Leveraging Multigenerational Workforce Strategies in Higher Education

Edna Chun, Alvin Evans

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000358476
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education Administration

The higher education literature on workplace diversity has overlooked the development of multigenerational workforce strategies as a key component of an inclusive talent proposition. While race, gender, sexual orientation, disability and other demographic attributes have gained considerable attention in diversity strategic planning, scant research pertains to building inclusive, multigenerational approaches within the culture and practices of higher education. Now more than ever, there is an urgent and unmet need to identify actionable strategies and approaches that optimize the contributions of multigenerational talent across the faculty, administrator, and staff ranks. With the goal of enhancing workforce capacity and creating more inclusive workplaces, Leveraging Multigenerational Workforce Strategies in Higher Education offers an in-depth look at multigenerational strategies that enhance institutional capacity and respond to educational needs.

This book is the first to address the creation of multigenerational strategies in the higher education workplace based upon substantial empirical studies and qualitative research. Drawing on in-depth interviews with faculty and administrators, the book examines the broad "framing" of generations that consists of stereotypes, narratives, images, and emotions. Through the lens of these narratives, it describes how ageist framing is magnified by other minoritized statuses including race/ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation, and can result in structural inequality, process-based discrimination, and asymmetrical behavioral interactions in the higher education workplace. A major feature of the book is its focus on best-in-class HR and diversity policies and strategies that institutional leaders can deploy to overcome generational and ageist barriers and build an inclusive culture that values the contributions of all members.

Due to its practical and concrete emphasis in sharing leading-edge policies and practices that comprise a holistic multigenerational workforce strategy, the book will serve as a concrete resource to boards of trustees, presidents, provosts, deans, diversity officers, department chairs, faculty, academic and non-academic administrators, diversity and human resource leaders, and diversity taskforces in their efforts to create strategic, evidence-based multigenerational workforce approaches. In addition, the book will be utilized in upper division and graduate courses in higher education administration, diversity, human resource management, educational leadership, intergenerational issues, gerontology, social work, and organizational psychology.

1

The Value of Intergenerational Diversity

Research shows us that diverse groups make better decisions than groups that are less diverse. So a motivation for our work around diversity is that we need it to find the truth about things.

Rebecca Stoltzfus, President, Goshen College (2019, paras 43–44)

Intergenerational capabilities are at the heart of the talent equation. As we shall discuss in this chapter, they are a driving competitive force that differentiates organizational performance and shapes institutional outcomes. In addition to racial/ethnic and gender diversity, intergenerational diversity affects nearly every aspect of teaching and administration in colleges and universities (Booth and Rosa, 2014). Yet a significant gap exists in the literature on intergenerational dynamics in the workplace as a whole and the higher education workplace in particular. Few resources synthesize intergenerational findings in order to develop comprehensive human resource and diversity policies and practices in the higher education environment (Amayah and Gedro, 2014; Chavez, 2015; Cogin, 2012). Nonetheless, 18 empirical studies across all sectors have identified the need to refocus human resources policies due to the potential effect of age stereotypes, both positive and negative, on workplace outcomes (Dordoni and Argentero, 2015).

If, as one study of the private sector indicates, talent, learning, shared mind-set, accountability, and innovation are linked to profitability and productivity, approaches that maximize intergenerational talent will contribute to the success and survival of colleges and universities in a global economy (Huselid, Becker, and Beatty, 2005). Intangible factors such as discretionary commitment, innovation, competence, and shared mindset will lead to future success by enhancing the intergenerational capabilities of the organization (Lev, 2004; Ulrich and Smallwood, 2003). A mindset of intergenerational interdependency will enable institutions to develop high-performance workplaces that capitalize on structural synergy (Chavez, 2015). In other words, not only similarities, but differences, will create the synergy necessary to reach new levels of organizational performance (Chavez, 2015). Rather than clinging to norms of security and stability, an empowered workforce can move beyond traditional boundaries and narrow mindsets to foster organizational renewal (Beatty and Ulrich, 1991).

With the advent of new and unfamiliar workforce configurations resulting from a more mature workforce, a talent revolution is now underway that will benefit from generational interdependence (Taylor and Lebo, 2019). The longevity of seasoned employees is a critical catalyst in this revolution, requiring organizations to abandon concepts of asset-based talent and instead adopt an equity framework that optimizes the creative contributions of veteran workers beyond simply the transfer of knowledge (Taylor and Lebo, 2019). And the abundance of talent that creative organizations can access will enable institutions to “do more with more” (Taylor and Lebo, 2019, p. 167).

Although there are few empirical studies on the impact of inclusive age-diverse climates on organizational outcomes, European researchers have taken the lead in demonstrating the value of intergenerational workforce diversity. Take, for example, a study of 18,000 firms in Germany which found that a ten percent increase in age diversity resulted in a 3.5 percent annual increase in productivity as measured in sales in companies that performed creative rather than routine tasks. The increase in productivity was due to diverse problem-solving capabilities deriving from different knowledge pools, career incentive structures for promotion of younger workers, and efficient transfer of know-how and norms from older to younger cohorts (Backes-Gellner and Veen, 2013).

Conversely, a comprehensive study of more than 30,101 employees in 147 diverse German companies revealed that high levels of age diversity in a negative age-diversity climate had a negative impact on organizational outcomes (Kunze, Boehm, and Bruch, 2013b). However, the researchers found that the indirect negative effect of top management’s negative views of age diversity on diversity climate was moderated by inclusive age-diverse HR policies (Kunze, Boehm, and Bruch, 2013b). This study validates the importance of age-friendly HR policies, even when leadership may hold negative views on age diversity.

The impact of age-inclusive HR practices was confirmed in another study conducted by the same researchers in 93 companies with a sample of 14,260 employees. The study found a positive correlation between age-inclusive HR practices and collective perceptions of social exchange or justice, trust, and confidence in organizational investment and support. Positive employee perceptions of social exchange were, in turn, related to organizational performance as well as a decrease in employee turnover intentions (Boehm, Kunze, and Bruch, 2014). The results demonstrate the benefits of age-inclusive human resource practices that solidify employee perceptions of justice, trust, and confidence in organizational support over the long term (Boehm, Kunze, and Bruch, 2014).

Consistent with these large-scale studies, recent research conducted in three organizations in Belgium concluded that high-quality contact among age groups in contexts of organizational support for diversity led to positive views of older workers as more competent and sociable (Iweins, Desmette, Yzerbyt, and Stinglhamber, 2013). Further, another study of 745 teams with 8,848 employees in the administrative, financial, and car production sectors in Germany identified a positive correlation between age diversity and performance in groups solving complex tasks. The researchers indicated that preconditions for optimizing the benefits of age diversity in teams include a positive climate, low age discrimination, and age-balanced leadership (Wegge et al., 2012). Nonetheless, a study of 14 organizations, including one university, reveals that age-diversity strategy is often not clearly defined and the development of integrated, holistic age-management strategies is still in the evolutionary phase (Roundtree, 2011).

One of the perils of generational diversity in the workplace is the existence of demographic fault lines based on ageism and generational status that have the potential to divide groups. Such fault lines can affect interpersonal dynamics and create conflict leading to performance losses of the group as a whole (Lau and Murnighan, 1998; North and Fiske, 2015). At one end of the organizational continuum are resistive intergenerational interactions in which each generation compiles resources and power with detrimental effect on the other generation. At the other end of the continuum are transmitive intergenerational interactions that involve the successful transmission and sharing of organizational resources, knowledge, and skills (Joshi, Dencker, Franz, and Martocchio, 2010). The normative context for interactions as well as the structural makeup of the workplace are dual factors that influence the degree that intergenerational interactions occur and are valued (Joshi, Dencker, Franz, and Martocchio, 2010).

Given the organizational advantages of an inclusive talent proposition, academic and administrative leaders need to draw on ideas and perspectives from different generational groups, facilitate collaboration, provide mentorship, and build inclusive talent practices. Through such approaches, they can maximize team interactions, foster learning and knowledge transfer, enrich disciplinary perspectives, sponsor innovative research, and promote positive classroom interactions. An inclusive, intergenerational climate will promote what has been described as “cross-boundary collaboration” or horizontal teamwork across institutional silos. Cross-boundary collaboration sparks innovation and bridges different types of expertise and organizational practices (Casciaro, Edmondson, and Jang, 2019, para 4).

Consider the application of these principles to the academic department in the model suggested by Christopher Keys, a white male Professor Emeritus and Department Chair from DePaul University: “If you have a critical mass of good people at each level, and … they appreciate each other and their contributions, then you really have the ingredients of a positive, multigenerational department.” Keys envisions cross-boundary collaboration among the professorial ranks in an academic department as follows:

If you have a good cohort of assistant professors who are active and engaged and they are bringing new research ideas into the department from their recent graduate training, they can relate more personally to the graduate students who are closer to them in age and the undergraduates as well and create a buzz around their ideas and their teaching …

And then the full professors are valuable because they have a perspective on the field and on the university and they can serve in leadership roles around the campus as well as in the department and they have networks and they can help connect assistants and associates with opportunities that otherwise might not come their way. They can edit major books or journals; they will continue to make scientific contributions; they can break some new ground because they are already full professors and don’t have as much to lose …

The associate professors are the sandwich generation and they can further connect the assistants and the fulls and sort of hold it all together. They are established in terms of demonstrating that they can do research and make scientific contributions … and that they can, teach effectively and work well with students. They are a source of information and they are still growing and learning as well.

In order to facilitate such cross-boundary collaboration, academic and administrative leaders need to defuse prevailing stereotypes regarding the contributions of different generational cohorts and mediate intergenerational conflict. For example, a 2011 study of 424 U.S. human resource professionals found that 72 percent identified generational conflict as a workplace issue (Gale, 2012). The generational balancing act encompasses every aspect of workplace administration from communications to project management (Gale, 2012). In the academic context, developing cross-generational partnerships and problem-solving opportunities will help prevent isolation and contribute to departmental success (Booth and Rosa, 2014). Working together with their counterparts across generational divides, veteran employees can offer deep knowledge, finely honed communication skills, seasoned judgment, and balanced perspectives (Applewhite, 2016).

The Benefits of Multigenerational Workforce Diversity

As we have indicated, leveraging the talents of a multigenerational workforce is now an institutional imperative in light of the formidable economic, demographic, and social forces that are transforming the structures and delivery of higher education. Yet, for the most part, higher education diversity strategic plans and initiatives have overlooked the development of multigenerational workforce strategies as a key component of an inclusive talent proposition. While race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, and other demographic attributes are often considered in diversity strategic plans, scant attention has been paid to building multigenerational approaches within the culture and practices of higher education. Omission of ageism in diversity programs reflects an obliviousness to its impact and, as a result, ageism remains below the radar as a secondary civil rights issue (North, 2015). Academic diversity leaders we contacted for this study frequently emphasized that while age and generational status need to be important considerations in diversity strategy, these dimensions have not been incorporated in diversity plans.

For example, a study of the mission statements of 80 public colleges and universities found that 59 referenced diversity, but the emphasis tended to be on race/ethnicity, gender, and international status rather than age, disability, or sexual orientation (Wilson, Meyer, and McNeal, 2012). The authors of the study concluded that “… the reasons for acknowledging and expressing a commitment to diversity seem to focus on diversity as an integration of ‘others,’ rather than ‘a transformation of us all’” (Wilson, Meyer, and McNeal, 2012, p. 128).

An inclusive multigenerational environment in higher education will optimize the talent of younger faculty, administrators, and staff while recognizing the continued contributions of more senior colleagues. As the literature indicates, the benefits and advantages of intergenerational synergy include the solving of complex, “wicked” problems that require creativity, innovation, and application of different types of expertise and knowledge. As we shall discuss further in Chapter 4, collaborative, intergenerational efforts can lead to intellectual breakthroughs, the discovery of new knowledge, and the development of innovative pedagogical models. Wasting intergenerational talent will mean a loss of valuable resources, diminishing institutional knowledge and knowledge transfer.

Building on foundational research in human resources, we theorize that multigenerational diversity is an essential organizational capability that defines institutional identity and reflects the collective ability of institutions of higher education to deploy the breadth of intellectual resources and the depth of intangible assets to enhance student learning and fulfill strategic goals (Huselid, Becker, and Beatty, 2005; Ulrich and Smallwood, 2004). Take, for example, a 19-year study of 230 judges in nine German courts which found that qualitative performance as measured by confirmation by the appeals court at the next level increased with the average age of the judges, whereas quantitative performance in terms of the number of cases processed declined for older judges (Backes-Gellner, Schneider, and Veen, 2011). Extrapolating from these findings, intergenerational diversity within an institution will strengthen different performance dimensions and enhance overall organizational capacity.

By fostering workplace reciprocity, intergenerational interdependency will improve the internal social structure and facilitate communication leading to increased cooperation (Combs, Liu, Hall, and Ketchen, 2006). It will heighten the potential for increased engagement, competence, and discretionary commitment among members of the higher education workforce. In Chapter 7, we offer specific examples of how inclusive intergenerational practices can be operationalized within the culture and processes of institutions through ten key initiatives that include cross-generational mentoring, flexible workplace policies, and systematic organizational learning.

Reaching Definitional Clarity

To lay the groundwork for the study, we next explore the relation between the attainment of a multigenerational workforce strategy and the phenomenon of ageism which can inhibit the ability of institutions to draw upon intergenerational talent and create a culture of inclusion. To begin, we seek to clarify the separate, yet interrelated, definitional threads of ageism and generational status.

Ageism reflects prejudice against or in favor of any age group and has been called the third great “ism” after racism and sexism due to its systematic stereotyping of individuals based on age (Palmore and Maddox, 1999). Duke University sociologist Erdman Palmore refers to ageism as “the ultimate prejudice, the last discrimination, the cruelest rejection” (Palmore, 2004, p. 41). Although age is “a potentially universal experience,” ageism has been understudied in comparison with racism and sexism, perhaps because ageist stereotypes are a more socially condoned form of prejudice (North and Fiske, 2015, p. 160).

Research on ageism, particularly in the higher education workplace, has moved at a “glacial pace” compared with other forms of inequality, perhaps because ageism is more institutionalized than racism or sexism and, as a result, less likely to be recognized as a form of discrimination (Nelson, 2016, p. 191). By escaping institutional notice, ageism is often more insidious and subtle than racism or sexism (Raposo and Carstensen, 2015). Unlike sexism, racism, and homophobia, ageism, despite its prevalence, is not an “everyday pejorative,” and as such is rarely named or examined (Gullette, 2017a, p. 1).

Most importantly, little research has probed the ways in which the intersectionality of race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and other salient demographic characteristics with age can differentially affect individuals in the higher education opportunity structure. A major finding of this book is that the impact of ageism in the workplace is intensified when combined with other minoritized statuses including race/ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation. As a result, the instances of disparate treatment we share in the narratives of both junior and senior faculty and administrators reflect differential treatment based on the intersectionality of age with other minoritized statuses. These experiences frequently arise within the context of workplace culture that shapes normative views of career progression including hiring, tenure and promotion, and expected retirement age. Since university culture is not uniform and consists of distinct departmental and divisional micro-climates, in Chapter 4 we discuss how differing norms within discipli...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Endorsement
• Half Title
• Series Information
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• About the Authors
• Acknowledgments
• Foreword
• Introduction: Forces and Fissures in the Higher Education Landscape
• 1 The Value of Intergenerational Diversity
• 2 The Looming Generational Crisis in Higher Education Employment
• 3 Behavioral and Process-Based Aspects of Ageism and Generational Status
• 4 Generational Status and Academic Realities
• 5 Counteracting and Resisting Generational and Ageist Frames
• 6 Best-In-Class Multigenerational Human Resource and Diversity Policies and Programs
• 7 Looking Ahead: Opportunities and Recommendations
• References
• Index