The generational “exchange” rate: How generations convert career development satisfaction into organisational commitment or neglect of work

• Author: John Benson,Miriam Glennie,Michelle Brown,Michael O'Donnell,Peter O'Keefe
• Published date: 01 November 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12198
• Date: 01 November 2018

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

The generational “exchange”rate: How

generations convert career development

satisfaction into organisational commitment or

neglect of work

John Benson

1

|Michelle Brown

2

|Miriam Glennie

3

|

Michael O'Donnell

3

|Peter O'Keefe

3

1

School of Business, Monash University

Malaysia and Department of Management,

Monash University

2

Department of Management and Marketing,

University of Melbourne

3

School of Business, University of New South

Wales

Correspondence

Michelle Brown, Department of Management

and Marketing, University of Melbourne,

Carlton, Victoria, Australia.

Email: brownm@unimelb.edu.au

Abstract

Utilising social exchange theory, we investigate the

exchange of career development satisfaction for

organisational commitment and neglect of work. Employees

can, however, show more or less reciprocity towards their

organisation. We assess the role of generational member-

ship (Baby Boomers vs. Generation X) as a determinant of

reciprocity. Boomers began work when jobs were “for life”;

they value job security and tend to rely on the organisation

for their career direction. In contrast, Generation X gener-

ally commenced work during the recession of the early

1990s, so they feel they cannot rely on one employer for

a lifetime of employment. We investigate the extent to

which generational differences in work and career values

moderate the relationship between career development sat-

isfaction and organisational commitment or neglect of work.

We find, using data from 1,530 employees in one organisa-

tion, that Generation X are more likely to exchange high

career development satisfaction for higher levels of

organisational commitment and lower neglect of work than

are Boomers.

KEYWORDS

ageing workforce,commitment, discretionary effort, employability

Received: 11 March 2017 Revised: 12 February 2018 Accepted: 9 April 2018

DOI: 10.1111/1748-8583.12198

524 © 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Hum Resour Manag J. 2018;28:524–539.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrmj

1|INTRODUCTION

Social exchange theory (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960) suggests that when an employee receives something of value

from an organisation, they will reciprocate; when the organisation is unfair to an employee, they will punish it. The

exchange of resources is therefore key to social exchange theory (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). The purpose of this

article is to investigate the exchange of career development satisfaction for organisational commitment (positive rec-

iprocity) and neglect of work (negative reciprocity), and the effect of generational membership on the extent to which

career development satisfaction is converted into organisational commitment or neglect of work.

Career development satisfaction is a facet of subjective career success (Greenhaus, Parasuraman, & Wormley,

1990). Subjective career success refers to individuals' evaluation of their career progress, accomplishments, and

anticipated outcomes, relative to their own goals and aspirations (Seibert & Kraimer, 2001). Focusing on an internal

criterion for career success (career development satisfaction) aligns with the current careers context where

employees are expected to self‐manage their own careers rather than rely on organisational direction (Hall & Mirvis,

1996). It is important to understand the consequences of career development satisfaction as it can impact the capac-

ity of the organisation to manage employees effectively. We assess the impact on organisational commitment and

neglect of work, the former representing an attitudinal response whereas the latter a behavioural response.

We focus on the two largest Australian generational cohorts: “Baby Boomers”(born 1946 to 1961) and

“Generation X”(born 1962 to 1975). In the period July 2000 to July 2016, the Australian workforce grew from 9

to 12 million (Salt, 2016). Twenty per cent of the growth came from Generation X and 40% from Baby Boomers.

Boomers now occupy one in three jobs in the Australian economy and are keen to remain in the workforce (National

Seniors Australia, 2017). Boomers are in better health than earlier generations (who undertook hard physical work so

had to retire at an earlier age), especially those who work in white‐collar occupations and/or knowledge industries.

Boomer participation in the labour market is also being promoted by government policy, by pushing back the age

at which employees can access funds for retirement.

GenerationX are generallymidcareer employeeswho are waiting to step up to fill thepositions currentlyoccupied by

Boomers.By working to an older agethan previous generations,Boomers are impactingthe career optionsfor Generation

X. Thereis some evidence of conflictbetween these two generations (Jurkiewicz, 2000). Froman organisation's perspec-

tive,the challenge isto ensure that thereis an alignment of theinterests of all itsemployees with thoseof the organisation.

The study contributes to the literature in three ways. First, much of the generational research to date hasapplied

U.S. generational definitions, even for those studies conducted outside of the United States. Yetgenerational theory

contends that generations develop within a specific sociohistorical location, meaning that is it inappropriate to apply

the U.S. generational definition to other countries (Lyons & Kuron, 2014). We define our generations (Baby Boomer

and Generation X) based on historical and social experiences in Australia. Second, although the norm of reciprocity is

widely accepted, research is needed to understand when and why employees show more or less reciprocity towards

their organisations (Chen, Chen, & Portnoy, 2009). The article identifies generational membership as a determinant

of the level of reciprocity. Third, we examine both positive (organisational commitment)and negative (neglect of work)

reciprocity in response to satisfaction with career development opportunities. To understand the social exchange rela-

tionships, both positive and negative aspects need to be analysed concurrently (Gibney, Zagenczyk, & Masters, 2009).

2|SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY

Social exchange involves the trading of any resource that can be transferred between people (Foa & Foa, 1974) and

creates an informal, open‐ended obligation. Social exchanges can occur between individuals as well as between

employees and their employing organisation (Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, & Rhoades, 2001). A social

exchange relationship within an organisation evolves when employers take care of employees, which thereby engen-

ders beneficial consequences (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005).

BENSON ET AL.525