THE EFFECT OF A MULTI-GENERATIONAL WORKFORCE

ON EMPLOYEE PRODUCTIVITY: A CASE STUDY OF

KENYA ELECTRICITY GENERATING COMPANY

BY

WANGECHI JOAN MWANGI

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY

SUMMER 2014
THE EFFECT OF A MULTI-GENERATIONAL WORKFORCE
ON EMPLOYEE PRODUCTIVITY: A CASE STUDY OF
KENYA ELECTRICITY GENERATING COMPANY

BY

WANGECHI JOAN MWANGI

A Research Project Submitted to the Chandaria School of Business

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of
Executive Master of Science in Organizational Development
(EMOD)

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY

SUMMER 2014
 STUDENT’S DECLARATION

I, the undersigned, declare that this is my original work and has not been submitted to any
other college, institution or university other than the United States International University
in Nairobi for academic credit.

Signed: _________________________________ Date: _____________________

Wangechi Joan Mwangi (ID: 609484)

This project has been presented for examination with my approval as the appointed
supervisor.

Signed: _________________________________ Date: _____________________

Dr. George O. K‟Aol

Signed: _________________________________ Date: _____________________

Associate Dean, Chandaria School of Business

ii
 COPYRIGHT

© 2014 by Wangechi Joan

All rights reserved.

No part of this project may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in

any form or by any means, electronically, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning,
or otherwise without the permission of the copyright owner. Except for brief quotation in
critical review of articles.

iii
 ABSTRACT

The purpose of the study was to determine the effect of multi-generational workforce on
employee productivity. The research questions were as follows; How does multi-
generational perceptual differences on human resource development practices affect
employee productivity? What effect does multi-generational perceptual differences on
reward management practices have on employee productivity? What effect does multi-
generational perceptual differences regarding employee relations practices have on
employee productivity?

The study used case study research design. The study population comprised of 2049
employees of Kengen. Stratified sampling technique was used to determine a sample size
of 204 staff drawn from the Company‟s five branches namely: Central Office, Thermal,
Western and Eastern Hydro and Geothermal. The data collection tool used was a structured
questionnaire. Frequency distributions were used in the descriptive statistics part of the
study and One-Way ANOVA was used to analyze the statistical significance of the
multigenerational perceptual differences on human resource development, reward
management and employee relations and subsequent effect on employee productivity. The
data was analyzed using SPSS as a tool.

The findings showed that, in terms of the multi-generational perceptual differences on

human resource development practices and its effect on employee productivity, 59.8% of
the respondents agreed that the company offered regular training opportunities for all its‟
staff and that the training programs offered by the company were sensitive to their needs
and preferences as individuals. ANOVA test showed that the differences between the mean
scores of the perceptions of Millenials (18-33 years), Generation Xers (34-48 years) and
Baby Boomers (49-60 years) was not statistically significant at (p<.05) level in all the
dimensions of HRD.

In terms of the effect that multi-generational perceptual differences regarding reward

management practices have on employee productivity, 58.6% of the respondents agreed
that they were fairly remunerated for the job they were employed to perform at the
company and 59.5% were satisfied with the work arrangement in the company that
provided them with a good work-life balance. In addition, 70.5% of the respondents agreed
that they felt a sense of job security while working with the company. However, the

iv
differences between the mean scores of the perceptions of Millenials (18-33 years),
Generation Xers (34-48 years) and Baby Boomers (49-60 years) was not statistically
significant at (p<.05) level in all the dimensions of reward management practices at
Kengen.

The findings regarding the effect that multi-generational perceptual differences with
employee relations practices have on employee productivity showed that 56.8% of the
respondents agreed that they were always informed before decisions that affect me at the
company are made. Similarly, 59.5% of the respondents agreed that their boss always
made them feel appreciated and valued and that they were allowed space and autonomy to
do their work without being micromanaged. In addition, 67.6% of the respondents were
satisfied with the rules and procedures they were expected to follow. However, the
differences between the mean scores of the perceptions of Millenials (18-33 years),
Generation Xers (34-48 years) and Baby Boomers (49-60 years) was not statistically
significant at (p<.05) level in all the dimensions of employee relations practices.

The study concluded that employee productivity did not vary with multi-generational
perceptual differences with regards to the various dimensions of human resource
development practices at the company. Similarly, there were no perceptual differences
across the different generational cohorts at Kengen with regards to all aspects of reward
management practices. Further, multi-generational perceptual differences played an
insignificant role in the nexus between employee relations practices and employee
productivity.

It was recommended that human resource development practices at the company should
apply universally across the different generational cohorts. All aspects of reward
management should adhere to the doctrine of equity. In order to enhance productivity, the
communication culture of the company should foster a sense of employee involvement and
participation through consultation especially on matters concerning their work and
employment at the company. Other case studies should be replicated for comparison
purposes.

v
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

As I have labored to broaden my knowledge I first thank the Almighty God for achieving
yet another milestone that marks a great beginning in my life. I also acknowledge my
supervisor Dr. George O. K‟Aol whose insightful criticisms, guidance and patient
encouragement aided the writing of my project work.

I also thank my family and friends for their invaluable encouragement and understanding
throughout my study period.

vi
 DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to John Maina and Jane Mwangi for their endless love and support.
And to Robert Kiplagat whose encouragement was invaluable during this period of my
study.

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENT

STUDENT’S DECLARATION ........................................................................................ ii

COPYRIGHT ...................................................................................................................iii
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................... vi
DEDICATION .................................................................................................................vii
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. x
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................... xi

CHAPTER ONE ................................................................................................................ 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background of the Study ............................................................................................ 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................... 5
1.3 Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 6
1.4 Research Questions .................................................................................................... 6
1.5 Importance of the Study ............................................................................................. 6
1.6 Scope of the Study ...................................................................................................... 7
1.7 Definition of Terms .................................................................................................... 7
1.8 Chapter Summary ....................................................................................................... 8

CHAPTER TWO ............................................................................................................... 9

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................ 9
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 9
2.2 The Effect of Generational Differences on HRD and Employee Productivity .......... 9
2.3 The Effect of Generational Differences on Reward and Employee Productivity .... 17
2.4 The Effect of Generational Differences on Employee Relations and Productivity.. 23
2.5 Chapter Summary ..................................................................................................... 31

CHAPTER THREE......................................................................................................... 32
3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .......................................................................... 32
3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 32
3.2 Research Design ....................................................................................................... 32

viii
3.3 Population and Sampling Design ............................................................................. 33
3.4 Data Collection Methods .......................................................................................... 34
3.5 Research Procedures ................................................................................................. 35
3.6 Data Analysis Methods ............................................................................................. 35
3.7 Chapter Summary ..................................................................................................... 36

CHAPTER FOUR ........................................................................................................... 37

4.0 RESULTS AND FINDINGS .................................................................................. 37
4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 37
4.2 Demographic Information ........................................................................................ 37
4.3 The Effect of Generational Differences on HRD and Employee Productivity ........ 40
4.4 The Effect of Generational Differences on Reward and Employee Productivity .... 44
4.5 The Effect of Generational Differences on Employee Relations and Productivity.. 49
4.6 Chapter Summary ..................................................................................................... 54

CHAPTER FIVE ............................................................................................................. 55

5.0 DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................... 55
5.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 55
5.2 Summary................................................................................................................... 55
5.3 Discussions ............................................................................................................... 56
5.4 Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 61
5.5 Recommendations .................................................................................................... 62

REFERENCE .................................................................................................................. 64

APPENDIX I: INTRODUCTION LETTER ................................................................ 71

APPENDIX II: QUESTIONNAIRE .............................................................................. 72

ix
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Population Distribution ..................................................................................... 33
Table 3.2 Sample Size Distribution ................................................................................... 34
Table 4.1 Response Rate ................................................................................................... 37
Table 4.2 Distribution of Respondents by Gender ............................................................ 38
Table 4.3 Distribution of Respondents by Marital Status ................................................. 38
Table 4.4 Distribution of Respondents by Age ................................................................. 38
Table 4.5 Distribution of Respondents by Level of Education ......................................... 39
Table 4.6 Distribution of Respondents by Tenure ............................................................. 39
Table 4.7 Distribution of Respondents by Cadre .............................................................. 40
Table 4.8 Productivity Rating............................................................................................ 40
Table 4.9 Respondents‟ Views on Training Opportunities for Staff ................................. 41
Table 4.10 Respondents‟ Views on Sensitivity of Training Programs to Staff Needs ...... 41
Table 4.11 Respondents‟ Views on Staff Progression Path .............................................. 42
Table 4.12 Respondents‟ Views on Promotion Practices .................................................. 42
Table 4.13 Respondents‟ Views on Feedback on Job Performance .................................. 43
Table 4.14 Respondents‟ Views on Staff Mentoring Programs ........................................ 43
Table 4.15 Respondents‟ Views on Succession Management Practices ........................... 44
Table 4.16 Respondents‟ Views on Communication on New Job Roles .......................... 44
Table 4.17 One-Way ANOVA Test on the Differences in Perceived HRD Practices ...... 45
Table 4.18 Respondents‟ Views on Remuneration Practices ............................................ 46
Table 4.19 Respondents‟ Views on Matching of Benefits to Individual Preferences ....... 46
Table 4.20 Respondents‟ Views on Employee Recognition ............................................. 47
Table 4.21 Respondents‟ Views on Work Arrangements for Work-Life Balance ............ 47
Table 4.22 Respondents‟ Views on Job Security .............................................................. 48
Table 4.23 Respondents‟ Views on Importance of Job Security....................................... 48
Table 4.24 One-Way ANOVA Test on Differences in Perceived Reward Practices ........ 49
Table 4.25 Respondents‟ Views on Employee Involvement ............................................. 50
Table 4.26 Respondents‟ Views on Consultation on Decisions Affecting Staff ............... 50
Table 4.27 Respondents‟ Views on Employee Involvement ............................................. 51
Table 4.28 Respondents‟ Views on Appreciation from Supervisors................................. 51
Table 4.29 Respondents‟ Views on Employee Autonomy ................................................ 51
Table 4.30 Respondents‟ Views on Team Spirit ............................................................... 52
Table 4.31 Respondents‟ Satisfaction with Rules and Procedures .................................... 52
Table 4.32 One-Way ANOVA: Employee Relations ........................................................ 53

x
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

HR - Human Resource

HRD - Human Resource Development

US - United States

CEO - Chief Executive Officer

SPSS - Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

xi
 CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Organizations the world over are coming to the increasing realization that today‟s
workforce is unique in its generational diversity, which presents new challenges in the
attempt to manage, motivate, attract and retain quality employees that drive high
productivity in the workplace (Rowe, 2010). This has attracted burgeoning scholarly
work that attempt to provide an understanding of this growing phenomenon. DelCampo,
Haney, Haggerty and Knippel (2012) define a generation as a cohort of individuals of
similar exposures and experiences. Coates (2009) explains that a generation is
characterized by the coincidence of birth, common tastes, attitudes and experiences.

When referring to genealogies or history, Huggins (2010) argues that a generation

encompasses about 25 years – the time from the birth of a parent to the birth of a child.
However, when speaking of the generation active in the society today, Huggins elucidates
that the word refers to a body of individuals born and living at about the same time who
share core values and characteristics resulting from certain significant events in their
formative years. Thus, DelCampo et al. (2012) find generations an ideal taxonomy for
grouping individuals as this creates a context for common attitudes and behavior at work.
They add that generational groupings have been observed to create unique identities and
collective sets of memories.

According to Rowe (2010), individual members of each generation grew up at about the
same time and were influenced by the same important cultural influences and major
historical events of the era. Rowe expounds that the generation‟s shared experiences and
cultural norms had an impact on how they currently act, work and think. He argues that
while not every member of a generation will behave the same way, a significant number
of individuals in that generation share characteristics that have become hallmarks of the
group. In keeping with this perspective, Cekada (2012) notes that each generation thus
has unique characteristics, influences, work ethics, core values, and respect and tolerance
for others that affect how its members interact, communicate and learn in the workplace.
DelCampo et al. (2012) have argued that while generational gaps have always existed at

1
work, the vast increase in life expectancies during this century has resulted in four
generations working side by side, a phenomenon which has been perpetuated by
increased life expectancy and a delay in retirement. Huggins (2010) notes that out of
economic necessity, people are working well into what would previously have been
considered their retirement years, and even those who do “retire” often continue to work
in some capacity, whether that involves a change in career, part time work or volunteer
efforts. In addition, the author avers that massive downsizings and reorganizations have
resulted in a much flatter organizational structure, bringing many generations together.
The author explains that this means that younger individuals can be in positions of
authority over older employees. In addition, managers and leaders are also faced with up
to four generations underneath them, rather than one or two.

Literature on multigenerational workforce has outlined several “archetypes” that are

created as a result of the events and challenges the people belonging in a generation face,
how they are raced, and how they were taught to prepare for various situations (Shealan,
2005; Maston, 2010; Cekada, 2012). The current workplace is increasingly being
characterized by four different generational cohorts known as the Veteran Generation,
Baby Boomers, Generation X and Generation Y (Tuglan & Martin, 2001; Gravett and
Throckmorton, 2007; Rowe, 2007; Bassi, Fraunheim, McMurrer & Costello, 2011).
Pynes (2008) suggests that the Silent Generation were born between 1925 and 1945; the
baby boomers were born between 1946 and 1964; Generation Xers were born between
1965 and 1980 and the Millenials were born between 1981 and 2002. Pynes avers that
each of these generations exhibit their own work-related behaviors.

Rowe (2010) argues that the Veteran Generation, also called Traditionalists or the Silent
Generation, is the oldest generation in today‟s workplace. DelCampo et al. (2012)
contend that his generation experienced the Second World War which aided the notion of
community and cooperation. Rowe (2010) held that members of this generation never
developed a strong generational identity of its own. Instead, the majority of this
generation identified strongly with the Veterans ahead of them, while the youngest of the
group adopted many of the characteristics of the Baby Boomer Generation that followed.
Rowe suggests that because Veterans were brought up during a time of military success,
they adhere to the rules given to them and have no problems with conformity. Raised
during a time when service was expected and well respected, they have an ingrained
2
sense of dedication, patience and a “duty before pleasure” mentality.

The Baby Boomer generation on the other hand consists of individuals born during the
period of increased birth rates after World War II, typically those born between 1946 and
1965 (Rowe, 2010). Rowe explains that these children were born into an age of
unprecedented economic success that continued until the 70s. They learned to work hard
and looked optimistically toward the future, knowing that athing worth having was worth
working hard for. At work, they put in long hours and weekends.

The literature on multigenerational workforce is characterized by inconclusive debate

about the exact years of the birth of generation X. Smart (2008) reviewed that most
writers consider the 1960s through to the year 1980 as the birth years of this generation.
According to the American Society for Training and Development (2010), the formative
years of this generation were marked by tragedy and disappointment, including the threat
of AIDS, drug wars and terrorism. However, the author notes that at the same time, this
generation was at the forefront of technological revolution such as the emergence of the
internet, cell hones, digital communications and computer-based training. Hayes and
Ninemeier (2009) summarized a number of characteristics identified with this
generational cohort. They argue that generation Xers are practical, flexible,
individualistic, entrepreneurial, interested in quality of life, do not like office politics,
have less loyalty to employers, multitask work, like collegial work environment, like to
do projects, are concerned more about job responsibilities than job titles, measure
performance by output, do not like power structures and are casual in their attire.

The latest generation entering the workplace today is known as Generation Y. Varying
definitions exist for this generational cohort. According to DelCampo (2012), this
generation has also been called, Millennials, Generation Next, the Net Generation, Echo
Boomers, iGeneration, Generation Me, the Next Great Generation and MySpace
Generation. Fineman (2011) argues that this generation was born between 1980 and 2005.
Cranwell-Wadd and Abbey (2005) on the other hand maintain that those born after 1980
are referred to as Generation Y. Bassi et al. (2011) places the birth years of this
generational cohort in a range somewhere between the mid 70s and the early 2000s and
suggest they are sometimes called Millenials. Some sociologists suggest that the
Generation Ys were born in the year 1977 – 1990 and distinguish them from Millenials
3
whom they argue as having born in 1991 or later. Gravert and Throckmorton (2007)
suggest that Generation Y is the largest group in the workplace today. Fineman (2011)
delineates the attributes of Generation Y at the workplace and note that Generation Ys
include collaborative working, the desire for fast and regular feedback, freedom of
choice, and an urge for personal development. They are cast as citizens of a „post-
organizational‟ era where their own pro-activity and flexibility dominates more than old-
fashioned loyalty, and where moving between companies, is the norm (Westerman &
Yamamura, 2007).

According to Shealan (2005), people born in the late 70s, 80s and early 90s think
differently from those born in the 60s and early 70s who again are very different from
those born before them. Maston (2010) for example, note a trend whereby the change in
values of the Generation X and Y is having a profound impact on the work environment
and the time-honored management structure that have been reliable for years. Thus,
Reitman (2013) maintain that this mix of generations contributes to organizational
diversity, affecting workplace productivity and employee motivation. Companies
therefore need to treat employees as individuals while honoring their generational
differences, in order to allow members of every generation to contribute significantly to
the success of the organization (Delcampo et al., 2012). Existing human resource
literature suggests that good human resource practices will increase employee retention,
which, in turn, decrease recruitment and selection costs and increase employee
productivity (De Grip & Sieben, 2009).

Rapid advances in technology and communication have increased the challenges of

managing today‟s workforce (Cekada, 2012). Zoogah and Beugre (2013) also speculated
that demographic changes that leads to a multigenerational workforce may well be
happening in African organizations. They note that in several countries including Kenya,
governments have raised the mandatory limit for retirement from 55 years to over 60
years. This research was undertaken at the Kenya Electricity Generating Company
Limited (KENGEN). KenGen is the leading electric power generation company in Kenya,
producing about 80 percent of electricity consumed in the country. The company utilizes
various sources to generate electricity ranging from hydro, geothermal, thermal and wind.
KENGEN has a workforce of 1,829 staff located at different power plants in the country.
With its wealth of experience, established corporate base and a clear vision, the
4
company intends to maintain leadership in the liberalized electric energy sub-sector in
Kenya and the Eastern Africa Region (KENGEN, 2014).

1.2 Statement of the Problem

According to Maston (2010), the workplace has changed, and fulfilling organizational
responsibilities today is much tougher and more frustrating than it was for the predecessor
generations. Part of this challenge has been blamed on the existence of several
generations within the same work force which has introduced issues associated with
clashing values, beliefs, and attitude inherent in a multi-generational workforce
(DelCampo, Haney, Haggerty & Knippel, 2012). In many companies generational issues
are a common and continuing problem that can have an all-encompassing organizational
impact and can lead to employee unhappiness and ultimately, loss of employee
productivity (Maston, 2010).

In view of the foregoing, Coates (2009) warns that the “one-size fits all” incentive plans
of the past no longer encompass the diverse needs and desires of today‟s
multigenerational workplace. Holtsnider and Jaffe (2012) added that the same can be said
regarding their differing views about policies, rules, boundaries, work hours, tools and
dress code in the work place. In the perspective of Cekada (2012), each group requires a
unique approach to issues such as recruitment, compensation, expectations, motivators,
collaboration, learning styles, and training.

A study by Ali, Nasruddin and Lin (2010) showed that training and education, health and
safety, human rights, work life balance and workplace diversity have significant
influential effects on employee engagement and affective and normative commitment.
However, Maston (2010) observed that each generation assumes that the succeeding
generation will experience the same desires, have the same values and appreciate and
cherish the same things, in an unchanging continuum. This potentially affects
organizational productivity. However, literature on this effect has been supported by very
little empirical evidence in a developing country context such as Kenya. For example, a
recent study on the Kenyan perspective by Wambui, Wang‟ombe, Muthura, Kamau and
Jackson (2013) was merely a review of literature to let all human resources, management,
public and government leaders read and understand the importance of managing diversity
at the workplace. In their report, multi-generational workforce was only mentioned in

5
passing, thereby further suggesting the paucity of research in this area in Kenya. In order
to influence organizational policy, there was need to undertake scientific research to
determine the significance of this phenomenon on productivity at the workplace. This
current study aimed to close the research gap by investigating how a multigenerational
workforce affects workplace productivity in Kenya.

1.3 Purpose
The purpose of the study was to determine the effect of multi-generational workforce on
employee productivity.

1.4 Research Questions

The following research questions guided the study:
1.4.1 How do generational differences affect on human resource development
practices and employee productivity?
1.4.2 What effect do generational differences have on reward management practices
and employee productivity?
1.4.3 What effect do generational differences regarding employee relations practices
have on employee productivity?

1.5 Importance of the Study

This study would be beneficial to the following stakeholders:

1.5.1 Kengen
Since this study was undertaken at KenGen, the company would benefit first hand from
the insights derived from the research concerning the nexus between multigenerational
workforce and employee productivity.

1.5.2 Human Resource Practitioners

Human resource professionals in Kenya would find this study useful in helping them
develop strategic personnel management programs and initiatives towards the
enhancement of employee productivity in their respective organizations.

6
1.5.3 Employers
Employers generally might find this research important for appreciating diversity and
how they can harness the benefits of a multigenerational workforce to enhance workplace
productivity.

1.5.4 The Academia

This research provides empirical evidence on the effect of a multigenerational workforce
on employee productivity which can be used to extend knowledge in the area of
workplace diversity.

1.6 Scope of the Study

This research was undertaken at KenGen Company. The target population was staff
working at all levels of the organizational hierarchy. The research was undertaken in the
month of June 2014.

1.7 Definition of Terms

1.7.1 Generations
This is as an approximation of the collective set of attitudes, behaviors, ideals, memories
and life experiences that will certainly affect work-life (Decamp et al., 2012).

1.7.3 Productivity
This is defined as “the measurement of how much you get out (that is, goods produced or
services rendered) from what you put in (that is, time and effort)” (Ekereman, 2006,
p.85).

1.7.4 Human Resource Development

This is the process organizations stimulates the motivation of employees to perform
productively (Roussel, Swansburg & Swansburg, 2006).

1.7.5 Reward Management

This refers to all the managerial functions concerned with the strategies, policies and
processes required to ensure that the value of people and the contribution they make to
achieving organizational, departmental and team goals is recognized and rewarded
(Armstrong, 2010).
7
1.7.6 Employee Relations
Employee relations are concerned generally with managing the employment relationship
and developing a positive psychological contract (Armstrong, 2011).

1.8 Chapter Summary

This chapter has presented the study background which has entailed a look at the
phenomenon of multigenerational workforce and a description of four different
generations in today‟s workplace. The chapter has also briefly discussed the implications
of a multigenerational workforce on employee productivity and considered global trends
as well as the local context. The background has included an introduction of KenGen
which was used as the case study. The chapter has also stated the problem and put
forward the objectives which it will seek to achieve. Further, it has provided the scope of
the research, discussed the significance of the study and defined operational definition of
terms.

The rest of the report is outlined as follows:

Chapter two reviews pertinent theoretical as well as empirical literature to the study topic
and specifically focused on the phenomenon of multigenerational workforce in relation to
human resource development, reward management and employee relations and how
perceptions about these three affect employee productivity.

Chapter three describes the methodology that was used including the research design, the
population and sampling design, data collection instrument, research procedures and data
analysis techniques to be adopted.

Chapter four analyzes the research findings based on the research questions whereas
chapter five discusses the findings, draws conclusions and makes recommendations.

8
 CHAPTER TWO

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction
This chapter presents a review of literature related to managing a multigenerational
workforce. It critically looks at what scholars and researchers have published on the
linkage between the multi-generation phenomenon and productivity at the workplace. The
chapter is thematically organized based on the research questions. The first section of the
chapter reviews literature on the generational perceptual differences about compensation
practices and its effect on employee productivity. The second section reviews literature
on human resource development practices on employee productivity of a
multigenerational workforce. The last section explores literature related to perceptual
differences about employee relations practice and its influence on employee productivity.

2.2 The Effect of Generational Differences on HRD and Employee Productivity

Human resource development is a process by which employees are continuously helped
in a planned way: to acquire capabilities (knowledge, perspectives, attitudes, values and
skills) required to perform various tasks or functions associated with their present or
future expected roles (Laksmi, 2005). Various ways in which organizations attempt to
develop their human resource include training, career development, performance
appraisals, mentoring, and succession management.

2.2.1 Employee Training

Training and development invloves an organized attempt to find out training needs of the
individuals to meet the knowledge and skill which is needed not only to perform current
job but the future needs of the organization (Mahapatro, 2010). This stems from the
belief that working in the organization should be a continual learning process and
different approaches are possible because learning is a complex psychological process
(Mathis & Jackson, 2011). The kinds of training selected by each organization should
depend on the objectives and the level of education and position of employees in the
organization. Some of these are on-the-job training, orientation training and career
development training (Appiah, 2010). At a minimum, training is needed to give

9
employees the information and skills necessary to perform their jobs (Carsen, 2005).

Training benefits employers in a variety of ways including: providing employees with the
job skills and knowledge necessary to perform tasks, improving employee productivity
and efficiency, increasing employee morale, development and commitment to lifelong
learning, decreasing absenteeism and increasing employee retention (Cole, 2002;
D‟Annunzio-Green 2004; Carsen, 2005). Samuel and Chipunza (2009) observed that
training and development enhance employee performance which encouraged retention
especially when the training program was tailored towards employees‟ career progression
in the organization.

In order for training to be effective, the program needs to be sensitive to the different
needs and preferences of each generational cohort (Mosseley & Dessinger, 2007).
According to Shandler (2010) generation Y is the most educated and most technologically
savvy generation ever. Zhou (2011) argues that Generation Y employees are trained to
better education and have a higher degree mostly, but according to surveys, the majority
of generation Y employees has adapted existing work and has a strong ability to work and
professional quality, but practical ability should be improved. Cekada (2012) cautions
that workers from this generation have lower regard for rules and may not respond well to
a regulatory-driven class on confined space. Instead, the trainer may need to focus on
showing them the value of training if there is to be actual acceptance and change in the
workplace.

The American Society for Training and Development (2010) on the other hand observes
that Generation X members don‟t read as much as any of the other generations and are
more likely to turn to the computer than to a book for their learning. In training situations,
they prefer to learn by doing, and are happy to participate in role-play scenarios and enjoy
receiving immediate feedback on their performance. They prefer interactive learning and
materials with lots of visuals, including sidebars, headlines, cartoons, illustrations and
inserts. Bell (2008) adds that Xers enjoy having learning resources in a variety of media;
they enjoy a variety of exercises, activities and other interactions. Thus, the more
involved Generation X employees are, the more effective the intervention.

10
The author also emphasized the importance of discussing with Xers how the learning fits
into the organization‟s strategic plan, and how it benefits them as employees. Bell (2008)
undertook an examination of the literature regarding learning preferences of each
generation. He found that the Silent Generation employees are willing learners when
training is done respectfully and in a stress-free environment. They tend to be polite
listeners who seldom volunteer. Comparatively, the Silent Generation is less comfortable
than younger generations about leaping quickly into a new task and learning it hurriedly.
Bell (2008) further reviewed that Baby Boomers who are technologically knowledgeably
enjoy working on projects that utilize innovative technology. For baby boomers, coaching
is a favored style of development when done tactfully. Because they want training to be
meaningful, Bell avers that Baby Boomers prefer selecting their own training topics,
courses and workshops to take. They see training as a vehicle for accomplishing
individual interests, and for developing unique skills and capabilities. Because they are a
political group that learned to cover their backs early in their corporate lives, they need to
know they are in a learning environment where it is safe to disagree with others.

2.2.2 Career Development

According to Rothwell and Kazanas (2003), employee development is concerned with

preparing employees so that they can move with the organization as it develops, changes
and grows. Career progression traditionally refers to advancements or promotions to
positions of increased responsibility (Dessler, 2008). Rothwell and Kazanas (2003)
lament that employee development efforts are widespread, but are seldom well-planned.
Smith and Mazin (2011) suggest that some people are good at finding their own paths and
procuring the necessary resources and information and all there needs to be done is
providing the tools and encouragement to be successful. The authors hold that while an
employer may have some excellent employees who are content to remain in the same
position for years, many workers will outgrow their jobs and feel the urge to move to new
challenges (Smith & Mazin, 2011).

In a study conducted by Stein (2007), the item that universally scored the lowest in
workplace happiness was to do with career advancement as almost half (45%) of the
employees surveyed felt that there was no opportunity for career advancement in their
organization. This translated into low employee productivity at the workplace. In
response, Smith and Mazin (2011) portend that smart employers will develop career
11
growth strategies that involve meaningful opportunities for lateral movement to keep
employees loyal to the establishment and motivated to succeed and be more productive.

More and more people recognize that to develop their careers they need to move on, and
there is little their employers can do about it, especially in today‟s flatter organizations
where promotion prospects are more limited. Goldsmith, Baldoni and MacAthur (2010)
suggest that generation Yers do not expect to stay in a job or even a career for too long –
they are skeptical when it comes to such concepts as employee loyalty. They do not like
to stay too long on any one assignment, either. Because generation Yers are coming of
age during the most consistently expansive economy in the last 30 years, they have a
more optimistic outlook on life, work and the future than Xers did at their age. Most
studies show that up to 80 percent of generation Yers believe they will be financially
better off than their parents (Tuglan & Martin, 2001). Further, Benckendorff et al. (2010)
observe that generation Y sees increasing responsibility not as a burden to be avoided but
as a proving ground for its skills and talents.

It has been observed that rather than passively relying on employers to take responsibility
for employee career development, younger generation employees are more likely to take
a more active role in their career planning and execution; and thus, if companies are
unable to provide opportunities for Millennial to fully build their skill sets, high levels of
dissatisfaction which translates to low productivity, will result (DelCampo, Haney,
Haggerty & Knippel, 2012). Thus, successful companies engage Millennials in career
pathing, a formal process that show employees what their career progression can look
like-not only up but also sideways (Sujansky & Ferri-Reed, 2009).

In comparison, DelCampo et al. (2012) reviewed that members of generation X have

been observed to have more commitment to their career than to their organizations and
may prefer those which value skills development, productivity, and work-life balance
rather than status and tenure. According to Maston (2010), generation Xers and the new
Millenials are not willing to invest time in career or a job with uncertain dividends. They
understand that in this period of job insecurity, layoffs, and changing industry, any
employment is potentially unstable.

12
Bell (2008) undertook a comparative analysis of the commitment of the different
generations at the workplace. He established that for Baby Boomers, just getting the job
done is not sufficient. To them, work means self-fulfillment. They believe job
descriptions should be written to fit them rather than their having to fit job descriptions.
Bell holds that Generation Xers believe that work is no guarantee of survival as
corporations view employees as disposable; and entry-level work is mindless, dull and
exhausting. In stead, they enjoy multitasking and prioritizing projects in their own way.

2.2.3 Performance Appraisal

According to Dessler (2008), performance feedback means providing quantitative or

qualitative information on task performance for the purpose of changing or maintaining
performance and specific ways. According to Mosley and Mosley (2004), performance
feedback is the fuel that employees need to sustain their effort. Although the job itself
may provide feedback to them, it is important that their progress is acknowledged.
Huggins (2010) argued that managers can learn to leverage the strengths of each
generation in their company or excel in business and exceed productivity expectations. In
order to achieve this, Haggerty et al. (2012) emphasize that managers must use proper
performance appraisal techniques in order to monitor and track the progress and
productivity of each employee.

While older generations at the workplace may be accustomed to performance appraisals

that are reviewed once or twice a year, literature suggest that such practice no longer
work any more for many organizations (Sujansky & Ferri-Reed, 2009). Accustomed to
doting parents and close networks of peers, Generation Yers have high expectations that
employers will give them frequent feedback and enable workplace collaboration (Bassi et
al. 2011). Rower (2007) suggest that the formative events of generation Yers focused on
the child and self-esteem, hence they need a very high level of feedback on their
performance from their manager or other respected mentor and require a lot of
reaffirmation that they are on the right track.

On a similar vein, Sujansky and Ferri-Reed (2009) argue that Millennials respond better
to managers who provide them with real-time feedback and with least amount of
inconvenience. The authors note that when they don‟t get it quickly, they are often
impatient and may aggressively seek it. The authors further aver that feedback in the now
helps them to know what they are doing right now and how to make corrections and
13
improve. In other words, they want the best, and they don‟t want to waste time waiting
months on end to find out how they are performing. The authors report a survey of 1,727
respondents in which one in every five respondents indicated that their productivity
suffered because the company caused unnecessary stress such as unclear deadlines.

2.2.4 Mentoring

Mentoring typically involves an older, more experienced individual giving guidance and
advice to a younger, less experienced individual, while reverse mentoring is more of a
two-way street where both individuals mentor each other (Thompson, 2011). It includes
creating the relationship, emotional safety and the cultural norms needed for risk taking
for the sake of learning, and the desired result of accelerated professional growth (Welsh,
2004). Mentoring, in one form or another, is suggested often in the literature as a way to
connect members of different generations (Wallace, Tolley-Stokes & Estep, 2011).

Smartt (2008) identify two traditional forms of mentoring. These are: formal and informal
mentoring. The author expounds that formal mentoring programs are usually put in place
by organizations that recognize the benefits of such programs for the transfer of
knowledge and increases productivity that they can generate. In this situation, Smartt
notices that mentors are assigned to new or high potential protégés in arrangements where
the relationships are tracked by HR and senior management personnel to measure their
effectiveness. Smartt illustrate that informal mentoring, on the other hand, takes place
naturally and spontaneously, without organizational guidance and involvement, when
more senior individuals (the mentors) take more junior individuals (the protégés) under
their guidance to protect and nurture the protégés toward success.

According to Clutterbuck and Hussain (2010), the business value of mentoring can
expand to the point where mentoring becomes a core delivery model for the talent
management and personnel development processes of companies, organizations,
government entities and the like. The authors recommend that organizations seeking to
impact retention and productivity should encourage mentoring participants to invest one
to two hours per month in preparation and meeting time.

Passmore, Peterson and Freire (2012) note that the claims of enhanced employee
efficiency, productivity and creativity resulting from mentoring processes represent the
most popularly cited organizational benefits. Particularly, Beazley Boenisch and Harden

14
(Beazley, Boenisch & Harden, 2002) recognize mentoring of new hires as an important
contributor to employee productivity and satisfaction. For example, Welsch (2004) cited a
survey of US companies with formal mentoring programs which established that 77
percent of companies indicated that mentoring improved both retention and performance
of employees.

According to Sujansky and Ferri-Reed (2009), Millenials are hungry for mentoring and
coaching. Wallace et al. (2011) claim that mentoring can have tremendous impact on
intergenerational communication by providing a bridge between generations, and more
so, it is what both Generation Xers and Millenials want from their work environment.
However, Braveman and Page (2011) reported a survey of 1,400 US employed adults on
older workers which revealed the divergent perceptions held by older and younger
workers. The report found that while 75 percent of older workers say they relate well to
their younger colleagues, only 54 percent of the younger workers reciprocate these
attitudes. The report noted that generally, lower number of younger workers than older
workers said that their company values older workers or, sought the advice of older
workers.

According to Ramlall (2004), there is significant economic impact with an organization

losing any of its critical employees, especially given the knowledge that is lost with the
employee‟s departure. Ramlall argues that the concept of human capital and knowledge
management is that people possess skills, experience and knowledge, and therefore have
economic value to organizations. Therefore, organizations will need either to create an
intellectual capital environment where the transmission of knowledge takes place
throughout the structure, or continue to lose important individual knowledge that has been
developed through the length of service.

A study cited by Rowe (2010) that surveyed more than 3000 employers and employers
found that: an automatic transfer of knowledge from retiring workers to younger
generations is unlikely to happen; most workers see co-workers of different generations
through stereotypes; each generation believes that its strengths are unique and don‟t
necessarily enhance those of other generations, and generations are not currently teaching
or learning from each other.

15
2.2.5 Succession Management

A definition of succession management is provided by Warne (2005) who defined it as

perpetuating the enterprise by filling the organization with highly productive people to
assure that every leadership level has an abundance of these performers to draw from,
both now and in the future. The Harvard Business Press (2005) suggests that a good
succession management program enables the organization to develop a deep, varied pool
of talented individuals who can better serve the organization‟s needs in an ever-changing
and uncertain future.

Different models have been used to manage succession in a multigenerational workforce.

The most popular is the leadership pipeline model (Warne, 2005). The Leadership
Pipeline Model focuses on leadership development rather than succession planning and
management (Charan, Drotter & Noel, 2011). According to the authors, this model takes
the form of six career passage or pipeline turns bent in six places. Each of these passages
represent a change in organizational position – a different level and complexity of
leadership – where a significant turn has to be made. These turns involve a major change
in job requirements, demanding new skills, time applications and work value. The
changes begin by individual contributor changing rising from managing self to managing
others; from managing others to managing managers; from managing managers to
managing functions; from managing functions to managing business and from managing
business to managing enterprise. It is a hierarchical model where the individual
contributor in each turn graduates to manager, to director, to senior executive and finally
to CEO or president. Succession planning is therefore perpetuating the enterprise by
filling the pipeline with high-performing people to assure that every leadership level has
an abundance of these performance to draw from, both now an in the future (Kim, 2006).

Byham, Paese & Smith (2002) also argued that rather than targeting one or two hand-
picked people for each executive position, an acceleration pool emphasizes the
development of a group of high-potential candidates for executive positions in general.
This is achieved through stretch jobs and task-force assignments that offer the best
learning, including mentoring, coaching, training and special development activities such
as university executive programs and in-company action learning sessions, and high
visibility opportunities. This approach to leadership succession helps reduce turnover-

16
related costs of leadership succession especially due to sudden exit of the incumbent.

Zaccaro and Klimoski (2001) also report research on leadership succession which has
demonstrated a consistent effect for leadership that explained 20 to 45 percent of the
variance in organizational outcomes. For example, the authors noted that executive
succession following leadership failures in General Motors have been associated with
contributing to the loss of more than $12 billion in the company‟s North American
operation.

Clutterbuck (2012) lamented that succession planners do not take sufficient cognisance of
the differences in attitude towards careers and career self-management between
generations. He observes that succession management processes tend to be designed by
Baby-boomers, for implementation by Generation X and imposed upon Generation Y. He
avers that many of the failures of succession planning can be laid in part at least to lack of
intergenerational communication about expectations. In a review of building and
sustaining leadership for productivity and growth through succession management, Fink
(2010) highlighted that the succession challenge is to reconcile the reality that the Silent
Generation and particularly Baby Boomers who dominate most of the positions of
leadership in organizations have defined leadership in their own image, and expect and
often demand that the younger generation – Generation X and Y must follow their lead.

2.3 The Effect of Generational Differences on Reward and Employee Productivity

The definition of reward management encompass all the managerial functions concerned
with the strategies, policies and processes required to ensure that the value of people and
the contribution they make to achieving organizational, departmental and team goals is
recognized and rewarded (Armstrong, 2010). Rewards may be used interchangeably with
compensation which refers to all forms of pay going to employees and arising from their
employment (Dessler, 2008). According to Dessler (2008), the compensation plan should
further the firm‟s strategic aims – management should produce an aligned reward
strategy. The employer‟s basic task here is to create a bundle of rewards – a total reward
package – aimed at eliciting the employee behaviors the firm needs to support and
achieve its competitive strategy. To achieve this, some of the questions the author
recommends to be answered include: what are the employee behaviors or actions
necessary to successfully implement the company‟s competitive strategy? How well do
17
our current compensation programs match these requirements?

A number of studies have verified that reward is a powerful tool to enhance employee
behaviours leading to performance improvement (Qureshi, Zaman & Shah, 2010).
Performance or employee productivity is driven by reward and proper allocation of
rewards is expected to influence both the satisfaction and productivity levels
(Schermerhorn, Hunt & Osborn, 2003). However, Espinoza, Ukleja and Rusch (2010)
warned that if employes do not value the reward, management will not get the effort or
productivity it desires. Some of the reward practices discussed in this chapter include:
remuneration, employee benefits, promotion, recognition, employee support programs
and job security.

2.3.1 Remuneration

Remuneration is defined by Deb (2006) as money paid under an employment contract by

an employer to an employee on a monthly basis. Employees need to be equitably
remunerated, both competitively within their regional market as well as internally, for
their contributions to the organization‟s success (Mathiason, 2008). Dessler (2008)
suggests that with respect to compensation, managers should address four forms of
equity: these are, external equity – which refers to how a job‟s pay rate in one company
compares to the job‟s pay rate in another, internal equity – which refers to how fair the
job‟s pay rate is, when compared to other jobs within the same company; individual
equity – which refers to the fairness of an individual‟s pay as compared with what his or
her-co-workers are earning fro the same or very similar jobs within the company,
procedural equity – which refers to the perceived fairness of the processes and procedures
used to make decisions regarding the allocation of pay.

According to Baldoni and McArthur (2010), Generation Y values fairness and ethical
behavior. It is suggested in existing literature that this same generation is the most high
maintenance generational cohort. According to Zhou (2011), for generation Y, wages
tend to become their first evaluation criteria of choice of occupation, therefore, they seek
higher wages as one of the important goals. Tuglan and Martin (2001) report studies
which show that generation Yers have lofty financial and personal goals, and fully expect
to meet them. A study by Rothwell (2008) claimed that Generation Y is more concerned
with having higher salaries than health care benefits. Therefore, as a company evolves, it
may need to restructure its compensation system to accommodate the expectation of
18
Generation Y.

In their review, Benckendorff, Moscardo and Pendergast (2010) suggested that

Generation Y employees show a tendency towards valuing equality in the workplace, and
they seek positions that offer reasonable wages and good opportunities for training.
According to Shealan (2005), not having fair compensation will be an instant demotivator
because Generation Y will disengage if they feel as though they are being taken
advantage of in any way.

In comparison, Generation Xers will select a less paying job if the hours are less stringent
and allow for more flexibility balancing work and life; while millennial want to work for
companies where there is collaboration, fast track leadership programs and recognitions
for achievement (Coates, 2009). Marston (2010) adds that Generation X and Millennials
will almost always cite productivity, not time spent working, as a standard of
measurement for the work done. This scholar observes that this is a deep source of
frustration to many of their Boomer bosses, who do not necessarily cite productivity as
requirement when evaluating performance for rewards.

2.3.2 Employee Benefits

According to Beam and McFadden (2001), the broadest definition of employee benefits
includes all benefits and services other than wages for time worked, that are provided to
employees in whole or in part by their employer, including insurance, paid vacations, sick
and maternity leave, educational expense allowances and wellness programs. It has been
noted that over a period of time, employee benefits have evolved from basic “fringe
benefits” of insurance coverage and a few prerequisites to a comprehensive range of
benefits that strike a balance between employees‟ personal and professional lives
(WorldatWork, 2007).

Employee benefits have implications on the motivation and productivity of a

multigenerational workforce. For example, some scholars argue that generation Yers have
abandoned the materialism of a big salary and prefers perks like tuition reimbursement,
dependent care, spending accounts, pet insurance and flexible work hours (Coates, 2009).
Raised in an environment that promoted self-esteem, they are not afraid to challenge
corporate norms. This group values leisure time above all else and might be better suited
as members of an increasingly contingent workforce where they make their own
19
decisions about how much time to commit to work and leisure and receive payment on
piecework or hourly pay structure (DelCampo et al., 2012). Similarly, Simons-Wellburn
and McNeil (2004), point out that for Generation X employees, motivations or rewards
include freedom, balance in their lives and transferable retirement packages.

2.3.3 Promotion

Promotion traditionally refers to advancements to positions of increased responsibility

(Dessler, 2008). According to Aswathappa (2005), it means an improvement in pay,
prestige, position and responsibilities of an employee within his or her organization. The
author outlined that, among the purposes of promotion are; to motivate employees to
higher productivity, to recognize and reward the efficiency of an employee, to increase
the effectiveness of the employee and of the organization, and to impress upon others that
opportunities are available to them too in the organization if they perform well.

Asathappa (2005) warns that promotion is a double edged-sword. This particularly

applies in the management of a multigenerational workforce. According to Hor, Keats
and Holmes (2008), with their tendency to move from job-to-job and their desire for
instant gratification, Generation Y‟s do not want to have to wait long for their first
promotion. The authors cite a study which reported that 86% expect a promotion within
two years. Rothwell (2008) suggests that many employees in Generation Y value fast-
track promotions based on performance as opposed to seniority. This generation also
holds an expectation for their organizations to promote based on ability rather than
seniority and to provide security through the benefit of diverse work option instead of
through longevity with the company (DelCampo et al., 2012). Similarly, some scholars
note that the nature of Millenials generation is not inclined toward corporate climbing
(DelCampo et al., 2012).

2.3.4 Recognition

According to Dessler (2008), recognition is one of several types of non-financial

incentive. The term recognition program usually refers to formal programs, such as
employee of the month programs. Social recognition programs refer to more informal
manager-employee exchanges such as praise, approval or expressions of appreciation for
a job well-done. Fredrick Hertzberg said the best way to motivate someone is to organize
the job so that doing it provides the feedback and challenge that helps satisfy the person‟s

20
“highest-level” needs for things like accomplishment and recognition. Managers do this
by enriching worker‟s jobs so that the jobs are more challenging, and by providing
feedback and recognition – make the job itself intrinsically motivating.

Phillips (2002) speculated that an effective employee recognition program can help
increase employee commitment, motivation and productivity; reinforce desired behaviors;
and improve employee morale. However, literature suggests that this vary across different
generations in the workplace. Wiley and Kowske (2011) indicated that Millennials are
more positive about recognition than their elder co-workers. They reported a study which
showed that 65% of them believe their employers recognize productive people, compared
to just 52% of Baby boomers. However, Sujansky and Ferri-Reed (2009) recounted that
in the olden days, it used to be enough for employers to conduct simple awards
ceremonies to herald employee achievements. However, today, they note that members of
the younger generation look for greater evidence that their achievements are recognized.

2.3.5 Employer Support Programs

Kelly, et al. (2008) argues that employer offered support programs can increase job
satisfaction and commitment, reduce turnover and absenteeism, and improve employee
morale and productivity. Corporations are quickly discovering that flexibility is of the
utmost importance to Millenials. In terms of flexible work scheduling, employees in their
twenties often want the ability to further their education (DelCampo et al., 2012). Fuller,
Hester, Barnett, Frey and Relyea (2006) found out that perceived organizational support
produces in people a feeling of obligation to care about the organization‟s well being and
put forth effort that helps the organization achieve its goals. Individuals may discharge
this feeling of obligation through increased commitment to the organization which
translates to higher productivity.

Some scholars credit the concept of work-life balance to the emergence of Generation X
in the workplace. Ball (2011) recounted that Generation X had a work life, a home life,
and recreation, and they immediately drew the line in the workplace. The author notes
that many had been latchkey kids and had fended for themselves while both parents
worked. As such, many simply were not willing to live by the same rules and rejected the
idea of raising their children the same way. According to Daft and Marcic (2010),
initiatives that enable employees to lead a balanced life are thus becoming a critical part
of many organization‟s productivity strategies. In addition, many companies
21
have implemented broad work-life balance initiatives, partly in response to the shift in
expectations among young employees.

According to Coates (2009), boomers want their colleagues and management to recognize
their experiences and work efforts and welcome the chance to mentor younger co-
workers. Generation Xers on the other hand need freedom and autonomy; preferably in an
environment with fluid boundaries that are beyond the traditional job specific tasks.
Additionally, these individuals seek more opportunities to learn, place significance on
self-improvement, are more results-oriented and recognize the importance of a work-life
balance. As a result, Sujansky and Ferri-Reed (2009) identified that many organizations
are taking concrete steps to develop a high-energy, social work climate. This includes
setting aside time to organize employee trips, including threatre and sporting events, as
well as community trips to museums, landmarks, and historical sites. The authors note
that these are enjoyable, serve as a reward and contribute to teambuilding as a side
benefit.

2.3.6 Job security

Job security is defined by Ervasti, Goul, Anersen and Ringdal (2012) as the security of
keeping a particular job or employment contract. Job security is depicted in literature s
having a positive impact on employee productivity and commitment to the organization
(Sims, 2010). According to DelCampo et al. (2012), the veteran generation values safety,
including job security. Stralser (212) maintains that employees who feel they are in
danger of losing their jobs may not show high work productivity.

Reitman and Williams (2006) however cautions about the divergent views that a
multigenerational workforce introduces to the debate about the nexus between job
security and employee productivity. Artley (2008) made a comparative analysis of the
various generations in the workplace and saw that while the traditionalists expect career
security of lifelong employment, generation X on the other hand is described as the job-
hopping generation, believing that job security does not exist, and, instead, security
comes from the ability to transfer and market one‟s skills. This is resonated in later
literary works that argue that while Boomers and Traditionalists are interested in job
security, X‟ers want career or life security, which they seek in multiple ways, including: a
desire for control over their own destiny, a desire to maintain a broad base of marketable

22
skills and a willingness to continue evolving into new kill sets as job availability shifts
(Erickson, 2013).

By comparison, it is noted that the upbringing of the members of the Silent Generation
and the Baby boomer generation possess the expectations and beliefs that institutions
should provide security and promote employees who have proved themselves over time.
Additionally, they believe that demonstrating loyalty to the organization, following
management instruction, and respecting coworkers and superiors should lead them to
success within the organization. Lowe (2010) however reported a research conducted by
PriceWaterHouse Coopers in 44 countries which revealed that Generation Yers wanted
similar returns from work as older generations, including steady employment with a few
employers and did not want constant job hopping. DelCampo et al. (2012) claim that
generation Xers are less loyal to employers and desiring quicker achievements, thus, they
frequently job-hop and prefer creative, entrepreneurial ventures.

2.4 The Effect of Generational Differences on Employee Relations and Productivity

According to Armstrong (2011), employee relations are concerned generally with

managing the employment relationship and developing a positive psychological contract.
The author explains that this entails, among others, building stable and cooperative
relationships with employees, achieving commitment through employee involvement and
communications processes; and developing a common interest in achieving the
organization‟s goals through the development of organizational cultures based on shared
values between management and employees. McCooey (2009) argues that the number
one top driver of employee engagement is not wages or benefits or corner offices, but that
senior management is sincerely interested in employee well-being. Among the common
practices that organizations adopt to ensure this include: employee participation, effective
communication, favourable superior-subordinate relationship, problem solving, team
work, employee empowerment and better rules and procedures.

2.4.1 Employee Participation/Involvement

Kalmi and Klinedinst (2006) define employee participation as the expectation that
employees will have a measured say and stake in the quality and stability of their jobs.
Salvendy (2012) contends that the nature of employee participation has varied from
something as simple as asking for employee suggestions for product improvements to

23
something as complex as semi-autonomous work groups, where the employees make
critical decisions about production and resource issues. Salvendy argues that the critical
feature of participation is the active engagement of employees in providing input into
decisions about how things are done at the workplace. Armstrong (2011) discussed the
term „employee voice‟ which they associated with the say employees have in matters of
concern to them in their organization, characterized by two-way dialogue that allows
employees to influence events at work and includes the processes of involvement,
participation, upward problem solving and upward communication.

Salvendy (2012) identifies that the benefits of employee participation are in the
development of company, group and team cohesiveness and a cooperative spirit in
fulfilling company and individual goals and needs such as productivity and growth. The
author submits that individual employees learn that they can contribute to something
bigger than themselves and their jobs; learn how to interact with other employees and
managers positively, and receive social recognition for their contributions. A positive
association between employee participation and productivity has been reported in past
empirical literature (Blinder, 2011).

Tucker (2010) speculates that generation X and Y will excel when they are allowed to
participate in achieving the company vision, find new and innovative ways to get the
work done, and be themselves in the process. This point of view has been highlighted
before by Shealan (2005) who maintained that Generation Y need to feel as though they
belong. Shealan recommends that if an organization wants to truly engage them, then it is
going to need to keep them in the loop. Therefore, communication is key and specifically
communication about the business as a whole and how their role contributes to that
business.

2.4.2 Communication

Adopting the perspective of Laton (2006), communication may simply be defined as the
act of transferring information. The process has four basic elements namely: sender,
message, receiver and feedback. According to Huggins (2010), each generation has
different expectations and preferences when it comes to how they communicate, how they
want to be managed, what they are looking for in a job and how they approach their work.
Huggins further avers that the degree to which those expectations are met and those

24
preferences are respected strongly affects how aligned, engaged and productive
employees are.

Phillips and Connell (2004) point out that ideally designed workplace support
productivity, allow employees to communicate effectively, and is attractive. This point of
view is echoed by Wrench (2013) who argues that organizations that invest in developing
a culture of communication experience improved productivity and innovation. According
to Espinoza et al. (2010), successful communication results when the person sending the
message and the person receiving the message have a shared understanding of the
message.

Reitman (2013) posits that each generation communicates differently and organizations
will need to learn how to connect with their diverse workforce in ways that honor
generational preferences. For example, traditionalists and boomers are more comfortable
with information delivered in print, or through face-to-face or phone conversations.
Generation X and Millennials, meanwhile, prefer constant communication delivered
through texting, email, or social networking sites. Espinoza et al. (2010) note that for
Millenials, the key is managing their expectations with concrete objectives that are
communicated frequently, clearly, and evaluated in a way that is constructive. Rower
(2007) argues that members of this generation have little patience for politicking,
spinning or hackneyed business-speak, like “the view from 10,000 feet”. They want direct
instructions, straight talk, and honesty in their communications. Huggins (2010) note that
generation Xers tend to be very direct in their communication style – so much so that
other generations can view Gen X as rude or disrespectful.

Holtsnider and Jaffe (2012) contend that communication styles may vary, but ultimately,
multigenerational teams learn from each other, and bringing together diverse group
increases productivity. However, miscommunication and conflict across generations can
cost a company thousands of dollars in lost revenue and employee turnover (Gravert &
Throckmorton, 2007). Huggins (2010) claims that miscommunications and
misunderstandings are causing significant problems in recruitment, talent management,
team interactions, customer relations and organizational dynamics and at the core of these
issues is the fact that leaders are now faced with a multigenerational workplace, one that
really don‟t think the same way. Due to the differences that characterize the generations
at work today, the way they communicate as well as their reactions to the same situation

25
are going to vary and their solutions and how they arrive at those solutions will likely be
widely divergent (Huggins, 2010).

Huggins (2010) speculates that the solution is not only recognizing what people value, but
how they express that value. He argues that when you can present an employee with what
they value in a way they can understand and receive, that employee will stay with your
company and perform to the maximum of his or her ability.

2.4.3 Supervision

It is suggested in literature that the communication style of the superior affects his or her
relationship with employees since each individual has a preferred way of communicating
information (Downs & Adrian, 2004). In many cases, bosses are considered accountable
for effective superior-subordinate relations (Janie, Fritz & Omdahl, 2006). Previous
research suggests that “push” factors are more significant in most situations that managers
and supervisors appreciate their employees. Front line manager behavior has been found
to be particularly risky to the level of commitment, motivation and satisfaction reported
by employees and a poor relationship with a manager is often a significant factor in low
employee retention (Brown, 2007).

Generation Xers are construed as individualist who have less loyalty, communicate
differently from their older counterparts, crave attention, ask questions and seek
flexibility in all they do (Janosik, Creamer, Hirt, Winston, Saunders & Cooper, 2003).
Similarly, Rowe (2007), generation Yers were brought up by their parents to question
authority. They approach elders as equals and may not adhere to the rules and etiquette
and office politics that older generations take for granted. Bassi et al. (2011) also add that
critics argue that Generation Yers‟ demands amount to self-indulgence that shouldn‟t be
coddled and complain about job-hopping by young people.

According to Bruce and Montanez (2012), managers of high-performing work teams

encourage people to create new approaches to work, avoid judging ideas before they are
fully explained, allow a variety of behaviors and attitudes unless they violate policies,
emphasize and celebrate personal successes and encourage risk-taking and learning from
mistakes. Armstrong (2008) highlights that a common reason for resignations is the
feeling that management in general or individual managers and team leaders in particular,
are not providing the leadership they should, are treating people unfairly or are bullying

26
their staff.

Huggins (2010) summarized characteristics that define each generation. He argued that
traditionalists: have respect for experience, appreciate clear roles and responsibilities,
cherish reputable organization and structure. He characterized the baby boomers as
espousing ethical practices, leadership opportunities, warmth and caring culture as well as
quality and teams. He considered generation X as valuing flexibility, opportunity to grow
and develop, quality products or services, efficient processes and competent people.
Generation Yers are characterized as loving fun and flexibility, opportunities to continue
learning, corporate responsibility, up-to-date technology and collaboration.

According to Huggins (2010), the millennial generation grew up to be independent and

creative thinkers and are always on the lookout for ways to further their own learning and
development, and are never afraid to ask questions or to challenge the status quo. The
author argues that at work, this can have fantastic results, such as when they use their
prodigious technical know-how to streamline outdated business systems. Because of their
emphasis on having fun, the older generations sometimes view them as having a poor
work ethic or being lazy. However, once committed, they bring a level of optimism,
passion and fire that is as refreshing as it is effective.

In a poll conducted by the Society for Human Resource Management cited in a review by
Chen and Powell (2012), more than half of the older workers raised concerns about
younger workers‟ inappropriate dress (55%) and poor work ethic (54%). Additional
issues reported from the survey included excessively informal language and behavior
(38%), need for supervision (38%), inappropriate use of or excessive reliance on
technology (38%) and lack of respect for authority (36%). By contrast, the report revealed
that the top three concerns or complaints raised by younger workers about older managers
are resistance to change (47%), low recognition of workers‟ efforts (45%) and
micromanaging (44%). These issues were followed by rigid expectations of following
authority/chain of command (38%), aversion to technology (31%) and low respect for
workers‟ work-life balance (31%).

2.4.4 Teamwork

Teamwork is depicted in literature as a complex multidimensional construct that is

difficult to define (Murphy, 2012). However, Hogl and Seriky (2007) construe this term

27
to mean the interactive process of the team working on a specific task. In a diverse
workforce, the value of each generational cohort provides unique value based on its
specific traits and characteristics, expectations, values, strengths and weaknesses
(DelCampo et al., 2012). Thus managers should strive to develop an appreciation for the
benefits each generation has to offer. Thompson (2011) avers that acknowledging the
strengths of each generation provides a strategic edge team formulation.

Holtsnider and Jaffe (2012) recommend that having multiple generations on your team
should be considered an enormous asset because it gives you a greater diversity of
thinking, views, styles operating and knowledge base. In a study cited by the author, 43
percent of workers surveyed say multigenerational teams bring together people of varying
experience levels to provide knowledge in specific areas; 27 percent of those surveyed
say working with multiple generations allows for greater diversity of project teams so all
points of view are heard; and 35 percent say working on multigenerational teams has led
to increased productivity.

As a way of overcoming generational challenges at the workplace, Huggins (2010)

advices that generational differences should be celebrated. This first means acceptance
and understanding. He argues that understanding includes a true grasp of the
characteristics each generation brings to the table, and insight into how each individual
expresses those characteristics. Celebrating differences means seeing how the generations
complement, support and reinforce one another and discovering how to utilize your
generational resources to optimize your business. For example, Baker and O‟Malley
(2011) identified that Generation Y brings this ethic to the workplace where, as
employees, its members expect to find a sense of purpose and connection. Building on
this view, Goldsmith, Baldoni and McArthur (2010) argue that friendship is such a strong
motivators for them that Generation Y workers will choose a job just to be with their
friends because they are used to being organized into teams and making certain that no
one is left behind. Shealan (2005) observe that generation Yers are very social and value
personal connection and friendship. He posits that the desire to be connected, coupled
with their awareness and purposeful nature, will make Generation Y particularly sensitive
to corporate mindset.

According to Armstrong (2008), low productivity results if jobs are unrewarding in

themselves. Jobs should be designed to maximize skill variety, task significance,

28
autonomy and feedback and they should provide opportunities for learning and growth.
Tuglan and Martin (2001) suggest that generation Yer‟s career choices and behavior are
driven primarily by their quest for a chance to play meaningful roles in meaningful work
that help others. Second, generation Yers want to be part of a highly motivated team of
committed people. They like working closely with and learning from colleagues they
respect, and they hope to socialize and even form friendships with their co-workers.
Shealan (2005) for instance argues that Generation Y‟s love for change, and their ability
to adapt to a constant state of flux, makes them extremely valuable in the process of
innovation and achieving improved productivity. They will not resist the introduction of a
new technology that can increase work efficiency. They will demand it.

According to Holtsnider and Jaffe (2012), the top benefits of working with multiple
generations are: bringing together people of varying experience levels; greater diversity
of project teams and mentoring opportunities. The authors maintain that when you create
project teams, you should include individuals from the various generations so that
everyone can leverage the best of what each generation has to offer, while also learning
from each other. They suggest that this creates the organizational synergy required to
enhance productivity at the workplace.

2.4.5 Rules

According to Eccleston and Goschen (2012), rules set out standards of conduct and
performance at work as well as procedures to ensure the standards are adhered to. They
argue that rules provide a fair method of dealing with alleged failures to observe them.
Tyler and Blader (2005) hold the view that organizations rely on their employees to
follow the formal rules and procedures the organizations establish. They suggest that rule
following is important not only for organizations to function effectively but also to ensure
employee productivity at the workplace.

In their discourse on managing across generations, Holstnider and Jaffe (2012) subscribed
to the idea that taking advantage of a multigenerational workforce requires some tuning
and stretching of fundamental management skills as different generations can have very
different ideas on the question of rules and rule following. For instance, Shealan (2005)
argues that Generation Y will question everything. They will want to know why
something needs to be done. What it achieves. Why they are the person to do it. Shealan
warns that this generational cohort is unlikely to conform to all of your rules and
29
regulations. They will not abide by silly rules that have no practical value in the
workplace. They will question every rule you put forth, and will only follow the ones for
which you are able to give an intelligent and genuine explanation.

Pynes (2008) argues that there has been a shift in the attitudes and values of employees.
Sheahan (2005) argues that being as lifestyle centred as they are, Generation Y will
expect a degree of flexibility in their workplace. Whether that be flexibility in regards to
dress, or scheduling or flexibility in a work program will depend on where and for whom
they work. He reports a research which established that 82% of Generation Y cited
flexible working arrangements as a factor that influenced their motivation and
commitment, compared to the average of other age groups (Generation X and Baby
Boomers) where between 58% and 69% said it was a factor influencing their motivation
and commitment. According to Baldoni and McArthur (2010), many Generation Yers feel
that as long as they get the work done, when they come in and when they leave should be
up to them.

DelCampo et al. (2012) also identify a similar trend from Millenials who often question
typical workplace expectations, such as standard work hours. In a study reported by
Holtsnider and Jaffe (2012), it was also noted that many Millennials expect to use their
own technology and devices rather than those supplied by employers; but the also want
employers to provide the latest technologies. Further, their awareness of or adherence to
corporate IT policies is limited. They note that Millennials routinely bypass corporate
approval when it comes to downloading and using technology. Maston (2010) concludes
that the newly minted attitudes and aspirations that characterize generation X and New
Millenial workers and have revolutionized the workplace are: a work ethic that no longer
mandates a 10-hours workday; an easy competence in using existing and new
technologies and a faculty in mastering the even newer ones that appear, seemingly
overnight; tenuous, if not nonexistent, loyalty to any organization; and changed priorities
for lifetime goals that can be achieved and affected by employment.

2.4.6 Empowerment/Autonomy

Employee empowerment is an all-purpose term whose notion is that employees ought to

have as much control and autonomy as is reasonable in the performance of their day-to-
day tasks (Messmer & Messmer, 2006). In a study of quality approaches in Japanese
culture, Moen (2003) found out that employee empowerment meant that
30
employees had a voice in the way work was designed and executed and would be
responsible for output. Such investment and commitment are evidenced by volunteerism,
in which workers are willing to go beyond the job requirements to initiate change, and to
actively solve organizational problems. This motivates employees by allowing them to
develop their own self worth which enhances their productiveness at the workplace
(Scott, 2005)

Pynes (2008) observes that attitudes toward work have also changed; a great number of
employees want challenging jobs and the opportunity to exercise discretion in the
performance of their tasks. For instance, Thompson (2011) submits that opportunity and
autonomy are the ultimate corporate rewards for this generation X. Huggins (2010)
recounts that since generation X was forced to be independent while still young, they
exhibit a high degree of independence even as adults. At work, they do not appreciate
being micromanaged. However, they are committed to getting their work done and done
well, but want to do so on their terms, which are decidedly more informal, flexible and
casual than the baby boomers and traditionalists they may be working with.

2.5 Chapter Summary

This chapter has reviewed the literature on the practices as well as challenges of
managing a multigenerational workforce. It has discussed past theoretical as well as
empirical literature pertaining to multi-generational perceptual differences on human
resource development, reward management and employee relation practices and how the
differences influence employee productivity at the workplace. The next chapter describes
the research methodology.

31
 CHAPTER THREE

3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This study seeks to determine how a multi-generational workforce affects employee

productivity. In this chapter, the methodology which was used to undertake the study is
described. The chapter details the research design, the sampling design, the data
collection method, research procedures and data analysis methods.

3.2 Research Design

Cooper and Shindler (2008) define research design as the blueprint for the collection,
measurement and analysis of data. A case study research design was used for this study.
According to Swanborn (2010, p.13), “a case study refers to the study of a social
phenomenon carried out within the boundaries of one social system (the case) or within
the boundaries of a few social systems (the cases), such as people, organizations, groups,
individuals, local communities or nation-states, in which the phenomenon to be studied
enrolls in the case‟s natural context”. Case studies are research designs which can be
applied on both private and public sector institutions and include studies of workplaces,
bureaucracies, management issues and change and adaptation processes (Hakim, 2000).
According to Denscombe (2007, p.2), “the definitive characteristic of a case study
approach is its focus on just one instance of the thing to be investigated…rather than a
wide spectrum.” The method derives its life and patterns from actual situations, rather
than from pre-conceived notions, and it is comprehensive – aimed at studying everything
about something, rather than something about everything (Mustafa, 2008).

The case study approach has the advantage of studying particular cases in greater detail to
derive insights which might not otherwise have been possible using other methods
(Denscombe, 2003). It can fit in well with the needs of small scale research through
concentrating effort on one research site (Denscombe, 2003; Saunders et al. 2009). In this
study, the research design was chosen because the researcher sought to analyze how a
multigenerational workforce affects employee productivity at Kengen. The dependent
variable is employee productivity whereas the independent variables related to the

32
perceptual differences concerning human resource development practices, reward
management practices and employee relation practices at the workplace.

3.3 Population and Sampling Design

3.3.1 Population

Cooper and Shindler (2008) define a population as the total collection of elements about
which the researcher wishes to make some inferences. The population in this study was
2049 employees of Kengen distributed as shown in table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Population Distribution

Area/branch Population
Central Office 403
Thermal 204
Western & Eastern Hydro 664
Geothermal 778
Total 2,049
Source: Kengen (2014)

3.3.2 Sampling Design

3.3.2.1 Sampling Frame

A sample frame is the list of elements from which the sample is actually drawn and
contains the complete and correct list of the population members only (Cooper &
Schindler, 2008). The authors explain further that it comprises of all the representative
elements in the population selected for a given study. In this study, the sampling frame
was made up of a list of all employees of Kengen to be obtained from the Human
Resource Office at the Company‟s head-quarters in Nairobi.

3.3.2.2 Sampling Technique

Stratified random sampling technique was used. Denscombe (2007) defines a stratified
sample as one in which every member of the population has an equal chance of being
selected in relation to their proportion within the total population. In this study, the

33
sample was stratified into five work areas. These were: Central Office, Thermal, Western
and Eastern Hydro and Geothermal. Within each station, simple random sampling
technique was used to select respondents. A simple random sample “is a sample chosen
using a method that ensures that each different possible sample of the desired size has an
equal chance of being the one chosen” (Peck, Oslen & Devore, 2011, p.40). This is
achieved by first listing all members of the population and assigning each member of the
population a distinct identification number, and then using a table of random numbers
which includes a series of numbers, typically four to six digits in length, arranged in
columns and rows (Ary, Jacobs, Sorensen & Walker, 2013). In this case, only numbers
that are less than or equal to 2049 fell into the sample. The process was continued until
the first 204 numbers that met this criterion was selected.

3.3.2.3 Sample Size

Sample size is simply the section of part which represents the whole population (Cooper
and Schindler, 2008). Mugenda and Mugenda (2003) recommend that 10% of the
population forms an adequate sample. Based on this criterion, the sample size was 204
employees of Kengen. Table 3.2 shows the distribution of the sample size.

Table 3.2 Sample Size Distribution

Strata Population % Sample Size Actual Sample Size
Central Office 403 10% 40
Thermal 204 10% 20
Western and Eastern Hydros 664 10% 66
Geothermal 778 10% 78
Total 2,049 10% 204

3.4 Data Collection Methods

The data collection tool used was a structured questionnaire. According to Saunders,
Lewis and Thornhill (2009), a questionnaire is a general term including all data collection
techniques in which each person is asked to answer the same set of questions in a
predetermined order. The questionnaire was divided into four sections. The first section
comprised of general questions seeking to establish respondents‟ demographic data such
as gender, age, level of education, tenure in the company, and their cadre. Section two
34
comprised of Likert scale statements seeking respondents‟ perception of human resource
development practices at Kengen. The third section was another set of Likert scale
statements about the reward management practices at Kengen. The last section equally
contained Likert scale statements concerning employee relations practices at the
company.

3.5 Research Procedures

This research process began by first developing the research instrument. After which, an
official permission was obtained from the company to undertake the study. The
researcher then conducted a pilot test of the instrument on about 10 respondents drawn
from the staff at the Company‟s Nairobi office. This was used to gauge the robustness of
the questionnaire towards answering the study objectives. It also aided in enhancing
clarity and reliability of the instrument. Once the questionnaire was refined, the
researcher personally administered the questionnaire through drop and pick method.
Saunders et al. (2009) explain that an administered questionnaire includes those
questionnaires that are delivered either by hand and collected or those that are mailed to
the respondent electronically by use of an e-mail or post office. Reminders were sent to
respondents through email. The questionnaires were picked after two weeks.

3.6 Data Analysis Methods

Multiple techniques were used to analyze data. The statistical techniques used included
both descriptive and inferential statistical techniques. Mendenhall, Beaver and Beaver
(2012) defined descriptive statistics as consisting of procedures used to summarize and
describe the important characteristics of a set of measurements whereas inferential
statistics consists of procedures used to make inferences about population characteristics
from information contained in a sample drawn from the population. According to Sharma
(2007), methods of descriptive statistics include numeric measures such as measures of
central tendency, measures of dispersion and frequency distribution. In this study,
frequency distribution was used.

In terms of inferential statistics, One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) technique was

used. One way ANOVA is used when the research question involves only one factor
whereby the technique typically is adopted when there are more than three independent
variables (Coladarci, Cobb, Minium & Clarke, 2010). In this research, the
35
respondents were randomly assigned to either of the three generational cohorts, namely:
Millennials, Generation Xers and Baby Boomers. Observations were then made on
between-groups variation to establish whether there was any variations about their sample
mean to reflect inherent variation plus any differential treatment effect. Data analysis was
carried out using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) as a tool and
presented in figures and tables.

3.7 Chapter Summary

This chapter has detailed the blue print for the collection and analysis of data. It has
described research design and justified the choice of the methods. The chapter has also
discussed the population and sampling design which includes the sampling frame,
sampling technique and sample size, along with how the sample is calculated. The
chapter has also defined and specified the data collection instrument, the research
procedures to be followed as well as the analytical techniques and tools to be used. The
next chapter presents the analysis of findings.

36
 CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 RESULTS AND FINDINGS

4.1 Introduction
This chapter analyzes the results and findings of the study. The chapter begins with a
descriptive analysis of the general data from the respondents. The rest of the chapter is
thematically presented based on the research questions. The chapter analyzes the multi-
generational perceptual differences on human resource development practices that affect
employee productivity. The chapter also presents the findings on the effect multi-
generational perceptual differences on reward management practices have on employee
productivity. The last section analyzes the multi-generational perceptual differences
regarding employee relations practices their effect on employee productivity.

A total of 204 questionnaires were distributed. Out of this, 112 questionnaires were
successfully filled and returned. This is equivalent to 55% response rate as shown in table
4.1.

Table 4.1 Response Rate

Category Distribution
Frequency Percent
Responded 112 55.0
Did not respond 92 45.0
Total 204 100.0

4.2 Demographic Information

In this section, the demographic information analyzed included respondents‟ gender, age
group, marital status, level of education, tenure at Kengen and cadre.

4.2.1 Gender of Respondents

Table 4.2 shows the distribution of respondents by gender. The table shows that male
respondents accounted for the majority of the respondents at 56.3% whereas female
respondents were 43.8%. Therefore, both genders were adequately represented.

37
Table 4.2 Distribution of Respondents by Gender

Gender of respondent Distribution

Frequency Percent
Male 63 56.3
Female 49 43.8
Total 112 100.0

4.2.2 Marital Status of Respondents

The study sought to establish the marital status of respondents. Table 4.3 shows that
majority (75.9%) of the respondents were married whereas 24.1% were single.

Table 4.3 Distribution of Respondents by Marital Status

Marital status Distribution

Frequency Percent
Single 27 24.1
Married 85 75.9
Total 112 100.0

4.2.3 Age of Respondents

Respondents were asked to indicate their age group. Table 4.4 shows, 48.2% of the
respondents were aged between 34-48 years. This was followed by 38.4% in the age
group of 18-33 years. Lastly, 13.4% of the respondents were aged between 49 to 60 years.

Table 4.4 Distribution of Respondents by Age

Age group Distribution

Frequency Percent
18-33 years 43 38.4
34-48 years 54 48.2
49-60 years 15 13.4
Total 112 100.0

38
4.2.4 Level of Education
Respondents were asked to indicate their highest level of education. Table 4.5 shows that
50.9% of the respondents had a bachelor‟s degree and 30.4% had post-graduate degree.
Only 18.8% of the respondents attained middle level college education.

Table 4.5 Distribution of Respondents by Level of Education

Level of Education Distribution

Frequency Percent
College 21 18.8
Bachelor degree 57 50.9
Post graduate degree 34 30.4
Total 112 100.0

4.2.5 Tenure of Respondents

The study sought to establish the length of years respondents had been working with
Kengen. Table 4.6 shows that 20.5% of the respondents had worked for more than 15
years, 18.8% who had worked for between 10 to 15 years and 24.1% who had served for
between 6 to 10 years. The table also shows that 23.2% of the respondents had worked for
between 3 to 5 years and 13.4% had worked for less than 2 years.

Table 4.6 Distribution of Respondents by Tenure

Tenure in years Distribution

Frequency Percent
Less that 2 years 15 13.4
3-5 years 26 23.2
6-10 years 27 24.1
10-15 years 21 18.8
More than 15 years 23 20.5
Total 112 100.0

4.2.6 Cadre of Respondents

Respondents were asked to identify the cadre which best described their job level. Table
4.6 shows that 63.4% of the respondents were in lower management and 23.2%
comprised of middle and upper management staff. Comparatively, only 13.4% of the

39
respondents were union staff.

Table 4.7 Distribution of Respondents by Cadre

Cadre of Respondents Distribution

Frequency Percent
Union Staff ( Level 5) 15 13.4
Lower management level ( level 4) 71 63.4
Middle/upper management (level 1 to 3) 26 23.2
Total 112 100.0

4.2.7 Rating of Staff Productivity

The study sought to establish how respondents generally described staff productivity at
the company. Table 4.8 shows that 54.5% of the respondents rated staff productivity as
average. However, 36.6% of the respondents rated productivity of staff highly and 1.8%
rated staff productivity very highly. Some 7.1% of the respondents rated staff productivity
as low.

Table 4.8 Productivity Rating

Rating of productivity by staff Distribution

Frequency Percent
Very low 0 0.0
Low 8 7.1
Average 61 54.5
High 41 36.6
Very High 2 1.8
Total 112 100.0

4.3 The Effect of Generational Differences on HRD and Employee Productivity

This section analyzes respondents‟ generational perceptual differences with respect to
reward management practices and the effect this has on employee productivity. The
variables assessed included training, career path, promotion, frequent feedback,
mentoring, succession management and new job orientation.

40
4.3.1 Training Opportunities
Table 4.9 shows that 59.8% and 8.0% of the respondents agreed and strongly agreed,
respectively, that the company offered regular training opportunities for all its‟ staff.
However, there were 26.8% of the respondents who disagreed and another 5.4% who
strongly disagreed.

Table 4.9 Respondents’ Views on Training Opportunities for Staff

The company offers regular training Distribution

opportunities for all it staff Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 6 5.4
Disagree 30 26.8
Agree 67 59.8
Strongly agree 9 8.0
Total 112 100.0

4.3.2 Sensitivity of Training Programs to Individual Needs and Preferences

The views of the respondents were sought as to whether the training programs offered by
the company were sensitive to their needs and preferences as individuals. Table 4.10
shows that 59.8% of the respondents agreed and a further 6.3% strongly agreed. Thirty
three percent (33%) of the respondents disagreed and 0.9% strongly disagreed.

Table 4.10 Respondents’ Views on Sensitivity of Training Programs to Staff Needs

The training programs offered by the company
Distribution
are sensitive to my needs and preferences as an
individual Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 1 .9
Disagree 37 33.0
Agree 67 59.8
Strongly agree 7 6.3
Total 112 100.0

4.3.3 Staff Progression

Respondents were also asked whether there was a clear progression path for them in the
company. Table 4.11 shows that forty-one percent (41.1%) of the respondents agreed and
9.8% strongly agreed. On the other hand, 38.4% of the respondents disagreed and 10.7%

41
strongly disagreed.

Table 4.11 Respondents’ Views on Staff Progression Path

There is a clear progression path for me in the Distribution

company Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 12 10.7
Disagree 43 38.4
Agree 46 41.1
Strongly agree 11 9.8
Total 112 100.0

4.3.4 Performance-Based Promotion

With regards to whether they perceived that staff promotion was done based on
performance, table 4.12 shows that 48.6% and 24.3% of the respondents disagreed and
strongly disagreed, respectively. However, 23.4% of the respondents agreed and 3.6%
strongly agreed.

Table 4.12 Respondents’ Views on Promotion Practices

Distribution
Staff promotion is done based on performance
Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 27 24.3
Disagree 55 48.6
Agree 26 23.4
Strongly agree 4 3.6
Total 112 100.0

4.3.5 Feedback on Job Performance

Asked whether they received frequent and real-time feedback on how they were
performing, table 4.13 shows that 46.4% and 3.6% of the respondents agreed and strongly
agreed, respectively. On the other hand, 40.2% of the respondents disagreed and a further
9.8% of the respondents strongly disagreed.

42
Table 4.13 Respondents’ Views on Feedback on Job Performance

Distribution
I receive frequent and real-time feedback on
how I am performing on my job Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 11 9.8
Disagree 45 40.2
Agree 52 46.4
Strongly agree 4 3.6
Total 112 100.0

4.3.6 Staff Mentoring

The study sought to determine whether there were employee mentoring programs to help
them develop professionally and personally. Table 4.14 shows that 42.9% and 18.8% of
the respondents disagreed and strongly disagreed. Thirty three percent (33.0%) of the
respondents agreed and another 5.4% of the respondents strongly agreed.

Table 4.14 Respondents’ Views on Staff Mentoring Programs

There are employee mentoring programs to
Distribution
help me develop professionally and personally
Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 21 18.8
Disagree 48 42.9
Agree 37 33.0
Strongly agree 6 5.4
Total 112 100.0

4.3.7 Succession Management Practices

Respondents were asked whether they were satisfied with the way succession
management was handled at the company. Table 4.15 shows that 47.3% of the
respondents disagreed and 25.9% of the respondents strongly disagreed. However, some
22.3% and 4.5% of the respondents agreed and strongly agreed, respectively.

43
Table 4.15 Respondents’ Views on Succession Management Practices
I am satisfied with the way succession
Distribution
management is handled at the company
Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 29 25.9
Disagree 53 47.3
Agree 25 22.3
Strongly agree 5 4.5
Total 112 100.0

4.3.8 Communication on New Job Role Assignment

With regards to whether expectations were clearly communicated to them before new job
roles were assigned to them, table 4.16 shows that 42.9% and 12.5% of the respondents
agreed and strongly agreed, respectively. On the other hand, 34.8% of the respondents
disagreed and a further 9.8 of the respondents strongly disagreed.

Table 4.16 Respondents’ Views on Communication on New Job Roles

Expectations are clearly communicated to me Distribution
before new job roles are assigned to me Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 11 9.8
Disagree 39 34.8
Agree 48 42.9
Strongly agree 14 12.5
Total 112 100.0

4.3.9 ANOVA Significance of Differences in Perceived HRD Practices

In order to test for the significance in the difference between the mean scores of
perceptions of the different generational cohorts regarding HRD practices at the company,
one-way ANOVA was run and the results shown in table 4.17. The table shows that the
differences between the mean scores of the perceptions of Millenials (18-33 years),
Generation Xers (34-48 years) and Baby Boomers (49-60 years) was not statistically
significant at (p<.05) level in all the dimensions of HRD.

44
Table 4.17 One-Way ANOVA Test on the Differences in Perceived HRD Practices
Sum of Mean
Squares df Square F p.
The company offers regular Between
1.714 2 .857 1.798 .171
training opportunities for Groups
all staff Within Groups 51.476 108 .477
Total 53.189 110
The training programs Between
2.162 2 1.081 3.189 .054
offered by the company are Groups
sensitive to my needs and Within Groups 36.613 108 .339
preferences as an individual Total 38.775 110
There is clear progression Between
.407 2 .203 .308 .735
path for me in the company Groups
Within Groups 71.323 108 .660
Total 71.730 110
Staff promotion is done Between
1.468 2 .734 1.181 .311
based on performance Groups
Within Groups 67.091 108 .621
Total 68.559 110
I receive frequent and real Between
1.253 2 .626 1.248 .291
time feedback on how I am Groups
performing on my job Within Groups 54.225 108 .502
Total 55.477 110
There are employee Between
1.019 2 .509 .744 .478
mentoring programs to help Groups
me develop professionally Within Groups 73.918 108 .684
and personally Total 74.937 110
I am satisfied with the way Between
.462 2 .231 .346 .708
succession management is Groups
handled at company Within Groups 72.096 108 .668
Total 72.559 110
Expectation are clearly Between
.200 2 .100 .141 .869
communicated to me before Groups
new job roles are assigned Within Groups 76.899 108 .712
me Total 77.099 110
*p<0.05

4.4 The Effect of Generational Differences on Reward and Employee Productivity

In this section, the relationship between perceived reward management practices and staff
productivity and the underlying generational differences in perceptions are analyzed. The
reward management dimensions evaluated are: fair remuneration, staff-oriented benefits,
promotion, recognition, work-life balance and job security.

45
4.4.1 Remuneration Practices
The distribution of respondents‟ views on the various aspects of reward management
practices is shown in table 4.18. With respect to fair remuneration, 58.6% and 5.4% of the
respondents agreed and strongly agreed, respectively, that they were fairly remuneration
for the job they were employed to perform at the company. However, 33.3% of the
respondents disagreed and another 2.7% strongly disagreed.

Table 4.18 Respondents’ Views on Remuneration Practices

I am fairly remunerated for the job I am
Distribution
employed to perform at the company
Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 3 2.7
Disagree 37 33.3
Agree 66 58.6
Strongly agree 6 5.4
Total 112 100.0

4.4.2 Matching of Benefits to Individual Preferences

In terms of whether the benefits offered by the company matched their preferences as
individuals, table 4.19 shows that 51.4% of the respondents agreed and a further 6.3%
strongly agreed. Nonetheless, 38.7% of the respondents disagreed and an additional 3.6%
strongly disagreed.

Table 4.19 Respondents’ Views on Matching of Benefits to Individual Preferences

The benefits offered by the company matches Distribution

my preferences as an individual Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 4 3.6
Disagree 43 38.7
Agree 58 51.4
Strongly agree 7 6.3
Total 112 100.0

4.4.3 Employee Recognition

Concerning recognition practices, table 4.20 shows that 51.8% and 6.3% of the
respondents disagreed and strongly disagreed that, their contribution to the organization
was always recognized. However, 37.5% of the respondents felt that their contribution
was recognized and 4.5% of the respondents agreed.
46
Table 4.20 Respondents’ Views on Employee Recognition

Distribution
I feel that my contribution to the organization
is always recognized. Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 7 6.3
Disagree 58 51.8
Agree 42 37.5
Strongly agree 5 4.5
Total 112 100.0

4.4.4 Work Arrangements to Enhance Work-Life Balance

Respondents were asked whether they were satisfied with the work arrangement in the
company that provided them with a good work-life balance. Table 4.21 shows that 59.5%
of the respondents agreed and 9.0% strongly agreed. However, 28.8% of the respondents
disagreed and a further 2.7% strongly disagreed.

Table 4.21 Respondents’ Views on Work Arrangements for Work-Life Balance

I am satisfied with the work arrangement in Distribution
the company that provides me with a good
work-life balance Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 3 2.7
Disagree 32 28.8
Agree 67 59.5
Strongly agree 10 9.0
Total 112 100.0

4.4.5 Sense of Job Security

Concerning job security, table 4.22 shows that 70.5% and 17.9% of the respondents
agreed and strongly agreed, respectively that they felt a sense of job security while
working with the company. However, some 11.6% of the respondents disagreed.

47
Table 4.22 Respondents’ Views on Job Security
I feel a sense of job security while working with Distribution
the company Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 0 0.0
Disagree 13 11.6
Agree 79 70.5
Strongly agree 20 17.9
Total 112 100.0

4.4.6 Importance of Job Security

Asked whether job security was of secondary importance; table 4.23 shows that 45.5%
and 12.5% of the respondents disagreed and strongly disagreed respectively. On the other
hand, there were 29.5% of the respondents who agreed and 12.5% of the respondents who
strongly agreed.

Table 4.23 Respondents’ Views on Importance of Job Security

Distribution
To me, job security is of secondary importance Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 14 12.5
Disagree 51 45.5
Agree 33 29.5
Strongly agree 14 12.5
Total 112 100.0

4.4.7 ANOVA Significance of Differences in Perceived Reward Practices

The findings on the statistical significance in the differences between the three
generations in terms of their perceived reward management are shown in table 4.24. The
table shows that the differences between the mean scores of the perceptions of Millenials
(18-33 years), Generation Xers (34-48 years) and Baby Boomers (49-60 years) was not
statistically significant at (p<.05) level in all the dimensions of reward management
practices at Kengen.

48
Table 4.24 One-Way ANOVA Test on Differences in Perceived Reward Practices
Sum of Mean
df F p.
Squares Square
I am fairly remunerated Between Groups .110 2 .055 .139 .870
for the job I am Within Groups 42.444 107 .397
employed to perform in Total
42.555 109
the company
The benefits offered by Between Groups .718 2 .359 .806 .449
the company matches Within Groups 47.682 107 .446
my preferences as an Total
48.400 109
individual
I am satisfied with the Between Groups 1.421 2 .711 1.174 .313
employee promotion is Within Groups 65.354 108 .605
being managed at the Total
66.775 110
company
I feel that my Between Groups .262 2 .131 .294 .746
contribution to the Within Groups 48.080 108 .445
organization is always Total
48.342 110
recognized
I am satisfied with the Between Groups .116 2 .058 .137 .872
work arrangement in Within Groups 45.239 107 .423
the company that Total
provides me with a 45.355 109
good work-life balance
I feel a sense of job Between Groups .133 2 .067 .228 .796
security while working Within Groups 31.542 108 .292
with the company Total 31.676 110
To me, job security is Between Groups .004 2 .002 .003 .997
of secondary Within Groups 80.587 107 .753
importance Total 80.591 109
*p<0.05

4.5 The Effect of Generational Differences on Employee Relations and Productivity

This final section analyses the relationship between employee relations practices and
employee productivity as well as how this relationships is affected by perceptual
differences across the different generations based on the following dimensions: employee
involvement, consultation, communication culture, employee appreciation, employee
autonomy, team spirit among work colleagues and rules/procedures.

49
4.5.1 Employee Involvement
In terms of employee involvement, table 4.25 shows that 43.2% and 10.8% of the
respondents disagreed and strongly disagreed respectively, that they had a say on matters
concerning their work and employment at the company. On the other hand, 41.4% of the
respondents agreed and 4.5% of the respondents strongly agreed.

Table 4.25 Respondents’ Views on Employee Involvement

I feel that I have a say on matters concern my Distribution
work and employment at the company Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 12 10.8
Disagree 49 43.2
Agree 46 41.4
Strongly agree 5 4.5
Total 112 100.0

4.5.2 Consultation of Staff on Decisions Concerning Work and Employment

With regards to employee consultation, table 4.26 shows that 56.8% of the respondents
disagreed and 10.8% strongly disagreed that they were always informed before decisions
that affect them at the company were made. However, 28.8% and 3.6% of the respondents
agreed and strongly agreed, respectively.

Table 4.26 Respondents’ Views on Consultation on Decisions Affecting Staff

I am always informed before decisions that Distribution
affect me at the company are made Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 12 10.8
Disagree 64 56.8
Agree 32 28.8
Strongly agree 4 3.6
Total 112 100.0

4.5.3 Communication Culture

As to whether they were generally satisfied with the communication culture in the
company, table 4.27 shows that 46.8% and 10.8% of the respondents disagreed and
strongly disagreed, respectively. On the other hand, 38.7% of the respondents agreed and
3.6% strongly agreed.

50
Table 4.27 Respondents’ Views on Communication Culture
I am generally satisfied with the Distribution
communication culture in the company Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 12 10.8
Disagree 53 46.8
Agree 43 38.7
Strongly agree 4 3.6
Total 112 100.0

4.5.4 Appreciation from Supervisors

Respondents were asked whether their boss always made them feel appreciated and
valued, table 4.28 shows that 59.5% of the respondents agreed and 5.4% strongly agreed.
However, 27.9% of the respondents disagreed and 7.2% strongly disagreed.

Table 4.28 Respondents’ Views on Appreciation from Supervisors

My boss always makes me feel appreciated and Distribution
valued Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 8 7.2
Disagree 31 27.9
Agree 67 59.5
Strongly agree 6 5.4
Total 112 100.0

4.5.5 Employee Autonomy

Respondents were also asked whether they were allowed space and autonomy to do their
work without being micromanaged. Table 4.29 shows that 59.5% and 14.4% of the
respondents agreed and strongly agreed, respectively. However, 21.6% of the respondents
disagreed and 4.5% strongly disagreed.

Table 4.29 Respondents’ Views on Employee Autonomy

I am always allowed space and autonomy to do Distribution
my work without being micromanaged Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 5 4.5
Disagree 24 21.6
Agree 67 59.5
Strongly agree 16 14.4
Total 112 100.0

51
4.5.6 Team Spirit
The opinion of the respondents was sought as to whether there was a high team spirit
among their work colleagues. Table 4.30 shows that 55.9% and 10.8% of the respondents
agreed and strongly agreed, respectively, that there was a high team spirit among work
colleagues. However, 29.7% of the respondents disagreed and another 3.6% strongly
disagreed.

Table 4.30 Respondents’ Views on Team Spirit

There is a high team spirit among my work Distribution
colleagues Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 4 3.6
Disagree 33 29.7
Agree 63 55.9
Strongly agree 12 10.8
Total 112 100.0

4.5.7 Satisfaction with Rules and Procedures

Asked whether they were satisfied with the rules and procedures they were expected to
follow, table 4.31 shows that 67.6% and 8.1% of the respondents agreed and strongly
agreed, respectively. However, 20.7% and 3.6% of the respondents disagreed and
strongly disagreed, respectively.

Table 4.31 Respondents’ Satisfaction with Rules and Procedures

I am satisfied with the rules and procedures I Distribution
am expected follow Frequency Percent
Strongly disagree 4 3.6
Disagree 23 20.7
Agree 76 67.6
Strongly agree 9 8.1
Total 112 100.0

52
4.5.8 ANOVA Significance of Differences in Perceived Employee Relations
The test of statistical significance in the differences between the three generations in
terms of their perceived employee relations practices are shown in table 4.32. The table
shows that the differences between the mean scores of the perceptions of Millenials (18-
33 years), Generation Xers (34-48 years) and Baby Boomers (49-60 years) was not
statistically significant at (p<.05) level in all the dimensions of employee relations
practices.

Table 4.32: One-Way ANOVA: Employee Relations

Sum of Mean
df F p.
Squares Square
I feel that I have a say on Between
.207 2 .103 .184 .832
matters concern my work Groups
and employment at the Within Groups 60.193 107 .563
company Total 60.400 109
I am always informed Between
.037 2 .018 .037 .963
before decisions that affect Groups
me at the company are Within Groups 52.336 107 .489
made Total 52.373 109
I am generally satisfied Between
.183 2 .092 .173 .841
with the communication Groups
culture in the company Within Groups 56.689 107 .530
Total 56.873 109
My boss always makes me Between
.437 2 .218 .438 .646
feel appreciated and valued Groups
Within Groups 53.282 107 .498
Total 53.718 109
I am always allowed space Between
.227 2 .113 .218 .804
and autonomy to do my Groups
work without being Within Groups 55.492 107 .519
micromanaged Total 55.718 109
There is a high team spirit Between 1.08
1.048 2 .524 .343
among work colleagues Groups 2
Within Groups 51.825 107 .484
Total 52.873 109
I am satisfied with the rules Between
.719 2 .360 .897 .411
and procedures I am Groups
expected to follow Within Groups 42.881 107 .401
Total 43.600 109
*p<0.05

53
4.6 Chapter Summary

The findings showed that, in terms of the multi-generational perceptual differences on

human resource development practices and its effect on employee productivity, 59.8% of
the respondents agreed that the company offered regular training opportunities for all its‟
staff and that the training programs offered by the company were sensitive to their needs
and preferences as individuals. ANOVA test showed that the differences between the
mean scores of the perceptions of Millenials (18-33 years), Generation Xers (34-48 years)
and Baby Boomers (49-60 years) was not statistically significant at (p<.05) level in all the
dimensions of HRD.

In terms of the effect that multi-generational perceptual differences regarding reward

management practices have on employee productivity, 58.6% of the respondents agreed
that they were fairly remuneration for the job they were employed to perform at the
company and 59.5% were satisfied with the work arrangement in the company that
provided them with a good work-life balance. In addition, 70.5% of the respondents
agreed that they felt a sense of job security while working with the company. However,
the differences between the mean scores of the perceptions of Millenials (18-33 years),
Generation Xers (34-48 years) and Baby Boomers (49-60 years) was not statistically
significant at (p<.05) level in all the dimensions of reward management practices at
Kengen.

The findings regarding the effect that multi-generational perceptual differences with
employee relations practices have on employee productivity showed that 56.8% of the
respondents agreed that they were always informed before decisions that affect me at the
company are made. Similarly, 59.5% of the respondents agreed that their boss always
made them feel appreciated and valued and that they were allowed space and autonomy to
do their work without being micromanaged. In addition, 67.6% of the respondents were
satisfied with the rules and procedures they were expected to follow. However, the
differences between the mean scores of the perceptions of Millenials (18-33 years),
Generation Xers (34-48 years) and Baby Boomers (49-60 years) was not statistically
significant at (p<.05) level in all the dimensions of employee relations practices.

The next chapter discusses the findings of the study from which conclusions and
recommendations are made.

54
 CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Introduction

This chapter begins by presenting a summary of the study. The chapter then proceeds to
undertake a detailed discussion of the findings presented in chapter four. The discussion
is made based on the research questions. Subsequently, conclusions are drawn from the
discussions. Lastly, the chapter makes recommendations for improvement as well as
suggestions for further research.

5.2 Summary

The purpose of the study was to determine the effect of multi-generational workforce on
employee productivity. The research questions were as follows; how do multi-
generational perceptual differences on human resource development practices affect
employee productivity? What effect does multi-generational perceptual differences on
reward management practices have on employee productivity? What effect does multi-
generational perceptual differences regarding employee relations practices have on
employee productivity?

The study used a case study research design. The study population comprised of 2049
employees of Kengen. Stratified sampling technique was used on a sample size of 204
staff drawn from the Company‟s five branches namely: Central Office, Thermal, Western
and Eastern Hydro and Geothermal. The data collection tool used was a structured
questionnaire. Frequency distribution and inferential statistics were used in the
descriptive statistics part of the study and One-Way ANOVA was used to analyze data.
The data was analyzed using SPSS as a tool.

The findings showed that, in terms of the multi-generational perceptual differences on

human resource development practices and its effect on employee productivity, 59.8% of
the respondents agreed that the company offered regular training opportunities for all its‟
staff and that the training programs offered by the company were sensitive to their needs
and preferences as individuals. ANOVA test showed that the differences between the
mean scores of the perceptions of Millenials (18-33 years), Generation Xers (34-48 years)

55
and Baby Boomers (49-60 years) was not statistically significant at (p<.05) level in all the
dimensions of HRD.

In terms of the effect that multi-generational perceptual differences regarding reward

management practices have on employee productivity, 58.6% of the respondents agreed
that they were fairly remuneration for the job they were employed to perform at the
company and 59.5% were satisfied with the work arrangement in the company that
provided them with a good work-life balance. In addition, 70.5% of the respondents
agreed that they felt a sense of job security while working with the company. However,
the differences between the mean scores of the perceptions of Millenials (18-33 years),
Generation Xers (34-48 years) and Baby Boomers (49-60 years) was not statistically
significant at (p<.05) level in all the dimensions of reward management practices at
Kengen.

The findings regarding the effect that multi-generational perceptual differences with
employee relations practices have on employee productivity showed that 56.8% of the
respondents agreed that they were always informed before decisions that affect me at the
company are made. Similarly, 59.5% of the respondents agreed that their boss always
made them feel appreciated and valued and that they were allowed space and autonomy to
do their work without being micromanaged. In addition, 67.6% of the respondents were
satisfied with the rules and procedures they were expected to follow. However, the
differences between the mean scores of the perceptions of Millenials (18-33 years),
Generation Xers (34-48 years) and Baby Boomers (49-60 years) was not statistically
significant at (p<.05) level in all the dimensions of employee relations practices.

5.3 Discussions

5.3.1 The Effect of Generational Differences on HRD and Employee Productivity

The study findings showed that majority (59.8%) of the respondents agreed that the
training programs were sensitive to their individual needs and preferences, with the
perceptions of the respondents not varying significantly across the different generational
cohorts. It can be inferred from these results that the company did offer training program
which were taking into consideration the needs of each generational cohort. This is
consistent with the assertion by Mosseley and Dessinger (2007) who recommended that

56
an effective training program needs to be sensitive to the different needs and preferences
of each generational cohort.

The results showed that a majority (41.1%) of the respondents agreed that there was a
clear progression path for them in the company. Further, the mean differences between
the Baby Boomers, Generation Xers and Millenials were not statistically significant,
implying that their perceptions did not vary with regards to their generational cohorts.
The implication of this finding is that employee productivity does not depend on selective
focus on a particular generational cohort in terms of career pathing, as this is a need that
cuts across a multi-generational workforce. This contradicts the argument put forward by
Sujansky and Ferri-Reed (2009) whose discourse suggested that successful companies
focus particularly on Millennials in career pathing to enhance employee productivity.

The study also established that majority (48.6%) of the respondents disagreed that staff
promotion was done based on performance. Interestingly though, the differences in
between the generational cohorts were not significant, implying that respondents‟
perceptions did not vary based on their generational cohort. This implies that the quest for
fairness was not the preserve of Millenials only as implied in the discourse by Baldoni
and McArthur (2010) who specified that this generational cohort values fairness more. In
this case, it can be argued that the perception that staff promotion practices at the
company was not based on performance was an unfair practice that potentially affected
staff productivity negatively, irrespective of the generational cohort.

The study established that respondents were divided in the middle concerning their views
on whether they received frequent and real-time feedback on how they were performing.
Interestingly, the differences in the mean perception of Generation Xers were not
statistically significant across the three generational cohorts. These results therefore
suggest that Millenials and Baby Boomers as well as Generation Xers shared the same
characteristics with regards to the dimension of real-time feedback; which contradicts the
literature concerning Millenials as argued by Fineman (2011) as well as the literature with
regards to Baby Boomers as implied in the works of Sujansky and Ferri-Reed (2009). An
explanation for this curious mix of similarities and differences between the three
generational cohorts should be the subject of further research inquiry.

57
The study found that majority (42.9%) of the respondents disagreed that there were
mentoring programs to help employees develop themselves professionally and personally.
The differences in the perceptions in between the three generations did not vary
significantly, which implied that the respondents shared the same views. This finding
disagrees with the implied view by Sujansky and Ferri-Reed (2009) who indicated that
the need for mentoring was the preserve of Generation Xers and Millenials only. This
may be explained by the fact that lower cadre staff accounted for the majority of
respondents in this study, representing the three different generational cohorts, each of
which would benefit from mentoring in preparation for greater responsibilities when
moving up the organizational hierarchy irrespective of their age.

5.3.2 The Effect of Generational Differences on Reward and Employee Productivity

The study established that majority (58.6%) of the respondents agreed that they were
fairly remunerated by the employer, implying that the company adhered to the equity
principles consistent with the recommendations of Dessler (2008). As to whether
differences existed in the perceptions of Baby Boomers, Generation Xers and Millenials,
the study established that the differences were not statistically significant, meaning that
the perceptions of the respondents did not vary based on the generational differences.
This suggests that the need for fairness is a value that characterizes all categories of
generations and not just peculiar with Millenials contrary to what is implied by
Benckendorff et al. (2010). While this may be the case due to the fact that perceived
fairness in remuneration returned a relatively high percentage score across the board, it
would be interesting to observe whether significant variations manifest when the reverse
is the case.

The findings revealed that majority (51.4%) of the respondents agreed concerning the
matching of benefits to their individual preferences. This is consistent with the works of
scholars Cole (2002) regarding the practice of matching of benefits to preference as a way
of enhancing employee productivity. However, a consideration of the differences between
the mean scores revealed that the views of the respondents did not vary significantly,
meaning that the same views were held across the different generational cohorts. That the
respondents generally agreed that the benefits offered by the company matched their

58
preferences as individuals suggest that the company was sensitive to the peculiar needs of
each generation in the workplace.

Further findings showed that majority (51.8%) of the respondents did not feel that their
contribution to the company was always recognized. Expectedly, the significance test
revealed that Generation Xers held the same views as that of Millenials, which did not
differ significantly from that of Baby Boomers. While this finding agrees with Sujansky
and Ferri-Reed (2009) who noted that that members of the younger generation look for
greater evidence that their achievements are recognized, it may be argued that members
of the older generation also exhibit the same characteristics. Thus, the result of this study
suggests that they did not find evidence in terms of recognition for their contribution to
the organization.

The findings showed that majority (70.5%) of the respondents felt a sense of job security
while working with the company, a fact that reflects very clearly in the long tenure of
majority of the respondents. The study established that the sense of job security did not
vary significantly across the three generational cohorts. This is irrespective of further
findings which showed that respondents from all the generational cohorts disagreed that
job security was of secondary importance to them. This contradicts the findings of a
comparative analysis undertaken by Artley (2008) that depicted Generation Xers as the
job-hopping generation and Baby Boomers being interested in job security. A potential
reason for this outcome is that the importance respondents attached to job security may be
a function of numerous dynamics in the employment markets that differ from country to
country. For example, the high unemployment rate that characterizes the situation in
Kenya may lower the respondents‟ perceived ease of getting another job, which likely
influenced their need to keep their current job.

5.3.3The Effect of Generational Differences on Employee Relations and Productivity

The study found that majority (56.8%) of the respondents disagreed that they were always
consulted before decisions affecting them at the company were made. This practice
returned a relatively low perception across the three generational cohorts, without any
statistically significant differences in between, meaning that Millenials and Generation
Xers as well as Baby Boomers generally shared the same sentiments. The implication of

59
this finding is that involvement and consultation was not only significant for improving
the productivity of Millenials and Generation Xers as speculated by Tucker (2010) but
rather, this was an important factor impacting the productivity of employees across the
three generational cohorts.

Concerning whether respondents felt that they had a say on matters concerning their work
and employment at the company, the study found that Generation Xers and Millenials as
well as Baby Boomers shared the same view. The findings are therefore resonant to the
perspectives of Shealan (2005) as well as Tucker (2010) with respect to the unique factors
that motivate the majority of the generational cohorts of today‟s workplace.

The study determined that majority (46.8%) of the respondents were dissatisfied with the
communication culture at the company. That the perceptions of the respondents did not
vary significantly implied that the different generations did not play a role in the
productivity-multigenerational difference nexus. However, given that respondents across
the board generally disagreed being satisfied with the communication culture at the
company depicts underlying potential differences in the way they expect communication
to flow. This echoes the views of Reitman (2013) who held that each generation
communicates differently and organizations will need to learn how to connect with their
diverse workforce in ways that honor generational preferences.

The findings showed that majority (59.5%) of the respondents agreed that their boss
always made them feel appreciated and valued. This suggests that employee recognition
was being implemented by the employer through their bosses and this has the potential to
enhance work relationships as well as increase the motivation of staff which is often
linked to employee productivity. That the differences between the mean scores across the
three generational cohorts were insignificant suggest that the need to feel appreciated and
valued was not limited to a specific generation. This goes contrary to the argument by
Tuglan and Martin (2001) who specified that Millenials cherished this need more than
their older counterparts. As the results of this study have shown, it is a reasonable
expectation from any worker to be appreciated for their contribution at work. This
argument is reinforced by similar findings with respect to employee autonomy and team
spirit. Clearly, these are employee relations techniques that apply universally to all staff,
which, by extension confirms the enduring relevance of motivational theories such that

60
put forward by Fredrick Hertzberg and his peers.

5.4 Conclusions

Drawing from the discussions, the following conclusions were made:

5.4.1 The Effect of Generational Differences on HRD and Employee Productivity

All the dimensions of human resource development practices at Kengen potentially

affected employee productivity. However, there were insignificant perceptual differences
with regards to the various dimensions of HRD at the company including the design of
training programs, the existence of a clear progression path, the practice of performance-
based promotion, performance appraisal, staff mentoring, succession management and
communication culture, all of which were either barely satisfactory or out-rightly
unsatisfactory. Thus, multi-generational perceptual differences did not exist with regards
to their generational views about human resource development practices at Kengen.

5.4.2 The Effect of Generational Differences on Reward and Employee Productivity

Reward management practices such as remuneration, employee benefits and recognition

potentially led to increased productivity. However, there were no perceptual differences
across the different generational cohorts at Kengen with regards to all but one aspect of
reward management practices at the company. This exception was with respect to
employee recognition where Generation Xers and Millenials expressed dissatisfaction,
thereby potentially impacting negatively on their productivity. On the overall, multi-
generational perceptual differences on reward management practices potentially had an
insignificant effect on employee productivity.

5.4.3The Effect of Generational Differences on Employee Relations and Productivity

Multi-generational perceptual differences played an insignificant role in the nexus

between employee relations practices and employee productivity, except in terms of
employee consultation where there were manifest differences between Generation Xers
and Millenials on the one hand and Baby Boomers on the other. The rest of the employee
relations practices such as communication culture, employee consultation and
involvement, employee autonomy, team spirit, employee appreciation and satisfaction

61
with rules and procedures yielded no difference in terms of the views between the three
generational cohorts.

5.5 Recommendations

This study makes recommendations for improvement as well as makes suggestions for
further studies as follows:

5.5.1 Recommendations for Improvement

5.5.1.1 The Effect of Generational Differences on HRD and Employee Productivity

The company should practice performance-based promotion in order to improve

employee satisfaction with the way succession management is handled. Similarly, in
order to enhance employee productivity, it should initiate employee mentoring programs
to help develop staff both professionally and personally. Implementation of these and
other human resource development practices at the company should apply universally
across the different generational cohorts.

5.5.1.2 The Effect of Generational Differences on Reward and Employee

Productivity

In order to enhance employee productivity, the company should consolidate the positive
perceptions that employees have with most of its reward management practices by
making staff feel that their contribution to the organization is recognized. In this regard,
managers and supervisors should be particularly sensitive to the needs of each
generational cohort at the company. Similarly, all the other aspects of reward
management should adhere to the doctrine of equity.

5.5.1.3The Effect of Generational Differences on Employee Relations and

Productivity

The company should make improvements with regards to two dimensions of employee
relations all of which require a change in the communication culture within the company.
In order to enhance productivity, the communication culture of the company should foster
a sense of employee involvement and participation through consultation especially on
matters concerning their work and employment at the company. This applies especially

62
across the board, without discrimination to a particular generation.

5.5.2 Recommendations for Further Research

This study has established little perceptual differences between different generational
cohorts with regards to human resource development, reward management and employee
relations practices, contrary to existing literature. Therefore, other case studies should be
replicated for comparison purposes in order to establish whether contextual factors
intervene in the effect that multigenerational workforce has on human resource
management and employee productivity. Such case studies could narrow their focus on
employee reward management practices that work for the younger generation at the
workplace.

63
 REFERENCES
Ali, A. A., Nasruddin, E. & Lin, S. K. (2010). The Relationship between Internal
Corporate Social Responsibility and Organizational Commitment within the
Banking Sector in Jordan, International Journal of Human and Social Sciences,
5(11), 11-14.
American Society for Training and Development (2010). Training Basics. San Diego:
ASTD.
Appiah, B. (April 2010). The impact of training on employee performance: a case study
of HFC bank limited (Ghana), Unpublished Masters Thesis, Ghana: Ashesi
University College.
Armstrong, M. (2011). Armstrong's Handbook of Strategic Human Resource
Management. London: Kogan Page Publishers.
Artley, J. B. (2008). The Impact of Leadership Practices on Generation X Employee
Commitment in the Health Insurance Industry. Michigan: ProQuest.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L., Sorensen, C. & Walker, D. (2013). Introduction to Research in
Education. New York: Cengage Learning.
Aswathappa, K. (2005). Human Resource and Personnel Management. New Delhi: Tata
McGraw-Hill Education.
Ball, K. (2011). Surviving the Baby Boomer Exodus: Capturing Knowledge for Gen X &
Y Employees. Stamford: Cengage Learning.
Bassi, L., Fraunheim, E., McMurrer, D. & Costello, L. (2011). Good Company: Business
Success in the Worthiness Era. Sanfrancisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers
Beam, B. T. & McFadden, J. J. (2001). Employee Benefits. Chicago: Dearborn Trade
Publishing.
Beazley, H., Boenisch, J. & Harden, D. (2002). Continuity Management: Preserving
Corporate Knowledge and Productivity when Employees Leave. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Bell, E. E. (2008). Multigenerational Workplace Performance: Generational Similarities
and Differences in Employee Perception of the Work Environment. New York:
ProQuest.
Benckendorff, P., Moscardo, G. & Pendergast, D. (2010). Tourism and Generation Y.
Wallingford: CABI International.
Blaikie, N. W. H. (2000). Designing Social Research: the logic of anticipation, New
Delhi: Wiley-Blackwell.

64
Blinder, A. S. (2011). Paying for Productivity: A Look at the Evidence. Washington DC:
Brookings Institution.
Braveman, B. & Page, J. J. (2011). Work: Promoting Participation & Productivity
Through Occupational Therapy. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis.
Bruce, A, & Montanez, S. M. (2012). Leaders Start to Finish: A Road Map for
Developing Top Performers. San Diego: American Society for Training and
Development.
Byham, W., Paese, M. & Smith, A. (2002). Grow Your Own Leaders: How to Identify,
Develop, and Retain Leadership Talent, New York: FTP Press.
Carsen, J. A. (2005). HR How to: Employee Retention, Riverwoods: CCH Incorporated.
Cekada, T. L. (2012). Training a Multigenerational Workforce. Safety Management, 1(1),
40-44.
Charan, R., Drotter, S. & Noel, J. (2011). The Leadership Pipeline: How to Build the
Leadership Powered Company, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Chen, S. & Powell, J. L. (2012). Aging in China: Implications to Social Policy of a
Changing Economic State. New York: Springer Publishers.
Clutterbuck, C. & Hussain, Z. (2010). Virtual Coach, Virtual Mentor. Charlotte: IAP.
Clutterbuck, D. (2012). The Talent Wave: Why Succession Planning Fails and What to
Do About it. London: Kogan Page Publishers.
Coates, Y. D. (2009). A Focused Analysis of Incentives Affecting Teacher Retention:
What Might Work and why. New York: ProQuest.
Coladarci, T., Cobb, C. D., Minium, E. W. & Clarke, R. C. (2010). Fundamentals of
Statistical Reasoning in Education. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Cooper, D.R. & Schindrer, P.S. (2008). Business Research Methods. New York:
McGraw Hill Irwin.
D‟Annunzio-Green, N. (2004). Human resource management: international perspectives
in hospitality and tourism, Stamford: Cengage Learning.
De Grip, A. & Sieben, I. (2009). The Effectiveness of more Advanced Human Resource
Systems in Small Firms, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 20(9), 1914–1928.
Deb, T. (2006). Strategic Approach to Human Resource Management. New Delhi:
Atlantic Publishers and Distributors.
DelCampo, R. G., Haney, M. J., Haggerty, L. A. & Knippel, A. (2012). Managing the
Multi-Generational Workforce: From the GI Generation to the Millennial.
Farnham: Gower Publishing, Ltd.
65
Denscombe, M. (2003). The Good Research Guide. 2nd Edition. Maidenhead,
Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Dessler, G. (2008). Human Resource Management. 11th Edition, New Jersey: Pearson
Education.
Downs, C. W. & Adrian, A. D. (2004). Assessing Organizational Communication:
Strategic Communication Audits. New York: Guilford Press.
Eccleston, D. & Goschen, K. (2012). The Manager's Guide to Discipline. London: Gower
Publishing, Ltd.
Ekerman, G. (2006). X-Kit Undergraduate Human Resource Management. Cape Town:
Pearson South Africa.
Erickson, T. J. (2013). What Next, Gen X? Keeping Up, Moving Ahead, and Getting the
Career You Want. Harvard: Harvard Business Press.
Ervasti H., Goul, J., Andersen, A. & Ringal, K. (2012). The Future of the Welfare State:
Social Policy Attitudes and Social Capital in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Espinoza, C., Ukleja, M. & Rusch, C. (2010). Managing the Millennials: Discover he
Core Competencies for Managing Today’s Workforce. New York: John Wiley &
Sons.
Fink, D. (2010). The Succession Challenge: Building and Sustaining Leadership Capacity
through Succession Management. London: Sage Publications.
Fuller, J. B., Hester, k., Barnett, T., Frey, L. & Relyea, C. (2006). Perceived
Organizational Support and Perceived External Prestige: Predicting
Organizational Attachment for University Faculty, Staff, and Administrators, The
Journal of Social Psychology, 146(3), 327–347.
Ghauri, P. & Gronhaug, K. (2005). Research Methods in Business Studies: A Practical
Guide. 3rd Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Gill, J. & Johnson, P. (2006). Research Methods for Manager. (3rd ed.) Longman: Sage.
Goldsmith, M., Baldoni, J. & McArthur, S. (2010). The AMA Handbook of Leadership.
New York: AMACOM.
Hakim, C. (2000). Research Designs: Successful Designs for Social and Economic
Research, London: Routledge.
Harvard Business Press (2005). The Essentials of Managing Change and Transition.
Harvard: Harvard Business Press.
Hayes, D. & Ninemeier, J. D. (2009). Human Resources Management in the Hospitality
Industry. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
66
Hogl, M. & Seriki, H. T. (2007). Teamwork for Innovation in Sub-Saharan Africa. New
York: Springer Publishers.
Holtsnider, B. & Jaffe, B. D. (2012). IT Manager's Handbook: Getting Your New Job
Done. London: Elsevier Corporation.
Hor, J., Keats, L. & Holmes, B. (2008). Finders Keepers: How to Attract and Retain
Great Employees. New South Wales: CCH Australia Limited.
Huggins, K. (2010). Generate Performance: Unleashing the Power of a
Multigenerational Workforce. Harleys Ville, PA: K HR Solutions.
Janie, M., Fritz, H. & Omdahl, B. L. (2006). Problematic Relationships in the Workplace.
Bern: Peter Lang.
Janosik, S. M., Creamer, D. G., Hirt, J. B., Winston, R. B. Saunders, S. A. & Cooper, D.
L. (2003). Supervising New Professionals in Student Affairs: A Guide for
Practitioners. London: Routledge.
Kalmi, P. & Klinedinst, M. (2006). Participation in the Age of Globalization and
Information. Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing.
Kenya Electricity Generating Company (2014). Welcome to Kengen. Retrieved on 6th
May 2014 from http://www.kengen.co.ke
Kim, Y. (2006). Measuring the Value of Succession Planning and Management: A
Qualitative Study of U.S. Affiliates of Foreign Multinational Companies, New
York: ProQuest.
Kothari.C. R. (2003). Research Methodology, Methods and Techniques. Second Edition.
NY: Pearson Education.
Lakshmi, C. S. (2005). Human Resource Development in Public Enterprises. New Delhi:
Discovery Publishing House.
Laton, D. (2006). Developing Positive Workplace Skills and Attitudes. Lulu.com
Mahapatro. (2010). Human Resource Management. New Delhi: New Age International
Ltd Publishers.
Marston, C. (2010). Motivating the "What's In It For Me" Workforce: Manage Across the
Generational Divide and Increase Profits. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Mathiason, J. (2008). What Kind of International Public Service Do We Need for the
Twenty-first Century? Global Governance 1(4), 127–133.
Mathis, R. L. & Jackson, J. H. (2011). Human Resource Management: Essential
Perspectives, Stamford: Cengage Learning.
Mendenhall, W., Beaver, R. & Beaver, B. (2012). Introduction to Probability and
Statistics. New York: Cengage Learning.
67
Moseley, J. L. & Dessinger, J. C. (2007). Training Older Workers and Learners:
Maximizing the Workplace Performance of an Aging Workforce. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Mosley, D. V. & Mosley, P. H. P. (2010). Supervisory Management. Stamford: Cengage
Learning.
Mugenda, O. M. & Mugenda, A. B. (2003). Research Methods: qualitative and
Quantitative Approaches. Nairobi: ACTS Press.
Murphy, S. (2012). The Oxford Handbook of Sport and Performance Psychology.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mustafa, A. (2008). Case Study Method: Theory and Practice, New Delhi: Atlantic
Publishers & Distributors.
Noe, R. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Gerhart, B., & Wright, P. M. (2008). Human resource
management: gaining a competitive advantage. Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Passmore, J., Peterson, D. & Freire, T. (2012). The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of
Psychology of Coaching and Mentoring. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Peck, R., Oslen, C. & Devore, J. (2011). Introduction to Statistics and Data Analysis.
New York: Cengage Learning.
Phillips, J. J. & Connell, A. O. (2004). Managing Employee Retention. London:
Routledge Publishers.
Phillips, J. J. (2002). Retaining Your Best Employees: Nine Case Studies from the Real
World of Training. Alexandria: American Society for Training and Development.
Pynes, J. (2008). Human resources management for public and nonprofit organizations: a
strategic approach. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Qureshi, M. I., Zaman, K. & Shah, I. A. (2010). Relationship Between Rewards and
Employee's Performance in the Cement Industry in Pakistan. Journal of
International Academic Research , 10(2), 19-21.
Ramlall, S. (2004). A Review of Employee Motivation Theories and their Implications
for Employee Retention within Organizations. The Journal of American Academy of
Business, (1), 52-64.
Reitman, A. (2013). Talent Engagement across the Generations. San Diego: American
Society for Training and Development
Rothwell, W. J. (2008). Human resource transformation: demonstrating strategic
leadership in the face of future trends. Mountain View: Davies-Black Publishing.
Roussel, L., Swansburg, R. C. & Swansburg, R. J. (2006). Management and Leadership
for Nurse Administrators. Sudbury: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
68
Rowe, K. A. (2010). Managing Across Generations, Alexandria: American Society for
Training and Development.
Salvendy, G. (2012). Handbook of Human Factors and Egonomics. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Samuel & Chipunza. (2009). Employee retention and turnover: Using motivational
variables as a pancea. African Journal of Business Management, 3(9), 410-415.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research Methods for Business Students.
(5th ed.) Harlow: FT/Prentice Hall.
Shandler, D. (2010). Motivating the Millennial Knowledge Worker: Help Today's
Workforce Succeed in Today's Economy. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Sharma, J. K. (2007). Business Statistics. New Delhi: Pearson Education India.
Shealan, P. (2005). Generation Y: Surviving (and Thriving) with Generation Y at Work.
Victoria: Hardie Grant Publishing.
Sims, R. R. (2010). Change (transformation) in Government Organizations. London:
IAP.
Smart, J. (2008). Ministry to Generation X Students at Teen Challenge International of
Mid-America. New York: ProQuest.
Smartt, R. W. (2008). Career Influences: A Phenomenological Study of African American
Professionals in the US Pharmaceutical Industry. New York: ProQuest.
Stein, S. J. (2007). Make Your Workplace Great: The 7 Keys to an Emotionally Intelligent
Organization, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Stralser, S. (2012). MBA in a Day: What You Would Learn at Top-Tier Business School.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Sujansky, J. & Ferri-Reed, J. (2009). Keeping the Millennials: Why Companies Are
Losing Billions in Turnover to This Generation- and What to Do About It. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Thompson, M. W. (2011). Prevention in a Multigenerational Workforce. Professional
Safety, 56(5), 32-35.
Tucker, D. E. (2010). Using the Power of Purpose: How to Overcome Bureaucracy and
Achieve Extraordinary Business Success. Bloomington: Author House.
Tuglan, B. & Martin, C. A. (2001). Managing Generation Y: global citizens born in the
late seventies and early eighties. Harvard: Human Resource Development.
Tyler, T. R. & Blader, S. L. (2005). Can businesses effectively regulate employee
conduct? The antecedents of rule following in work settings. Academy of
Management Journal, 48(6), 1143–1158.
69
Wallace, M. K., Tolley-Stokes, R. & Estep, E. S. (2011). The Generation X Librarian:
Essays on Leadership, Technology, Pop Culture, Social Responsibility and
Professional Identity. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Wambui, T. W., Wang‟ombe, J. G., Muthura, M. W., Kamau, A. W. & Jackson, S. M.
(2013). Managing Workplace Diversity: A Kenyan Perspective. International
Journal of Business and Social Science, 4(16), 199-218.
Warne, T. R. (2005). Developing Transportation Agency Leaders. Newark, Washington
DC: Transportation Research Board.
Welsh, S. (2004). Mentoring the Future: A Guide to Building Mentor Programs that
Work. John Penton and Shona Welsh.
Wiley, J. & Kowske, B. (2011). Respect: Delivering Results by Giving Employees what
they Really Want. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
WorldatWork (2007). The WorldatWork Handbook of Compensation, Benefits & Total
Rewards: A Comprehensive Guide for HR Professionals. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Wrench, J. S. (2013). Workplace Communication for the 21st Century: Tools and
Strategies that Impact the Bottom Line. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.
Zaccaro, S. J. & Klimoski, R. J. (2001). The nature of organizational leadership:
understanding the performance imperatives confronting today's leaders, New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Zhou, M. (2011). Education and Management. New York: Springer Publishers.
Zoogah, D. B. & Beugre, C. D. (2013). Managing Organizational Behavior in the African
Context. London: Routledge Publishers.

70
 APPENDIX I: INTRODUCTION LETTER

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY- AFRICA

P.O. Box 33990-00600,

NAIROBI.
DATE: 23rd June 2014.
Dear Respondent,

RE: RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE

I am a graduate student at United States International University (USIU- Africa) pursuing
an Executive Master of Science in Organization Development (EMOD). I am currently
conducting a research on the effect of a multi-generational workforce on employee
productivity. This is a requirement in partial fulfillment of the EMOD degree program at
USIU- Africa.

The study will be based on The Kenya Electricity Generating (KenGen) Company, which
is a casing point of organizations with a multi-generational workforce and you have been
selected as one of respondents to participate in the survey. The results of the survey will
be instrumental for KenGen to determine how a multi-generational workforce affects
employee productivity.

This is an academic research and confidentiality will strictly be adhered to. Your name
will not appear anywhere in the report. Kindly spare 10 minutes to complete the
questionnaire attached by using (√), (X) or writing the answers in the spaces provided.

Thank you for your cooperation and time.

Wangechi Joan Mwangi

Email: sheshij@gmail.com

71
 APPENDIX II: QUESTIONNAIRE

SECTION A: PERSONAL FACTORS

1. Gender: Male 
Female 

2. What is your age group?

18 – 33 years  34 – 48 years 
49 – 60 years  Over 60 years 

3. Marital Status?
Single 
Married 
Other  (Please specify) _______________________________

4. What is your highest level of education?

High School 
College 
Bachelor Degree 
Graduate Degree 

5. How long have you been working with Kengen?

Less than 2 years 
3 to 5 years 
6 to 10 years 
10 to 15 years 
More than 15 years 

6. Which of the cadres below best describe your job level:

Union Staff (Level 5) 
Lower management (Level 4) 
Middle management (Level 3) 
Top management (Level 1 & 2) 

7. Generally, how would you describe staff productivity at the company?

Very low  Low  Average  High  Very high 

72
 SECTION B: HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements
on employee development at KenGen. Use a scale of 1-4 where 1 is strongly disagree, 2
disagree, 3 agree and 4 strongly agree fill the empty boxes using a (√) or (X).

Disagree
Strongly

Strongly
agree (4)
disagree

Agree
(1)

(2)

(3)
1. The company offers regular training
opportunities for all it staff
2. The training programs offered by the
company are sensitive to my needs and
preferences as an individual
3. There is a clear progression path for me in
the company
4. Staff promotion is done based on
performance
5. I receive frequent and real-time feedback on
how I am performing on my job
6. There are employee mentoring programs to
help me develop professionally and
personally
7. I am satisfied with the way succession
management is handled at the company
8. Expectations are clearly communicated to
me before new job roles are assigned to me

9. What do you like most about the companies‟ employee development?

_____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
10. What do you dislike about the way the companies‟ employee development is
carried out? _____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
11. If you could change one thing about how employee development is carried out at
the company, what would it be? _____________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________

73
SECTION C: REWARD MANAGEMENT

Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements
on reward management at KenGen. Use a scale of 1-4 where 1 is strongly disagree, 2
disagree, 3 agree and 4 strongly agree fill the empty boxes using a (√) or (X).

Agree (3)
Disagree
Strongly

Strongly
agree (4)
disagree
(1)

(2)
1. I am fairly remunerated for the job I am
employed to perform at the company
2. The benefits offered by the company
matches my preferences as an individual
3. I am satisfied with the way employee
promotion is being managed at the company
4. I feel that my contribution to the
organization is always recognized.
5. I am satisfied with the work arrangement in
the company that provides me with a good
work-life balance
6. I feel a sense of job security while working
with the company
7. To me, job security is of secondary
importance

8. What do you like most about the way employees are rewarded for their
contribution at the company?
_____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________

9. What do you dislike about the way various employee rewards are administered?
_____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________

10. If you could change one thing about reward management at the company, what
would it be? _____________________________________
____________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________

74
 SECTION D: EMPLOYEE RELATIONS
Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements
on employee relations at KenGen. Use a scale of 1-4 where 1 is strongly disagree, 2
disagree, 3 agree and 4 strongly agree fill the empty boxes using a (√) or (X).

Agree (3)
Disagree
Strongly

Strongly
agree (4)
disagree
(1)

(2)
1. I feel that I have a say on matters
concerning my work and employment at
the company
2. I am always informed before decisions
that affect me at the company are made
3. I am generally satisfied with the
communication culture in the company
4. My boss always makes me feel
appreciated and valued
5. I am always allowed space and
autonomy to do my work without being
micromanaged
6. There is a high team spirit among my
work colleagues
7. I am satisfied with the rules and
procedures I am expected follow

8. What do you like most about the way employee relations is handled at the
company? _____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
9. What do you dislike about the practice of employee relations at the company?
_____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
10. If you could change one thing about employee relations management at the
company, what would it be? _____________________________________
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________

– END –
*** Thank you for your time and cooperation ***

75