 2017. “Investigating the Relationship between Work
Values and Work Ethics: A South African Perspective.” SA Journal of Human Resource
Management, 15: a780.
Joshi, A., J.C. Dencker, G. Franz and J.J. Martocchi. 2010. “Unpacking generational identities in
organizations.” Academy of Management Review 35(3): 392-414.
Joy, V. and L. Witt. 1992. “Delay of Gratification as a Moderator of the Procedural Justice –
Distributive Justice Relationship.” Group and Organization Studies 17(3): 297-308.
Jurkiewicz, C. L. 2000. “Generation X and the Public Employee.” Public Personnel Management
29(1): 55-74.
Kalberg, S. 1996. “On the Neglect of Weber’s Protestant Ethic as a Theoretical Treatise: Demarcating
the Parameters of Postwar American Sociological Theory.” Sociological Theory 14(1): 49-70.
Kalleberg, A. L. and P.V. Marsden. 2019. “Work values in the United States: Age, Period, and
Generational Differences.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science 682(1): 43-59.
Kaplowitz, M., T. Hadlock and R. Levine. 2004. “A Comparison of Web and Mail Survey Response
Rates.” Public Opinion Quarterly 68(1): 94-101.
Leslie, B., C. Anderson, C. Bickham, J. Horman, A. Overly, C. Gentry, C. Callahan, and J. King. 2021.
24
 “Gen Z Perceptions of a Positive Workplace Environment.” Employee Responsibilities and
Rights Journal 33: 171-187.
Lettink, A. 2019, September 17. “No, Millenials Will NOT be 75% of the Workforce in 2025 (or
ever)!” Retrieved on February 14, 2023, from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/millennials-75-
workforce-2025-ever-anita-lettink/
Li, J., M. Huang, A. Hedayati-Mehdiabadi, Y. Wang, and X. Yang. 2020. “Development and
Validation of Work Ethic Instrument to Measure Chinese People’s Work-related Values and
Attitudes.” Human Resource Development Quarterly 31: 49-73.
Libet, J., C. Frueh, K. Pellegrin, P. Gold, A. Santos and G. Arana. 2001. “Absenteeism and
Productivity Among Mental Health Employees.” Administration and Policy in Mental Health
29(1): 41-50.
Lips-Wiersma, M., and S. Wright. 2012. “Measuring the Meaning of Meaningful Work: Development
and Validation of the Comprehensive Meaningful Work Scale (CMWS).” Group and
Organization Management 37(5): 655-685.
Liu, X. and K. Yu. 2107. “Delay of Gratification in Predicting Job Performance in New Employees: A
Time Varying Process and the Moderating Role of Perceived Informational Justice.” Journal of
Pacific Rim Psychology 11(4): 1-8.
Loscocco, K. and A. Kalleberg. 1988. “Age and the Meaning of Work in the United States and Japan.”
Social Forces 67(2): 337-356.
Lowrey, A. 2017, December 1. “The Great Recession is Still With Us.” Retrieved on Feburary 16,
2023, from https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/12/great-recession-still-with-
us/547268/
Mahmoud, A. B., Reisel, W. D., Fuxman, L., and Mohr, I. 2021. “A Motivational Standpoint of Job
Insecurity Effects on Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A Generational Study.”
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 62: 267-275.
Mahmoud, A. B., W. D. Reisel, N. Grigoriou, L. Fuxman and I. Mohr. 2020. “The Reincarnation of
Work Motivation: Millenials vs Older Generations.” International Sociology 35(4): 393-414.
Maurer, R. 2022, July 12. “The Class of 2022 Is Ready to Work – On Their Terms.” SHRM. Retrieved
on January 28, 2023, from https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/talent-
acquisition/pages/the-class-of-2022-is-ready-to-work-icims-report.aspx
McElroy, J. C., and P.C. Morrow. 2010. “Employee Reactions to Office Redesign: A Naturally
Occurring Quasi-field Experiment in a Multi-generational Setting.” Human Relations 65(3):
609-636.
McNall, L. A., A. D. Masuda, and J. M. Nicklin. 2009. “Flexible Work Arrangements, Job
Satisfaction, and Turnover Intentions: The Mediating Role of Work-to-family
Enrichment.” The Journal of Psychology 144(1): 61-81.
Mencl, J., and S. W. Lester. 2014. “More Alike Than Different: What Generations Value and How the
Values Affect Employee Workplace Perceptions.” Journal of Leadership and Organizational
25
 Studies 21(3): 257-272.
Meriac, J. P. 2012. “Work Ethic and Academic Performance: Predicting Citizenship and
Counterproductive Behavior.” Learning and Individual Differences 22: 549–553.
Meriac, J. and C.A. Gorman. 2017. “Work Ethic and Work Outcomes in an Expanded Criterion
Domain.” Journal of Business and Psychology 32: 273-282
Meriac, J., D. Woehr and C. Banister. 2010. “Generational Differences in Work Ethic. An Examination
of Measurement Equivalences Across Three Cohorts.” Journal of Business and Psychology
25(3): 315-324.
Meriac, J. P., D. J. Woehr, C. A. Gorman and A. Thomas. 2013. “Development and Validation of a
Short Form for the Multidimensional Work Ethic Profile.” Journal of Vocational Behavior
82(3): 155-164.
Miller, M. J., D. Woehr and N. Hudspeth. 2001. “The Meaning and Measurement of Work Ethic:
Construction and Initial Validation of a Multidimensional Inventory.” Journal of Vocational
Behavior 60: 451-489.
Mudrack, P. E. 1999. “Time Structure and Purpose, Type A Behavior, and the Protestant Work Ethic.”
Journal of Organizational Behavior 20(2): 145-158.
Murtaza, G., M. Abbas, U. Raja, O. Roques, A. Khalid and R. Mushtaq. 2016. “Impact of Islamic
Work Ethics on Organizational Citizenship Behaviors and Knowledge-sharing
Behaviors.” Journal of Business Ethics 133(2): 325-333.
Nill, A. and J. Schibrowsky. 2005. “The Impact of Corporate Culture, the Reward System, and
Perceived Moral Intensity on Marketing Students’ Ethical Decision Making.” Journal of
Marketing Education 27(1): 68-80.
Ortega, D.C., D.A. Garcia, J.B. Rodriguez and J.M. Calvo. 2019. “Work Ethic in Ecuador: An
Analysis of the Differences in Four Generational Cohorts.” Annals of Psychology 35(3): 496-
505.
Owens, J. 1980. “Ideologies and Management Training.” Training and Development Journal 34(3):
66-70.
Parker, K., J.M. Horowitz and R. Minkin. 2022, February 16. “COVID-19 Pandemic Continues to
Reshape Work in America. Retrieved on February 20, 2023, from
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/02/16/covid-19-pandemic-continues-to-
reshape-work-in-america/
Pearson, F. and B. Bruess. 2001. “Students’ Perceptions of Factors Which Impact Their Identity and
Moral Development.” College Student Affairs Journal 20(2): 22-37.
Philips, M. 2016. “Embracing the Multigenerational Nursing Team.” MEDSURG Nursing 25(3): 197-
199.
Pogson, C., A. Cober, D. Doverspike and J. Rogers. 2003. “Differences in Self-reported Work Ethic
Across Three Career Stages.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 62: 189-201.

26
Porter, G. 2010. “Work Ethic and Ethical Work: Distortions in the American Dream.” Journal of
Business Ethics 96: 535-550.
Porter, L. 1969. “Effects of Task Factors on Job Attitudes and Behavior.” Personnel Psychology 22(4):
415-418.
Prencipe, A. and P. Zelazo. 2005. “Development of Affective Decision Making for Self and Other:
Evidence for the Integration of First- and Third-Person Perspectives.” Psychological Science
16: 501-505.
Pryor, G. and R. Davies. 1989. “A Comparison of Conceptualizations of Work Centrality.” Journal of
Organizational Behavior 10: 283-289.
Pueschel, A., R.C. Johnson and L.Y. Dhanani. 2020. “Putting Gen Z First: Educating with a
Generational Mind-set.” Industrial and Organizational Psychology 13: 594-598.
Purdue University Global. n.d.. “Generational Differences In the Workplace [Infographic].” Retrieved
on February 14, 2023, from https://www.purdueglobal.edu/education-
partnerships/generational-workforce-differences-infographic/
Rauvola, R.S., C.W. Rudolph and H. Zacher. 2019. “Generationalism: Problems and Implications.”
Organizational Dynamics 48: 1-9.
Rawwas, M., J. Al-Khatib and S. Vitell. 2004. “Academic Dishonesty: A Cross-Cultural Comparison
of U.S. and Chinese Marketing Students.” Journal of Marketing Education 26(1): 89-101.
Reynolds, B. and R. Schiffbauer. 2005. “Delay of Gratification and Delay Discounting: A Unifying
Feedback Model of Delay-related Impulsive Behavior.” The Psychological Record 55: 439-
460.
Rojewski, J. W. and R. B. Hill. 2017. “A Framework for 21st-century Career-technical and Workforce
Education Curricula. Peabody Journal of Education 92(2): 180-191.
Rosenthal, L., S. R. Levy and A. Moyer. 2011. “Protestant Work Ethic’s Relation to Intergroup and
Policy Attitudes: A Meta‐analytic Review.” European Journal of Social Psychology 41(7):
874–885.
Schor, J. B. 1992. The Overworked American: The Unexpected Decline of Leisure. New York: Basic
Books.
Seemiller, C., and M. Grace. 2016. Gen Z Goes to College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Silverman, I. 2003. “Gender Differences in Delay of Gratification: A Meta-Analysis.” Sex Roles
49(9/10): 451-463.
Smola, K. and C. Sutton. 2002. “Generational Differences: Revisiting Generational Work Values for
the New Millennium.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 23(4): 363-383.
Smrt, D. L., and S. J. Karau. 2011. “Protestant Work Ethic Moderates Social Loafing. Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 15(3): 267–274.
Snodgrass, J. and R. Behling. 1996. “Differences in Moral Reasoning Between College and University
27
 Business Majors and Non-Business Majors.” Business and Professional Ethics Journal 15(1):
80-86.
Tang, J., C. Tosun, and T. Baum. 2020. “Do Gen Zs Feel Happy about the First Job? A Cultural
Values Perspective from the Hospitality and Tourism Industry.” International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management 32(12): 4017-4040.
Tang, T. 1993. “A Factor Analytic Study of the Protestant Work Ethic.” Journal of Social Psychology
133(1): 109-111.
Taylor, R. and M. Thompson. 1976. “Work Value Systems of Young Workers.” Academy of
Management Journal 19(4): 522-536.
Ter Hoeven, C. L., W. van Zoonen, and K. L. Fonner. 2016. “The Practical Paradox of Technology:
The Influence of Communication Technology Use on Employee Burnout and
Engagement. Communication monographs 83(2): 239-263.
Tipu, S. and J. Ryan. 2016. “Predicting Entrepreneurial Intentions from Work Values: Implications for
Stimulating Entrepreneurship in UAE National Youth.” Management Decision 54(3): 610-629.
Tsaur, S.H. and C.H. Yen. 2018. “Work–leisure Conflict and its Consequences: Do Generational
Differences Matter? Tourism Management 69: 121–131.
Twenge, J. 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., S. M. Campbell, B. J. Hoffman and C. E. Lance. 2010. “Generational Differences in
Work Values: Leisure and Extrinsic Values Increasing, Social and Intrinsic Values
Decreasing.” Journal of Management 36(5): 1117-1142.
Twenge, J. M., and T. Kasser. 2013. “Generational Changes in Materialism and Work Centrality,
1976-2007: Associations with Temporal Changes in Societal Insecurity and Materialistic Role
Modeling.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 39(7): 883-897.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2022, September 8. “Employment Projections: 2021-2031 Summary.”
Retrieved on February 10, 2023 from https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.nr0.htm
van der Velde, M., J Feij and H. van Emmerik. 1998. “Change in Work Values and Norms Among
Dutch Young Adults: Aging or Societal Trends?” International Journal of Behavioral
Development 22(1): 55-76.
van der Walt, F., P. Jonck and N.C. Sobayeni. 2017. “Work Ethics of Different Generational Cohorts
in South Africa”. African Journal of Business Ethics 10(1): 52-66.
Van Ness, R. K., K. Melinsky, C. L. Buff and C. F. Seifert. 2010. “Work Ethic: Do New Employees
Mean New Work Values? Journal of Managerial Issues 22(1): 10-34.
Weber, M. 1904-1905, 1958. The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism. Trans. T. Parsons.
New York, NY: Scribner.
Weeks, K. P., and C. Schaffert. 2019. “Generational Differences in Definitions of Meaningful Work: A
Mixed Methods Study.” Journal of Business Ethics 156: 1045-1061.
28
Witt, L. 1990. “Delay of Gratification and Locus of Control as Predictors of Organizational
Satisfaction and Commitment: Sex Differences.” The Journal of General Psychology 117(4):
437-446.
Woehr, D. J., L. M. Arciniega and D. H. Lim. 2007. “Examining Work Ethic Across Populations: A
Comparison of the Multidimensional Work Ethic Profile Across Three Diverse Cultures.”
Educational and Psychological Measurement 67(1): 154 – 168.
Wood, M. 1998. “Socio-Economic Status, Delay of Gratification, and Impulse Buying.” Journal of
Economic Psychology 19: 295-320.
Wulfert, E., J. Block, E. Santa Ana, M. Rodriguez and M. Colsman. 2002. “Delay of Gratification:
Impulsive Choices and Problem Behaviors in Early and Late Adolescence.” Journal of
Personality 70(4): 533-552.
Yang, S. B., and M. E. Guy. 2006. “Gen-Xers versus Boomers: Work Motivators and Management
Implications.” Public Performance and Management Review 29(3): 267-284.
Yi, X., B. Ribbens, L. Fu, and W. Cheng. 2015. “Variation in Career and Workplace Attitudes by
Generation, Gender, and Culture Differences in Career Perceptions in the United States and
China.” Employee Relations 37(1): 66-82.
Zellars, K. L., and K. M. Kacmar. 1999. “The Influence of Individual Differences on Reactions to Co-
workers’ Ingratiatory Behaviors.” Journal of Managerial Issues 11(2): 234-248.

29
 Table 1

Pearson Correlation Matrix of the Factors of Work Ethic

Std. Self- Hard Wasted Delay

Mean Deviation Reliance Morality Leisure Work Centrality Time Gratification

Self-Reliance 3.26 0.94 0.84

Morality 4.52 0.79 0.33** 0.91

Leisure 3.17 0.67 0.39** 0.26** 0.79

Hard Work 3.98 0.81 0.41** 0.62** 0.05 0.86

Centrality 4.23 0.82 0.36** 0.83** 0.04 0.71** 0.90

Wasted Time 4.12 0.64 0.52** 0.83** 0.18* 0.73** 0.82** 0.81

Delay 2.93 0.45 0.24** -0.03 -0.02 0.03 -0.05 0.14 0.67

Gratification

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

 Table 2

Means and Standard Deviations of the Factors of Work Ethic by Generation Status

Generation

Factor Name Gen Z Baby Boomers

(n = 63) (n = 68)

Self-Reliance 3.06 (0.87) 3.49 (0.95)

Morality 4.18 (0.95) 4.82 (0.44)

Leisure 3.04 (0.81) 3.29 (0.50)

Hard Work 3.76 (0.86) 4.20 (0.70)

Centrality 3.79 (0.86) 4.63 (0.53)

Wasted Time 3.81 (0.61) 4.42 (0.54)

Delay Gratification 3.02 (0.49) 2.85 (0.41)

Note: Data collected on a five-point scale (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree).

Note: A larger mean indicates greater support for the importance of the work ethic factor.
 Table 3

Test of Main Effects and Tests of Generation on Work Ethic Factors

IV Name DV Name Wilks’Lamdba (F) Univariate F Partial Eta2

Generation .60 (29.14)*** 0.18

Self-Reliance 7.49** 0.06

Morality 25.15*** 0.16

Leisure 4.94* 0.04

Hard Work 10.165** 0.07

Centrality 47.03*** 0.27

Wasted Time 37.31*** 0.23

Delay Gratification 4.26* 0.03

Notes *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 N = 131