Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intellectual ...

Bertrand Pauget and Ahmed Dammak
The values that each generation associates with <strong>the</strong> concept <strong>of</strong> work also appear vastly different.
There is a culture <strong>of</strong> duty, identification with <strong>the</strong>ir company, and a belief in public service on one side
(Baby-Boomers), and on <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r side (Generation “Y”), <strong>the</strong>re is identification with <strong>the</strong> project, not <strong>the</strong>
company, centering on satisfaction and immediate retribution, but, at <strong>the</strong> same time, a generation that
is innovative and open to change. This has implications for management.
Our inductive approach used a series <strong>of</strong> questionnaires and interviews based on criteria defined by
Yin (1994) and Hadly-Rispal (2002). We sought to understand whe<strong>the</strong>r Generation “Y” influences
management and how it affects <strong>the</strong> attitudes <strong>of</strong> managers. We established that if <strong>the</strong> effect <strong>of</strong>
Generation “Y” could be verified in all organizations, <strong>the</strong>n this effect has caused management
changes. Faced with this situation, managers display two divergent attitudes: one group socializes
young people in <strong>the</strong> same way as has been done for previous generations, and <strong>the</strong> second group
adopts a resolutely relational stance. In facing <strong>the</strong>se new difficulties and managerial changes, <strong>the</strong>
design <strong>of</strong> organizations as a whole is questioned.
2. What defines a “generation”?
2.1 The idea <strong>of</strong> “generation” in <strong>the</strong> literature
“The biological is not <strong>the</strong> societal”. This assertion has caused a debate (Bourdieu, 1986) that has
never been resolved, leading us to consider <strong>the</strong> realities surrounding <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> specific words.
Instead <strong>of</strong> preferring <strong>the</strong> term “cohort”, which is used in biology and medicine, <strong>the</strong> twentieth century
saw <strong>the</strong> term “generation” adopted to designate <strong>the</strong> segregation <strong>of</strong> an age around seminal and
powerfully symbolic events, such as <strong>the</strong> May 1968 strike, <strong>the</strong> collapse <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Berlin Wall in 1989, and
<strong>the</strong> September 11, 2001 attacks. The term “generation” is <strong>the</strong>refore cultural and symbolic.
Created in <strong>the</strong> nineteenth century by August Compte, <strong>the</strong> term “generation” reappears in <strong>the</strong> 1920s
(Manheim, 1928) and is negatively associated in <strong>the</strong> 1930s with <strong>the</strong> problem <strong>of</strong> youth integration
during <strong>the</strong> economic crisis following <strong>the</strong> collapse <strong>of</strong> Wall Street. This is <strong>the</strong>n described in a
functionalist perspective as part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> cycle <strong>of</strong> life (Eisenstadt, 1956). Each generation follows its
predecessor, forming human destiny.
The term “generation” became unavoidable in <strong>the</strong> 1960s, when young people born after World War II,
more numerous than <strong>the</strong>ir elders, found <strong>the</strong>mselves less supervised than previous generations. A
more individualistic generation than those before <strong>the</strong> war, <strong>the</strong> “Baby Boomers” violently expressed
<strong>the</strong>ir wishes and aspirations in <strong>the</strong> 1960s (Mead, 1979). Research at this time studied those
individuals with <strong>the</strong> most anecdotal ways <strong>of</strong> life: those with a marginal culture (<strong>the</strong> beat generation)
and those that formed a counter-culture (<strong>the</strong> surfers) (Becker, 1963).
2.2 Characteristics <strong>of</strong> different generations
Generation “Y” is a phenomenon that has been frequently studied in pr<strong>of</strong>essional literature. A search
in EBSCO (<strong>the</strong> research engine), yields hundreds <strong>of</strong> studies that have sought to understand
Generation “Y” and its impact on organizations. The Harvard Business Review, for example, devoted
10 articles during 2008-2009 to Generation “Y”. This craze is not new; with <strong>the</strong> arrival <strong>of</strong> Generation
“X” on <strong>the</strong> labor market, many articles were written on <strong>the</strong> subject (e.g., Tulgan, 1997; RelStauffer,
1997; O’Bannon, 2001). This work can be syn<strong>the</strong>sized in various ways. Here, we have chosen to
identify <strong>the</strong> principal characteristics <strong>of</strong> each generation before examining <strong>the</strong> literature regarding <strong>the</strong>
effect <strong>of</strong> Generation “Y” on management.
While increases in life expectancy have allowed six generations to live simultaneously, three
generations currently work toge<strong>the</strong>r in France. The dates used to define <strong>the</strong> generations in <strong>the</strong> United
States (see Strauss and Howe (1997); Egri and Ralston (2004)) broadly correspond to those used in
France (Carol, 2009).. These generations correspond in percentage (with some nuances) to trends in
<strong>the</strong> US (Thunk, 2007). According to Chauvel (2010), <strong>the</strong>re are <strong>the</strong> following:
The Baby Boomers have a post-World War II mentality and are marked by reconstruction because
Europe had been largely damaged by fighting. Even if <strong>the</strong> damage was not as extensive as it was in
Germany (where 90% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> cities had been destroyed by bombing or <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> artillery), large
proportions <strong>of</strong> nor<strong>the</strong>rn France and Normandy were affected, and food rationing continued until 1949.
396