A number of factors influenced generation Y’s value system are the subject of this study. The context of this study is as follows. Generation Y is an interesting area of study to focus upon because its people represent individuals born between 1980 and 1994, is the most populous since the baby boomers and have had a number of life influences that past generations did not have, including growing up in the age of technology and during the Great Recession in 2008 and in the era of globalization. Many studies have the link between the values held by the generation due to these influences and their effect on Generation Y’s value structure in relation to culture, which makes understanding their worldview a challenge. Thus, this research will explore Generation Y’s values.
Introduction Part II: Research Structure
This research study’s purpose is to reveal the values of Generation Y. In order to accomplish this, the statement of the problem will be explained. Next, the research questions and hypothesis will contain the direction for the study. A definition of the terms will follow. The literature review shall follow and define concepts in culture and values with a focus on the propositions of Hofstede and Heinich. The derived theoretical structure used for this inquiry will be explained. The methods section will justify the investigative techniques. The findings will be explained in relation to the reviewed literature and the author's assertions. The conclusion will contain a summary of the results and provide recommendations for future research.
Statement of the Problem
Bridging generational differences to maximize cooperation and effective communication is the key in a “meeting of the minds,” specifically with Generation Y, to understand the other’s worldview within a shared cultural setting (ie.: within a country, within a company). Problems in understanding Generation Y’s point of view are a well-documented phenomenon and have caused issues in relationships, especially in a work setting (Cennamo & Gardner, 2008). Thus, this research’s aim is to gain an in-depth understanding of the values of Generation Y.
Research Questions
The following research questions will guide the study:
Through Heinich (2011) and Hofstede’s (2011) theories on values as they relate to culture, will members of Generation Y express they have high levels of authenticity. little regard for beauty, high levels of signification, narrow power distances, low uncertainty avoidance, high levels of individualism, ambivalence over masculinity and femininity, ambivalence in long-term vs. short-term orientation and high levels of indulgence?
Hypotheses
The study derives its assumptions from the propositions of Heinich (2011) and Hofstede (2011) and evaluates Generation Y based on the ten value propositions (Heinich). Based on these premises, the study hypothesizes:
H1:
Members of Generation Y will express high levels of authenticity. little regard for beauty, high levels of signification, narrow power distances, low uncertainty avoidance, high levels of individualism, ambivalence over masculinity and femininity, ambivalence in long-term vs. short-term orientation and high levels of indulgence.
H0:
Members of Generation Y will not express high levels of authenticity. little regard for beauty, high levels of signification, narrow power distances, low uncertainty avoidance, high levels of individualism, ambivalence over masculinity and femininity, ambivalence in long-term vs. short-term orientation and high levels of indulgence.
Definition of Terms:
The following terms will be defined in more detail in this research. Below are succinct definitions of the terms as they are referred to in this research.
Ambiguity (Hofstede, 2011). The uncertain and indefinable in any given situation, problem, etc..
Authenticity (Heinich, 2011). People who act in accordance with their value structure.
Beauty (Heinich, 2011). Aesthetically pleasing objects, people, places, etc. In an individual sense, beauty is subjective. Society might have a different sense of beauty.
Collectivism (Hofstede, 2011). The community and society is valued over individualism.
Cultural domains (Hofstede, 2011). People’s belief system and how it affects their relationship with their environment, space, time and relationships with other people.
Individualism (Hofstede, 2011). A societal focus on self-reliance and independence.
Power distance (Hofstede, 2011). The extent to which lower-ranking community members accept and expect unequal power distribution
Signification (Heinich, 2011). The ability to interpret, comprehend, and make meaning.
Singularity (Heinich, 2011). Regarding the personal lived experience of an individual.
Uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 2011). The degree individuals avoid or embrace uncertainty.
Values of culture (Heinich, 2011). Values of culture are authenticity, beauty, and signification.
Literature Review
As stated in the statement of the problem from the Introduction, older generations have found communication with members of Generation Y challenging due to their different value structure (Cennamo & Gardner, 2008). In order to establish a knowledge base of Generation Y’s value system, the relevant portions of Heinch (2011) and Hofstede’s (2011) will be explained to derive a theoretical structure. The literature review, then, will focus on explanations pertaining to the values that will be relevant for this study.
Heinich’s Definition of Values as Related to Culture
Heinich (2011) defines the word “value” in her “Ten Propositions on Values”: 1. Identifying the parameters of the word value; 2. What value means in economic terms; 3. Three definitions for “value”; 4. Objects that have an identified value; 5. Identification of value as a principle; 6. The evaluation of value; 7. Values in terms of pluralism and grammar; 8. Values in the way society interacts, the social structure, and construction; 9. The nonrelevance of universalism and relativism; and 10. The sociological perspective on values (Heinich, 2017). This exploration of the term “value” is comprehensive. For the scope of inquiry for this study, values will be explored as it relates to culture.
Heinich (2011) identifies the main values relating to culture as authenticity, beauty and signification. Heinich relates authenticity and integrity focusing upon the integrity of the bond with origins. Heinich explains authenticity may fall into two realms: community and singularity realms (p. 4).The actions of authentic people are congruent with their beliefs and desires regardless of the external pressure exerted. Lee et al. (2008) also observe that authentic individuals encounter materiality with different forms other than itself.
Signification refers to the ability to interpret and understand. Heinich (2011) defines it as the value of searching for meaning, interpreting it and symbolism. Signification may also be communal or singular, with a community solving problems together and arriving to an understanding while singular pertains to individual problem-solving. With singularity, signification is esoteric, but it is accessible to communities as well. Signification may gauge the understanding of social and esoteric events through analysing the meaning to participants. Lee et al. (2008) assert that contextualization of messages among cultures is essential as messages and values often differ.
Beauty, on the other hand, refers to aesthetics (Parsons & Shils, 1951). In a sociological analysis, aesthetics is subject to prior social organization thereby making aesthetic judgment possible and legitimate (Parsons & Shils). The common practice provides that individuals unravel the background of the aesthetic to reveal more about the hidden aspects of sociality rather than depending entirely on the aesthetics only (Heinich, 2011). Beauty may also either fall under the community or singularity realm. Under singularity, beauty pertains to originality. In contrast, it measures to acceptable standards in the community realm.
Hofstede’s Great Ideals and Cultural Domains
Hofstede (2011) identifies the main cultural domains by evaluation of beliefs, man’s relationship with nature, orientation to time, orientation towards activity and relations between people and space. On the other hand, great ideals include affectivity, orientation, universalism, ascription, and specificity. Hofstede notes how people operating within society judge events depending on time such as the past, future, and the present. The activity domain focuses on how people base decisions about their livelihood. The domain contains being, achieving and thinking. The relations between people and space explain how people treat space ownership. The categories include private ownership, public ownership and a combination of both. Lastly, Hofstede measures the relationship between people by concern for others and self interest. The domain also relates to the hierarchy of organisation within community. The greater ideals affectivity refers to the arousal of feelings; orientation to the attitude towards issues; universalism to ability to align with one’s thoughts with general concepts; ascription to attribution of things to others; and lastly, specificity to belonging (Hofstede, 2011).
Hofstede’s Cultural Ways
Hofstede (2011) defines power distance as the extent to which lower-ranking community members accept and expect unequal power distribution. Societies with broader power distance conform to hierarchies of a belonging devoid of further justification (McIntosh & Prentice, 1999). Conversely, societies with narrow power distance require a reason for power inequality. Hofstede‘s Power Index Distance scores were low in Western countries.
Uncertainty avoidance relates to the degree to which a society is comfortable with uncertainty. Hofstede (2011) asserts that the concept measures a community's forbearance for ambiguity. Ambiguous situations are those that are unfamiliar, deviant, surprising and unusual. Societies with a high uncertainty avoidance index (UAI) tend to shun unconventional thought and behavioral patterns (Tang &Koveos, 2008). Hence, they proceed with change with caution and often restrict change with regulations and codes. Conversely, low UAI countries display more forbearance for ambiguity, have fewer rules, and allow people to behave and think differently.
Individualism pertains to self-reliance while collectivism focuses on family and work groups belonging (Hofstede, 2011). Individualistic cultures emphasize the moral worth of an individual and promote autonomy in the exercise of one's objectives and desires (Hofstede). In these societies, an individual's rights take precedence over a group. In contrast, collectivist cultures prize the community over individualism. Hofstede‘s Individualism Index Distance scores were high in Western countries.
With masculine versus feminine society, different characteristics are normally attributed to be either masculine or feminine. Masculine societies predominantly display strength, dominance, assertiveness, and egotism (Yegareh, 2013), and feminine ones present support, care, and are relationship-oriented. However, Hofstede (2011) cites a report by IBM which found that women’s values differ minimally across societies in comparison to men’s, who might vary greatly along the feminine-masculine continuum. For example, Hofstede’s index indicated a moderately low masculinity score in French-speaking countries.
For long-term vs. short-term values, Hofstede (2011) found that people with a long-term orientation looked toward the future and were willing to sacrifice short-term achievements for later success. Cultures with long-term orientation values exhibit perseverance, saving, and adaptability. Conversely, short-term oriented societies worry more about the past and present seek instant gratification, and display values for tradition, status-quo in a hierarchy, and the fulfilment of social obligations (Cennamo & Gardener, 2008).
Theoretical Framework
From the Hofstede (2011) and Heinich (2011) propositions, a theoretical framework for this study emerges. Both proposed theoretical models justify cultural change. The models take into account location, time, economic, and technological changes; thus, the integration of the models into one is possible. According to Heinich, a society’s culture is a good predictor of its values. Heinich lists authenticity, beauty, and signification under two realms being the communal and singularity realms. In the same light, Hofstede identifies power distance and uncertainty avoidance in opposing realms as well as individualism vs. collectivism, masculinity vs. femininity, long-term vs. short-term orientation and indulgence vs. restraint.
Methods
Due to the exploratory nature of this research, a questionnaire was created using the guidelines from the theoretical structure. The questions were created in an effort to evaluate individuals from Generation Y’s attitudes about work, family, their future expectations, and other areas that will reveal valuable information about their attitudes, beliefs, and values. The questionnaire was administered during class in a Canadian school. The questions and the data they produced are listed in the results section, as well as the concepts and indicators the questions represent. The results from this survey will be calculated as percentages in order to gauge the majority’s thoughts on the answers to the questions.
Results Relating Questionnaire to Literature Review[E1]
The researcher chose a survey design as it is best suited for answering the questions and the purposes of the study. The researcher administered questionnaires to collect data and structured them in ‘yes,' ‘maybe' and ‘not sure' questions to make analysis easier.
1. There should be a minimum wage
Chart 1
Chart 2
According to chart 1, a majority of the respondents opined that there should be no minimum wage. Regarding the relationship between success and minimum wage, 45% opined that no maximum salary influences success, 32% are indifferent on whether unregulated salary influences success while 20% opined that maximum salary influences success. Chart 2 shows the data for the relationship between no maximum salary and achievement. Conversely, 60% of the respondents are lukewarm on the relationship between no maximum salary and achievement, 20% are indifferent on whether unregulated salary influences success and 20% are indifferent on whether maximum salary influences success. Lastly, 40% opined that no maximum salary is not responsible for success while 60% think that a maximum wage is not responsible for success.
Minimum wage results can be used to derive inferences on uncertainty avoidance. Most of the participants expressed there is no need for a minimum wage. Accordingly, this could show low uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 2011).
2. Parents should treat children as equals in a family
Chart 3
Chart 3 shows that a majority of the respondents think that parents should treat children as equals in the family. The results reveal a low power distance (Hofstede, 2011) as a majority of the respondents responded in the affirmative to equality at the family.
3. I expect to change jobs several times during my life
Chart 4
Chart 4 reveals that a majority of the respondents are indifferent on whether they will change their jobs frequently. The results reveal indifferent levels of authenticity and individuality as people seek to satisfy their desires (Heinich, 2011).
4. Everything Happens for a Reason
Chart 5
Chart 6
A majority of the people believe that everything happens for a reason. Chart 5 provides the overall numbers, and Chart 6 provides a comparison of religious and nonreligious participants regarding this aspect. On the relationship between religiosity and cause, 70% of the religious respondents believe that everything happens for a reason. Conversely, 69% of non-religious respondents think that everything happens for a reason; 28% of the religious respondents are indifferent to the belief that everything happens for a reason, meanwhile, 20% of the non- religious respondents opine similarly; 8% of the religious respondents do not believe that everything happens for a reason. The results reveal low uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 2011) and high significance levels (Heinich, 2011).
5. I’m Careful with what I Share Online
Chart 7
Chart 7 indicates that a majority of the respondents are careful with what they share online. The results indicate a long term orientation as people would prefer not to seek short-term gratification over reputation (Hoffstede, 2011).
6. There are Fundamental Differences Between Men and Women
Chart 8
Chart 9
Charts 8 and 9 display the data for their perceived differences between men and women. A majority of the respondents think that there are no fundamental differences between men and women. 32% of the women believe that there is a significant difference between men and women, 40% of the men think that a significant difference between men and women; 56% of the women are indifferent on whether there is a considerable difference between men and women while 50% of the men opine the same; 11% of the women think that there is no fundamental difference between men and women while 10% of the men opine similarly. The results reveal indifference over masculinity and femininity (Hofstede, 2011).
7. Sexuality ought to Link to Love
Chart 10
Chart 11
Chart 12
Chart 10 shows that for attitudes towards sexuality and love. Chart 11 breaks down this data in terms of gender, and Chart 12 breaks down the information in terms of nationality. A majority of the respondents are indifferent to the notion that sexuality must be linked to love. 55% of the men opine that sexuality must link to love while 45% of the women opine that sexuality must connect to love; 40% of the men are indifferent as to whether sexuality must relate to love while 55% of the women think similarly; 55% of the men feel that sexuality need not necessarily link to love while 45% of the women hold a similar opinion. With nationality, gender and the notion that sexuality must bind to love, 18% of the female Canadians, 100% of international students and 30% of male Canadians opine that sexuality must be love, 40% of the female Canadians, 18% of the male Canadians and 65% of male international students are indifferent to the notion that sexuality must be linked to love. Finally, 35% of female Canadians, 50% of male Canadians and 35% of international male students opine that sexuality must tie to love. The results reveal that the respondents had little regards to beauty (Heinman, 2011) and sought to find out more about they also revealed high levels of signification (Heinman, 2011) by distinguishing between men and women objectively.
8. I am the one responsible for my success
Chart 13
Chart 13 shows that a significant number of the respondents think that they are responsible for their success. The results reveal high levels of individualism, long term orientation and high levels of indulgence (Hofstede, 2011).
9. Passion is More Important Than Homework (Work)
Chart 14
According to Parents' Education
Chart 15
Chart 14 contains the data for following passion versus responsibility. Chart 15 shows the levels of parents’ education level attainment. The findings reveal that a majority of the students are indifferent to the notion that passion is more important than work. However, depending on the parent’s level of education, there was one parent with no high school diploma who was indifferent to the notion that passion is more important than wor 9 parents with a high school diploma and 18 parents with post-secondary education opined the same. 1 parent with a high school diploma opined that passion was more important than work while 9 with post-secondary information opined the same. Lastly, 1 parent with a high school diploma and 5 with post-secondary education opined that work was more important than passion. The results reveal high levels of authenticity and significance (Heinman, 2011) as the respondents can make decisions independently. The results also reveal high levels of indulgence (Hofstede, 2011).
10. Debt is Part of Life
Chart 16
Chart 17
Chart 18
Most of the students agreed that debt is part of life in Charts 16, 17, and 18. Regarding the relationship between debt and confidence in the future, 20% of the students opined were debt is part of life, 35% were indifferent while 45% were confident that debt is not part of life. With indifference, 45% opined that debt was part of life, 30% were indifferent while 25% were indifferent as to whether debt is part of life. Conversely, 65% of the students were not confident that debt is part of life while 35% expressed indifference .The results reveal levels of uncertainty avoidance.
11. Technology Will Solve The Ecological Crisis
Chart 19
Chart 20
Charts 19 and 20 demonstrate that most of the students expressed indifference as regards whether the technology will solve the ecological crisis. With ratio to technology, all expressed confidence in technology solving the ecological crisis, 50% were indifferent while 40% were not confident; 40% were indifferent with whether technology could solve the problem, while 58% were unimpressed with technology; 2% were optimistic with technology were indifferent with its ability to resolve the crisis while 5 percent were confident with technology but did not believe it could solve the ecological problem. The beliefs show that respondents have high levels of long-term orientation and uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 2011).
12. Marriage Is Important
Chart 21
Chart 22
Chart 21 show a majority of the respondents revealed that they were not sure whether marriage was necessary. Chart 22 breaks this information down as a difference between the genders. 20% of the women agreed that marriage was important while 30% of the men shared the same opinion; 60% of the men were indifferent while 40% of the women opined similarly; 19% of the men did not believe that marriage was important while 30% of the women shared the same view. The results show high levels of significance, authenticity (Heinich, 2011) and ambivalence to masculinity and femininity (Hofstede, 2011).
13. Practice a Religion
Chart 22
Chart 22 show that a majority of the respondents do not subscribe to a religion. The results reveal high levels of significance, authenticity and individualism (Heinich, 2011).
Conclusions and Recommendations
In conclusion, the findings suggest that Generation Y exhibits values of long-term orientation, ambivalence in gender roles, low uncertainty avoidance, high levels of authenticity, little regard to beauty, high levels of signification, narrow power distances, high levels of individualism, and high levels of indulgence. One can also conclude that the reaserch may have a number of problems due to the nature of the questionnaire. The questionnaire might not have sufficiently covered all aspects of the values conclusively and hence unfit for generalization. Besides, the researcher used a small sample. Hence, the researcher recommends that future studies make use of larger samples and comprehensive questionnaires for their study as the results may not fit generalizations.
References
Cennamo, L., & Gardner, D. (2008). Generational differences in work values, outcomes, and person-organization values fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), 891-906.
Heinich, N. (2011). The making of cultural heritage. The Nordic Journal of Aesthetics, 22(40-41).
Heinich, N. (2017). Dix propositions sur les valeurs: 10 proposals on values. Questions de Communication: Humanités Numériques, Corpus et Sens, 31. Retrieved from file:///E:/kerri%20paper/writings/writerhub/Salgues__sur_LAMEN__QDC_031_0291.pdf
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 8.
Lee, I., Choi, G. W., Kim, J., Kim, S., Lee, K., Kim, D., ... & An, Y. (2008, September). Cultural dimensions for user experience: cross-country and cross-product analysis of users' cultural characteristics. In Proceedings of the 22nd British HCI Group Annual Conference on People and Computers: Culture, Creativity, Interaction-Volume 1 (pp. 3-12). British Computer Society.
McIntosh, A. J., & Prentice, R. C. (1999). Affirming authenticity: Consuming cultural heritage. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(3), 589-612.
Parsons, T., & Shils, E. A. (1951). Values, motives, and systems of action. Toward a General Theory of Action, 33, 247-275.
Tang, L., & Koveos, P. E. (2008). A framework to update Hofstede's cultural value indices: economic dynamics and institutional stability. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(6), 1045-1063.
Yeganeh, H. (2013). A compound index of cultural dimensions: implications and applications. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 21(1), 53-65.
[E1]cite, name and explain each and every figure
