generational diversity | |
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION 3 2. OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES OF GENERATIONAL DIVERSITY 4 3. TIPS FOR ORGANIZATIONS 5 4. CONCLUSION 6 5. REFERENCES 7
1.
INTRODUCTION
In organization, working age has been divided into three generations: Baby Boomers, GenX and GenY. These age groups are different in age, experience and working style etc. Every organization has to balance the different needs and styles of all these groups to attain organizational goal. These generational differences have become a large social issue in a team which can affect productivity of team. How can employers make these different generations to work together as a team, this has become a very big challenge these days. This issue has a high impact on the success of an organization.
2. OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES OF GENERATIONAL DIVERSITY
* Social Engagement: - Social Engagement differs in all the three generations. Older generations had limited social networks. So they took more time to develop trust with each other while new generation has many social networks like facebook, twitter etc. So they trust on unknown person also. This behaviour can also be a negative point in terms of confidentiality of organization. * Attitude toward work: - different people have different attitude towards their work. It is believed that boomers are workaholics while Youngers work only for required hours and uncommitted. Generation X is also called ‘Slacker’generation (Jenkins, 2007). * Loyalty towards Employer:-Boomers are considered extremely loyal towards the employer while Youngers lacks loyalty. It is said that youngers value their relationship with co-workers more than their relationship with employers (Karp, et al., 2002). * Dealing with change: - Different people respond differently to the change. Boomers are more resistant than youngers. People can adopt a situation easily if proper logic and reason is
References: Jenkins, J. (2007). Leading the four generations at work. Retrieved April 15, 2008, from http://www.amanet.org/movingahead/editorial.cfm?Ed=452 Karp et al. (2002); valueoptions.com;