GENERATIONAL LEARNING DIFFERENCES IN CORPORATE TRAINING

GENERATIONAL LEARNING DIFFERENCES IN TRAINING

The contemporary workforce is more diverse in terms of age than ever before, being comprised of four primary generations: Baby Boomers (born 1946–1964), Generation X (born 1965–1980), Millennials (born 1981–1996), and Generation Z (born 1997–2012). These generational cohorts have grown up in different social, economic, and technological environments, but does that matter regarding how workplace training is developed?

It may be important to be aware of generational differences within the workplace for reasons other than training. Differences between groups of employees may be critical to such areas as the recruitment and retention of employees, communication, and leadership style (Kapoor & Solomon, 2011; Schullery, 2013; Tolbize, 2008) Age differences will often impact various aspects of workplace culture, including work satisfaction, motivation, interpersonal relationships with coworkers, and management. Organizations that can capitalize on each generation’s strengths will be poised for success. As younger generations begin entering the workforce, HR and management will need to take these preferences into account to attract and retain the most qualified employees.

It is critical that the workforce is educated on generational differences through leadership. In corporate learning and development, the understanding of the workforce to embrace generational differences is thought by many professional trainers and training managers to be useful in gaining the advantages of each generation without creating division in the workforce (e.g., Castrucci, 2018; Martin & Peters, 2019). This paper reviews the literature on workforce training and how designing different instruction for different generations matters.

THE MEANING OF “GENERATIONAL DIFFERENCES”

Roughly speaking, “generation” refers to a group of individuals, most of whom are the same approximate age and have similar ideas, problems, and attitudes that are based on shared experiences at similar ages (Pilcher, 1994). The exposure to those experiences shapes and forms a generation’s attitudes, values, beliefs, and expectations. With this definition in mind, most companies today are made up of four distinct generations, each with slightly different stereotypes. There is no true consensus on the birth years, but the following is a rough guide.

1. Baby Boomers: born between 1946–1964. Tend to question everything, challenge authority, and live to work.

2. Generation X: born between 1965–1976. Tend to be more entrepreneurial than those of previous generations, more highly educated, considered the first generation to have techno-literacy, and work to live.

3. Millennials/Gen Y: born between 1977–1998. Tend to be highly tolerant, extremely techno-savvy, and are ambitious.

4. Generation Z: born between 1999–2012. Tend to focus on instant gratification, believe technology is life, want the option to work anywhere/anytime, and are multitaskers. Many of this generation will end up working in careers that do not even exist yet (Martin & Peters, 2019).

A study conducted by Westerman and Yamamura (2007) looked at differences in job satisfaction between Baby Boomers and Generations X and Y. One of the hypotheses tested was that Baby Boomers would have lower satisfaction than Generations X and Y. Looking at the results, there were no significant mean differences in satisfaction between generations (Costanza et al, 2012).

An employee’s motivation to learn and perform better at his or her job is determined by the following.

1. The person’s characteristics, such as their knowledge, skills, cognitive ability, self-efficacy, and attitude.

2. The input given by his or her supervisors, which may include the social support he or she receives and the opportunities he or she must perform.

3. His or her output, which informs his or her expectations for learning and performance.

4. The consequences, such as the benefits and rewards he or she will receive for training.

5. The feedback given, including the frequency and specificity of the feedback while he or she is performing (Noe, 2008).

These factors should be considered when designing training programs. Adjustments may need to be made for training to be successful and achieve its intended results (Berge, 2021; Felton & Dooley, 2009).

Not only is there little consensus on exact birth years within each defined generation, but there is also little agreement on how to assess for generational differences, which could be one reason why there is so little empirical research on generational differences within learning. As noted by Costanza, Badger, Fraser, Severt, and Gade (2012) in their meta-analysis,

The main challenge in studying generational differences seems to be disentangling the differences attributable to generational membership from those due to other factors such as age and/or time period. Multiple researchers (Macky et al. 2008; Rhodes 1983; Trzesniewski & Donnellan 2010) have identified this confound issue as the primary methodological challenge in studying generational differences. In addition, organizational experience, tenure, and technological advancements are also often confounded with age and generation and are also potential explanations for observed differences (p. 379).

LEARNING GOAL ORIENTATION

When discussing other potential explanations for differences in training program effectiveness, the conversation must also include learning goal orientation. Learning goal orientation (LGO) is “an internal mindset that motivates individuals to learn and develop his or her competence” (D’Amato & Baruch, 2020, p.161; Dweck, 1986). To measure LGO, a three-item measure (cf. D’Amato & Herzfeldt, 2008) was used for the commitment to learn and open-mindedness. The scale ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

It was found that an individual with a high LGO would have a higher intrinsic motivation for learning and would willingly participate in training and development courses to learn new skills and better develop existing skills. They tested several hypotheses with the data, including whether younger generations (Generation X) had a higher LGO than did older generations (Baby Boomers). To test this hypothesis, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for each generational cohort. The ANOVA was statistically significant, F_{3, 3653} = 6.81, p < .001, n² = 0.01. Least significant difference (LSD) tests show that the late Generation X was significantly higher in its LGO than each of the other generations, and early Generation X was significantly higher than Early Baby Boomers. Late Baby Boomers and Early Baby Boomers were statistically the same in terms of LGO (D’Amato & Baruch, 2020).

TRAINING EXPECTATIONS

As part of a qualitative phenomenological study (Turner, 2015) that was conducted to explore the perceptions and lived experiences of members of different generations, the study results showed that generational cohorts held many of the same objectives in the workplace and identified the same benefits. Study results showed similar shortcomings and recommendations across generations. Based on these results, companies should leverage the multiple generations in the workforce for organizational success; effective training includes generational cohorts’ similarities and does not focus solely on their differences.

It is worth noting that Millennials do seem to value training and development more than do previous generations. There are many reasons for this, including a perceived lack of job security. Millennials are also more likely to change employers than are previous generations.

A study done on SSC Pacific employees by the Northern Virginia Community College (Negron, 2017) found that training effectiveness and preferences varied by generation, which creates gaps in learning. Respondents from all generations represented had varying attitudes toward training effectiveness and perceptions of training types. For training to be effective for all learners, trainers will need to ensure that these learning gaps are addressed with the course content.

Ort’s (2014) study focused on embracing the differences of intergenerational groups for a successful training program:

1. Combine traditional training resources with technology-based learning, such as e-learning modules and webcasts, to engage all learners.

2. Chunk information into short bits that are no longer than 20 minutes.

3. Use delivery methods that appeal to visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learners.

4. Incorporate music, games, and small group activities to hold the interest of younger learners.

LEARNING STYLES AND PREFERENCES

A learning style is an individual preference for a mode of instruction or study that is most preferred by a particular individual. According to Felder and Brent (2005), an awareness of learning style theories, approaches to learning, and learner intellectual development levels are integral to the success of a training or teaching method. This may be more due to the affective and efficiency outcomes of training, rather than the effectiveness aspects. A recent study (Shepherd, 2017) was conducted to determine whether generational cohort would determine the learning preference of a respondent. It was determined that a variety of learning style preferences exist within any generational cohort and that none of the responses were statistically significant.

A 2013 web survey by Kriegel of 765 management training program attendees found the following results across all generations surveyed (Traditionalists, Baby Boomers, Generation X, Millennials):

• 63% were classified as active learners; 37% were classified as reflective learners.

• 65.2% were classified as sensing learning; 34.8% were intuitive.

• 85.7% were visual learners; 14.3% were verbal learners.

The Index of Learning Styles tool measures learning styles on four dimensions: (1) active (i.e., learning by doing) vs. reflective (i.e., learning by thinking), (2) sensing (i.e., practical and fact-based) vs. intuitive (i.e., theoretical and abstract), (3) visual (i.e., learning via images) vs. verbal (i.e., learning via writing or speech), and (4) sequential (step-like linearity) vs. global (holistic). The same survey presented 22 web-based learning activities, and participants were instructed to select their top 5 favorite learning activities in terms of their web-based learning experiences. The results across all generations follow.

• 58.1% reviewing information in graphic format (tables, charts, graphs).

• 45.2% using search engines for online research.

• 44.3% interacting with computer simulations.

• 40.6% practicing real-world interactions in online simulations.

• 32.6% reviewing quick reference guides such as Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs).

These results show little difference in learning style preferences among the generational cohorts of the participants. All of the generational groups were active learners, sensing, and visual (Kriegel, 2013). Course designers who focus on including these learning activity types within a training course will ensure that all learners, regardless of generation, can participate and engage with the materials.

A study (Knight, 2016) conducted on computer-based healthcare training learners found that all generations surveyed had visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learning style preferences. More importantly, the study showed that vision was the primary learning source, although it was enhanced by a secondary learning style. This secondary learning style was the determining factor for how an individual performed, beyond receiving the information.

Generational differences research suffers from many of the same weaknesses found in learning styles research. An extensive review of the learning styles literature (Coffield, Moseley, Hall, & Ecclestone, 2004) throws grave doubt on the validity and utility of employing learning styles as a basis for accommodating students of any generation. The reviewers found little rigorous, scientific support for the existence of the more than 70 learning styles models reported in hundreds of published studies from the educational and psychological research literature. According to Coffield et al. (2004), even the most widely studied models have not held up to scrutiny. The same can be said of the extant scholarship focused on generational differences (Reeves, 2006).

TECHNOLOGY

When it comes to technology, instructional designers may be tempted to change their methodology to whichever of the latest “groundbreaking” technologies is being touted, even without substantial research to show increased outcomes using this new technology. As noted by Reeves (2006), “…. (g)eneration ‘experts’ are making big bucks as consultants who issue recommendations that are also uninformed by strong theory or the findings of sound research” (p. 17). Chester (2002) offers five basic principles for training without any reference to principles of learning theory or findings from educational research studies. Chester (2005) offers six slightly more specific guidelines for training, although they are again unsupported by theory or research.

Lancaster and Stillman (2002) also fail to reference learning theories or the results of educational research in their “Training the Generations” chapter. They do include a few “buzzwords” from corporate training literature, such as “learning organization” and “lifelong learning”, but they do not list sources for these ideas (Reeves, 2006, p. 17).

The rapid increase in technology, coupled with a more diverse workforce, creates barriers to achieving a highly trained, technical workforce that can effectively respond to increasing work demands (Negron, 2017).

In one study, it was surprising to note that all generations showed a lack of enthusiasm for Web 2.0 technologies, such as Twitter, even among Millennials. This may show that the stereotypes of generations and future learning trends should be carefully considered before they are included in a training program. Designers and instructors should be cautious when using assumptions about generational differences to make design decisions (Kriegel, 2013).

LEARNING TACTICS INVENTORY (LTI)

The Learning Tactics Inventory (Dalton, 2016) categorizes behaviors into four scales:

1. Action: learning from direct experience.

2. Thinking: learning from cognitive processes.

3. Feeling: acknowledging, processing, and managing the anxiety and uncertainty associated with undertaking new challenges.

4. Accessing others: applying social learning paradigms, such as observing and modeling the behavior of others.

A study completed using the LTI across generations found that participants used thinking tactics as a primary preference in the learning process. This is important to know so that companies can ensure that they are providing “sufficient resources, developmental activities, and time for solitary practice and reflection so that learning may occur on an individual basis and knowledge may be constructed within the framework of the leader’s own cognitive processes” (DePinto, 2013, p. 428). The results also showed that individuals from all generational cohorts express a strong preference to learn technical and soft skills from on-the-job experience, compared with other forms of developmental activities (DePinto, 2013).

BRIDGING THE GAP AMONG GENERATIONS

Employees are possibly more aware than management that they are working in multigenerational companies, and they not only embrace that idea but also look for ways to build engagement with other generations. Companies would be wise to make more of an effort to encourage collaboration among the generations and find ways to build formal or informal mentoring opportunities so that younger generations can learn from their older counterparts. This would be mutually beneficial, as older employees can provide their wealth of knowledge to younger workers, while younger workers can help older workers become more technologically confident. It also benefits the company by preventing brain drain as older workers begin to retire and younger workers are promoted (Haberman, 2017).

Mentorship also has a large effect on psychological safety during formal training events. Psychological safety is the idea that individuals in highly diverse training groups will not participate in knowledge sharing if they do not feel safe. This can result in lower levels of learning for both that individual and the rest of the group, who cannot learn from their experiences. Psychological safety only becomes an issue when people recognize that there is high diversity. Initiatives that enhance people’s perceptions of diversity and reduce, while mitigating, any feelings of dissimilarities are beneficial for enhancing knowledge sharing between people of different generations (Gerpott et al., 2019).

This idea of psychological safety also comes into play during the design of a new training course; while “choosing the instructional tools and strategies necessary to support learning and transfer (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001) may benefit from shining more light on the behavioral strategies of trainers that can help enhance a high psychological safety in training groups” (Gerpott et al., 2019, p. 23).

CONCLUSIONS

With no research to indicate significant generational differences in learning preferences, trainers and instructional designers should be wary of focusing on this when creating training programs. Rather, it would make more sense to ensure that a variety of training methods are included in a training program to better serve different learning preferences and confirm that the content covered will fulfill the desired objectives for all learners, regardless of their generational cohorts (Berge & Berge, 2019).

Effective training relies on instructional design, including a needs analysis, of both learners and the content that must be engaged by the learners. When analyzing the learner, a designer should take into consideration the learner’s company experience, motivation, or reasons for taking the training. Individual differences, including learning preferences, may be important in increasing the enjoyment of the learning and the efficiency of the learning by the learners. These outcomes are important considerations in the design of instruction, along with the instructional effectiveness.