Employee development’s role in

organizational commitment: a preliminary

investigation comparing generation X and
millennial employees

Sharon Glazer, Adam C. Mahoney and Yari Randall

Abstract Sharon Glazer is Professor and

Purpose – Seasoned workers often complain that their Millennial colleagues lack organizational commitment Chair of the Division of Applied
(OC). Research findings, however, are mixed. Furthermore, research suggests that employee professional Behavioral Sciences at the
development increases job satisfaction and reduces turnover. Still, few studies have examined if professional University of Baltimore,
development increases commitment, particularly among Millennials. This paper aims to discuss these issues. Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Design/methodology/approach – This study compared survey responses, gathered through social media, Adam C. Mahoney is based at
of Generation X (GenX) and Millennial employees on the relationship between employee development (ED) Salesforce, San Francisco,
and OC. California, USA.
Findings – Millennials (vs GenXers) reported significantly lower levels of continuance commitment, but no Yari Randall is based at
differences on normative and affective commitment. GenXers reported more affective and normative
International Public
commitment than Millennials when having ED opportunities.
Management Association for
Practical implications – ED opportunities may not be similarly impactful on OC across generational
Human Resources, Alexandria,
cohorts. It might stimulate commitment amongst GenXers, but not Millennials.
Virginia, USA.
Social implications – Findings also suggest that ED programs may be a normalized fixture in organizations
today and that Millennials may take ED opportunities for granted.
Originality/value – This study is the first to identify potential factors influencing differences between
GenXers and Millennials on OC. More research is needed to identify approaches to increasing Millenials’
commitment if managers want to keep their best employees or to ensure training and development
is impactful.
Keywords Organizational commitment, Millennials, Generation X, Generational differences,
Employee development
Paper type Research paper

eneration Xers (aka. GenXers, born between mid-1960s and early-1980s) and

G Millennials (born between early-1980s and mid-1990s) constitute the two most
populous generations in the workplace. Per the Generational Cohort Theory,
individuals born in a particular timeframe share with others (i.e. of their cohort) born around the
same time similar social and momentous events and experiences. These events and experiences
pertain to the technological, economical and political circumstances during their formative
adolescent years, which shaped their values, identities, norms and beliefs (Becton et al., 2014;
Sessa et al., 2007). These outcomes shape how people of a generation view the world and the
values are purported to be stable over time, despite maturation.
As there is a general group tendency to share certain values, history, language, beliefs and
norms, generational cohorts may be thought of as a type of cultural group (Glazer, 2002).
Like culture, the concept of a generation is socially constructed and may be apparent
when people see them, but more difficult to assess empirically (Sessa et al., 2007). It is
important to understand members of different generational (cultural) groups in order to

DOI 10.1108/ICT-07-2018-0061 VOL. 51 NO. 1 2019, pp. 1-12, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 0019-7858 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j PAGE 1
 identify ways of mitigating tensions and achieving high performance in the workplace
(Glazer et al., 2014). Thus, when even small differences are found (e.g. Gentry et al., 2009),
they should not be dismissed as error, but as potential insight into the perceived differences
across generations.
Different generational cohorts have vastly different expectations about what the workplace
should offer, how they should behave as employees, how they should be managed and how they
should manage others (Becton et al., 2014; Farrell and Hurt, 2014; Johnson and Johnson, 2010;
Stewart et al., 2017). These varying expectations are a source of observed intergenerational
conflict (Sessa et al., 2007; Society for Human Resource Management, 2011) and they are not
new in the workplace. Traditionalists (born before 1945) once described Baby Boomers (born
between 1945 and 1965) as entitled and difficult to interact with when they first entered the
workforce, and the Baby Boomers and GenXers express similar concerns today of the Millennials
(Deal et al., 2010).
These generational conflicts have made it difficult to attract highly skilled Millennial workers
(Ainsworth, 2009). Once selected, organizations often strive to retain top talent by investing in
training and development. For nearly two decades, researchers (e.g. Gentry et al., 2009;
Maurer, 2001; Weng et al., 2010; Whitener, 2001) have been reinforcing the importance of
employee development (ED) as a human resources practice. ED is thought to stimulate
employee commitment to the organization, which is expected to improve employee retention
(Meyer et al., 2002). Indeed, for credit union bank employees, ED increased employee
organizational commitment (OC) (Whitener, 2001). The same was found with respect to
affective OC in Weng et al.’s (2010) study of employees in China. However, it is not clear if this
relationship would be found for both generations. In other words, do both generations perceive
ED as equally important and does it influence OC?
Although very little difference was found between generations on preferences for professional
development (e.g. Baby Boomers and GenX; Gentry et al., 2009) and some differences between
GenXers and Millennials were found on OC (Costanza et al., 2012), the mere anecdotal
observation that there are substantive differences behooves researchers to probe further into
the nebulous generational cultures. Furthermore, the question about whether GenXers and
Millennials differ on the importance of professional development has not been answered. Delving
deeper is important because the fiscal costs associated with ED are high and without motivation
to be part of a professional development program, transfer of training may be limited (Gentry
et al., 2009). Therefore, this exploratory study compares GenX and Millennial employees on OC
and ED and tests whether ED positively relates with OC for both generational cohorts. To date,
there is no empirical evidence to indicate if ED will positively relate with OC differently by
generational cohort.

Organizational commitment
OC, an overall psychological connection an employee experiences with his or her organization,
can be characterized by three types (Meyer and Allen, 1997). Affective OC (AOC) refers to
an employee’s strong emotional attachment to, identification with and involvement in an
organization and relates to one’s desire to stay with the organization. Normative OC (NOC) refers
to an employee feeling obliged to remain with an organization in exchange for job security. Finally,
continuance OC (COC) refers to an employee’s need to stay with the organization due to the
perceived costs associated with leaving. It manifests when a person has no alternatives or too
much accrued benefits to lose upon moving.

ED as a means of support
Different factors, for example, perceived organizational support (POS), an organization’s
investment in its employees, and age, predict the different components of OC (Meyer et al.,
2002), as does ED (Benson, 2006; Pajo et al., 2010; Weng et al., 2010) relate to OC.
According to POS theory, employees tend to personify organizations and actions taken by

PAGE 2 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j VOL. 51 NO. 1 2019

management are seen as acting upon the will of the organization rather than on one’s own
volitions (Rhoades et al., 2001). The social exchange model implies that an individual will look
to respond in kind when he or she has been given something of value (Benson, 2006). When
viewed through the perspective of the social exchange model, generally, increased POS
creates a sense of obligation within employees to reciprocate favorable treatment, which then
manifests itself in a greater OC (Rhoades et al., 2001).
The present study extends POS and social exchange concepts by focusing on employee
perceptions of professional development opportunities as a proxy for POS. ED refers to any
planned, structured and delimited activity designed to increase employee growth and
effectiveness (Pajo et al., 2010). It is believed that businesses that provide employees with
opportunities to learn will flourish (Sarvadi, 2005; Whitener, 2001), as organizational effectiveness
and overall job performance increase when employees maintain a competitive advantage over
others (Twenge, 2010). Moreover, ED opportunities can reduce the likelihood of employees
engaging in neglectful behaviors, help decrease turnover and possibly attract job candidates
(Ainsworth, 2009; Maurer, 2001; Pajo et al., 2010). ED also relates with increased OC (Benson,
2006; Weng et al., 2010). Specifically, amongst 667 US high-tech workers, as the number of
days in structured on-the-job training increased, affective OC increased (r ¼ 0.15, p o 0.01;
Benson, 2006). Furthermore, professional ability development positively correlated with affective
commitment (r ¼ 0.43, p o 0.01), normative commitment (r ¼ 0.23, p o0.01) and continuance
commitment (r ¼ 0.09, p o0.05; Weng et al., 2010) amongst 961 employees from 25 companies
in China. Thus, a positive relationship between perceived professional ED opportunities and OC
could benefit employers seeking to attract Millennials and retain highly competitive talent.

Generations in the workplace

Generation X
GenXers represent the group that brought to the foray the importance of professional ED as a
means for increasing OC, as evident in the content of scholarly literature on the topic becoming
prevalent in the late 1990s–2000s (e.g. Benson, 2006; Birdi et al., 1997) when GenX began to
enter the workforce. This generation, greatly influenced by the widespread use of computers,
downsizing of corporate America, collapse of the Soviet Union, and the dawn of MTV (Lieber,
2010), tend to show a little respect for title, rank or position, but highly value accomplishment,
individual contributions, and work-life balance (Johnson and Johnson, 2010). Labeled as disloyal
to their employers, this generation witnessed massive layoffs of their hard-working Baby Boomer
parents during the economic downturn of the 1990s (Johnson and Johnson, 2010). They were
also subjected to startling tuition increases for higher education, increased housing costs and
increased contributions from their own salaries to their workplace benefits (Martin and Gentry,
2011). It is not surprising then that GenXers would indicate a greater likelihood to partake in
professional ED than the older generations; they are career focused and want to maintain
marketability (Gentry et al., 2009).

Millennials
Millennials are expected to make up 75 percent of the global workforce within the next
decade (Hoffman and Lublin, 2014). Born into a technologically enabled world, Millennials
are characterized as digital natives (Farrell and Hurt, 2014). They are the product of the
most child-centric time in history and are often viewed as high-performance-oriented,
high-maintenance, needy and entitled (Armour, 2005). Having observed atrocities such as the
Columbine School shootings and heavy foreign terrorist activities on US soil, Millennials want to
serve as change agents within a clearly structured environment (Farrell and Hurt, 2014). It might
explain in part why they also seek meaningful jobs that reinforce autonomy and freedom and are
more prone to leave organizations that promote traditional bureaucratic management styles
(Armour, 2005; Becton et al., 2014). In order to retain Millennials, managers ought to provide
transparency, guidance, and feedback, as well as clear performance expectations, and
rewards for good performance (Farrell and Hurt, 2014; Stewart et al., 2017), all of which have
been linked to job satisfaction (Armour, 2005).

VOL. 51 NO. 1 2019 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j PAGE 3

 Generational differences in OC
As Costanza et al.’s (2012) meta-analysis showed, GenXers had greater AOC and NOC than
Millennials, but slightly less COC. Explanations for their low AOC and NOC include difficulty in
finding gainful employment in the post-recovery economy (Debevec et al., 2013) and lower starting
wages than ever before for those with a Bachelor’s degree (McLeigh and Boberiene, 2014).
Drawing on Meyer et al.’s (2002) meta-analysis that shows POS to be a strong predictor of OC, this
study asserts that perceived professional ED opportunities, as a proxy for POS, will positively relate
to AOC, NOC and COC across both generations.

Summary
The present exploratory study seeks to better understand differences in AOC, NOC and COC
between GenX and Millennial employees, as well as the role ED plays in that relationship, as
current research findings remain unclear. On the one hand, it may be that a maturation process
occurs whereby younger employees begin by seeking bigger and better opportunities to enrich
their lives and advance their careers, irrespective of tenure or relationship with their employer.
On the other hand, it is possible that there is a generational effect such that the focus of ED is
more important for GenXers who witnessed job loss of their parents without opportunities to
retool, as well as high tuition rates. Millennials, in contrast, may take ED opportunities as an
organizational given (Sessa et al., 2007).
Thus, on the basis of the maturational model, Millennials, who have developed a
hyper-awareness of their own importance and abilities (as evidenced by their changing jobs
more frequently than GenXers; Becton et al., 2014), might report lower levels of each OC
component than GenXers, but that having ED opportunities will increase OC. However, an
alternative hypothesis must also be presented because on the basis of the Generational Cohort
Theory, ED might relate to each OC component for GenXers, but not necessarily for Millennials:
H1. Millennials will report significantly lower levels of (a) AOC, (b) NOC and (c) COC than
GenXers, but
H2. When participants report that sufficient formal ED opportunities are offered, differences in
(a) AOC, (b) NOC, and (c) COC between GenX and Millennials will disappear, or
Alternative H3. ED opportunities will positively relate with (a) AOC, (b) NOC and (c) COC amongst
GenXers, but not Millennials, and therefore, ED will intensify for GenXers and not Millennials.

Method
Participants
This preliminary study is based on data obtained from 156 of 215 respondents, because
19 participants did not report when they were born in the survey and another 40 participants did
not properly complete the survey (i.e. too many of their responses were at the extreme ends of the
seven-point scales, e.g., either responding with all “1” ratings or all “7” ratings). Of the final
156 participants, 100 (64.1 percent) indicated that they were born between 1981 and 1989 and
were thus categorized as Millennials. There were 56 (35.9 percent) participants who indicated
they were born between 1965 and 1980 and these individuals were classified as GenX.
Table I presents the demographic information of participants as a function of generations. The
demographics of the present study support much of the highlighted contemporary research on
Millennials, which has characterized this generation as the most ethnically diverse and highly
educated to date (McLeigh and Boberiene, 2014). There were significantly more Millennials who
identified as female and belonging to an ethnic minority when compared to GenXers. Also, more
GenXers reported having achieved a doctorate as their highest level of education and more
Millennials reported having earned a bachelor’s degree. As might be expected based on age
alone, more GenXers reported that they were married (57.1 percent), worked a full-time job
(92.9 percent), and had greater organizational tenure (46.5 percent worked at least 5 years) when
compared to younger Millennials (20 percent, 79.8 percent, and 10.1 percent, respectively).

PAGE 4 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j VOL. 51 NO. 1 2019

Table I Demographic Information of Generation X and Millennial participants (in
Percentages)
Demographic Generation X (n ¼ 56) Millennials (n ¼ 100)

Sex
Male 44.6 38
Female 55.4 62
Race/ethnicity
White/Caucasian 85.1 59.6
Black/African American 9.3 8.1
Hispanic/Latino 3.7 11.1
Asian 1.9 13.1
Asian Indian 1.9 3.0
Pacific Islander 1.9 5.1
Marital status
Single 33.9 76.0
Married 57.1 20.0
Divorced 8.9 1.0
Highest level of education
High School 7.1 9.0
Bachelor’s degree 30.4 51.0
Master’s degree 42.9 35.0
Doctorate (PhD) 19.6 5.0
Current employment status
Full time 92.9 79.8
Part time 7.1 17.2
Seasonal 0 3.0
Type of hours worked
Normal business hours 57.1 72.0
“High-tech” hours 35.7 8.0
Shift work 7.1 20.0
Occupation
Corporate 62.5 55.0
Government 1.8 9.0
Education 16.1 15.0
Non-profit 1.8 5.0
Startup 5.4 3.0
Other 12.5 13.0
Tenure
0–1 years 19.6 42.4
1–2 years 16.1 27.3
3–5 years 17.9 20.2
5–10 years 28.6 9.1
10+ years 17.9 1.0

Procedure
Due to the procedures applied for data collection, this study is exploratory in nature. Using a snowball
technique via e-mail messaging through Facebook, the second author made initial contact with over
720 contacts who had published their personal e-mail address on the social network. This mass
e-mail contained an introduction that outlined the study, an invitation to participate and distribute the
communication to others, instructions to complete the online survey as well as how to voice questions
or concerns. In this same e-mail, participants were asked to take part in the study by clicking on an
embedded hyperlink, which opened a web-based survey hosted by the SurveyMonkey service.
The majority of initial responses were from Millennials. In an effort to increase GenX responses, the first
author and her colleague, both GenXers, sent the same message to contacts within their own
LinkedIn professional networks. This effort significantly increased the GenX response rate.

VOL. 51 NO. 1 2019 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j PAGE 5

 Measures
Organizational commitment
The revised Meyer and Allen’s (1997) scales for affective, normative and continuance
commitment were used to measure the three components of OC. The AOC and NOC scales
each contained six items and the COC scale contained seven for a total of 19 items related to OC.
All Meyer and Allen (1997) items were rated on a seven-point Likert-type scale, ranging from “1,”
strongly disagree to “7,” strongly agree. Example items designed to measure AOC, NOC and
COC are: “I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career in this organization”; “Even if it
were to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave my organization now”; and “Too
much of my life would be disrupted if I decided I wanted to leave my organization right now,”
respectively. Cronbach’s α reliability coefficients were above the desired threshold of 0.70 for
each of the OC components (αs ¼ 0.87, 0.86 and 0.78 for AOC, NOC and COC, respectively). A
principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation was performed to test for validity.
Factor loadings between 0.62 and 0.88 for AOC, 0.40 and 0.86 for NOC and 0.40 and 0.82 for
COC, supporting the three-component statistical construct validity.

Employee development
Two items were employed to gauge how participants felt about the developmental opportunities their
current employers offered and their attitudes toward this topic in general. Participants answered,
“Do you feel your employer offers sufficient formal development opportunities?” with a dichotomous,
“1 ¼ yes” or “2 ¼ no.” The second ED question, “How important is it to you that your employer offers
formal development opportunities?” was measured on a seven-point Likert-type scale, which ranged
from “1,” strongly agree to “7,” strongly disagree. These items represent subjective evaluations.

Results
Table II includes means, standard deviations, α coefficients, and correlations of the main study
variables for each generational group.

Generational differences on OC
H1 stated that Millennials would report lower levels of AOC, NOC and COC than GenXers.
Independent samples t-tests showed no significant difference in AOC between GenX (M ¼ 4.42,
SD ¼ 1.36) and Millennials (M ¼ 4.59, SD ¼ 1.33) and no significant difference between GenX
(M ¼ 3.83, SD ¼ 1.47) and Millennials (M ¼ 4.14, SD ¼ 1.36) on NOC. However, there was a
significant difference between GenXers (M ¼ 4.13, SD ¼ 1.03) and Millennials (M ¼ 3.68, SD ¼ 1.15)

Table II Means, Standard Deviations, Cronbach’s α reliabilities (in italic on diagonals),

and Correlations of Main Study Variables
Generation X Millennials
Study variables M SD M SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. AOC 4.42 1.36 4.59 1.33 0.87 0.70** 0.16 0.38** 0.29*
0.83
2. NOC 3.83 1.47 4.14 1.36 0.88 0.13 0.37** 0.35*
0.56** 0.85
3. COC 4.13 1.03 3.68 1.15 0.73 0.21 0.08
0.12 0.15 0.77
4. SFEDO 1.53 0.50 1.59 0.49 – 0.31*
0.24* 0.27** 0.01 –
5. IFEDO 6.06 0.73 6.15 0.79 –
−0.10 −0.05 0.12 −0.13 –

Notes: Cronbach’s α reliabilities (in italic) and correlations for Generation X are shown above Millennials; SFEDO,
sufficient formal employee development opportunities; IFEDO, importance of formal employee development
opportunities. *po0.05; **po0.001 (two-tailed)

PAGE 6 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j VOL. 51 NO. 1 2019

on COC (po0.05). Thus, H1a and H1b were not supported, but H1c was supported; Millennials had
a significantly lower mean score on COC than did GenXers. A post hoc analysis comparing men and
women within each generational group revealed no statistically significant interaction, though men
(M ¼ 4.00, SD ¼ 1.05), in general, had greater COC than women (M ¼ 3.71, SD ¼ 1.29, po0.05).

ED and OC
H2 proposed that any differences between GenXers and Millennials on AOC, NOC and COC
would disappear when participants report their employers offered them sufficient ED
opportunities. A 2 (Generation: GenX vs Millennial) × 2 (sufficient formal ED opportunities: Yes vs No)
between-subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to test this hypothesis. On AOC,
there was no main effect for generation, F(1, 149) ¼ 0.18, nor was there an interaction between
generation and ED opportunities, F(1, 149) ¼ 0.80. However, there was a main effect for sufficient ED
opportunities, F(1, 149) ¼ 14.54, po0.001 and those who reported sufficient ED opportunities
(M ¼ 4.87, SD ¼ 1.15) had higher levels of AOC than those who perceived there were insufficient ED
opportunities (M ¼ 4.07, SD ¼ 1.45). Similarly, for NOC, there was no significant generation effect,
F(1, 149) ¼ 0.94 or interaction between sufficient ED opportunities and generations,
F(1, 149) ¼ 0.51. However, there was a main effect for sufficient ED opportunities,
F(1, 149) ¼ 15.99, po0.001. Those who reported that sufficient ED opportunities were offered
(M ¼ 4.40, SD ¼ 1.33) showed higher levels of NOC than those who did not (M ¼ 3.52, SD ¼ 1.36).
Moreover, there was a significant generational effect, F(1, 149) ¼ 5.34 (po0.05), but no interaction
between sufficient ED opportunities and generations, F(1, 149) ¼ 0.51. GenXers (M ¼ 4.11,
SD ¼ 1.03) showed higher levels of COC than Millennials (M ¼ 3.67, SD ¼ 1.16). Thus, the results do
not support H2a and H2b. However, they do partially support H2c. Although Millennials displayed
lower levels of COC than GenXers, ED did not close the gap in COC between the generations.

Alternative hypothesis
The alternative hypothesis forwards that ED opportunities will positively relate with AOC, NOC and
COC amongst GenXers, but not Millennials. Each of AOC, NOC and COC were regressed on the
generation cohort variable, importance of formal ED opportunities, and the interaction of the two
variables. As shown in Table III and Figure 1, when the importance of professional ED opportunities

Table III Model summary for each organizational commitment component regressed on
generation, importance of formal employee development opportunities and their
interaction
OC component Model β R R2 ΔR2

AOC 1 Generation 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.00

IFEDO 0.03
2 Generation (a) 1.60* 0.20 0.04 0.04
IFEDO (b) 0.31*
a×b −1.62*
NOC 1 Generation 0.07 0.12 0.01 0.01
IFEDO 0.09
2 Generation (a) 1.71* 0.23 0.05 0.04
IFEDO (b) 0.39*
a×b −1.70*
COC 1 Generation −0.19* 0.21 0.04 0.04
IFEDO 0.10
2 Generation (a) −0.37 0.21 0.04 0.00
IFEDO (b) 0.07
a×b 0.19

Notes: AOC, affective organizational commitment; NOC, normative organizational commitment; COC,
continuance organizational commitment; IFEDO, importance of formal employee development
opportunities. *p o 0.05 (two-tailed)

VOL. 51 NO. 1 2019 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j PAGE 7

 Figure 1 Interaction between Generation and Importance of Employee Development
on Organizational Commitment Components

4.87
5 4.67
4.39 4.42
4.12 4.19 4.23
4.02 3.99 3.96 3.88
4
3.33

1
Generation X Millennials Generation X Millennials Generation X Millenials
Affective Organizational Normative Organizational Continuance Organizational
Commitment Commitment Commitment
Low Importance High Importance

Notes: The low importance and high importance labels relate to the survey question “How
important is it to you that your employer offers formal development opportunities?” One standard
deviation was taken below or above the mean of importance of formal employee development to
test for its moderating role on the relationship between generation and organizational commitment.
Organizational Commitment items were rated on a seven-point Likert-type scale where
1= “strongly disagree” to 7 = “strongly agree”

interacts with generation, there is a clear impact on AOC. Millennials (M ¼ 4.59, SD ¼ 1.33) had a
significantly higher mean score on AOC than GenXers (M ¼ 4.42, SD ¼ 1.36), (b ¼ 1.604,
po0.05). These results differ from the initial independent samples t-test that compared the two
generations on AOC, which did not take into account the importance of formal ED opportunities.
Also, workers who felt formal ED opportunities are important (vs those who did not) had higher
mean scores on AOC (M ¼ 6.06, SD ¼ 0.73), (b ¼ 0.312, po0.05). In this model, there was a
significant interaction between generations and the importance of formal ED opportunities on AOC
(b ¼ −1.619, po0.05). GenXers who placed higher importance on formal ED opportunities also
generally showed higher levels of AOC than Millennials. However, there was no significant
difference in AOC levels across ED opportunities without accounting for generation. As shown
in Figure 1, the interaction between sufficient ED opportunities and generation adds nearly
4 percent of additional significant variance in AOC after accounting for the significant main effects.
With NOC as the outcome variable, the analyses show that all three variables explained significant
variance in NOC (see Table III). Millennials (M ¼ 4.14, SD ¼ 1.36) had higher mean scores on
NOC than GenXers (M ¼ 3.83, SD ¼ 1.47), (b ¼ 1.710, po0.05) and those who felt positively
(vs those who felt negatively) about the importance of formal ED opportunities had higher mean
scores on NOC, (b ¼ 0.388, po0.05). GenXers who placed a higher importance on ED
opportunities also generally showed higher levels of NOC than did Millennials. However, no significant
differences were found between NOC and the importance of ED opportunities without accounting for
generation. In this model, there was a significant interaction between generations and the importance
of formal ED opportunities on NOC (b ¼ −1.695, po0.05). The interaction explained an additional
4 percent of the variance in NOC. Figure 1 shows that the importance of formal ED opportunities
helps to explain differences in the two generational groups’ NOC mean scores.
Lastly, COC was regressed on generation, importance of formal ED opportunities, and their
interaction, as shown in Figure 1. Although the main predictors yielded significant variance
(R2 ¼ 4.4 percent) in COC, the interaction added no additional variance in the outcome variable.
Moreover, the only significant predictor was generation (b ¼ −0.188, po 0.05).

PAGE 8 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j VOL. 51 NO. 1 2019

Discussion
The present study explored differences between GenX and Millennials, not only because
Millennials are the most recent generation to enter the workforce, but also because
of the increasing anecdotal evidence that Millennials are not committed to their workplace
compared to older generations (Adkins, 2016; Giang, 2012). While Lipkin and Perrymore (2009)
reported that Millennials compared to the older generations were less dedicated to their
employers and more likely to leave when conditions were less than perfect, Costanza et al.
(2012), in a recent meta-analysis, found that generational differences in OC were small to
moderate, at best.
Refuting H1a and H1b, Millennials were not differently committed to their organizations on AOC
and NOC than GenXers. This result opposes Meyer et al.’s (2002) meta-analytic findings showing
age positively relates with AOC and NOC, but supports Costanza et al.’s (2012) meta-analytic
conclusions of minimal differences. However, supporting H1c, Millennials reported having lower
COC than GenXers did despite having less work experience. In other words, Millennials were not
concerned over losing benefits or not having alternative employment opportunities. In contrast,
GenXers’ higher COC suggested that they were more invested in their organizations and,
therefore, had more to lose (e.g. compensation, benefits and status) if they left their employer.
Perhaps the economic conditions throughout the past several years have had a disparate impact
on the generations (Debevec et al., 2013).
Differences may also be rooted in the increased levels of responsibility that often come with age,
such as marriage and raising a family. The demographics of the present study supported this
interpretation, because more GenXers reported that they were married and had greater tenure at
their current job than did younger Millennial participants. These factors may have influenced
GenXers to be more careful in considering the increased stakes when evaluating career moves
and may even explain why it has been said that more senior workers are less likely to hop from job
to job and have lower turnover than their younger counterparts (Bernard, 2012). In contrast, we
speculate that in being single and possibly relying on their parents as a safety net, Millennials may
more readily make bold career moves and not feel as though they must stay with their current
employer if they do not want to (Trunk, 2007).
The second set of hypotheses asserted that differences in the three OC components between the
generations would disappear when employees reported that sufficient ED opportunities were offered.
It was thought that the perceived OC gap would close by ED opportunities given that Benson (2006)
discovered that on-the-job training positively related to OC and negatively related to turnover
intentions. Pajo et al. (2010) also found that employees were less likely to consider leaving their
employer when they participated in more training and development events. Like Benson (2006) and
Pajo et al.’s (2010) studies, this study also showed that ED opportunities positively related with AOC
and NOC amongst GenXers. However, unlike their studies, this study examined Millennials, and for
Millennials the relationships between ED and OC were not significant.
Though exploratory in nature, the findings suggest that promoting professional ED will not
necessarily be enticing to the Millennial job candidate or incumbent as a motivator to induce
OC. Professional ED opportunities may not be a priority amongst this study’s Millennials, who
are also characterized as digital natives (Farrell and Hurt, 2014). Furthermore, researchers
ought to be wary about statistically controlling for generations as the results may be deceiving.
For example, in the current study, when controlling for generation, participants who reported
that sufficient ED opportunities were offered also showed higher levels of both AOC and NOC.
This result may erroneously create a sense that ED is a useful tool that employers can leverage
to boost employee commitment, though, findings from the current study show that Millennials
may not be swayed by having professional ED opportunities, especially for those who may
be staying with an organization only because they feel they must. Employers should also be
cautioned that it might not be helpful in promoting NOC or AOC either. Thus, although Becton
et al. (2014) do not endorse tailoring human resources interventions to each generation, the
current study suggests that offering professional ED opportunities may not have much appeal
to Millennials. More research is needed to determine what factor(s) could increase Millennials’
OC, such as informal feedback (Stewart et al., 2017).

VOL. 51 NO. 1 2019 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j PAGE 9

 Limitations and future research
The present study, focusing on the intervening variable of professional ED, adds to the growing
body of literature on generational issues, particularly as they relate to employees’ OC. Still, several
limitations should be reconciled when planning for future studies. First is the small and uneven
sample size between the generations, as well as the method for gathering data through social
media outreach. The uneven sample could be indicative of generational differences in how social
media platforms are utilized, which could be of interest for future studies that could include Baby
Boomers and Generation Z (born between mid-1990s and early 2000s). Second, survey
responses were collected in 2012 when the economy was emerging from a recession. Although
the US economy emerged from the recession in June 2009 and has since been on the rebound, a
Gallup poll taken in April of 2016 found that 60 percent of American adults still believed the
economy was sinking (Long, 2016) and people are concerned over the lengthy and slow pace of
recovery (Soergel, 2017). These perceived lingering economic woes may have significantly
impacted participants’ commitment to their employer (Hoffman and Lublin, 2014). Future studies
should examine OC longitudinally to better control for changes in attitudes and conditions, such
as a troubled economy, as well as changes in commitment through the lifespan.
Third, the survey did not ask questions regarding respondents’ industry or company, which
would have been an interesting demographic to consider because employee attitudes toward
OC may vary between different professional fields and companies. Finally, an opportunity for
future research would be to determine what kind of professional development today’s
employees’ desire. Do they prefer face-to-face training, online training and options to seek it?
Millennials, for example, more than GenXers, may prefer interactive simulations that they could
pursue on their own time, whenever they want. Another question is whether there is a difference
in how Millennials and GenXers perceive the organization’s responsibility for providing training?
If the organization is responsible, what does the responsibility for training and development look
like? Farrell and Hurt (2014) present an analysis of the literature suggesting how Millennials would
likely prefer to receive training through interactive technology, while also desiring a structured
work environment that presents the parameters in which they can be important change agents.

Conclusion
When considered holistically, the results of this exploratory study do not indicate that Millennials are
any less committed to their organizations than GenXers. Instead, the study limitations
notwithstanding, the findings shed light on the positive role ED opportunities have on GenXers’
AOC and NOC, but not on Millennials’. More research on identifying potential factors influencing
differences between GenXers and Millennials on OC may be warranted if managers are eager to figure
out ways of keeping their best employees and making sure training and development is impactful.

References
Adkins, A. (2016), “Millennials: the job-hopping generation”, May 12, available at: www.gallup.com/
businessjournal/191459/millennials-job-hoppinggeneration.aspx (accessed March 30, 2017).

Ainsworth, S.J. (2009), “Courting Generation Y: companies revamp programs to attract and retain young
superstars”, Chemical & Engineering News, Vol. 87 No. 44, pp. 53-5, available at: http://cen.acs.org/articles/
87/i44/Courting-Generation-Y.html (accessed April 25, 2017).

Armour, S. (2005), “Generation Y: they’ve arrived at work with a new attitude”, USA Today, November 7, p. B1.

Becton, J.B., Walker, H.J. and Jones‐Farmer, A. (2014), “Generational differences in workplace behavior”,
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 175-89.

Benson, G.S. (2006), “Employee development, commitment and intention to turnover: a test of ‘employability’
policies in action”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 173-92.

Bernard, D. (2012), “Why older workers are better workers”, US News, February 17, available at: http://
money.usnews.com/money/blogs/on-retirement/2012/02/17/why-older-workers-are-better-workers
(accessed May 6, 2015).

PAGE 10 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j VOL. 51 NO. 1 2019

Birdi, K., Allan, C. and Warr, P. (1997), “Correlates and perceived outcomes of 4 types of employee
development activity”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 6, pp. 845-57.

Costanza, D.P., Badger, J.M., Fraser, R.L., Severt, J.B. and Gade, P.A. (2012), “Generational differences in
work-related attitudes: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 375-94.

Deal, J.J., Altman, D.G. and Rogelberg, S.G. (2010), “Millennials at work: what we know and what we need to
do (if anything)”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 191-9.

Debevec, K., Schewe, C.D., Madden, T.J. and Diamond, W.D. (2013), “Are today’s millennials splintering into
a new generational cohort? Maybe!”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 20-31.

Farrell, L. and Hurt, A.C. (2014), “Training the millennial generation: implications for organizational climate”,
Journal of Organizational Learning & Leadership, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 47-60.

Gentry, W.A., Griggs, T.L., Deal, J.J. and Mondore, S.P. (2009), “Generational differences in attitudes, beliefs, and
preferences about development and learning at work”, in Baugh, S.G. and Sullivan, S.E. (Eds), Research in Careers:
Maintaining Focus, Energy, and Options Over the Career, Vol. 1, Information Age, Charlotte, NC, pp. 51-73.

Giang, V. (2012), “Employers everywhere are worrying about Millennial commitment issues”, March 20,
available at: www.businessinsider.com/millennials-commitment-issues-are-givingemployers-a-run-for-their-
money-2012-3 (accessed March 30, 2017).

Glazer, S. (2002), “Past, present, and future of cross-cultural studies in industrial and organizational
psychology”, in Cooper, C. and Robertson, I.T. (Eds), International Review of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 17, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 145-85.

Glazer, S., Saner, L., Pavisic, I. and Barnes, M. (2014), “Cross-cultural training and education for detection”,
in Egeth, J.D., Schmorrow, D. and Klein, G.L. (Eds), Sociocultural Behavior Sensemaking: State-of-the-Art in
Understanding the Operational Environment, McLean, VA, pp. 217-39.

Hoffman, R. and Lublin, N. (2014), “A solution to Millennials’ high turnover rate”, December 1, available at: www.
fastcompany.com/3039130/the-case-forencouraging-short-term-job-commitment (accessed January 31, 2015).

Johnson, M. and Johnson, L. (2010), Generations, Inc., AMACOM, New York, NY.

Lieber, L.D. (2010), “How HR can assist in managing the four generations in today’s workplace”, Employment
Relations Today, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 85-91.

Lipkin, N.A. and Perrymore, A.J. (2009), Y in the Workplace, The Career Press, Franklin Lakes, NJ.

Long, H. (2016), “U.S. economic confidence plunges to 2016 low”, CNN, April 28, available at: http://money.
cnn.com/2016/04/28/news/economy/us-economicconfidence-low-gallup/ (accessed March 30, 2017).

McLeigh, J.D. and Boberiene, L.V. (2014), “Young adults in conflict: confident but struggling, networked but
disconnected”, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 84 No. 6, pp. 624-32.

Martin, J. and Gentry, W.A. (2011), “Derailment signs across generations: more in common than expected”,
The Psychologist-Manager Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 177-95.

Maurer, T.J. (2001), “Career-relevant learning and development, worker age, and beliefs about self-efficacy
for development”, Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 123-40.

Meyer, J.P. and Allen., N.J. (1997), Commitment in the Workplace, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L. and Topolnytsky, L. (2002), “Affective, continuance, and normative
commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences”, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 20-52.

Pajo, K., Coetzer, A. and Guenole, N. (2010), “Formal development opportunities and withdrawal behaviors
by employees in small and medium-sized enterprises”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 48 No. 3,
pp. 281-301.

Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R. and Armeli, A. (2001), “Affective commitment to the organization: the
contribution of perceived organizational support”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 5, pp. 825-36.

Sarvadi, P. (2005), “The importance of employee development”, available at: www.entrepreneur.com/article/

77678 (accessed March 5, 2018).

Sessa, V.I., Kabacoff, R.I., Deal, J. and Brown, H. (2007), “Generational differences in leader values and
leadership behaviors”, The Psychologist-Manager Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 47-74.

VOL. 51 NO. 1 2019 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j PAGE 11

 Society for Human Resource Management (2011), SHRM Poll: Intergenerational Conflict in the Workplace,
Society for Human Resources Management, Alexandria, VA, April 29, available at: www.shrm.org/Research/
SurveyFindings/Articles/Documents/IntergenerationalConflict_FINAL.pptx (accessed December 9, 2014).
Soergel, A. (2017), “How long will the recovery last?”, April 25, available at: www.usnews.com/news/the-
report/articles/2017-07-25/how-long-will-the-economic-recovery-last (accessed August 15, 2017).
Stewart, J.S., Oliver, E.G., Cravens, K.S. and Oishi, S. (2017), “Managing millennials: embracing generational
differences”, Business Horizons, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 45-54.
Trunk, P. (2007), “What Gen y really wants”, Time, July 5, available at: www.time.com/time/ (accessed
November 6, 2010).
Twenge, J.M. (2010), “A review of the empirical evidence on generational differences in work attitudes”,
Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 201-10.
Weng, Q., McElroy, J.C., Morrow, P.C. and Liu, R. (2010), “The relationship between career growth and
organizational commitment”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 77 No. 3, pp. 391-400.
Whitener, E.M. (2001), “Do ‘high commitment’ human resource practices affect employee commitment?
A cross-level analysis using hierarchical linear modeling”, Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 515-35.

About the authors

Dr Sharon Glazer is Professor and Chair at the University of Baltimore and earned her PhD in
Industrial and Organizational Psychology from Central Michigan University. She was a Postdoctoral
Fellow at the National Institute of Occupational Safety & Health, Fulbright Fellow, Erasmus Mundus
Scholar, and is an IAAP Fellow and IAIR Fellow. Her research focuses primarily on the intersection
of occupational stress and organizational development across cultures. Dr Sharon Glazer is the
corresponding author and can be contacted at: sglazer@ubalt.edu

Adam C. Mahoney graduated with a BA in Psychology from Dominican University of California and
earned an MS in Industrial and Organizational Psychology from San Jose Sate University. Adam is a
San Francisco Bay Area native and Human Resources Professional who is passionate about
people, technology, and creating psychologically safe work environments where employees can
achieve their absolute best. Adam has held people operations, HRIS analyst, and leadership roles
at cutting-edge technology companies, including Apple and Salesforce. He currently leads a
diverse HR Shared Services Team that surprises and delights over 30,000 employees globally.

Yari Randall is a Test Development Manager at the International Public Management Association
for Human Resources (IPMA-HR) and earned her MS in Industrial and Organizational Psychology
from the University of Baltimore, including a study abroad program at the University of Barcelona.
She specializes in national job analyses, content and criterion validation, item writing, statistics,
and cognitive ability testing. Yari received her undergraduate degree from the University of
Maryland, College Park. Her current research focuses on predicting work outcomes, such as job
performance, turnover and counter-productive work behaviors for Public Safety positions.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

PAGE 12 j INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRAINING j VOL. 51 NO. 1 2019

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.