EMPLOYEE

Generations
in the Indian Workplace
A Research Report by the
Society for Human Resource Management
in India and Prof. Vasanthi Srinivasan,
IIM Bangalore

90’s
70’s
80’s
50’s 60’s
INTRODUCTION: EMPLOYEE GENERATIONS

Peace is not unity in similarity, but unity in diversity, in the comparison and conciliation of differences.
–Mikhail Gorbachev

Over the last two decades, newspaper articles, reports, magazines, and books have discussed how generational
differences are posing challenges for managers and organizations globally. Often, these discussions on generational
differences focus on the dominant stereotypes that are associated with the four Western generations, namely, Veterans,
Baby Boomers, Gen X, and Gen Y. Numerous books offer advice and suggestions on how to engage and manage
multiple generations in the workforce. The ndings of studies on generational issues in the U.S. and the U.K. contexts
proved to be ambivalent. It has even been said that “the generational literature may be more popular culture than social
science” (Giancola, 2006). However, signi cant changes in workforce demographics, the increased use of technology to
manage work across boundaries, extended supply chains, as well as the rapid growth and deceleration in the BRIC
countries have led to increased diversity in organizations. Employees need to interact across multiple cultures to deliver
goods and services in order to create value for organizations. Thus, managing diversity and building an inclusive culture
has become the mantra for organizations across the world.

Sociologists de ne generations as cohorts of people born in certain years, who then experience similar speci c
transitions in society or societal changes at typically the same chronological age. Generational cohorts develop
similarities in their attitudes and beliefs based on shared life experiences and have identi able characteristics that
distinguish them. Historical, economic, and socio-cultural contexts tend to accentuate the differences in these
characteristics. Such differences in the values, attitudes, and beliefs of employees belonging to different generations
impact their workplace behaviors. However, other than the dominant Western classi cation of generations into
Veterans, Baby Boomers, Gen X, and Gen Y, very little is known about generations in other cultural contexts.

This is the context against which the present study examines multiple generations in the workforce in India. The study
also explores whether the generational differences provided by the Western classi cation are relevant and applicable in
contexts that are culturally different. This study undertaken by SHRM India in collaboration with Prof. Vasanthi
Srinivasan from IIM Bangalore is an attempt to understand and characterize generations in the context of the Indian
workplace.

1. When Generations Collide (Lancaster and Stillman, 2003), Beyond Generational Differences (Sabattini et al., 2010), Leading a Multi-Generational
Workforce (Murphy, 2007), and Winning the Generation Wars (Krywulak and Roberts, 2009) are some recent books dealing with generational issues at
the workplace.
ABOUT THIS REPORT

As part of the collaborative research project between the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) in India
and Prof. Vasanthi Srinivasan from IIM Bangalore, the authors conducted a large-scale study to understand how
employee generations manifest in Indian organizations. The study involved a survey administered to 11,700 white-
collar employees, focus group discussions, and interviews across seven sectors (IT, Pharmaceutical, Manufacturing,
Finance/Banking, Communications, Infrastructure and Retail) pan India. This report presents the results from the
quantitative survey, SHRM research resources, and qualitative studies related to generational diversity from an Indian
context, in particular. The implications of multi-generational diversity to senior leaders, line managers, and HR
professionals are presented along with qualitative case studies focusing on how collaboration efforts among
generations are being initiated and managed in organizations.

ABOUT SHRM INDIA

SHRM India is part of the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), the world's largest professional, not-for-
pro t Human Resource association. It has over 250,000 members in 140 countries. SHRM's mission is to support the HR
professional and advance the HR profession through globally recognized certi cations, collaborative communities,
comprehensive resources, research, professional development opportunities, academic alliances, and advisory
services.

SHRM in India provides a platform for thought leadership, sharing of best practices, and professional networking within
the Indian and global HR communities in order to take the profession higher through continuous and collaborative
learning.

The SHRM India Knowledge Center brings together knowledge and expertise in every aspect of HR in one place, for the
convenience of the practitioner. Together, the SHRM India Knowledge Center resources enable and equip the modern
day HR professional to deliver in the current work context and meet future challenges. Supported by over 50 subject
matter experts and internal expertise, the SHRM India Knowledge Center offers cutting-edge resources across all key
and emerging HR disciplines. These include thought leadership, advisory panels, tools and templates, virtual events,
and research.

SHRM's comprehensive Online Resources provide rich content on both www.shrmindia.org and www.shrm.org. As a
vast repository of articles, research papers, case studies, and related materials on every aspect of HR within the Indian
and global contexts, these resources constitute the most current and comprehensive body of knowledge in HR. The
two websites also link to social media, provide up-to-date information on events, and are the gateway to the
Knowledge Center, virtual events, and advisory panels.

SHRM India also offers Professional Development Programs, customized learning frameworks, and skill-building
workshops with a focus on strengthening the core competencies of HR professionals. These include focused programs
in each of the HR sub-functions such as Total Rewards, Staffing and Recruitment, Performance Management, and
Business Alignment across all career levels.

SHRM's Advisory Services offer consulting and customized solutions for corporates and academic institutions based on
their business challenges and developmental needs. The core areas of advisory services are Leadership and Culture,
Learning and Development, Performance and Rewards, Organization Structuring, Talent Management and Employee
Engagement, HR, and People Manager Development.

The University Alliance practice of SHRM India provides high-quality standards of HR knowledge across universities in
India and supports the HR curriculum with the world-renowned SHRM body of knowledge built over the course of the
past 64 years. The purpose of this initiative is to develop a broad and consistent channel of HR talent in India.

The SHRM India Forums held in various locations across India are local learning stations, which enable professional
development, networking, exchange of knowledge resources, and practices within the Indian and global HR
communities.

SHRM India continuously strives to release the latent potential of worldwide knowledge exchange in the space of
business HR by constantly expanding and rede ning the HR profession and practice in India and around the world.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Prof. Vasanthi Srinivasan, Researcher and Project Lead

Vasanthi Srinivasan is an Associate Professor in the area of Organizational Behavior and Human Resources
Management and is the Chairperson of the Center for Corporate Governance and Citizenship at the Indian Institute of
Management Bangalore (IIMB), India. She was the ICCR Chair Professor at the HHL School of Management Leipzig,
Germany in 2012–2013. Her research interests include multiple generations in the workplace, women in the
information technology sector, women on boards in India, and ethics teaching in business schools in India.

Dedeepya Ajith John, Co-Researcher

Dedeepya Ajith John is an engineer from JNT University with an MBA from the Indian Institute of Science (IISc,)
Bangalore. She is currently a Research Consultant with SHRM India and is working on a large-scale project on Multi-
Generational Diversity. With over 5 years of work experience, her areas of interests in HR include Diversity, Analytics, and
Organization Development.

Maria Christine Nirmala, Co-Researcher

Maria Christine Nirmala holds a PhD from the Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bangalore and an MPhil in Psychiatric
Social Work from NIMHANS, Bangalore. She has over 13 years of work experience in Organization Development,
Knowledge Management, and Behavioral Sciences. She has over 15 publications in various peer-reviewed journals,
books, and research reports.
REPORT STRUCTURE

SECTION 1
• Overview of the literature on multiple generations in the workforce
• Outline of the Indian context to arrive at the gaps in literature
• Need for current study

SECTION 2
• 3-stage methodology

SECTION 3
• Data analysis

SECTION 4

• Key ndings

SECTION 5
• Implications of the study for practitioners
CONTENTS

List of Tables

List of Figures

1. Origin & De nition of the Construct “Generation”

2. Research Design & Methodology

3. Data Analysis
Discovery Phase: Rokeach Values Survey

Validation Phase: Work Values Survey

Indian Generational Cohorts and Work Values

Integration Phase

4. Key Findings

Generational Collaboration and Con ict

5. Discussion & Conclusion

Managerial Implications

Way Forward

Conclusion

Caselets

Annexures
Annexure 1: Sample Questionnaires

Annexure 2: Tables

References

Acknowledgements
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1: Classi cation of Generations in India

Table 2.1: Sample Demographics from Rokeach Values Survey (Discovery Phase)

Table 2.2: Sampling and No. of responses Collected for in Validation Phase

Table 2.3: Sample Demographics of the Responses Collected in Validation Phase

Table 3.1: Overall Spread of Ranks for Terminal and Instrumental Values across the Entire Sample

Table 3.2: Differences due to Gender in Rokeach Values

Table 3.3: Differences due to Marital Status in Terminal & Instrumental Values

Table 3.4: Differences due to Geographic Location in Terminal & Instrumental Values

Table 3.5: Comparison of Terminal and Instrumental Values across Age Groups

Table 3.6: Differences in Values across Different Family Types

Table 3.7: Differences in Values across Financial Roles

Table 3.8: Differences in Values due to Father's Educational Background

Table 3.9: Differences in Values due to Father's Occupation

Table 3.10: Cluster Analysis of Rokeach Values Survey Data (Sample Size: 910)

Table 3.11: Demographic Pro le across Gender

Table 3.12: Comparison of Mean Ratings

Table 3.13: Differences due to Family Type

Table 3.14: Differences due to Financial Role

Table 3.15: Differences due to Father's Educational Background

Table 3.16: Differences due to Father's Occupation

Table 3.17: Differences due to Geographical Location

Table 3.18: Differences due to Marital Status

Table 3.19: No. of Respondents across 2 clusters

Table 3.20: Chi-square Analysis & Test of Proportions across 2 clusters

Table 3.21: Demographic Statistics across 4 groups

Table 3.22: Comparison of Mean Ratings across Indian Generational Cohorts

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Future Workforce Pro le in India (Based on Population Distribution in 2011)

Figure 2: Objectives of the Study

Figure 3: Phases of Research Design & Methodology

Figure 4: High-Ranked Rokeach Values Based on Demographic Variables

Figure 5: Summary of Cluster Analysis

Figure 6: Factor Analysis and Reliability Analysis

Figure 7: High-Ranked Work Values Based on Demographic Pro les

Figure 8: Socio-Demographic Pro ling across the 2 Clusters

Figure 9: Classi cation of Generations in the Indian Context

Figure 10: Generational Categories and Signi cant Differences in Values

Figure 11: Archetypes of Generations Using Socio-Economic Variables and Values

Figure 12: Signi cant Regional Differences in Work Values

Figure 13: Inter-Generational Collaboration within Organizations

1. ORIGIN & DEFINITION OF THE CONSTRUCT “GENERATION”

In an increasingly globalized world where knowledge and information de ne the economy of the future, having more
generations working side by side makes it crucial for organizations to address multigenerational diversity and
intergenerational con ict at the workplace (Murphy, 2007).

De ning Generations
De ning the construct of “generations” has proved to be difficult. Several scholars in various disciplines have made
multiple attempts to de ne this phenomenon (see Joshi et al., 2010, among others).

The Historical Context: Saecula- Strauss and Howe (1991) refer to “generations” as a cyclical theory of history
consisting of archetypes. The authors studied Anglo-American history by dividing it into saecula or seasonal cycles of
history. A saeculum is about 90 years long—the length of a long human life—and is further divided into four "Turnings"
that are about 22 years long. They proposed that children who were raised during a particular Turning share similar
historical and cultural experiences, resulting in distinct generational types.

The Sociological Context: Common habitus & culture- Mannheim (1952) and later scholars de ned a generation as a
group of people “who share a common habitus, nexus and culture, a collective memory that serves to integrate”
(Eyerman and Turner, 1998). There are two important elements to the term “generation”—a common location in
historical time and a “distinct consciousness of that historical position, shaped by the events and experiences of that
time” (Gilleard, 2004). A generation is popularly de ned as “an identi able group that shares birth years, age, location
and signi cant life events at critical developmental stages” (Kupperschmidt, 2000); this de nition draws on the notion
of a common location in time.

Collective Memories- Recent years have witnessed increasing interest in de ning generations based on “collective
memories” (Holbrook and Schindler, 1996). People who are in adolescence or young adulthood during particularly
signi cant national or international events will form a shared memory of those events, which will affect their future
attitudes, preferences, and behaviors (Parry and Urwin, 2011). Therefore, generations can be viewed as cohorts of
people born in the same year/period who then experience similar and speci c transitions of society or societal changes
at typically the same chronological age (Murphy et al., 2010; D'Amato and Herzfeldt, 2008; Smola and Sutton, 2002;
Mannheim, 1952), develop similarities in their attitudes and beliefs based on shared life experiences or collective
memories, and hence have identi able characteristics by which they differ. Since the signi cant events are more local,
we would expect the generations to vary across locations and culture, based on their life experiences.

Generational differences were found to impact all aspects of people management. Further, generational differences
have the potential to cause serious con ict within the workplace (Karp and Sirias, 2001). Researchers identi ed

2. Various studies have dealt with the impact of generational differences on speci c aspects of people management: recruitment (Charrier, 2000),
training and development (Berl, 2006; Tulgan, 1996), career development (McDonald and Hite, 2008; Ansoorian et al., 2003), rewards and working
arrangements (Carlson, 2004; Filipczak, 1994), and management style (Losyk, 1997; Tulgan, 1996).
generational differences in values (Lyons, 2004), motivation (Wong et al., 2008), work values (Chen and Choi, 2008), and
workplace fun (Lamm and Meeks, 2009). However, research in this eld has been plagued by methodological problems
related to the use of cross-sectional design, compounding of age and stage effects in cohort analysis, and the use of
varying birth years to de ne generations across different studies (Parry and Urwin, 2011). To date, most of the research
in this eld has been conducted in Western contexts (U.S., U.K., Canada, and Australia). While studies conducted in other
cultural contexts argued for different historical events that shaped the speci c behaviors of generations, the Western
classi cation of Veterans, Baby Boomers, Gen X, and Gen Y continued to be used. Several scholars also alluded to
national culture differences in generational values (Whiteoak et al., 2006; Egri and Ralston, 2004). In the next section, we
explore the ndings of studies in the Asian context and compare them to research ndings in the global context.

Studies in the Asian Context

The literature on generational differences consists mostly of studies pertaining to the Western countries. While
generational differences exist across the world, the de nition of generations remains speci c to a given society, as the
differences in any society are shaped by political, socio-economic, and cultural events (Hole et al., 2010).

The Asian region has a large population and is a hub for varied cultures, religions, politics, and ethnic minorities. Most
countries in this region have embarked on a journey of economic liberalization in the last two decades. Yu and Miller
(2005) identi ed a generation gap between Baby Boomers and Gen X in the Oriental context. In the Malaysian context,
the expectation-perception gap was found to be a potential source of misperception and misunderstanding among
employees from three generational cohorts; further, cultural background was found to have signi cant in uence on
work values, ethics, and behaviors (Angeline, 2011).

Egri and Ralston (2004) compared generational cohorts and personal values between the U.S. and China. The authors
conceptualized four generations in China—Social reform, Republican, Consolidation, and Cultural Revolution—based
on political and historical events. They found signi cant differences between the U.S. and Chinese cohorts, which
supports the argument that national cultural context has an impact on generational values. Findings from studies in the
Korean context show differences in values across generations. Loyalty, trust, cooperation, reciprocity, humility,
benevolence, being hardworking, and being ambitious—which are some of the traditional characteristics of Korean
culture—are being challenged as younger generations are increasingly in uenced by Western culture (Rupnow, 2011).
Nationalism, technology, the Korean wave, and the media appear to in uence the way generations get de ned (Flake,
2008). Other studies argue that global traumatic events may facilitate the development of a global generation
(Edmunds and Turner, 2005).

Research Gaps
The review of the extant literature shows there is mixed understanding on how generations have been conceptualized,
de ned, and categorized by academics and practitioners. There appear to be key gaps in the research on generations.

3. Studies on generational diversity in the Western context include Parry and Urwin (2011), Rood (2011), Meriac et al. (2010), Murphy et al. (2010),
Chen and Choi (2008), Gursoy et al. (2008), and Smola and Sutton (2002), among others.
No common understanding of the term “generations”- Since the construct of generations is socially embedded, the
variations in de ning or understanding the term assume great signi cance. “Generation” as a construct is generally
categorized and de ned based on birth years or age, which is an imprecise measure—the length of a generation in this
sense could vary from twenty to thirty years depending on the age of marriage, childbirth, and average family size in a
country.

In uence of other demographic variables not taken into account- The arguments on how de ning events can
shape a collective way of thinking across a cohort are arrived at logically. However, the in uence of other variables such
as personal experiences, family upbringing, and socio-cultural attributes that shape generational attitudes is not well
understood. Studies with ndings that are contradictory to the popular stereotypes of generations highlight this point.
It can also be argued that major world events are unlikely to impact all nations in a similar manner. Therefore, we should
expect national differences in generational characteristics.

Importance of intra-generational differences in emerging economies- According to Parry and Urwin (2011),
cohorts are likely to differ across location and culture. Further, according to Edmunds and Turner (2005), in a globalized
world, there is a convergence of experience across cultural groups—the notion of “global generations”. Given these
arguments, exploring generational differences in emerging economies that are going through a transition phase (such
as India) becomes critical. The rapid growth in the last decade (as of November 2013, India has witnessed deceleration in
growth; however the domestic economy is experiencing a GDP growth rate at 5%) has meant a signi cant change in the
demography of organizations in India. Companies have needed to hire from smaller towns and cities to meet the
demand for labor. Therefore, we argue that intra-generational differences are likely to be high within Indian
organizations.

To summarize, most of the studies on generational differences pertain to the Western context. There is a need for more
cross-cultural research given the potential for variation in the socio-cultural and historical events in different countries
and across different strata within a country (Macky et al., 2008). There is a paucity of research in the Asian context and in
the Indian context, in particular.

Making Sense of Indian Generations

India is one of the most complex countries to understand and make sense of. Marketers refer to Consumer India as
schizophrenic (Bijapurkar, 2007) since words such as “heterogeneous” and “plural” do not even begin to convey the
extent of India's diversity. In many ways, the business and management culture in India has always been a re ection of
the complexity and diversity that characterizes the country as a whole. India has 28 states and 22 official languages.
After liberalization in 1991, different states in India have shown economic development at varying paces. Therefore, as
Dreze and Sen (1999) (as cited in Bijapurkar, 2007) mention, out of the 28 states, some Indian states are worse than Sub-
Saharan Africa, while others are better than China. Rural and urban India are at different stages of evolution. Even within
rural India, often within the same state, there are oases of development poised to leapfrog and become more
developed than urban India.

4. Studies that contradict the stereotypes of generations include Rood (2011), Chen and Choi (2008), Kim (2008), Yu and Miller (2005), and Appelbaum
et al. (2004).
According to Census data of 2011, the population of India has increased from 238.4 million in 1901 to 1210 million in
2011. Out of this, 29.7% of the population is between 0–14 years of age, 64.9% is between 15–64 years of age, and 5.5%
is above 65 years. It is estimated that by 2020, 50% of the Indian population will be below 25 years of age (SHRM, 2011)
and that the talent pools of younger people under the age of 30 will have a growth percentage of 5.6. However, the
talent pool is not a homogeneous one, given the differences in economic development among the Indian states.

Figure 1 shows that the states with the highest proportion of population in the age group of 0–14 are Jharkhand,
Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh (MP) and others. Therefore, these are the states from where employees would be entering
the workforce in the future. The change in the state-wise composition of future employees is quite signi cant in a
country such as India, where the language differences across states are high and so is the performance on Human
Development Indicators such as health and education. These factors have a direct impact on the quality of the
workforce. Despite this, very little is known about regional differences in the quality of talent among generations.

Figure 1: Future Workforce Pro le in India (Based on Population Distribution in 2011)

Uttaranchal, AP,
Meghalaya, Assam,
Jharkhand,
AP, Haryana, Chhattisgarh,
Karnataka, Kerala, Rajasthan, MP
Maharashtra,
Kerala, TN, Punjab, TN
Pondicherry, 0-14 yrs
Andaman & Goa (Highest)
15-34 yrs
0-14 yrs (Lowest)

There have been several attempts to contextualize Indian generations based on the de nition of generations in the
global literature. The contribution of the eld of marketing in de ning consumer generations in the Indian context is
signi cant. Table 1.1 (Annexure 2) illustrates the various attempts at classifying generations in the Indian context. While
these studies attempted to identify the dominant characteristics of generations, all of them suffered from the same
methodological and conceptual issues that afflicted the global research on this subject (as mentioned earlier).

As was discussed earlier, generations are socially embedded in the context of national events. Since the 1990s, India has
been through signi cant transformations. The process of liberalizing the economy is still incomplete. In the last decade,
India has emerged as a signi cant player in the international markets. The corporate sector in India has witnessed
unprecedented changes in the same period. The emergence of multinational players in the Indian market has resulted
in a number of global management practices being adopted by local rms. The exponential growth of information,
communication, and technology has meant signi cant changes in the manner in which organizations are managed.
Yet, agriculture continues to remain a signi cant contributor in terms of employment to the country. The co-existence
of three economies namely agricultural, manufacturing and knowledge/services economy in signi cant proportions
creates a unique social context in newly emerging markets like India. However, there is a growing recognition that the
process of liberalization is still underway and that “inclusive economic growth” has not yet occurred.

Various authors have studied management practices in the Indian context (Chatterjee and Heuer, 2006; Neelankavil et
al., 2000). Indian managers have been noted for their ability to tolerate high levels of ambiguity and uncertainty
(Hofstede, 1991). Several research surveys involving Asian managers have contended that the business leaders in the
region are able to maintain a duality of values—one eld of value formation is drawn from their own cultural heritage,
while the other impacts on them through the wider forces of internationalization (Chatterjee and Heuer, 2006; Kakar et
al., 2002; Neelankavil et al., 2000; Bedi, 1991). The liberalization of the Indian economy and the imperatives of
globalization have impacted the managerial mindsets. Studies have reported tensions between the traditional,
indigenous Indian values and the new, global values (Chatterjee and Pearson, 2000; Khandwalla, 1996; Kao et al., 1995).
While there is a hybridization of management systems and personalization of relationships in the workplace
(Neelankavil et al., 2000), very little is known about how these manifest in the workplace. A study comparing Indian
CEOs with CEOs in the U.S. (Kakar et al., 2002) found that despite the former group's extensive exposure to Western
management concepts and practices, the in uence of Indian culture on senior managers' perceptions of top leadership
has not disappeared. On the one hand, Indian CEOs were criticized as being authoritarian in some aspects of their
behavior; on the other, they received greater idealization from their teams of senior managers than was the case in the
Western sample. Sinha and Kanungo (1997) noted that “work” for Indian workers involves more than what is
accomplished in one's job. Indian workers greatly value good relationships between bosses and direct reportees.
Similarly, respect for age and seniority consistently emerged as a characteristic of the Indian context (Gopalan and
Stahl, 1998).

A few scholars also recognized differences in work values and motivations across different regions (Kamdar, 2002;
Kapur and Ramamurti, 2001; Sinha et al., 1994). Sinha et al. (2004) found regional similarities and differences in people's
beliefs, practices, and preferences. In this study, 753 students from seven cities reported their perception of what others
believed and the extent to which they attached importance to their own/others' opinions, desires, and interests. Five
values emerged, as opposed to those reported in studies in a Western context—embeddedness in one's in-group;
harmony and tolerance; duty in contrast to hedonism; preferences for personalized relationships; and arranging
persons, objects, ideas, and relationships hierarchically. Three distinct clusters emerged out of the seven cities involved
in the study—Patna and Varanasi; Baroda, Lucknow, and Kharagpur; and Chennai and Bangalore. Apart from these
cultural and sociological studies, the eld of consumer research provides some valuable insights. According to the
report Inside Facebook Gold (2011), older users seem to be turning into a relevant user group in India for social media.
While India's Facebook user base between the age group of 18–25 years exceeds the average across the top 15
countries according to Facebook users, the users in the age group of 35–44 grew by nearly 20% in the year 2012. It
appears that changes in adopting technology are occurring not just in the younger age group, but across other age
groups too. Therefore, understanding multiple generations in the Indian context requires a more nuanced unbundling
of the construct of generations.

The objectives of the present study are presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Objectives of the Study

To provide a To identify
meaningful mechanisms that To outline the
categorization of foster implications of
To identify
employee collaboration and generational
generational
generations in create value diversity for
differences in
the Indian across leaders, line
work values
context using the generations managers, and
construct of within HR managers
values organizations
2. RESEARCH DESIGN & METHODOLOGY

The research design and methodology of the study consisted of four phases (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Phases of Research Design & Methodology

• Review of academic and practitioner literature

Exploratory Phase • Presentation of key ndings to 100 CXOs and CHROs pan India

• Inputs from Research Advisory Group (RAG)

Discovery Phase • Understanding generations through personal values by
administering Rokeach Values Survey (RVS). Sample size 910

• Understanding generations through work values

Validation Phase • Sample size: 5306

• 50 focus group discussions across sectors pan India

Integration Phase • 13 in-depth interviews with senior business & HR leaders
• 3 case studies on industry best practices

Exploratory Phase
In the rst phase, the research team undertook an extensive review of academic and practitioner literature. The key
ndings and research gaps were presented to 100 CXOs and CHROs from different sectors across India. The intent was
to engage practitioners and get them to articulate their experiences in managing a multi-generational workforce. The
key themes that emerged from these roundtable discussions were as follows.

a) Multi-generational diversity is a complex construct. The CXOs mentioned that “they experience the challenges
but are unable to articulate what generations mean within their organizations”

b) While the four generational categories used in the Western literature are useful to frame the problem, the
practitioners found that these categories did not map completely with their experiences involving Indian
generations

c) The CXOs were divided as to whether there were three or four generational cohorts in the Indian workplace.
There was disagreement about whether age was a good variable to de ne generational cohorts
Discovery Phase
In the second phase, based on the inputs from the roundtable discussions and the suggestions from the Research
Advisory Group (which was constituted for the project and comprised eminent practitioners and academics), personal
values were used as a basis to categorize generations in India. Value is de ned as an “enduring belief that a speci c
mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of
conduct or end-state of existence” (Rokeach, 1973). Within the literature, values are known to impact motivation (Locke,
1991), organizational commitment (Meyer et al., 1998), decision making (Meglino and Ravlin, 1998), career choice
(Judge and Bretz, 1992), and organizational citizenship behavior (Feather and Rauter, 2004).

Two classes of values were included in this phase—terminal values and instrumental values. Terminal values are values
concerned with goals or the “end-states of existence” while instrumental values are those concerned with the means to
the goals or the “modes of conduct”. Data on demographic variables was collected. The Rokeach Values Survey (RVS), a
standard instrument, was administered to 910 respondents who were asked to rank 18 terminal values and 18
instrumental values in the order of importance as perceived by them. The demographic variables that impacted these
values as well as the values that were considered important by employees belonging to different cohorts were explored
further through in-depth interviews, which helped to understand how employees interpreted these values.

Validation Phase
In the third phase, the focus was on understanding the importance of work values among different employee
generations in the workplace. Work values can be de ned as generalized beliefs about the relative desirability of
various aspects of work and work-related outcomes (Ros et al., 1999; Dose, 1997; George and Jones, 1997). Work values
answer the question “What is important to individuals in their working lives?” Work values include six
constructs—intrinsic, extrinsic, altruism, social, status, and freedom.

For this study, a 38-item scale was adapted from an existing work values instrument (Lyon, 2004). The respondents were
asked to rate how important each value was to them on a 5-point Likert-type rating scale (with 1 = “highly unimportant”
up to 5 = “highly important”) and the extent to which the values were practiced in their respective organization using a
5-point Likert scale (with 1 = “not at all” up to 5 = “to a large extent”). The survey instrument showed reliability (Cronbach
alpha) of more than 0.7.

Out of 11,700 employees from seven organizations who were approached for the study, 6637 responses were collected,
with a response rate of 56.73%. Out of the 6637 responses, the usable responses were 5306, with a hit rate of 79.95%.
Table 2.2 (Annexure 2) provides a snapshot of the sample and the total number of responses for the study.

The average age, professional experience, and tenure of the respondents in the sample (5306) were 32.12 years, 5.3
years, and 9.1 years, respectively. The sample was dominated by men (75.4%) and those whose education level was at
least graduation. 54.7% of the sample hailed from metro cities, 64.2% were married, and 58.9% were from nuclear
families. The demographics of the sample are included in Table 2.3 (Annexure 2).

5. The Rokeach Values Questionnaire (Values & Generations) is provided in Annexure 1. Information related to the sample of this study is provided in
Table 2.1 (Annexure 2). distinguished the collective unconscious from the personal unconscious—the personal unconscious is a personal reservoir of
experiences unique to each individual, while the collective unconscious collects and organizes those personal experiences in a similar way with each
member of a particular species. Since they are part of the unconscious, the existence of archetypes can only be deduced indirectly by examining
behavior, images, and assumptions.
Integration Phase
The fourth and nal phase consisted of focus group discussions and in-depth interviews with the key respondents.
Based on the ndings that emerged from the Rokeach Values Survey and the Work Values Survey, 50 focus group
discussions were held with the respondents from different regions of the country and across sectors like IT,
nance/banking, infrastructure, pharmaceutical, manufacturing, and retail in order to assess in detail how values were
interpreted by employees. The focus group discussions allowed a more nuanced understanding of the ndings.
Interviews were conducted with HR leaders and CXOs to understand and identify how managers coped with
generational differences and the manner in which organizations were attempting to build spaces for inter-generational
collaboration. Apart from this, additional data pertaining to the best practices on generational diversity and inclusion
adopted by organizations was developed into case studies.

3. DATA ANALYSIS

The data analysis for the discovery phase using the Rokeach Values Survey and the validation phase using the Work
Values Survey is presented below.

Discovery Phase: Rokeach Values Survey

The Rokeach Values Survey (RVS) was administered to 910 respondents who were asked to rank 18 terminal values and
18 instrumental values in the order of importance as perceived by them. Since it was ranked data, the median was
considered to be the most appropriate measure of central tendency. Tables 3.1 (Annexure 2) presents the overall
ranking of the terminal and instrumental values across the sample.

Table 3.1 shows that the most highly-ranked terminal value in terms of the median scores was Family security, followed
by Health, Respect, and Comfortable life, in that order. The median scores for instrumental values indicate that Honest,
Ambitious, Responsible were ranked highest. Capable and Broadminded shared a joint fourth rank.

The terminal values ranked lowest were World of beauty, World of peace, and Salvation. The instrumental values
Imaginative, Forgiving, Obedient, and Polite were ranked low on priority.

Differences across Socio-Demographic Pro les

The median test was conducted and the Composite Rank Order (CRO) was analyzed to understand the differences and
the similarities across all the socio-demographic pro les. Composite rank ordering helps us understand the relative
ranking of the values across the entire list and gives a more comprehensive understanding of priorities.

Gender
Table 3.2 (Annexure 2) presents the differences and the similarities in the way men and women ranked values based on
the median test.
The analysis reveals that men ranked the values of Exciting life, National security, Capable, and Responsible higher than
the women did. Women ranked Inner harmony, Self-respect, Independent, and Loving higher than the men did.

Marital Status
Family security and Responsible emerged as high-ranked values among married respondents as compared to the
responses of the single respondents. Self-controlled was ranked higher by single respondents than by their married
counterparts (Table 3.3, Annexure 2).

Metro/Non-metro/Town/Village
The place where each respondent hailed from was classi ed into metro city, non-metro city, town, or village. The top
four terminal values of Family security, Health, Self-respect, and Comfortable life were common across all respondents;
these values were not impacted by the respondents' place of origin (Table 3.4, Annexure 2). However, values such as
Inner harmony, Sense of accomplishment, Social recognition, and True friendship differed signi cantly—respondents
hailing from the towns ranked Inner harmony high; respondents from the metro cities ranked True friendship high;
respondents from the villages ranked Social recognition higher; and respondents from the non-metro cities gave a high
rank to Sense of accomplishment. Ambitious, Honesty, and Responsible featured as the top-ranked instrumental values
across the different backgrounds. Clean and Intellectual were ranked higher by respondents from towns than by the
others.

Age
Three age groups based on the Indian generational categories (Rajesh, 2010) were used in this analysis. The sample was
divided into three groups—those in the age group of 20 to 30; those aged between 31 and 40 years; and those above
the age of 41. The comparison of the terminal and the instrumental values across these age groups is provided in Table
3.5 (Annexure 2).

While Comfortable life, Helpful, and Responsible were ranked high by those in the age group between 31 and 40 years,
True friendship, Imaginative, and Loving were ranked highest by those in the 20–30 age group. Inner harmony and Sense
of accomplishment were ranked high by respondents above the age of 41. Overall, professional experience as a
demographic variable was highly correlated with age.

Family Type
Table 3.6 (Annexure 2) shows there are differences in values among those who stay alone or with friends, those who stay
in a nuclear family, and those who stay in a joint family. Those who stayed in joint families ranked Ambition and Clean
higher. Respondents from nuclear families ranked signi cantly high. Those who stayed alone or with friends ranked
True friendship and Self-controlled the highest compared to the other respondents.

Financial Role in Family

An individual's nancial contribution to the family in terms of whether he/she is the only earning member or a
supporting earning member, or whether the family is independent of his/her earning determines his/her position,
roles, and responsibilities in the family. On attempting to understand the differences in value priorities due to these
variables, it was found that respondents whose families were independent of their earnings ranked True friendship,
Imaginative, and Intellectual high (Table 3.7, Annexure 2). Respondents who were supporting earning members ranked
National security comparatively higher, while sole earning members ranked Responsible high.

Father's Education
The education level of the respondent's father (Table 3.8, Annexure 2) has a relationship with the rating of terminal
values such as Salvation, Sense of accomplishment, and World of beauty. While Salvation and World of beauty were ranked
signi cantly high by most of the respondents whose fathers had not completed their schooling (i.e., had not passed 10th
grade .), Sense of accomplishment was signi cantly higher priority to those whose fathers were postgraduates. There
was a great deal of variation in the ranking of instrumental values across the sample. While Clean as a value was ranked
highest by those whose fathers had not completed schooling, it was ranked lowest by those whose fathers were
postgraduates. The latter category ranked Loyal to be of highest priority when compared to those whose fathers had
not completed schooling. Intellectual was ranked equally high by both categories of respondents—those fathers were
postgraduates and those whose fathers had not completed 10th std.; those whose fathers were diploma or ITI holders
ranked this value the lowest. Respondents whose fathers were graduates or postgraduates ranked Logical higher than
those whose fathers had not completed 10th grade. and those whose fathers had studied up to ITI, Diploma, and so on.

Father's Occupation
Respondents whose fathers were agriculturists' ranked values such as True friendship and Clean high and they ranked
values such as Sense of accomplishment, Imaginative, and Intellectual lower, especially when compared to those whose
fathers were employed in the private sector (Table 3.9, Annexure 2).

Figure 4 on the next page summarizes the high-ranked values based on the demographic variables.
 Figure 4: High-Ranked Rokeach Values Based on Demographic Variables

Demographics Rokeach Vaues

Gender Men Exciting life, National security, Capable, Responsible
Women Inner harmony, Self-respect, Independent, Loving
Marital Status Married Family security, Responsible
Single Self-controlled
Metro cities True friendship
Non-metro cities Sense of accomplishment
Geographic Location Town Inner harmony, Clean, Intelligent
Village Social recognition
Top 4 value common Family Security, Health Self-Respect, Comfortable
across locations life, Ambitious, Honesty, Responsible
20-30 yrs True friendship, Imaginative, Loving
Age 31-40 yrs Comfortable life, Helpful, Responsible
>41 yrs Inner harmony, Sense of accomplishment
Joint families Ambition, Clean
Family type Nuclear familes Inner harmony
Staying alone True friendship, Self-controlled
Those whose families
are not dependent on True friendship, Imaginative, Intellectual
Financial role in the their earnings
family Supporting earning National security
members
Sole earning members Responsible
<10th grade Salvation, World of beauty, Clean, Intellectual
Father’s education ITI/Diploma Logical
Graduates Logical
Postgraduates Sense of accomplishment, Loyal, Intellectual
Father’s occupation Agriculture True friendship, Clean
Private sector Sense of accomplishment, Imaginative, Intellectual

Figure 4 shows that socio-economic parameters related to demographics have an impact on the values. We did a cluster
analysis to determine the combined impact of these demographic variables on the values.

Cluster Analysis
Cluster analysis was performed on the sample of 910 respondents to understand how the demographic characteristics
formed a natural group based on the rankings given. The sample was found to be grouped into four clusters with a
sample size of 249, 206, 231, and 224, respectively (Table 3.10, Annexure 2). Fisher's test of proportions yielded the
following results and the most signi cant differences are presented in the Figure below.

• Cluster 1 had a signi cantly lesser proportion of people from a village background compared to clusters 2, 3,
and 4. Cluster 1 had signi cantly lesser proportion of people in the age group of 30–40 and signi cantly more
people above the age of 41. Cluster 1 had a signi cantly larger proportion of people from the non-metro cities
compared to cluster 2 and cluster 4. Cluster 1 had more people whose families were independent on their
 earnings compared to cluster 3 and cluster 4. Cluster 1 had a signi cantly higher proportion of respondents
who had had an English-medium education compared to cluster 2 and cluster 4. Cluster 1 was
characteristically dominated by the respondents, whose fathers had been in the private sector and were
graduates. Cluster 1 was dominated by those with more educated mothers (either graduates or
postgraduates).

• Cluster 2 had a signi cantly higher proportion of respondents who had been educated in a regional medium
compared to cluster 1, followed by the second highest number in cluster 4. Cluster 2 and cluster 4 signi cantly
differed from cluster 1 and 3 in having more people whose fathers were educated up to 10th grade. or lower.
Cluster 2 was dominated by respondents whose fathers were either agriculturists or in the government
service.

• Cluster 3 also had a signi cantly larger number of people from the non-metro cities when compared to cluster
4. Cluster 3 had more people in the age group of 30–40 years and fewer people above the age of 41. Cluster 3
signi cantly differed from the clusters 1 and 2 in that it had a larger proportion of people who were supporting
earning members. Cluster 3 was dominated by a higher proportion of respondents, whose fathers were
graduates, with Cluster 1 having the highest proportion of such respondents.

• Cluster 4 had more respondents whose parents were either agriculturists or in other professions such as family
business, driver, doctor, and so on. Cluster 4 was signi cantly dominated by the respondents, whose mothers
had not nished 10th grade.

Figure 5: Summary of Cluster Analysis

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4

Background Highest: Non-metro Highest: Village Highest: Non-metro
Lowest: Village Lowest: Non-metro Highest: Non-metro
Age group Highest: 40+ Lowest: 40+ Highest: 30-40
Lowest: 30-40 Lowest: 40+
Financial Highest: Family Lowest: Supporting Highest: Supporting
role independent of earning member earning member
earning
Medium of Highest: English Highest: Regional Not completed 10th
education medium medium grade
Father’s Highest: Graduates Highest: <=10th grade.
education
Father’s Highest: Graduates Highest: <=10th grade.
education
Father’s Highest: Private Highest: Government Highest:
occupation sector sector and agriculture Agriculture and
professional
Mother’s Highest: Graduates Highest: <10th
education and postgraduates grade
Mother’s Highest:
occupation Homemakers

The rst phase of the study revealed the role that demographic variables played in the manner in which respondents
ranked the values. The next phase was to examine the extent to which the demographic variables impacted the work
values in an organizational context.

Validation Phase: Work Values Survey

In this phase of the study, three sets of analyses were conducted.

1. The rst analysis was intended to understand how respondents in organizations rated work values that were
important to them

2. The second analysis was meant to arrive at the differences in work values based on the ve key variables
identi ed in the exploratory study, namely, geographic background, father's education, father's occupation,
earning status in the family, and the medium of education

3. A nal analysis was done using the current generational cohorts proposed by Indian researchers (Rajesh, 2010)
to examine whether the differences were supported by the data

As mentioned earlier, the Work Values Survey was used to understand the differences across generational cohorts
based on the demographic variables. An analysis of the demographic pro le across gender (Table 3.11, Annexure 2) was
done to understand whether the proportion of women in the sample re ected the larger context of organizations.
Factor analysis was performed to understand the underlying grouping of the work values that were conceptualized.
Figure 6 shows that the work values were grouped into six factors—intrinsic, extrinsic, social, altruism, status, and
freedom. The reliability analysis conducted across these six constructs showed a Cronbach alpha >0.6, indicating good
reliability of the survey constructs

Figure 6: Factor Analysis and Reliability Analysis

Factors Factor Variables % variance Reliability Mean

names explained (cronbach rating
alpha)
Intellectually stimulating challenging work,
Factor1 Intrinsic Interesting work, Acquire new skills, Creativity, 12.64% 0.879 4.45
Variety Accomplishment, Use your abilities,
Competence is recognized
Designation, Salary, Job security, Promotion
Factor 2 Extrinsic physically comfortable, Bonus/incentives, 11.29% 0.858 4.5
Work life balance life balance
Fun, Friendly co-workers, Respectable co-workers,
Factor 3 Social Competent co-workers, Supportive supervisor, 9.74% 0.851 4.32
Supervisor valuing performance
Share knowledge, Helpful contribution to society,
Factor 4 Altruism fair & impartial, Constructive feedback, Loyalty, Job 9.30% 0.861 4.46
well done is recognized
Risk-taking, Technology, Authority, Highly
Factor 5 Status regarded work, Travel, Reputed organization, 8.91% 0.782 4.1
Work that family is proud of
Factor 6 Freedom Convenient hours, Work alone, Autonomy 5.16% 0.662 4.8
6 factors Total variance explained 57.04% 0.951
Importance of Work Values
Figure 6 shows that the extrinsic factors were rated as the most important (with a mean rating of 4.5), followed by
altruism (4.46), intrinsic (4.45), social (4.32), status (4.10), and freedom (4.08). Each of these factors consisted of the
dimensions shown in Figure 6. All the analyses presented in the following sections are based on the mean ratings of
these dimensions. The mean ratings across the sample were analyzed to understand the most important and the least
important work values. Table 3.12 shows that all the work values were rated between 3.73 and 4.63. The most important
work values across the sample were Physically comfortable (4.61), Convenient hours (4.61), Work that family is proud of
(4.59), and Fun (4.59).

Impact of Socio-Demographic Variables on Work Values

Family Type
Respondents staying alone gave higher importance to Intellectually stimulating work and Autonomy than those staying
in joint families did. Creativity, Reputed organization, and Work-life balance featured as the most important work values
for those who lived in the joint families. Respondents from the nuclear families gave high importance to Fair & impartial
(Table 3.13, Annexure 2).

Financial Role in the Family

Those who did not contribute earnings to their families placed high importance on Intellectually stimulating work,
Interesting work, Acquire new skills, Accomplishment, Variety, Competence is recognized, Travel, Fun, Supervisory
relationships, and Fair & impartial. Supporting earning members gave high importance to Physically comfortable,
Promotion, Reputed organization, Friendly co-workers, Share knowledge, Work-life balance, Family pride, Constructive
feedback, Loyalty, and Job well done is recognized (Table 3.14, Annexure 2).

Father's Educational Background

Respondents whose fathers' education was graduation and above placed high importance on Intellectually stimulating
work, Interesting work, Accomplishment, Variety, Competence is recognized, Salary, Promotion, Bonus/incentives, Travel,
Fun, Supervisory relationships, and Fair & impartial. Respondents whose fathers were not graduates gave relatively
higher importance to Technology, Share knowledge, and Helpful contribution to society (Table 3.15, Annexure 2).

Father's Occupation
Table 3.16 (Annexure 2) shows that respondents whose fathers were from the government/public sector placed high
importance on Competence is recognized, Supportive supervisor, and Fair & impartial. Respondents whose fathers were
from the private sector valued Work-life balance, Salary, and Job security, while those whose fathers were professionals
or were in a small business valued Promotion, Bonus/incentive, Fun, Supervisor valuing performance, and Convenient
hours.

6. Sample details of the participating organizations (Table 2.2) and sample demographics (Table 2.3) are provided in Annexure 2.
Geographical Location and Marital status
While the respondents hailing from the metros valued Accomplishment and Fun, those from the non-metro cities valued
Acquire new skills/knowledge (Table 3.170, Annexure 2). Respondents who were single valued Promotion, Travel,
Respected co-workers, and Work alone as high, while married respondents valued Work highly regarded as high (Table
3.18, Annexure 2).

Figure 7 gives a summary of the high-ranked work values across the various demographic pro les.

Figure 7: High-Ranked Work Values across Demographic Pro les

Demographics Terminal Values Instrumental Values

Marital Status Married Work highly regarded
Single Promotion, Travel, Respected co-workers, Work alone
Geographic Location Metro cities Accomplishment, Fun
Non-metro cities Acquire new skills/knowledge
Family type Joint families Creativity, Reputed organization, Work-life balance
Nuclear families Fair & impartial
Staying alone Intellectually stimulating work, Autonomy
Financial role in the Those whose families Intellectually stimulating work, Interesting work, Acquire
family are not dependent on new skills, Accomplishment, Variety, Competence is
their earnings recognized, Travel, Fun, Supervisory relationship, Fair &
impartial
Supporting earning Physically comfortable, Promotion, Reputed organization,
members Friendly co-workers, Share knowledge, Work-life balance,
Family pride, Constructive feedback, Loyalty, Job well
done is recognized
Father’s education <Graduation Technology, Share knowledge, Helpful contribution to
society
Graduation and above Intellectually stimulating work, Interesting work,
Accomplishment, Variety, Competence is recognized,
Salary, Promotion, Bonus/incentives, Travel, Fun,
supervisory relationships, Fair & impartial
Father’s occupation Government/Public Competence is recognized, Supportive supervisor, Fair &
sector impartial
Private sector Work-life balance, Salary, Job security
Professional/Small Promotion, Bonus/incentive, Fun, supervisor valuing
business performance, Convenient hours

Cluster Analysis
The next step was to understand the generational groupings that naturally occurred based on the ratings given to the
work values by the respondents. Cluster analysis was performed based on the work value ratings of 5306 respondents.
Two distinctive clusters emerged, with 1677 and 3629 respondents, respectively. Based on the analysis above, Figure 8
captures the socio-demographic pro les that constituted the two clusters. Tables 3.19 and 3.20 (Annexure 2) provide
details pertaining to these two clusters. Cluster 1 was predominantly composed of male respondents who were the sole
earning members of the family; they were educated in a regional medium and their fathers were not graduates. Cluster
2 consisted of young, dominantly English medium-educated respondents, whose fathers were graduates; they were
married with no children and were supporting earning members in the family.

This analysis shows that two distinct generational clusters emerged from the work values based on the ratings by the
employees. The Rokeach Values Survey (Figure 5) revealed four clusters. What is evident from the two analyses is that
the socio-economic criteria pertaining to father's occupation, father's education, and regional/English medium of
instruction in school (of the respondents) seemed to translate as generational differences.

Figure 8: Socio-Demographic Pro ling across the 2 Clusters

Cluster 1 has higher Cluster 2 has higher

proportion of proportion of
Age group >50 yrs 20-30 yrs
Tenure >10 yrs
Prof. Experience >10 yrs 5-10 yrs
Gender Male Female
Medium of education Regional medium English
Region West East
Father’s education 10th/12th/ITI/Diploma Graduation
Mother’s education 10th/12th/ITI/Diploma
Parental status Having child No child
Financial role in the family Only earning member Supporting earning member
Overseas exposure Yes No

Indian Generational Cohorts and Work Values

In the interviews with the CHROs and the key respondents at senior levels, we examined the role of collective memories
in the Indian contexts. Drawing on prior research and the insights gained from the literature on the generations in the
Western context, we asked respondents to identify signi cant socio-political, economic, and historical events that
impacted India. While several political events were mentioned, their impact on organizations was not perceived as
signi cant. There were signi cant differences in the recall of the events by respondents in different parts of the country.
Liberalization was the only event mentioned by all the respondents as being critical from an organizational perspective.
A brief overview of the different generational cohorts in the Indian context that emerged out of the interviews is
provided below.

Pre-Liberalization Generation (Pre-1991)

The economic landscape in India at this time was marked by agricultural production and heavy industries. The
economic growth rates averaged around 3%. This phase was characterized by two distinctly different
periods—Independence to Emergency (1947-1975), where centralized planning, the setting up of public sector
enterprises, and investments by the government in infrastructure fostered pride among employees; and the post-
Emergency period, which witnessed bureaucratic organizations, restricted opportunities, and favoritism. The pre-
liberalization generation is characterized by values such as loyalty, national pride, and hard work.

Early Liberalization Generation (1992 –2001)

Workforce entrants during this period experienced signi cant changes, since several traditional organizations had to
undergo signi cant changes in their structures. The opening up of markets to the U.S. led to growth rates of 6–9%,
resulting in quick economic growth; however, this growth was not accompanied by effective social development. With
the penetration of technology, westernized work cultures, and an increase in the number of private organizations, the
access to jobs became better. Due to this, there was a high degree of migration from the villages/towns to the
metro/non-metro cities, which in turn resulted in more nuclear families and a higher number of young individuals who
were staying alone. Job mobility and changing careers were acceptable during this period. People who entered the
workforce during this time had renewed aspirations and challenges, along with the need to prove themselves in the
globalized workplaces.

Rapid Growth Generation (2002–2006)

The period 2002–2006 was characterized by rapid growth in India. With the entry of MNCs, there was a skew in the labor
market. Demand outstripped supply in all the sectors of the economy, with growth rates ranging from 4%–9.5%.
Organizations began setting up offices in Tier 1 and Tier 2 cities. While education levels increased rapidly, the supply of
skilled people was scarce compared to the demand. More women entered the workplace in the hospitality, nancial
services, and IT services sectors. Along with the organizational culture, the mindset of the people who entered the
workforce during this period also went through a huge shift. While the salaries in certain sectors skyrocketed due to
skills shortages, there was a shortage of talent in other sectors. The number of new entrants to the workforce was the
highest during this period.

Plateaued Growth Generation (2007–2012)

With the global crisis in 2008, organizations resorted to downsizing, layoffs, and tighter performance criteria. Many
graduates/postgraduates who had received job offers during campus recruitment drives were not recruited into
organizations. Organizations became more conservative in hiring. More stringent performance evaluations and
greater investments in training and development were being made. In this context, employees needed to examine
their own contribution and gain a perspective about their careers. They also needed to cope with the changes in the
environment.

Figure 9 summarizes the key characteristics of these four generations in the Indian context.
 Figure 9: Classi cation of Generations in the Indian Context

Pre-Liberalization Early Liberalization Rapid Growth Plateaued Growth

(Pre-1991) (1991-2001) (2002-2006) (2007-2012)
• Soviet Union dominant • Opening up of the • Rapid growth: 4% 9.5% • Economy slowdown
trade partner market, entry of MNCs
• Closed economy • Penetration of • Job market at its pack, • Layoffs, global crisis,
technology, more private growth of IT sector cut down on expenditures
organization being set up
beginning of demand
supply mismatch
• Growth rate: 3% • Migration from rural • Rise in education levels, • Demand supply gap
areas to urban area (cities) workplaces tapering
representative of both
genders
• Traditional work cultures • Renewed aspirations, • Flexible workplaces • Continued uncertainty
need to prove credibility MNC practices deepen

For the purpose of this study, the sample (5306) was divided into four groups based on the respondent's year of entry
into workforce as shown in Table 3.21 (Annexure 2). This table shows that the proportion of women increased across the
four periods; a greater proportion of women entered the workforce during the rapid growth period (2002–2006). The
proportion of people who studied in private/convent institutions and were graduates and above hailing from the
metro/non-metro cities increased over the four time periods; the maximum number of such people entered the
workforce during the rapid growth period (2002–2006).

Comparison of Mean Ratings

Table 3.22 (Annexure 2) shows that there were similarities and differences in the most important and the least
important work values across the four generations (based on mean rating). Job well recognized was given a high rating
by all the four generations, re ecting the importance of recognition in the organizations as perceived by the employees
across generations. Acquiring new skills featured as an important work value for the workforce entrants of the Plateaued
growth period (2007–2012). Fair & impartial was rated most important by the Pre-liberalization generation, while Work-
life balance featured as a highly important value across all generations except the Plateaued growth generation. Job
security emerged as an important value for both the Rapid growth generation as well the Early liberalization generation.
The Plateaued growth generation gave high importance to extrinsic work values such as Promotion, Salary, Job security,
and Job well done is recognized. The Plateaued growth generation ranked Promotion and Salary as high.

Integration Phase
In this phase, the ndings from the Rokeach Values Survey and the Work Values Survey were integrated in order to
unbundle the generational diversity. The focus group discussions and interviews were used to share the initial ndings
and seek inputs from different groups of respondents regarding their perspectives.

The objectives of the qualitative research were as follows:

 · Understand how employees interpret the Rokeach values (i.e., their personal de nitions) and the signi cance
of those values in their personal and professional life

· Understand the reference point for their values in terms of the socio-cultural parameters that created,
sustained, or altered these values with respect to factors such as gender, life events, family upbringing, and so
on

· Understand how these values impact an individual's expectations from the workplace in terms of work values

The discussions were conducted among groups of employees who were similar in terms of their demographics and life-
stage. Keeping this parameter homogenous helped us to understand whether different value-based/region-
based/behavior-based clusters were emerging within a group of employees and/or across the different demographic
groups that we met. The groups of employees from the participating organizations included:

1. Entry-level employees, who were mostly under the age of 28 and had less than two years of work experience

2. Mid-level managers, who were approximately between 30–40 years of age and had more than ve years of
work experience

3. Senior managers, who were above 40 years of age and had worked for over 10 years

Most of these groups were mixed; they included participants with different socio-economic/socio-demographic
pro les. There were separate focus group discussions for groups of women employees. These groups had a mix of
women at all the three levels.

The organizations that agreed to participate in this study represented a range of industries—IT/BPO, pharmaceutical,
telecom, retail, manufacturing, and nance. The distribution had a range of medium and large organizations. These
organizations also varied in their organizational culture and represented family-run enterprises, large Indian
organizations, and multinational organizations. Interviews were conducted with 13 senior managers and leaders from
the organizations that participated in the survey.

Values Important to Respondents

Through the process of unaided recall, the focus group participants were asked to mention the values that were
important to them. The following values emerged as important in these discussions.

Sharing/Love/Compassion: Several respondents mentioned these values as the natural outcome of their
upbringing in joint families. On the ip side, it was felt that joint families could make people a little less responsible,
since there would always be someone to take on responsibility.

“Having come to the city, I learnt that “respect” is different from what we know of respect in the village. In
the city, we should listen to people rst; if anything wrong is being said, we have the right to point it out
later. Also in the city, we respect everyone's word, not just those of elders”.

Integrity/Honesty/Sincerity: All these three aspects are easy to practice/enforce in a familial context. However,
it is difficult to practice these values in the workplace. While several respondents felt these values would pay off in the
long run, not many believed they had the luxury of waiting to succeed in the long term in an organizational context.
 “It is easier to be honest in organizations that explicitly uphold honesty as a value, though it would depend
on situations. For instance, an organization could be honest towards its employees and customers.
However, if its honesty is coming in the way of getting clearances from the government, which is causing
delay to customers and distress to employees, would the employees celebrate that value?

My uncle and I were dropping off a member of our family at the railway station. We forgot to buy the
platform ticket before entering. Before leaving the station, my uncle bought the platform ticket, tore it up,
and threw it away. I was surprised. He told me, “You have come out of the railway station, but have you
come out of your conscience?

Honesty always helps in the long run, though in this day and age, people take it as a sign of dumbness.
Speak your mind; people in an open forum seldom give their point of view. Any thought that is not spoken
is of no value.

I was taught to speak the truth always, irrespective of the situation. But this is changing”.

Discipline: This value was particularly emphasized by the respondents from families that were associated with the
armed forces. Discipline and discretion go hand-in-hand. In organizations, one often nds an emphasis on discipline
without allowing for any discretion.

“Discipline is the oil of the social machinery. Two people who go astray can spoil the entire system.
Discipline is meant to keep your mind in control initially. Once you learn to control it, you can use it to your
discretion. For instance, in the army they teach you discipline; but on the war front, you can take
discretionary decisions. We tend to use discipline to our advantage. While we are told “Early to bed, early to
rise,” we don't necessarily go to bed early”.

Independence/Self-reliance: These were valued by women in particular. For most respondents, this
represented nancial independence—being able to stand on one's feet. The idea of emotional independence was
something that only a few women spoke of.

Education: For many who grew up in a middle-class family, education was seen as the ladder to improve one's socio-
economic status. The emphasis, therefore, was on acquiring formal education. Education did not translate to growing
or learning life skills.

“If you studied, you would be able to live and nd a job in another city. If you stayed back in the village, you
would depend on this patch of land, which would yield nothing. My family told me “Keep learning, keep
growing”. Education adds to your respect, prestige, and social value. For instance, my family in Bihar is the
most educated family; everyone in my family has a Master's degree, including my mom. Education helps
one earn one's bread and butter. It gives us the proper way to lead life. People respect your thoughts”.

Adaptable: This value was sometimes the result of upbringing; at other times, it was the result of exposure at the
workplace—a coping mechanism that helps deal with diversity at least at a super cial level.

“We should be changing quickly according to circumstances. If we hold on to our beliefs, we make no
progress. Today, the market demands change; there are new technologies.

In my work, I need to travel a lot. In Infosys itself, I have changed 3 cities in the last few years. That exposure
makes me think about living outside of my comfort zone.
 The city shapes the values. Where you grow up and where you work, those values get layered. For instance,
Bangalore has different cultures in the same base city. The city inculcates the values of change and
adaptability”.

Following traditions and Culture/Religion: These values were ways of maintaining the status quo; they
worked when stability and certainty were celebrated as values. In a world that emphasizes change, there is a decreasing
emphasis on following traditions.

“As Indians we are an emotional lot. Hence, our culture and traditions are very important to us. Our lifestyle
is changing, so we have to make sure that we hold on to our family values.

If you are doing something wrong, don't forget that someone is watching you. This makes me
answerable—the fear of god.

I grew up in a traditional family. I have not been very outgoing. I am an introvert. I socialize only with a
purpose. I grew up with spirituality as a value. That made me honest and hardworking, but also a little
narrow-minded”.

The manner in which the top values were interpreted provided some rich and signi cant differences in interpretation.
The focus group discussions substantiated the role of demographic variables such as type of family, parental education
and occupation, and the place where the person hails from as important aspects that shape the values. The analyses
support the variables identi ed in the quantitative surveys.

4. KEY FINDINGS

Plural and challenging—These words succinctly describe the ndings of the present study. Trying to present one
model of employee generations in the Indian context is a big challenge and a simple generalization in terms of birth
years or signi cant historical events does not begin to do justice to the problem. The four key ndings of the study are
presented below.

Similarities and Differences in Values across Generations— We conceptualized generations in the Indian context
using two lenses—the historical shared events perspective at a national level and the socio-economic cohorts at an
individual level. These two perspectives interact in the organizational context, thereby in uencing work values. When
using a historical shared events perspective to de ne generations, liberalization would be a watershed event in the
economic history of India. There have been signi cant changes in the workplace since 1991; distinct shifts in
organizational demography have occurred during the last two decades. For the purpose of this study, we divided
generations into four phases based on the national and sectoral growth—the Pre-liberalization generation that
entered the workforce before 1991; the Early liberalization generation that includes all those who entered the
workforce between 1991 and 2001; the Rapid growth generation, comprising those who entered the workforce
between 2002 and 2006; and the Plateaued growth generation including those who entered the workforce between
2007 and 2012.

The top-ranked terminal values in the RVS across the four generations were Family security, Health, Comfortable life, and
Respect. The top-ranked instrumental values across the four generations were Ambitious, Responsible, and Honest.
Based on mean ratings, the most important work values were found to be Physically comfortable environment,
Convenient hours, Work that family is proud of, Fun, and Reputed organization.

The differences in personal and work values across the four generations are presented in Figure 10.

Figure 10: Generational Categories and Signi cant Differences in Values

Generational category Pre-Liberalization Early Liberalization Rapid Growth Plateasued Growth

De ning years Pre 1991 1991-2001 2002-2006 2007-2012
Dominant public Introduction of structural Several MNCs entered, IT Global nancial crisis,
sector, import reforms, Gradual removal services became a key Exports hit, Structural
substitution policy of trade barriers, export sector, increased reforms in sectors not
De ning characteristics close economy and Deregulation of sectors, FDI, Several sector complete and
Growth rates of Public sector divestment, witnessed double digit Organization adjusting
about 3-5% Avg. GDP growth rate growth rates and Supply HR practices to manage
-5.4% and Don't com bust demand gap in terms of slow down
people
Professional experience >21 years >9 to 21 years >4 to 9 years 0-4 years
Sample size 310 1250 2257 1489
Inner harmony, Comfortable life, Helpful, Responsible True friendship, Loving,
Personal values Sense of Intellectual World of beauty, Self-
(differences in ranking) accomplishment, controlled, Intellectual
Wisdom
Reputed Accomplishment, Work Promotion, Salary, Job Job well done is
Work values organization highly regarded, Risk- well done is recognized, recognized, Acquire new
(differences in rating) taking Job security, Work life knowledge, Interesting
balance, Supervisor work, Creativity
valuing performance

Note: Only those values for which there were statistically signi cant differences across the four generations were
included in Figure 10.

Archetypes of Generations— From a cohort perspective, the interviews and focus group discussions provided
insights about the impact of socio-economic variables on work values. We were able to arrive at the archetypes of the
three generations that currently exist in the Indian workforce. Archetypes have been de ned as universal, archaic
patterns and images that derive from the collective unconscious. The three archetypes that were identi ed in this study
are the “Silver Spoon” generation, the “Gemini Twins” generation, and the “Rooted in the Past” generation. Figure 11
provides an overview of these archetypes based on their de ning characteristics.

7. Archetypes are part of the unconscious mind and describe how the structure of the psyche autonomously organizes experience. Jung (1953)
distinguished the collective unconscious from the personal unconscious—the personal unconscious is a personal reservoir of experiences unique to
each individual, while the collective unconscious collects and organizes those personal experiences in a similar way with each member of a particular
species. Since they are part of the unconscious, the existence of archetypes can only be deduced indirectly by examining behavior, images, and
assumptions.
 Figure 11: Archetypes of Generations Using Socio-Economic Variables and Values

Generational
Silver spoon generation Gemini twins generation Rooted in the past generation
Archetypes
Metro bred, Nuclear families, First generation entrant into a Largely from small towns,
Parents in transferable and metro/city, Parents often working First time entrant into the
Social government jobs, Often in small businesses or the informal workforce, Often single earning
demographic supporting earning sector, Insular upbringing, Have member in the family, Parental
variables members in families and, moved out of hometown to education often high school,
Travelled within India for study/work, Early years spent in Father agriculturist, Often living
education or work joint families, Strong networks to alone in the city for work, And
home town, and Early education in lack of opportunity has
regional language contributed to their migration

Articulate, extremely Emphasis is on acquiring High ambition, Willingness to

Social independent, highly knowledge and skill, Not articulate follow directions of others,
characteristics individualistic sometimes but in uence effectively in group, Weak social and in uence skills,
bordering on over Adaptive and exible to the Have often faced discrimination
con dence context, Require consultation and and difficulties in early life and
peer support, Caught between hence, not con dent in voicing
tradition and modernity ideas

Do things from scratch even Willingness to work with and Boss is equivalent to the head of
Relationship at work place, Find it difficult through efforts of others, Original the family, Subservience to
with others to take orders and also ideas and risk taking happens authority
delegate – used to doing through socialization and good
things on their town managers

Decision Decision making capacity Decision making is an effort and Have never been consulted
making high but tolerance for often self-doubt plagues after a before and are not expected to
others' mistakes very low decision has been made make decisions, Often do not
know how to make decisions,
Once taught, quality of decisions
is sound but needs extensive
training on decision making

Ability to groom others very Very good team players and are Extensive mentoring and
In uence low Often see grooming able to t in to different groups, coaching needed, Very strong
others as a threat to their Leadership roles have to gradually leadership actions needed to
power Wants to be seen as be introduced too demonstrate acceptability of
“indispensable” values like feedback,
disagreement with a superior
and trust

Co-existence of Archetypes across all Age Groups— In a transitional economy such as India, where organizations
have witnessed signi cant growth in the last decade, the three archetypes exist within all age groups. Newly emerging
sectors such as information technology, telecommunications, and banking and nancial services require employees
with higher levels of education and higher technical skills. Individuals who have had better access to education and are
located in the metros are likely to have an inherent advantage in the employment process in such sectors. We tend to
see more employees belonging to the “Silver Spoon” generation in such organizations. At the same time, the more
traditional sectors such as manufacturing and infrastructure have a larger number of employees from the “Gemini
Twins” generation. This could be due to the efforts made by the government and the respective organizations to
expand their talent acquisition process beyond the metros to non-metro areas. The “Rooted in the Past” generation is
spread across sectors; they are often rst-generation entrants into the workforce, with parents from an agricultural
background.
Economic Development: Impact on Work Values— Regional differences in work values were found to be signi cant
and strong. Words such as “heterogeneous” and “plural” do not even begin to convey the extent of India's diversity. The
West and the South regions of India demonstrate distinctly different work values compared to those of the North and
the East regions. These regional differences in work values could be attributed to the rate and pace of economic
development in the Western and the Southern regions, coupled with high literacy rates and a large number of second-
generation entrants into the workplace who have been socialized into the industrial services sector. Figure 12 shows
the signi cant differences in work values observed across regions in India.

Figure 12: Signi cant Regional Differences in Work Values

North South East West

Interesting Work, Risk- Interesting Work,

taking, Designation, Creativity, Variety, Use
Physically Comfortable, Your Abilities, Intellectually
Use your abilities, Work Highly Regarded By Designation, Salary, Job Stimulating
Travel, Family Pride Others, Fun, Respected Co- Security, Promotion,
workers, Competent Co- Work Highly Regarded,
workers, Knowledge Reputed Organization,
Sharing, Work Alone, Friendly Co-workers,
Helpful Contribution Supervisor Valuing
Performance,
Supportive Supervisor,
Fair And Impartial,
Constructive Feedback,
Loyalty

Generational Collaboration and Con ict

We observed a very low level of awareness about generational diversity among employees and leaders in
organizations. However, the leaders could clearly identify where inter-generational con icts occurred. The ve sources
of potential generational con ict are lack of clarity with regard to performance criteria, team work where there is no
complementarity in skills, new technology, different styles of work, and de nitions of professional behavior (dress code,
language in emails, greetings, and so on). The employees perceived several task con icts at the work group level as
generational con icts at the workplace. To quote a respondent with six years of professional experience:

“I had con icts with two of my managers related to performance criteria. The problem was the same both
times. In one case, I thought it was a generational con ict because he was older and had worked hard to
reach the level he was at. I ascribed the blame for the entire con ict to his age, background, and
upbringing. However, when I faced the same problem with a younger manager, I began to realize that it
was a job-related problem and not a generational problem. In hindsight, I lost a relationship with my
manager because I was wearing the generational glass”.

The six spaces of inter-generational collaboration within organizations that can be effectively leveraged to promote
inclusive workplaces are presented in Figure 13.

In Indian organizations, the term “diversity” is generally thought to refer exclusively to gender. India is recognized as one
of the most pluralistic and diverse societies with multiple religions, languages, and ethnicities. Therefore, recognizing
diversity arising out of geographical, socio-economic, and educational differences would be the rst step in building
inclusionary practices in organizations.

Figure 13: Inter-Generational Collaboration within Organizations

Challenging
and purposive
task/ goal

Fair and
Crisis situations impartial
policies/managers

Intergenerational
Collaboration

Reward and
recognition
CSR Initiatives schemes with
a focus on
organizational
Interventions that goals
offered employees
an opportunity
to voice
opinions/share
ideas through
brainstorming
5. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION

Need to Re-examine “Generations” as a Construct in the Indian Context: Firstly, the construct of generations in the
Indian context needs to be viewed in the context of the economic developments that are taking place in the country.
While there appear to be three generational archetypes in the present workforce, it is important to realize that given
India's current transitional state, these groups would need to be viewed as a frame of reference only. Caution would
need to be exercised to ensure that employees are not typecast based on these reference points. Given that the country
is witnessing rapid growth and accelerated social mobility, these three generational archetypes could become more
uid; they can be seen as anywhere between two and four generations. Over the last two decades, India has witnessed a
large number of rst-generation employees who received their education predominantly in a regional language and
who belong largely to small towns and metros. As industrialization penetrates deeper into the different states, more
shifts are expected to occur in the diversity and the values of employees. The differences in work values have an impact
on communication, leadership, knowledge sharing, supervisory behaviors, team work, and collaboration within
organizations. Organizations, therefore, need to identify and visibly engage with diversity.

Perceptual Blindness to Diversity within Indian Organizations: Secondly, there is a lack of recognition and
understanding of the different forms of diversity that are so deeply embedded in the fabric of the society. It is a matter of
deep concern that while marketers recognize and create their products and service offerings based on socio-economic
diversity, HR professionals as well as organizations seem to possess “a perceptual blindness” to diversity within the
organizations. In the Indian context, education, parental occupation, nature of family type (nuclear or joint family), and
area of origin (rural or urban) are all barriers to mobility in the workplace. Interestingly, a recent study on youth in India
(DeSouza et al., 2009) found that the social borders where the youth are located are strong and border crossings are
discouraged; only 27% of the youth had friends from the other gender or from other religions or castes. This is an
important nding—despite the big changes that have occurred in the polity and the economy, the domain of the social
world is changing slowly. This nding became even more signi cant when levels of education and rural/urban axes
were used (DeSouza, Kumar and Shastri, 2009). Research ndings show that the nature of early socialization at schools
and colleges in uences access to employment networks. Therefore, socio-economic variables impact employees and
the employment processes signi cantly.

Discourses on “Diversity”: Finally, there are two distinctly different discourses within the organizations with regard to
diversity. According to one discourse, global organizations and MNCs need to support diversity and inclusion as an
agenda. In the Indian context, the diversity agenda is understood to include only gender. According to the second
discourse, diversity has no role to play in business—as an employer, since we hire from the open market and follow
robust processes for performance measurement, we value “meritocracy”; therefore, diversity will occur naturally in such
a context. However, there is overwhelming evidence in the literature that people make social categorizations based on
similarities and end up discriminating against people who are dissimilar. Currently, corporate India appears to shape its
diversity discourse around these two extremes. A third possible view would be an explicit recognition that large
organizations are microcosmic representations of society; therefore, regional and geographic diversity, rural/urban
diversity, linguistic diversity, religious diversity, and diversity in the medium of education need to exist in organizations.
This could be a starting point to make diversity a visible agenda within the organizations.
Managerial Implications
Multi-generational diversity is not just an employee phenomenon; rather, its genesis is in the changes in the
demography of organizations. As organizations grow, the diversity mix begins to change. This change is often visible as
a cultural change in the organization. Unless organizations recognize the role of generational changes in the
demography, it would be difficult for them to harness and leverage diversity within the organizations. The ndings of
this study and the recommendations are relevant for three stakeholders—the senior leaders responsible for building
inclusive organizations; the line managers who are tasked with building and managing work teams; and HR
professionals.

Senior Leaders
1. Diversity in the Indian context has to be understood from a more comprehensive perspective. Since
organizations are growing and the economy is in transition, generational diversity also means social class
mobility for employees. The common perception is that a focus on diversity implies a focus on differences. If
the underlying differences are not surfaced, inclusion would be a distant dream for organizations
2. Since inclusion is a capability that organizations need to have in order to manage all forms of diversity, building
a culture of diversity requires that organizations periodically conduct a diversity audit
3. While structuring work teams, deliberately focus on multi-generational diversity beyond just skills and
competencies; this would be a way for managers to demonstrate inclusion
4. Acknowledge that organizations have at least three generations of employees based on values. This would
allow managers to be more sensitive to the generational differences
5. At the rm level, build goals and incentive structures that support inclusivity
6. Provide opportunities through multiple channels for voicing personal opinions, sharing information, and
brainstorming to allow employees to contribute to the organization
7. Measure, monitor, and track diversity as a parameter that is broader than just gender

Line Managers
1. Recognize that there are three distinct generations of employees based on the socio-economic variables in
the workforce
2. Design coaching and mentoring processes that effectively allow socializing among the three groups—the
Silver Spoon generation, the Gemini Twins generation, and the Rooted in the Past generation
3. The manner in which performance management is done across the three generations is critical. Use fair
performance criteria that encourage and foster the accommodation as well as the celebration of diversity
4. Be willing to adapt your feedback style to different team members in building homogeneous work teams
5. Review the talent pipeline and high potential employees using the diversity lens
6. Introspect about how diverse your own team is and how sensitive to diversity you are as a manager. Has
diversity been forced on you because of labor market challenges or are you a naturally inclusive manager?
HR Professionals
There is a signi cant opportunity for HR professionals in India to work on inclusion. The role of HR professionals in this
context falls under the following broad categories.

1. Organizational demography will emerge as a signi cant aspect of human resource management. Mapping
the changes in the diversity within the organization during the last decade is likely to reveal signi cant shifts.
These shifts would be indicative of a changing organizational culture that needs to be managed effectively.
Therefore, building a database on organizational diversity is the key to leveraging the HR processes in the
organization. There is a need for diversity analytics to understand how this operates at different
levels—organizational level, functional level, division level, department level, and work group level. For
instance, in this study, we found that the leadership team of an organization comprised only metro-born,
English medium-educated engineers. However, the next level in the organization was largely composed of
small town-bred, English/regional medium-educated engineers who had grown as managers. The leadership
team kept complaining about ineffective communication at the next level. The reality however was that the
next level required signi cant coaching and investment in leadership development from the very early stages.
How can HR professionals develop learning agendas based on generational diversity?

2. It is well recognized in the literature that selection and promotion decisions are highly susceptible to
perceptual biases arising out of similarity. This study presented the impact of demographic variables. Tackling
such biases will require training for managers supported by good analytics to build an inclusive organizational
culture. Training/education sessions on the nature of inclusion would need to be conducted—managers and
leaders would have to be sensitized on the need for diversity and building a culture of inclusion

3. Ask the following questions: Do the HR systems build inclusion? Does the job description result in the
exclusion of certain categories of employees? If most of the recruitment is happening through referrals and the
sources of these referrals (i.e., the employees) are very similar, are we unconsciously compromising on
diversity? Are the performance management processes discriminatory against individuals or groups based on
demographic criteria? It is well known that access to education and skill development is higher in the
metro/non-metro cities compared to towns and villages. In terms of skills, the average young professional
from a metro is likely to be more demanding and ambitious compared to those from other groups. This could,
therefore, result in HR systems that are created for a small group of individuals, which may not be relevant for
others in the organizations. There is a need for a more nuanced understanding of such practices

4. Given that socialization processes are instrumental in building organizational culture, ask the following
questions: Does the organization showcase inclusive managers to the new recruits who join the organization?
Are the coaches and managers sensitized to diversity?

Way Forward
The focus of this study was on understanding multi-generational diversity in the workplace. However, as the research
progressed, it became evident that as Indian organizations globalize, the calls for managing diversity within as well as
across national boundaries would grow. There is global evidence to suggest that the rst step in managing diversity is to
recognize the same. Our study shows that in a transitional economy such as India, organizations need to focus on
surface-level diversity characteristics such as gender, geographic diversity, rural/urban diversity, and educational
diversity in order to create an identity-conscious organizational structure. This would enable the key decision makers to
be deliberate and cognizant of the various aspects of diversity in order to avoid biases. Once a diverse workforce enters
an organization, it would be possible for the organization to build inclusive leaders who would negotiate and navigate
the different generational groups within the organization. Diversity management and the building of inclusive
organizational cultures would be instrumental in building effective organizations in India in the future. At the national
level, from a governance perspective, the elusive mantra of inclusive growth requires the recognition of the socio-
economic variables that create social boundaries, which people in the society have to transition. Such a process of
inclusive social development would lead to higher levels of economic development.

Conclusion
Diversity and inclusion strategies in India are focused on gender, generational, and disability diversities. Our
investigations indicate that 90% of Indian organizations talk about gender diversity as the main focus of their diversity
and inclusion strategies. Moreover, the focus of disability diversity is very high in India. When it comes to generational
diversity, generations are viewed as age cohorts—people born during the same birth years, experiencing similar
signi cant life events. Our study brings forth the need to understand generations from a holistic perspective and also
under the bigger gamut of other diversity-related components.

The demographic analysis of gender (Table 3.11, Annexure 2) reveals that the workforce includes a higher number of
women in the 20–30 year age group than those in the higher age groups. This re ects the current state of the industry
where women are present at the entry level but not in higher levels. Across the sample, Physically comfortable work,
Convenient hours, Work that family is proud of, Fun, and Reputed organization emerged as the most important values
(Table 3.12, Annexure 2). With an employee averaging around nine hours (or more) at the workplace daily, the physical
comfort, visual appeal, and accessibility of their workplace have gained more importance.

On analyzing the impact of socio-demographic variables on work values, it was seen that employees who were staying
alone assigned more importance to Intellectually stimulating and Autonomy while Creativity, Reputed organization, and
Work-life balance featured as the most important work values for those living in joint families. Employees who do not
contribute earnings to their families placed high importance on Intellectually stimulating, Interesting, Acquire new skills,
Accomplishment, Variety, Competence is recognized, Travel, Fun, Supervisory relationships and Fair & impartial. These
employees were found to be mostly in the younger age group, where their parents were either still employed or
nancially well-settled. Supporting earning members gave high importance to Physically comfortable, Promotion,
Reputed organization, Friendly co-workers, Share knowledge, Work-life balance, Family pride, Constructive feedback,
Loyalty and Job well done is recognized. In our sample of respondents, women formed a signi cant percentage of
supporting earning members. Therefore, a one-size- ts-all approach to organizational practices would not work and a
more nuanced understanding of the issues is required.

Employees who were single were found to rate Travelling and Working alone higher while married ones rated Work
highly regarded as high. This difference becomes signi cant when work assignments need to be made in organizations.
The role of HR/line managers in factoring this difference in values while making key organizational decisions becomes
critical. While employees hailing from metros valued Accomplishment and Fun, those from non-metro cities valued
Acquire new skills/knowledge. The metro vs. non-metro differences could be due to the differences in access to
education and learning in the non-metro areas.

According to the naturally emerging clusters based on the work values ratings, it was found that the entire sample could
be divided into just 2 clusters (Table 3.19, Annexure 2), while in Table 3.10, it was noted that there were four clusters
based on Rokeach values—three of them with distinctly different characteristics. It can be argued here that pro ling
the workforce into a priori generational classi cations based on birth years needs to be supplemented by naturally
emerging clusters based on the demographics. Such an analysis would help the manager/supervisor to manage their
teams keeping each of the individual's priorities in mind. People who move to non-metro/metro cities for higher
education or work tend to face a larger difference in comparison to those who have shifted places during their
childhood (due to their parents having transferable jobs). Moreover, when people with overseas exposure return to
India, they face a larger difference in comparison to their counterparts from the same age group and background who
do not have such exposure. Easing the entry of employees from such different socio-demographic backgrounds is
critical for their assimilation within the organization.
CASE STUDIES

Through the following case studies, we present the generational interventions that different organizations have
attempted to make in order to facilitate multi-generational collaboration within the workplace. These case studies
brie y describe how the organizations that were studied engage with the challenges of multi-generational workforce.

Caselet 1

Bridging the Generational Gap: HCL Technologies, India

In response to high attrition rates, low engagement levels, interpersonal con icts, the large in ux of Gen Y'ers, and
situations involving up to four generations working together, HCL Technologies (HCLT) started the “Employees Driven,
Management Embrace” movement in 1995, which was the continuation of its “Employees First, Management Driven”
movement.

Based on internal discussions, HCLT came up with initiatives for achieving generational collaboration through the
notion of The Future workplace @ HCLT built on four pillars—social innovation, grassroots leadership, going beyond
the employee ecosystem, and team building.

MEME: A social networking site

“Decoding the Individuality” of all the employees through “Connect, Learn, Share, and Grow” became the extended
motto of HCLT when they wanted to set up MEME, an internal networking site. With around 74,205 employees and
687+ groups active in MEME round the clock, the needs of a multi-generational workforce were increasingly being
answered when employees across the globe could connect with others through posts, responses, viral posts, picture
uploads, comments, tags, le uploads, document sharing, group posts, and so on. MEME also facilitated the interaction
of like-minded people from varied backgrounds through virtual teams (music, dance, SQL team, and so on), generating
team cohesiveness. Social innovation and bringing out grassroots leadership were the outcomes of MEME.

MAD LTD: Nurturing Gen Y

The need for every organization to focus on potential employees made HCLT start “Make A Difference, Lead The
Difference” (MAD LTD), connecting employees to the youth across India. Enabling social innovation through the
showcasing of ideas for creating an impact on society, this event shortlists 15 “Make a Difference” (MAD) ideas. The
winner is declared as the CEO of MAD LTD and is mentored by an HCLT employee to work on eight different community
initiatives across India. In 2011, over 1,00,000 students across 65 Indian cities participated in this venture.

Power of One: Bringing generations together

“Power of One” is a community practice through which an employee spends a day with the community on projects that
are pre-identi ed by the team with support from local NGOs, the government, and U.N. agencies. Each employee
donates INR 1 per day for this cause. Today, this activity is led by 11 youth leaders, bringing out the grassroots leadership
within the company. Employees who have ideas to serve the community post their ideas on MEME and the ones that
can be implemented best are taken forward. This serves as a platform for generations irrespective of age groups, career
levels, and designations to come together for a common cause and take instructions from the youth leaders.
Caselet 2
Understanding Your Workforce: A Mid-sized Technology Setup
Most organizations struggle with managing a multi-generational workforce. Given this struggle, this case study
describes an organization's attempt to rst understand its workforce better from a multi-generational context, before
designing relevant initiatives.

Due to the changing needs of the business and the growing demands of clients for increased off-shoring capacity, the
organization was felt a sudden pressure to grow organically while managing its costs. The focus from managing
experienced and tenured resources shifted to the acquisition of young talent and the fast tracking of younger leaders to
lead extended teams.

Quantitative and qualitative (SWOT and Focus groups) analyses yielded the following ndings:

LEARNING

Elements Gen Y E Gen Gen X Free Gen

Preferred Informal learning- Blend of informal & Formal learning (class Real-time experience
mode of realtime knowledge formal learning (on room) at work
learning beyond classroom the job and class
training room)
Conference and
Sources of Online search tools e-learning, Wikipdia, Informal charts with seminars, books, new
learning Google, expert leaders, peers, experiences and
forums, Peer/SME manager pictures, Internet
(tools of reference)

PERFORMANCE

Elements Gen Y E Gen Gen X Free Gen

Career, recognition, Recognition Recognition: Verbal
challenging work, appreciated through
money formal channels
Motivators Not driven by rewards
but by large Opportunity to
Freedom to perform Money responsible extend beyond areas
activities beyond the assignments of responsibility,
normal KRAs larger issues, special
Greater joy derived assignments
Driven by results, from solving complex
innovative projects problem that other
cannot

Individualistic “I” Independent in career Spouse/family is Prefer seeking

factor-answers such making/development critical in career guidance and
Career as “I am the master of decisions making/decision mentoring for new
growth my own career”, roles/opportunities,
depicting con dence Spouse and family participative
plays am important Prefer informal discussion with
Prefer informal role in decision reviews manager for career
reviews making moves.
 ENGAGEMENT

Elements Gen Y E Gen Gen X Free Gen

Enjoy working with an
encouraging boss Prefers one-on-one
Work Dislike being micro- Relationship with like discussions with
relationships Relationships with manged minded people is a seniors/leaders
community activities, priority
friend circles at work
important

Elements Gen Y E Gen Gen X Free Gen

Bias-free work
environment Freedom to express
Fun- lled and preferred oneself, choosing
energetic work what and how to do
Work environment Greater loyalty things in life
environment demonstrated Prefers working in
towards profession small groups or alone
High need to impress and not just job Need for constant
management challenges/interesting
Environment work
conscious

Flexible and willing to

stretch, however
anchored to overall
integration of work
and life (balance)
Caselet 3
Tapping the Multi-Generational Workforce beyond Employees: Microsoft India
While most companies design initiatives to manage their existing workforce or the future workforce at the most (i.e.,
university/college students who are potential employees), Microsoft India (MSIT) went a step ahead—it decided to tap
into the second- and third-future workforce generations as well through its programs for children and teenagers.

MSIT took its business strategy to the next level with a twofold objective: nurturing talent in the market place while
ensuring the quality of its resources, and tapping the right talent.

The famous business strategy of SWOT was all that MSIT focused on; it had the courage to convert the identi ed
strengths, weaknesses, and threats to opportunities, and then leveraged these opportunities.

Strengths Weaknesses

Opportunities Threats

MSIT implemented initiatives to cater to Kids, Teens, Gen Y, and the Gen X & Baby Boomer generations.

Gen X
Kids Teens Gen Y & Baby Boomers
Digigirlz give MACH is an Situational
high school girls an Microsoft IT Academy accelerated Leadership is a
opportunity to learn provides students career development course designed for
about careers in with future ready program designed to Managers who
technology and technology skills recruit and hire new manage college hires.
participate in hands they need to be graduate talent and It's a course that helps
on computer and successful in college cultivate them as a Managers diagnose
technology and a career. passionate, innovative the needs of young
workshops. key contributors employees, and then
for Microsoft. tailor their
management style
Prerna is an initiative to each individual
to connect with situation.
underprivileged girl
students and give
them a perspective Springboard is a
beyond their program aimed
classroom training. at helping women
on a career break
willing to transition
back into corporate
world.

The initiatives for the kids and teens involved a holistic approach, which was more of a corporate social responsibility
strategy to bring kids up the economy strata. MSIT used technology—which is one of their core strengths—to achieve
the same. The initiatives focusing on Gen Y and Gen X & Baby Boomers were meant to achieve good retention rates as
well as to build up the brand name.
ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE 1
Values & Generations Questionnaire (Discovery Phase)
Thank you for taking the time to ll this survey. You are part of a rst-of-its-kind survey to understand personal
values across multiple generations that work together in the workplace.

You are requested to respond to the questions as per the instructions provided in each section of this survey.

There is no “right” or “wrong” answer. Your inputs as you honestly feel would be very valuable to us.

All information provided will be used solely for research purposes. The responses will be kept con dential and will be
available only to the research team.

SECTION I
Socio-Demographic Details
Instructions: Please ll in your socio-demographic details in the space given against each question.

Professional background
1. Organization:
2. Designation:
3. Department/Function:
4. Employee id:
5. Name:
6. Age:
7. Gender: a. Male b. Female
8. Years of professional work experience:
9. Total no. of years in current organization:
10. Type of hire (Campus/Lateral):

Educational background
11. Please provide the necessary details in the following table:

Quali cation Degree Institution Location Year of % of

Passing marks
10th grade
PUC/12th/ITI/Diploma
Graduation/Diploma/Post 12th
PG
Others
Demographical background
12. Which of the following best describes the background you hail from:
a. Village b. Town c. Non-metro city d. Metro City e. Any other (pl. specify):
13. Place of birth:
14. Place where you reside now:
15. Place where your parents reside now:

Family background
16. Marital Status:
a. Single (Not married) b. Married c. Separated/divorced d. Any other (pl. specify)
17. Family Type:
a. Staying alone b. Nuclear family c. Joint family d. Any other (pl. specify)
18. Which of the following best describes the kind of family (occupation) you consider yourself to be from?
a. Agricultural b. Family Business c. Teaching
d. Employed by Private sector e. Employed in Public sector f. Government Employee
g. Self-employed h. Other (pl. specify)
19. Details of immediate family members:

Mother Father Sibling Sibling Sibling More Spouse Child 1 Child 2 Child 3
1 2 3 sibling
(menti
on
here)
Relationship
Age
Education
Occupation
Income
Mention
whether they
stay with you
Any other
highlights
about this
person

20. Financial role in the family:

a. Only earning member b. Supporting earning member c. Family not dependent on my earnings

21. Exposure outside India:

Context Country No. of years
Born/Grew up
Education
Work experience
Any other (pl. specify
22. Would you like a copy of the study report? If yes, please give us your personal e-mail ID:

SECTION II
Values Survey
Instructions: A “value” is something that is important to you and helps you in determining your personal priorities.
Given below are two lists of 18 values each.

Please rank both the lists of values according to the following steps:

STEP 1: Study the entire list of 18 values and think about how much each value may act as a guiding principle in your
life.

STEP 2: Rank each value in its order of importance to you. The value that is most important to you should be ranked 1;
the value that is least important to you should be ranked 18. Similarly, work your way through all the 18 values in the list.
Please remember that no two values can have the same rank.

When ranking, take your time and think carefully. Feel free to go back and change your order (if you have second
thoughts about any of your answers).

List I

Terminal Values Rank

A comfortable life (a prosperous life)
Equality (brotherhood and equal opportunity for all)
An exciting life (a stimulating, active life)
Family security (taking care of loved ones)
Freedom (independence and free choice)
Health (physical and mental well-being)
Inner harmony (freedom from inner con ict)
Mature love (sexual and spiritual intimacy)
National security (protection from attack)
Pleasure (an enjoyable, leisurely life)
Salvation (saved; eternal life)
Self-respect (self-esteem)
A sense of accomplishment (a lasting contribution)
Social recognition (respect and admiration)
True friendship (close companionship)
Wisdom (a mature understanding of life)
A world at peace (a world free of war and con ict)
A world of beauty (beauty of nature and the arts)
 List II

Instrumental Values Rank

Ambitious (hardworking and aspiring)
Broad-minded (open-minded)
Capable (competent; effective)
Clean (neat and tidy)
Courageous (standing up for your beliefs)
Forgiving (willing to pardon others)
Helpful (working for the welfare of others)
Honest (sincere and truthful)
Imaginative (daring and creative)
Independent (self-reliant; self-sufficient)
Intellectual (intelligent and re ective)
Logical (consistent; rational)
Loving (affectionate and tender)
Loyal (faithful to friends or the group)
Obedient (dutiful; respectful)
Polite (courteous and well-mannered)
Responsible (dependable and reliable)
Self-controlled (restrained; self-disciplined)

Thank you for completing this survey!

Work Values & Generations Questionnaire (Validation Phase)

This survey is being undertaken as part of collaborative research between SHRM India and Prof. Vasanthi Srinivasan of
the Indian Institute of Management Bangalore.

The survey consists of two parts and will require less than 30 minutes of your time to complete. Please respond to the
questions as per the instructions provided in each section of the survey.

There are no “right” or “wrong” answers. All information provided by you will be strictly con dential. The ndings will be
reported only in the form of aggregates to further ensure con dentiality.

We recognize and value the time you are taking to do the survey. Your contribution to this study will go a long way in
helping us achieve the objective of understanding the work values of employees in Indian organizations.

Thank you for your participation!

SECTION I
Work Values
Instructions: The questions in this section represent values that people consider important in their work and which
guide them in making critical decisions about their jobs and careers.

Please rate each of the 38 items with respect to the two scales explained below.

Scale 1: How important are each of these values to you?

1. Highly important
2. Important
3. Neither important nor unimportant
4. Unimportant
5. Highly unimportant

Scale 2: To what extent are you able to demonstrate these values in your current work context?
1. A large extent
2. Some extent
3. Moderately
4. Rarely
5. Not at all

For example, the value “Do work that is intellectually stimulating” might be very important to you. However, if most
of your regular work is routine, then you possibly do not get to display it in your work context. Hence, you should rate
this value 1 (Highly important) on the Importance scale and 4 (Rarely) on the Extent scale.
 How IMPORTANT IS In your current work
it for you to context, to what
EXTENT are you able to
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1. Do you do work that is intellectually stimulating?
2. Do you work on tasks that challenge your abilities?
3. Do you do work that you nd interesting?
4. Do you have the opportunity to continuously acquire new
knowledge/skills?
5. Do you do work that provides you with a personal sense of
accomplishment?
6. Do you do work that involves creativity?
7. Do you do work that provides variety?
8. Do you do work that allows you to use your abilities?
9. Do you work in a setting where your competence is
recognized?
10. Do you work in a setting where you can take risks?
11. Do you have a designation that is respected in society?
12. Do you have a good salary?
13. Do you have the assurance of job security?
14. Do you work in an environment that is physically
comfortable?
15. Do you have the opportunity for promotion in your career?
16. Do you have the oppor tunity to earn incentives,
commission, or performance bonus?
17. Do you have the opportunity to use different technologies
at work?
18. Do you have the authority to direct the work of others?
19. Do you do work that is regarded highly by others?
20. Do you do work that allows you to travel and see different
places?
21. Do you work for an organization that is reputed?
22. Do you work in a setting that is fun?
23. Do you work with friendly co-workers?
24. Do you work with co-workers who are competent?
25. Do you work with co-workers whom you respect?
26. Do you work for a supervisor who is supportive?
27. Do you work for a supervisor who values performance?
28. Do you do work that allows you to share knowledge?
29. Do you do work that your family is proud of?
30. Do you work in an organization that provides you with work-
life balance?
31. Do you have hours of work that are convenient to your life?
32. Do you have the opportunity to work alone, without having
to rely on others?
33. Do you have the autonomy to make decisions at work?
34. Do you do work that makes a helpful contribution to
society?
35. Do you work in an organization that is fair and impartial?
36. Do you work in an organization that provides constructive
feedback about your performance?
37. Do you work in an organization that rewards loyalty?
38. Do you work in an organization where a job well done is
recognized?
SECTION II
Socio-Demographic Details
Instructions: Please provide your socio-demographic details in the space given against each question.

Professional background
1. Organization:
2. Designation:
3. Department/Function:
4. Work location:
5. Age (in years):
6. Gender: a. Male b. Female
7. Years of professional work experience:
8. Total no. of years in current organization:
9. Type of hire: a. Campus b. Lateral

Educational background
10. Type of institution in 10th Standard:
1) Government 2) Private 3) Convent

Medium of education in 10th Standard:

1) English 2) Regional language
11. Please mention your highest quali cation
a. Diploma/ITI b. Graduation c. Post-graduation
d. Doctorate and above e. Any others (pl. specify):

Demographical background
12. Which region of India are you from:
a. East b. West c. North d. South
13. Place where you lived for the maximum number of years:
a. Village b. Town
c. Non-metro city d. Metro city: Mumbai, Delhi, Chennai, Calcutta, Bangalore, Hyderabad,
Ahmedabad, Pune, or Surat (de ned by GOI)

Family background
14. Family type:
a. Staying alone/with friends b. Nuclear (Spouse and children or parents)
c. Joint (Spouse, children, and parents/married siblings)

Details of immediate family members (including deceased members)

15. Father's education:
a. Less than 10th standard b. 10/12th/PUC/ITI/Diploma
c. Graduation d. Post-graduation and above
16. Father's occupation:
a. Agriculture b. Family Business c. Teaching
d. Employed in private sector e. Employed in public sector f. Government employee
g. Entrepreneur h. Professional (lawyer, doctor, etc.) I. Retired
j. Home-maker k. Other (pl. specify)
17. Mother's Education:
a. Less than 10th standard b. 10/12th/PUC/ITI/Diploma
c. Graduation d. Post-graduation and above
18. Mother's occupation:
a. Agriculture b. Family Business c. Teaching
d. Employed in private sector e. Employed in public sector f. Government employee
g. Entrepreneur h. Professional (lawyer, doctor, etc.) I. Retired
j. Home-maker k. Other (pl. specify)
19. Marital Status:
a. Single/Separated/Divorced/Widowed b. Married
20. Parental status:
a. Child (ren) b. No child
21. Ordinal position in the family:
a. Eldest b. Middle child c. Youngest d. Only child
22. Financial role in the family:
a. Only earning member b. Supporting earning member c. Family not dependent on my earnings
23. Community
a. General b. SC c. ST d. BC e. OBC f. Any other (pl. specify)
24. Have you lived overseas for more than a year for education or work?
a. Yes b. No
25. Would you like a copy of the study report? If yes, please give us your personal e-mail ID:
To know more about multi-generational diversity, please visit us at multigen.shrmindia.org

Thank you for your time and inputs!

ANNEXURE II

Table 1.1: Classi cation of Generations in India

Generation 1 Generation 2 Generation 3 Generation 4

Baby boomers, Gen X, Socialists,

Also known as Conservatives, Traditional Integrators, Non- Gen Y, Y2K, Liberalization
Traditionalists generation, Midnight's traditional generation, generation
children Mid-way generation

1943–1960/1964 (or) 1960/64–1980 (or) 1980–2000 (or)

1922–1943/46 (or) 1946–1960/64 (or) 1961/65–1979 (or) 1980–1995 (or) 1985–1995
Birth years 1940– 1950 (or) 1947–1969 (or) 1948–1968 1970–1984 (or) 1969–1980 (or) 1981 onwards (or)
(or) 1940–1970 (or) 1975–1980 1986 onwards

British rule, British Post-Independence, shift Indira Gandhi's Development of large

education system, to socialist economic assassination, reduction of middle class, increased
food crisis, Mahatma model under Indira stringent business demand and production of
Gandhi's non-violent, Gandhi's leadership, regulations, lower consumer goods, Rao's
civil disobedient nationalization of restrictions on foreign economic liberalization,
De ning events campaign for industries, public works, investment/imports, reformed policies and
independence, the social reforms, public reduced bureaucracy, growth, educational
end of British Raj, investment in education, expansion of powerhouse, Rajiv
Gandhi's growth of political factions, telecommunication, Gandhi's population
assassination, the rst split of Indian National software and IT sectors, control, S&T development,
Kashmir war, Indo- Congress, Sino-Indian war, economic liberalization, communal violence,
Pakistan war of 1947 Indo-Pakistan war of 1965, emigration of IIT graduates assassination of Rajiv
1971, liberalization of to the U.S., caste system Gandhi, respected source
rupee and devaluation of was taken over by of IT talent, listing of Indian
the same, Indian education, free markets, companies in Forbes
emergency of 1975–1977, globalization, corruption Global
national fragmentation
and turbulence, ghts,
famines, rigid
protectionism,
bureaucratic corruption

Large joint families, Large families, rigid caste Moved from economic and High in uence of Western
caste system, system, career options physical security towards culture, disjoint families,
education limited to in uenced by family and self-expression and quality increased divorce rates,
Socio-cultural high-caste boys, culture of life, middle class two children policy, equal
scenario women meant to dominating the workforce, education and rights for all
take care of families, inter-class/religious
child marriages marriages, migration from
rural to urban India,
in uence of Western
culture, increase in
readership of English
consumer magazines
 Generation 1 Generation 2 Generation 3 Generation 4

Frustration, authority, Pro-democracy, hardship, Hardship, self-sufficient, Ambitious, emphasized on

hardship, social order anxiety, fear, lack of trust believed in hierarchy and a nancial reward,
Characteristics and caste system, and hierarchy, socialist, socialist economy, less entrepreneurial, business
loyal to family and shy, obedient, idealistic, conservative, tech savvy, savvy, technologically
community national pride, stressing ambition of becoming rich, capable and adept, loan is
social conformity, government jobs no not considered a liability
technophobic, avid savers; longer attractive; aspirers and is taken on credit,
mainstreamers are middle are those who want to be value work-life balance
majority who seek security, seen as successful, and for and profession, fearless of
value, and social whom status and envy are aspirations, successful,
acceptance, strivers whose important want material success and
goal is improvement and control, achievement, and
escape from hardships recognition.

Roongrerngsuke, 2010; Roongrerngsuke, 2010; Roongrerngsuke, 2010;

Erickson, 2009; Ghosh and Erickson, 2009; Ghosh and Erickson, 2009; Ghosh and
Roongrerngsuke, Chaudhari, 2009; Chaudhari, 2009; Chaudhari, 2009;
Authors 2010; Erickson, 2009 Parameswaran, 2003; Parameswaran, 2003; Parameswaran, 2003;
Bijarpurkar, 2007 Bijarpurkar, 2007 Bijarpurkar, 2007

Table 2.1: Sample Demographics from Rokeach Values Survey (Discovery Phase)

Variables Groups Frequency (% freq)

20–30 years 427 (46.9%)
Age
N = 904 30–40 years 305 (33.5%)
N missing = 6
40–50 years 172 (18.9%)
Gender Male 710 (78%)
N = 910 Female 200 (22%)
Professional experience 0–5 years 305 (33.5%)
N = 899 5–10 years 259 (28.5%)
N missing = 11
10–20 years 226 (24.8%)
20-30 years 92 (10.1%)
>30 years 17 (1.9%)
Tenure within the company 0–5 years 693 (76.2%)
N = 906
N missing = 4 5–20 years 188 (20.7%)
>20 years 25 (2.7%)

Type of hire Campus 122 (13.4%)

N = 902 Lateral 780 (85.7%)
N missing = 8

10th: Type of institution Government 238 (26.2%)

N = 597
N missing = 313 Private 264 (29%)
Convent 94 (10.3%)
International 1 (0.1%)
 Variables Groups Frequency (% freq)
English 404 (44.4%)
10th: Medium
N = 597
N missing = 313
Regional language 193 (21.2%)
Government 236 (25.9%)
PUC/12th: Type of institution Private 283 (31.1%)
N = 576
N missing = 334 Convent 56 (6.2%)
International 1 (0.1%)
PUC/12th: Medium English 451 (49.6%)
N = 574
N missing = 336
Regional language 123 (13.5%)
Government 31 (3.4%)
ITI/Diploma: Type of institution
N = 109 Private 74 (8.1%)
N missing: 801 Convent 4 (0.4%)
International 0 (0%)
English 100 (11%)
ITI/Diploma: Medium
N = 109
N missing: 801 Regional language 9 (1%)

Graduation: Type of institution Government 223 (24.5%)

N = 581 Private 346 (38%)
N missing: 329
Convent 12 (1.3%)
International 0 (0%)

Graduation:: Medium English 554 (60.9%)

N = 579
N missing: 331
Regional language 25 (2.7%)
Government 125 (13.7%)
PG: Type of institution
N = 373 Private 237 (26%)
N missing: 537 Convent 7 (0.8%)
International 4 (0.4%)
English 366 (40.2%)
PG: Medium
N = 369
N missing = 541 Regional language 3 (0.3%)
Metro 338 (37.1%)
Place where you lived max. no. of yrs Non-metro city 208 (22.9%)
N = 910
Town 227 (24.9%)
Village 137 (15.1%)
 Variables Groups Frequency (% freq)
Metro 336 (36.9%)
Place where you did your schooling from
N = 903 Non-metro city 185 (20.3%)
N missing = 7
Town 280 (30.8%)
Village 102 (11.2%)
Metro 668 (73.4%)
Place where you currently reside
N = 909 Non-metro city 135 (14.8%)
N missing = 1 Town 76 (8.4%)
Village 30 (3.3%)
Married 588 (64.6%)
Status
N = 907 Single 317 (34.8%)
N missing = 3 Separated 2 (0.2%)
Family type Joint 283 (31.1%)
N = 904 Nuclear 473 (52%)
N missing = 6
Staying alone 148 (16.3%)
Family not dependent on my earnings 153 (16.8%)
Financial role
N = 898 Supporting earning member 412 (45.3%)
N missing = 12 Only earning member 333 (36.6%)
th
<10 std. 119 (13.1%)
th
10 std. 136 (14.9%)
Father's education th
N = 838 PUC/12 /ITI/Diploma 174 (19.1%)
N missing = 72 Graduation 266 (29.2%)
Post-graduation 138 (15.2%)
Others 5 (0.5%)
Agriculture 92 (10.1%)
Family business 86 (9.5%)
Teaching 38 (4.2%)
Father's occupation Employed by private sector 136 (14.9%)
N = 873
N missing = 37 Employed in public sector 59 (6.5%)
Government employee 188 (20.7%)
Entrepreneur 56 (6.2%)
Professional 23 (2.5%)
Retired 167 18.4%)
Others 28 (3.1%)
 Variables Groups Frequency (% freq)
th
<10 std. 266 (29.2%)
Mother's education 10th std. 222 (24.4%)
N = 863 th
PUC/12 /ITI/Diploma 126 (13.8%)
N missing = 47
Graduation 170 (18.7%)
Post-graduation 74 (8.1%)
Others 5 (0.5%)
Agriculture 10 (1.1%)
Family business 9 (1%)
Teaching 39 (4.3%)
Employed by private sector 10 (1.1%)
Mother's occupation Employed in public sector 9 (1%)
N = 876
N missing = 34 Government employee 29 (3.2%)
Entrepreneur 4 (0.4%)
Professional 8 (0.9%)
Retired 41 (4.5%)
Home maker 706 (77.6%)
Others 11 (1.2%)
th
<10 std. 6 (0.7%)
th
10 std. 18 (2%)
Spouse's education th
N = 576 PUC/12 /ITI/Diploma 37 (4.1%)
N missing = 334 Graduation 255 (28%)
Post-graduation 257 (28.2%)
Others 3 (0.3%)
Agriculture 0 (0%)
Family business 6 (0.7%)
Teaching 45 (4.9%)
Employed in private sector 134 (14.7%)
Spouse's occupation
Employed in public sector 11 (1.2%)
N = 572
N missing = 338 Government employee 23 (2.5%)
Entrepreneur 18 (2%)
Professional 18 (2%)
Retired 5 (0.5%)
Home-maker 299 (32.9%)
Others 13 (1.4%)
0 128 (14.1%)
No. of children
1 263 (28.9%)
N = 614
N missing = 296 2 215 (23.6%)
3 and more 8 (0.9%)
 Variables Groups Frequency (% freq)
Only child 133 (14.6%)
Ordinal position in the family Only daughter 11 (1.2%)
N = 891 Only son 79 (8.7%)
N missing = 19
Youngest 284 (31.2%)
Middle child 107 (11.8%)
Eldest 277 (30.4%)
Overseas exposure No 696 (76.5%)
N = 825
N missing = 85 129 (14.2%)

Table 2.2 Sampling and No. of Responses Collected in Validation Phase

Organization Sector Survey Sampling No. of Usable Response Hit rate

sample technique responses responses rate (No. of (Usable
collected responses responses/
collected/ No. of
Survey responses
sample) collected)
Airtel Communications 500 Random 212 202 42.40% 95.28%
ANZ Banking/Fianance 1000 Selective 212 163 21.20% 76.89%
Godrej Manufacturing 1500 Selective 950 950 63.33% 100.00%
HSBC Banking/Finance 5000 Random 4148 3136 82.96% 75.60%
Infosys IT 2000 Selective 374 285 18.70% 76.20%
Madura Retail 500 Random 277 217 55.40% 78.34%
Microlabs Pharma 1000 Selective 394 297 39.40% 75.38%
Consulting,
Snowball Infrastructure, 200 Selective 70 56 35.00% 80.00%
FMCG, Power
etc.
Total 11700 6637 5306 56.73% 79.95%
 Table 2.3 Sample Demographics of the Responses Collected in Validation Phase

Variables Groups Frequency % freq

Type of hire Campus 932 17.60%
(N = 4846, N
missing = 460) Lateral 3914 73.80%
Government 1493 28.10%
10th: Type of
Private 2487 46.90%
institution
Convent 1326 25.00%
Regional language 964 18.20%
10th: Medium
English 4342 81.80%
Diploma/ITI 218 2.10%
Graduation 2539 47.90%
Highest
quali cation Post-graduation 2279 43.00%
Doctorate and above 20 0.40%
Others 250 4.70%
Single/Separated/Divorced/Widowed 1901 35.80%
Marital status
Married 3405 64.20%
Staying alone 541 10.20%
Family type Nuclear family 3126 58.90%
Joint family 1639 30.90%
Family not dependent on my earnings 1000 18.80%
Financial role
Supporting earning member 2587 48.80%
Only earning member 1719 32.40%
th
<10 std. 606 11.40%
th th
Father's 10 /PUC/12 /ITI/Diploma 1642 30.90%
education Graduation 2036 38.40%
Post-graduation and above 1022 19.30%
Agriculture 257 4.80%
Govt./Public sector 3082 58.10%
Father's
occupation Private sector 551 10.40%
Professional/Others 1416 26.70%
th
<10 std. 1315 24.80%
th th
Mother's 10 /PUC/12 /ITI/Diploma 2019 38.10%
education Graduation 1430 27.00%
Post-graduation and above 542 10.20%
Agriculture 49 0.90%
Govt./Public sector 942 17.80%
Mother's
occupation Private sector 75 1.40%
Professional/Others 4240 79.90%

Parental status No child 2918 55.00%

Child 2388 45.00%
 Variables Groups Frequency % freq
Youngest 1745 32.90%

Ordinal position Middle child 963 18.10%

in the family Eldest 2165 40.80%
Only child 433 8.20%
Overseas No 4641 87.50%
exposure
(N = 5235; N
missing = 71) Yes 594 11.20%

Table 3.1: Overall Spread of Ranks for Terminal and Instrumental Values across the Entire Sample

Terminal Values Median Instrumental Median

Ranking Values Ranking
A comfortable life 6.00 Ambitious 5.00
Equality 9.00 Broad-minded 8.00
An exciting life 10.00 Capable 8.00
Family security 3.00 Clean 11.00
Freedom 8.00 Courageous 9.00
Health 4.00 Forgiving 12.00
Inner harmony 10.00 Helpful 9.00
Mature love 11.00 Honest 4.00
National security 12.00 Imaginative 13.00
Pleasure 12.00 Independent 9.00
Salvation 14.00 Intellectual 11.00
Self-respect 5.00 Logical 11.00
A sense of accomplishment 10.00 Loving 11.00
Social recognition 9.00 Loyal 10.00
True friendship 9.00 Obedient 12.00
Wisdom 10.00 Polite 12.00
A world at peace 14.00 Responsible 6.00
A world of beauty 16.00 Self-controlled 9.00
 Table 3.2: Differences due to Gender in Rokeach Values

Generations Male Female

N = 910
700 210 P
N missing = 0
TERMINAL VALUES Median (CRO) Median (CRO)
Comfortable life 6 (4) 7 (4)
Equality 9 (6) 10 (10)
Exciting life 10 (9) 11 (12) <0.05
Family security 3 (1) 3 (1)
Freedom 8 (5) 7 (4)
Health 4 (2) 4 (2)
Inner harmony 10 (9) 9 (6) <0.05
Mature love 11 (13) 11 (12)
National security 12 (14) 13.5 (15) <0.05
Pleasure 12 (14) 12 (14)
Salvation 14 (16) 14 (17)
Self-respect 5 (3) 4 (2) <0.05
Sense of accomplishment 10 (9) 10 (10)
Social recognition 9.5 (8) 9 (6)
True friendship 9 (6) 9.5 (9)
Wisdom 10 (9) 9 (6)
World at peace 14 (17) 13 (15)
World of beauty 16 (18) 15.5 (18)
INSTRUMENTAL VALUES Median (CRO) Median (CRO)
Ambitious 5 (2) 6 (2)
Broad-minded 8 (4) 9 (4)
Capable 8 (4) 9 (4) <0.05
Clean 11 (11) 11 (12)
Courageous 9 (6) 9 (4)
Forgiving 12 (14) 11 (12)
Helpful 9 (6) 9 (4)
Honest 3 (1) 4 (1)
Imaginative 13 (18) 14 (18)
Independent 10 (9) 9 (4) <0.05
Intellectual 11 (11) 11 (12)
Logical 11 (11) 12 (17)
Loving 12 (14) 10 (10) <0.05
Loyal 10 (9) 9 (4)
Obedient 12 (14) 11 (12)
Polite 12 (14) 11 (12)
Responsible 6 (3) 7 (3) <0.05
Self-controlled 10 (10)
 Table 3.3: Differences due to Marital Status in Terminal & Instrumental Values

Generations Single/Separated/Windowed Married

N = 910
319 588 P
N missing = 3
TERMINAL VALUES Median (CRO) Median (CRO)
Comfortable life 6 (4) 6 (4)
Equality 9 (7) 9 (6)
Exciting life 10 (8) 10 (8)
Family security 4 (1) 3 (1) <0.05
Freedom 7 (5) 8 (5) <0.05
Health 4 (1) 4 (2)
Inner harmony 11 (11) 10 (8) <0.05
Mature love 11 (11) 11 (13)
National security 13 (15) 12 (14)
Pleasure 12 (14) 12 (14) <0.05
Salvation 14 (17) 14 (16)
Self-respect 5 (3) 5 (3)
Sense of accomplishment 11 (11) 10 (8)
Social recognition 10 (8) 9 (6)
True friendship 8 (6) 10 (8) <0.05
Wisdom 10 (8) 10 (8)
World at peace 13 (15) 14 (16)
World of beauty 15 (18) 16 (18) <0.05
INSTRUMENTAL VALUES Median (CRO) Median (CRO)
Ambitious 5 (2) 5 (2)
Broad-minded 8 (4) 8 (4)
Capable 9 (6) 8 (4)
Clean 11 (12) 11 (11)
Courageous 9 (6) 9 (6)
Forgiving 12 (15) 12 (14)
Helpful 10 (8) 9 (6)
Honest 4 (1) 3 (1)
Imaginative 12 (15) 13 (18)
Independent 10 (8) 9 (6)
Intellectual 11 (12) 11 (11)
Logical 11 (12) 11 (11)
Loving 10 (8) 12 (14)
Loyal 10 (8) 9 (6)
Obedient 12 (15) 12 (14)
Polite 12 (15) 12 (14)
Responsible 7 (3) 6 (3) <0.05
Self-controlled 8 (4) 10 (10) <0.05
 Table 3.4: Differences due to Geographic Location in Terminal & Instrumental Values

Generations Metro Non-Metro Metro Metro

N = 910 338 208 227 137 P
TERMINAL VALUES Median (CRO) Median (CRO) Median (CRO) Median (CRO)
Comfortable life 6 (4) 6 (4) 6 (4) 6 (4)
Equality 9 (6) 9.5 (8) 10 (8) 9 (7)
Exciting life 10 (9) 10 (10) 10 (8) 10 (9)
Family security 3 (1) 3 (1) 3 (1) 4 (1)
Freedom 8 (5) 8 (5) 7 (5) 8 (5)
Health 4 (2) 3.5 (2) 5 (2) 4 (1)
Inner harmony 9.5 (8) 10 (10) 9 (6) 11 (11) <0.05
Mature love 11 (13) 11 (13) 11 (12) 12 (12)
National security 13 (15) 13 (15) 12 (15) 12 (12)
Pleasure 12 (14) 12 (14) 11 (12) 12 (12)
Salvation 14 (17) 15 (17) 14 (17) 13 (16)
Self-respect 5 (3) 4.5 (3) 5 (2) 5 (3)
Sense of accomplishment 10 (9) 9 (6) 11 (12) 12 (12) <0.05
Social recognition 10 (9) 9 (6) 10 (8) 8 (5) <0.05
True friendship 9 (6) 10 (10) 9 (6) 9 (7) <0.05
Wisdom 10 (9) 9.5 (8) 10 (8) 10 (9)
World at peace 13 (15) 14 (16) 13 (16) 14 (17)
World of beauty 16 (18) 16 (18) 15 (18) 15 (18)
INSTRUMENTAL VALUES
Ambitious 5 (2) 5 (2) 5 (2) 4 (2)
Broad-minded 8 (4) 9 (7) 8 (4) 7 (3)
Capable 8 (4) 8.5 (4) 9 (6) 8 (5)
Clean 11 (11) 12 (13) 10 (9) 10 (8) <0.05
Courageous 9 (6) 8.5 (4) 9 (6) 10 (8)
Forgiving 11.5 (15) 13 (18) 12 (15) 12 (14)
Helpful 9 (6) 10 (11) 9 (6) 9 (6)
Honest 3 (1) 4 (1) 4 (1) 3 (1)
Imaginative 13 (18) 12 (13) 12 (15) 13 (18)
Independent 9 (6) 9 (7) 10 (9) 10 (8)
Intellectual 11 (11) 8.5 (4) 11 (12) 12 (14) <0.05
Logical 11 (11) 9 (7) 11 (12) 12 (14)
Loving 11 (11) 12 (13) 11 (12) 12 (14)
Loyal 10 (10) 10 (11) 10 (9) 10 (8)
Obedient 12 (16) 12 (13) 12 (15) 11 (12)
Polite 12 (16) 12 (13) 12 (15) 11 (12)
Responsible 7 (3) 6 (3) 6 (3) 7 (3)
Self-controlled 9 (6) 9 (7) 8 (4) 9 (6)
 Table 3.5: Comparison of Terminal and Instrumental Values across Age Groups

Generations 20-30 31-40 40+

N = 904
319 588 172
N missing = 6
TERMINAL VALUES Median (CRO) Median (CRO) Median (CRO) P
Comfortable life 6(4) 5(3) 8(4) <0.05
Equality 9(7) 9(6) 9(8)
Exciting life 10(9) 10(7) 10(10)
Family security 3 (1) 3 (1) 3(1)
Freedom 7(5) 8(5) 8(4)
Health 4(2) 4(2) 4(2)
Inner harmony 11(11) 10(7) 8(4) <0.05
Mature love 11(11) 12(13) 11(13)
National security 12(15) 12(13) 13(15)
Pleasure 11(11) 12(13) 12(14)
Salvation 14(16) 14(17) 13(15)
Self-respect 5(3) 5(3) 5(3)
Sense of accomplishment 11(11) 11(12) 8(4) <0.05
Social recognition 9(7) 10(7) 10(10)
True friendship 8(6) 10(7) 10(10) <0.05
Wisdom 10(9) 10(7) 9(8)
World at peace 14(16) 13(16) 14(17)
World of beauty 15(18) 16(18) 16(18)
INSTRUMENTAL VALUES Median (CRO) Median (CRO) Median (CRO)
Ambitious 5(2) 5(2) 6(2)
Broad-minded 8(4) 8(4) 8.5(6)
Capable 8(4) 9(6) 7(4)
Clean 11(12) 12(15) 11(12)
Courageous 10(9) 9(6) 8(5)
Forgiving 12(15) 11(11) 12(15)
Helpful 9(6) 8(4) 11(12) <0.05
Honest 4(1) 4(1) 3(1)
Imaginative 12(15) 14(18) 13(17) <0.05
Independent 9(6) 10(10) 9(7)
Intellectual 11(12) 11(11) 10(9)
Logical 11(12) 11(11) 10(9)
Loving 10(9) 12(15) 12(15)
Loyal 10(9) 9(6) 9(7)
Obedient 12(15) 11(11) 13(17)
Polite 12(15) 12(15) 11.5(14)
Responsible 7(3) 5(2) 6(3) <0.05
Self-controlled 9(6) 9(6) 10(9)
 Table 3.6: Differences in Values across Different Family Types

Generations Staying Alone Nuclear Joint

N = 904
148 473 283
N missing = 8
TERMINAL VALUES Median (CRO) Median (CRO) Median (CRO) P
Comfortable life 6(4) 6(4) 6(4)
Equality 9(8) 9(6) 9(6)
Exciting life 10(10) 10(9) 9(6)
Family security 3(1) 3(1) 3(1)
Freedom 7(5) 7(5) 8(5)
Health 5(3) 4(2) 4(2)
Inner harmony 11(11) 9(6) 10(9) <0.05
Mature love 11(11) 11(13) 11(12)
National security 12(14) 13(15) 12(14)
Pleasure 12(14) 11(13) 12(14)
Salvation 14(16) 14(17) 14(17)
Self-respect 4(2) 5(3) 5(3)
Sense of accomplishment 11(11) 10(9) 11(12)
Social recognition 8.5(7) 10(9) 9(6)
True friendship 8(6) 9(6) 10(9) <0.05
Wisdom 9(8) 10(9) 10(9)
World at peace 14(16) 13(15) 13(16)
World of beauty 15(18) 16(18) 15(18)
INSTRUMENTAL VALUES
Ambitious 4(2) 6(2) 4(1) <0.05
Broad-minded 9(5) 8(4) 8(4)
Capable 9(5) 9(5) 8(4)
Clean 11(13) 12(14) 10(9) <0.05
Courageous 9(5) 9(5) 9(7)
Forgiving 12(16) 12(14) 12(15)
Helpful 9(5) 9(5) 8(4)
Honest 3(1) 3(1) 4(1)
Imaginative 12(16) 13(18) 13(18)
Independent 9.5(9) 10(10) 9(7)
Intellectual 10.5(11) 11(11) 11(12)
Logical 11(13) 11(11) 11(12)
Loving 10.5(11) 11(11) 11(12)
Loyal 10(10) 9(5) 10(9)
Obedient 12(16) 12(14) 12(15)
Polite 11(13) 12(14) 12(15)
Responsible 7(3) 6(2) 7(3)
Self-controlled 8(4) 9(5) 10(9) <0.05
 Table 3.7: Differences in Values across Financial Roles

Generations Family not dependent Supporting Only earning

on my earning earning member member
N = 910 P
153 333 412
N missing = 12
TERMINAL VALUES Median (CRO) Median (CRO) Median (CRO)
Comfortable life 7 (4) 5 (3) 6 (4)
Equality 10 (12) 9 (6) 9 (6)
Exciting life 9 (7) 10 (7) 10 (9)
Family security 3 (1) 3 (1) 3 (1)
Freedom 8 (5) 8 (5) 8 (5)
Health 4 (2) 4 (2) 4 (2)
Inner harmony 9 (7) 10 (7) 10 (9)
Mature love 11 (13) 12 (14) 11 (12)
National security 14 (15) 11 (12) 12 (14) <0.05
Pleasure 12 (14) 12 (14) 12 (14)
Salvation 15 (17) 14 (16) 14 (17)
Self-respect 4 (2) 5 (3) 5 (3)
Sense of accomplishment 9 (7) 11 (12) 11 (12)
Social recognition 9 (7) 10 (7) 9.5 (8)
True friendship 8 (5) 10 (7) 9 (6) <0.05
Wisdom 9 (7) 10 (7) 10 (9)
World at peace 14 (15) 14 (16) 13 (16)
World of beauty 16 (18) 16 (18) 16 (18)
INSTRUMENTAL VALUES
Ambitious 6 (2) 5 (2) 5 (2)
Broad-minded 10 (10) 8 (4) 8 (4)
Capable 9 (4) 8 (4) 8 (4)
Clean 12 (14) 10 (8) 11 (12)
Courageous 10 (10) 9 (6) 9.5 (8)
Forgiving 12 (14) 12 (14) 12 (15)
Helpful 9 (4) 10 (8) 9 (6)
Honest 4 (1) 3 (1) 4 (1)
Imaginative 12 (14) 14 (18) 12.5 (18) <0.05
Independent 9 (4) 10 (8) 9 (6)
Intellectual 9 (4) 12 (14) 10 (10) <0.05
Logical 11 (12) 11 (12) 11 (12)
Loving 11 (12) 12 (14) 11 (12)
Loyal 9 (4) 10 (8) 10 (10)
Obedient 12 (14) 12 (14) 12 (15)
Polite 12 (14) 11 (12) 12 (15)
Responsible 7 (3) 6 (3) 6 (3) <0.05
Self-controlled 9 (4) 9 (6) 9.5 (8)
 Table 3.8: Differences in Values due to Father's Educational Background

Generations Less than 10th 10th/12th/PUC/ Graduation Post-graduation

std. ITI/Diploma and above
N = 910 P
119 310 266 141
N missing = 74
TERMINAL VALUES Median (CRO) Median (CRO) Median (CRO) Median (CRO)
Comfortable life 6 (5) 6 (4) 6 (4) 7 (4)
Equality 9 (8) 9 (6) 10 (9) 10 (10)
Exciting life 9 (8) 9 (6) 10 (9) 10 (10)
Family security 11 (10) 3 (1) 3 (1) 3 (1)
Freedom 11 (10) 8 (5) 7 (5) 8 (5)
Health 4 (1) 4 (2) 4 (2) 4 (2)
Inner harmony 4 (1) 10 (9) 9 (6) 9 (7)
Mature love 7 (6) 11 (12) 11 (13) 12 (13)
National security 7 (6) 13 (15) 12 (14) 13 (14)
Pleasure 4 (1) 11 (12) 12 (14) 13 (14)
Salvation 4 (1) 13 (15) 14 (16) 15 (17) <0.05
Self-respect 11 (10) 5 (3) 5 (3) 5 (3)
Sense of accomplishment 11 (10) 11 (12) 10 (9) 8 (5) <0.05
Social recognition 12 (17) 9.5 (8) 9 (6) 9 (7)
True friendship 12 (17) 10 (9) 9 (6) 10 (10)
Wisdom 11 (10) 10 (9) 10 (9) 9 (7)
World at peace 11 (10) 14 (17) 14 (16) 14 (16)
World of beauty 11 (10) 15 (18) 16 (18) 16 (18) <0.05
INSTRUMENTAL VALUES
Ambitious 11 (6) 5 (2) 5 (2) 6 (2)
Broad-minded 13 (13) 8 (4) 8 (4) 9 (6)
Capable 13 (13) 9 (5) 8 (4) 9 (6)
Clean 5 (1) 10 (9) 11.5 (14) 13 (15) <0.05
Courageous 5 (1) 9 (5) 9 (6) 9 (6)
Forgiving 13 (13) 11 (12) 12 (16) 13 (15) <0.05
Helpful 13 (13) 9.5 (8) 9 (6) 9 (6)
Honest 12 (11) 4 (1) 3 (1) 3 (1)
Imaginative 12 (11) 12.5 (18) 13 (18) 14 (18)
Independent 8 (4) 10 (9) 9 (6) 9 (6)
Intellectual 8 (4) 11 (12) 9 (6) 8 (4) <0.05
Logical 11 (6) 11 (12) 10 (11) 10 (12) <0.05
Loving 11 (6) 11 (12) 11.5 (14) 12 (13)
Loyal 11 (6) 10 (9) 9 (6) 8 (4)
Obedient 11 (6) 12 (16) 12 (16) 13 (15)
Polite 14 (17) 12 (16) 11 (13) 12 (13)
Responsible 14 (17) 7 (3) 6 (3) 6 (2)
Self-controlled 6 (3) 9 (5) 10 (11) 9 (6)
 Table 3.9: Differences in Values due to Father's Occupation

Generations Government Private Sector Professional/Entrep

Agriculture
Public Sector reneurship/Others
N = 910 P
92 454 150 177
N missing = 37
TERMINAL VALUES Median (CRO) Median (CRO) Median (CRO) Median (CRO)
Comfortable life 6 (4) 6 (4) 5 (4) 5 (3)
Equality 9 (7) 9 (6) 9 (6) 9 (6)
Exciting life 11 (11) 10 (9) 9 (6) 9 (6)
Family security 3.5 (1) 3 (1) 3 (1) 3 (1)
Freedom 8 (6) 8 (5) 8 (5) 7 (5)
Health 4 (2) 4 (2) 4 (2) 4 (2)
Inner harmony 11.5 (12) 9 (6) 10 (10) 10 (9)
Mature love 12 (14) 11 (13) 11 (13) 11 (11)
National security 11.5 (12) 12 (14) 13 (15) 12 (15)
Pleasure 10 (10) 12 (14) 12 (14) 11 (11)
Salvation 13 (16) 14 (16) 14.5 (17) 14 (16)
Self-respect 4 (2) 5 (3) 4 (2) 5 (3)
Sense of accomplishment 12 (14) 10 (9) 9 (6) 11 (11) 0.01
Social recognition 9.5 (8) 10 (9) 9 (6) 9 (6)
True friendship 7 (5) 10 (9) 10 (10) 10 (9) 0
Wisdom 9.5 (8) 9.5 (8) 10 (10) 11 (11)
World at peace 13 (16) 14 (16) 14 (16) 14 (16)
World of beauty 14.5 (18) 16 (18) 16 (18) 15 (18)
INSTRUMENTAL VALUES
Ambitious 6 (2) 5 (2) 5 (2) 4 (1)
Broad-minded 7 (4) 8 (4) 10 (9) 8 (4)
Capable 8 (5) 8 (4) 8 (5) 8 (4)
Clean 9 (8) 11 (13) 12 (16) 11 (11) 0.02
Courageous 10 (9) 9 (6) 9 (6) 9 (6)
Forgiving 11 (13) 12 (14) 13 (18) 11 (11)
Helpful 8.5 (7) 9 (6) 9 (6) 9 (6)
Honest 3 (1) 3 (1) 4 (1) 4 (1)
Imaginative 14 (18) 14 (18) 11 (13) 12 (16) 0.01
Independent 10 (9) 10 (10) 7.5 (4) 10 (8)
Intellectual 12 (15) 10 (10) 10 (9) 11 (11) 0
Logical 12 (15) 10 (10) 10 (9) 11 (11)
Loving 10 (9) 12 (14) 11 (13) 11 (11)
Loyal 10 (9) 9 (6) 9.5 (8) 10 (8)
Obedient 11 (13) 12 (14) 11 (13) 12 (16)
Polite 12 (15) 12 (14) 12 (16) 12 (16)
Responsible 6 (2) 6 (3) 6 (3) 7 (3)
Self-controlled 8 (5) 9 (6) 10 (9) 10 (8)
 Table 3.10: Cluster Analysis of Rokeach Values Survey Data (Sample Size: 910)

Medians across the clusters

1 2 3 4 Total
N=249 N=206 N=231 N=224 N=910
A comfortable life 9.00 12.00 4.00 3.00 6.00
Equality 11.00 9.00 9.00 7.00 9.00
An exciting life 9.00 13.50 8.00 7.00 10.00
Family security 4.00 5.00 2.00 3.00 3.00
Freedom 7.00 9.00 8.00 7.00 8.00
Health 4.00 5.00 3.00 4.00 4.00
Inner harmony 9.00 10.50 10.00 10.00 10.00
Mature love 11.00 13.50 11.00 10.00 11.00
National security 13.00 8.00 14.00 12.00 12.00
Pleasure 13.00 14.00 10.00 10.00 12.00
Salvation 15.00 13.00 14.00 13.00 14.00
Self-respect 4.00 6.00 4.00 6.00 5.00
A sense of accomplishment 6.00 12.00 11.00 13.00 10.00
Social recognition 8.00 10.00 9.00 12.00 9.00
True friendship 10.00 8.00 11.00 10.00 9.00
Wisdom 8.00 8.00 11.00 12.00 10.00
A world at peace 15.00 5.00 15.00 14.00 14.00
A world of beauty 16.00 11.00 16.00 16.00 16.00
Ambitious 4.00 9.00 6.00 3.00 5.00
Broad-minded 8.00 8.50 12.00 5.00 8.00
Capable 7.00 11.00 10.00 6.00 8.00
Clean 15.00 11.00 12.00 6.00 11.00
Courageous 7.00 11.00 12.00 7.00 9.00
Forgiving 14.00 11.00 13.00 8.00 12.00
Helpful 12.00 9.00 10.00 6.00 9.00
Honest 4.00 3.00 3.00 5.00 4.00
Imaginative 10.00 15.00 14.00 12.00 13.00
Independent 7.00 11.00 10.00 10.00 9.00
Intellectual 6.00 13.00 11.00 12.00 11.00
Logical 7.00 12.00 12.00 13.00 11.00
Loving 14.00 10.00 8.00 12.00 11..00
Loyal 10.00 7.50 7.00 13.00 10.00
Obedient 14.00 9.00 9.00 13.00 12.00
Polite 13.00 9.00 10.00 14.00 12.00
Responsible 6.00 5.50 4.00 11.00 6.00
Self-controlled 10.00 7.00 7.00 13.00 9.00
 Table 3.11: Demographic Pro le across Gender

Female Male Test of Proportions Proportions

Socio-demographics Sub groups (1307) (3999) proportions in female in Male
20-40 yrs 765 1811 0.58530987 045286322
Age 30-40 yrs 454 1709 p <0.05 0.34736037 0.42735684
40-50 yrs 74 356 0.05661821 0.08902226
>50 14 123 0.01071155 0.03075769
0-5 yrs 457 1032 p <0.05 0.3496557 0.25806452
5-10 yrs 568 1689
Professional experience 10-20 yrs 246 975 0.18821729 0.24381095
20-30 Rs 34 223 p <0.05 0.02601377 0.05576394
>30 yrs 2 80 0.00153022 0.020005
Village 21 207 0.01606733 0.05176294
p <0.05
Town 185 775 0.14154552 0.19379845
Background
Non-metro city 278 940
Metro city 823 2077 p <0.05 0.6296863 0.51937984
Single/Separated/
Marital Status
Divorced/Widowed 544 1357 p <0.05 0.41622035 0.33933483
Married 763 2642 0.58377965 0.66066517
Staying alone 125 416
Family type
Nuclear 817 2309
Joint 365 1274
Family not
dependent on my 315 685 0.24100995 0.17129282
earnings
Financial role Supporting
847 1740 p <0.05 0.64804897 0.43510878
earning member
Only earning
member 145 1574 0.11094109 0.3935984
 Table 3.12: Comparison of Mean Ratings

Values Importance (I) Values Importance (I)

Intellectually stimulating 4.42 Supportive supervisor 4.34
Challenging work 4.49 Supervisor valuing performance 4.25
Interesting 4.53 Work-life balance 4.33
Aq2uire new knowledge/skill 4.56 Convenient Hours 4.61
Accomplishment 4.47 Fair and impartial 4.45
Creativity 4.32 Constructive feed Feedback 4.25
Variety 4.25 Loyalty 3.88
Use your abilities 4.51 Job well done is recognized 4.04
Competence is recognized 4.48 Promotion 4.35
Technology 3.98 Authority 3.73
Helpful contributions to society 4.33 Work highly regarded 4.18
Autonomy 4.53 Work that family is proud of 4.59
Risk-Taking 4.50 Travel 4.18
Share knowledge 4.27 Work alone 4.55
Designation 4.46 Fun 4.59
Salary 4.58 Friendly co-workers 3.82
Job Security 4.39 Competent co-workers 4.37
Physically Comfortable 4.61 Respectable co-workers 4.05
Bonus/Incentive 4.33 Reputed organization 4.63
 Table 3.13: Differences due to Family Type

IMPORTANCE Staying alone Nuclear Joint P

I:Intellectually stimulating 4.49 4.43 4.39 p<0.05
I:Challenging work 4.54 4.48 4.48
I:Interesting 4.57 4.54 4.49
I:Acquire new knowledge/skill 4.58 4.56 4.56
I:Accomplishment 4.44 4.49 4.42
I:Creativity 4.36 4.30 4.33 p<0.05
I:Variety 4.29 4.24 4.23
I:Use your abilities 4.55 4.51 4.50
I:Competence is recognized 4.51 4.49 4.47
I:Risk-taking 4.02 3.98 3.96
I:Designation 4.35 4.32 4.34
I:Salary 4.60 4.63 4.58
I:Job security 4.55 4.59 4.59 p<0.05
I:Physically comfortable 4.30 4.34 4.33
I:Promotion 4.64 4.61 4.60
I:Bonus/Incentive 4.45 4.46 4.44
I:Technology 4.28 4.23 4.27
I:Authority 3.87 3.88 3.89
I:Work highly regarded 4.04 4.05 4.03
I:Travel 3.98 3.80 3.80
I:Reputed organization 4.32 4.37 4.38 p<0.05
I:Fun 4.09 4.05 4.02
I:Friendly co-workers 4.39 4.32 4.36
I:Competent co-workers 4.25 4.25 4.24
I:Respected co-workers 4.26 4.27 4.26
I:Supportive supervisor 4.46 4.48 4.44
I:Supervisor valuing performance 4.57 4.58 4.56
I:Share knowledge 4.39 4.38 4.41
I:Work that family is proud of 4.25 4.33 4.41
I:Work-life balance 4.54 4.59 4.59 p<0.05
I:Convenient hours 4.32 4.32 4.34
I:Work alone 3.85 3.71 3.72
I:Autonomy 4.21 4.19 4.16 p<0.05
I:Helpful contribution to society 4.17 4.16 4.21
I:Fair and impartial 4.56 4.55 4.53 p<0.05
I:Constructive feedback 4.56 4.53 4.54
I:Loyalty 4.46 4.49 4.53
I:Job well done is recognized 4.65 4.64 4.61
 Table 3.14: Differences due to Financial Role

Not Supporting Only

dependent on earning earning
IMPORTANCE my earnings member member P
I:Intellectually stimulating 4.46 4.43 4.39 p<0.05
I:Challenging work 4.51 4.49 4.48
I:Interesting 4.59 4.53 4.49 p<0.05
I:Acquire new knowledge/skill 4.61 4.56 4.53 p<0.05
I:Accomplishment 4.51 4.47 4.43 p<0.05
I:Creativity 4.33 4.32 4.30
I:Variety 4.31 4.25 4.20 p<0.05
I:Use your abilities 4.52 4.52 4.49
I:Competence is recognized 4.53 4.48 4.46 p<0.05
I:Risk-taking 4.00 3.96 4.00
I:Designation 4.33 4.35 4.30
I:Salary 4.62 4.61 4.59
I:Job security 4.56 4.61 4.56
I:Physically comfortable 4.35 4.37 4.28 p<0.05
I:Promotion 4.63 4.63 4.58 p<0.05
I:Bonus/Incentive 4.44 4.46 4.43
I:Technology 4.24 4.26 4.24
I:Authority 3.87 3.88 3.88
I:Work highly regarded 4.01 4.05 4.06
I:Travel 3.91 3.80 3.80 p<0.05
I:Reputed organization 4.31 4.40 4.36 p<0.05
I:Fun 4.13 4.07 3.96 p<0.05
I:Friendly co-workers 4.35 4.37 4.29 p<0.05
I:Competent co-workers 4.25 4.25 4.23
I:Respected co-workers 4.30 4.28 4.24
I:Supportive supervisor 4.52 4.48 4.40 p<0.05
I:Supervisor valuing performance 4.62 4.59 4.53 p<0.05
I:Share knowledge 4.33 4.42 4.39 p<0.05
I:Work that family is proud of 4.26 4.39 4.33 p<0.05
I:Work-life balance 4.60 4.61 4.55 p<0.05
I:Convenient hours 4.36 4.36 4.25
I:Work alone 3.73 3.77 3.67 p<0.05
I:Autonomy 4.20 4.18 4.18
I:Helpful contribution to society 4.13 4.20 4.16
I:Fair and impartial 4.58 4.56 4.51 p<0.05
I:Constructive feedback 4.54 4.55 4.50 p<0.05
I:Loyalty 4.45 4.53 4.49 p<0.05
I:Job well done is recognized 4.65 4.65 4.60 p<0.05
 Table 3.15: Differences due to Father's Educational Background

< 10th/12th/ Graduation PG

10th PUC/ and
IMPORTANCE std. diploma above P
I:Intellectually stimulating 4.36 4.38 4.46 4.45 p<0.05
I:Challenging work 4.50 4.48 4.50 4.47
I:Interesting 4.54 4.49 4.54 4.56 p<0.05
I:Acquire new knowledge/skill 4.55 4.54 4.58 4.56
I:Accomplishment 4.38 4.42 4.50 4.52 p<0.05
I:Creativity 4.36 4.29 4.33 4.31
I:Variety 4.26 4.20 4.25 4.29 p<0.05
I:Use your abilities 4.50 4.49 4.53 4.50
I:Competence is recognized 4.42 4.44 4.52 4.52 p<0.05
I:Risk-taking 3.98 3.95 4.01 3.96
I:Designation 4.34 4.30 4.35 4.32
I:Salary 4.50 4.60 4.64 4.61 p<0.05
I:Job security 4.56 4.58 4.62 4.55
I:Physically comfortable 4.31 4.32 4.36 4.32
I:Promotion 4.53 4.59 4.65 4.61 p<0.05
I:Bonus/Incentive 4.36 4.45 4.48 4.43 p<0.05
I:Technology 4.27 4.27 4.26 4.17 p<0.05
I:Authority 3.89 3.86 3.90 3.87
I:Work highly regarded 4.06 4.01 4.07 4.03
I:Travel 3.76 3.76 3.88 3.82 p<0.05
I:Reputed organization 4.38 4.34 4.40 4.34
I:Fun 3.99 3.99 4.09 4.07
I:Friendly co-workers 4.37 4.31 4.36 4.34
I:Competent co-workers 4.26 4.21 4.26 4.28
I:Respected co-workers 4.24 4.24 4.29 4.27
I:Supportive supervisor 4.37 4.44 4.49 4.51 p<0.05
I:Supervisor valuing performance 4.50 4.56 4.60 4.60 p<0.05
I:Share knowledge 4.44 4.41 4.40 4.33 p<0.05
I:Work that family is proud of 4.36 4.37 4.34 4.32
I:Work-life balance 4.54 4.58 4.61 4.58
I:Convenient hours 4.27 4.31 4.35 4.35
I:Work alone 3.78 3.73 3.73 3.70
I:Autonomy 4.14 4.17 4.20 4.19
I:Helpful contribution to society 4.18 4.21 4.18 4.11 p<0.05
I:Fair and impartial 4.47 4.54 4.57 4.57 p<0.05
I:Constructive feedback 4.50 4.53 4.54 4.54
I:Loyalty 4.46 4.51 4.51 4.49
I:Job well done is recognized 4.59 4.62 4.65 4.63
 Table 3.16: Differences due to Father's Occupation

Govt./Public Private Others

IMPORTANCE Agriculture sector sector /prof P
I:Intellectually stimulating 4.36 4.44 4.42 4.41
I:Challenging work 4.46 4.49 4.50 4.49
I:Interesting 4.45 4.53 4.53 4.54
I:Acquire new knowledge/skill 4.50 4.56 4.56 4.58
I:Accomplishment 4.25 4.47 4.47 4.49 p<0.05
I:Creativity 4.36 4.33 4.30 4.30
I:Variety 4.18 4.25 4.25 4.25
I:Use your abilities 4.49 4.51 4.48 4.51
I:Competence is recognized 4.31 4.50 4.44 4.50 p<0.05
I:Risk-taking 4.00 3.98 3.97 3.97
I:Designation 4.33 4.32 4.35 4.34
I:Salary 4.47 4.61 4.64 4.61 p<0.05
I:Job security 4.45 4.58 4.62 4.60 p<0.05
I:Physically comfortable 4.29 4.33 4.36 4.35
I:Promotion 4.49 4.61 4.62 4.63 p<0.05
I:Bonus/Incentive 4.31 4.44 4.46 4.47 p<0.05
I:Technology 4.27 4.24 4.23 4.27
I:Authority 3.82 3.88 3.91 3.89
I:Work highly regarded 3.98 4.05 4.05 4.03
I:Travel 3.68 3.81 3.85 3.84
I:Reputed organization 4.26 4.38 4.37 4.37
I:Fun 3.81 4.06 4.04 4.07 p<0.05
I:Friendly co-workers 4.26 4.34 4.33 4.36
I:Competent co-workers 4.17 4.26 4.20 4.26
I:Respected co-workers 4.16 4.27 4.30 4.28
I:Supportive supervisor 4.28 4.48 4.46 4.46 p<0.05
I:Supervisor valuing performance 4.47 4.58 4.56 4.60 p<0.05
I:Share knowledge 4.46 4.39 4.37 4.41
I:Work that family is proud of 4.35 4.35 4.27 4.36
I:Work-life balance 4.44 4.59 4.63 4.59 p<0.05
I:Convenient hours 4.19 4.33 4.32 4.35 p<0.05
I:Work alone 3.73 3.71 3.76 3.77
I:Autonomy 4.08 4.19 4.18 4.18
I:Helpful contribution to society 4.22 4.19 4.11 4.17
I:Fair and impartial 4.40 4.56 4.54 4.56 p<0.05
I:Constructive feedback 4.47 4.53 4.55 4.55
I:Loyalty 4.44 4.50 4.50 4.51
I:Job well done is recognized 4.54 4.63 4.66 4.64
 Table 3.17: Differences due to Geographical Location

Non-
IMPORTANCE Village Town Metro Metro P
I:Intellectually stimulating 4.37 4.41 4.41 4.44
I:Challenging work 4.53 4.52 4.48 4.47
I:Interesting 4.53 4.48 4.52 4.54
I:Acquire new knowledge/skill 4.57 4.57 4.61 4.53 p<0.05
I:Accomplishment 4.35 4.43 4.47 4.48 p<0.05
I:Creativity 4.36 4.35 4.33 4.30
I:Variety 4.28 4.22 4.24 4.25
I:Use your abilities 4.52 4.52 4.51 4.50
I:Competence is recognized 4.42 4.46 4.49 4.49
I:Risk-taking 4.01 4.01 3.95 3.98
I:Designation 4.25 4.36 4.32 4.33
I:Salary 4.53 4.57 4.64 4.61
I:Job security 4.54 4.59 4.59 4.59
I:Physically comfortable 4.31 4.33 4.31 4.35
I:Promotion 4.55 4.63 4.63 4.60
I:Bonus/Incentive 4.35 4.43 4.48 4.44
I:Technology 4.31 4.29 4.23 4.24
I:Authority 3.79 3.90 3.86 3.89
I:Work highly regarded 3.93 4.03 4.02 4.07
I:Travel 3.74 3.78 3.84 3.83
I:Reputed organization 4.32 4.34 4.38 4.38
I:Fun 3.81 3.99 4.04 4.08 p<0.05
I:Friendly co-workers 4.34 4.33 4.35 4.34
I:Competent co-workers 4.18 4.24 4.25 4.25
I:Respected co-workers 4.18 4.23 4.25 4.30
I:Supportive supervisor 4.39 4.42 4.45 4.49
I:Supervisor valuing performance 4.57 4.56 4.57 4.58
I:Share knowledge 4.46 4.43 4.38 4.38
I:Work that family is proud of 4.39 4.38 4.36 4.32
I:Work-life balance 4.56 4.56 4.61 4.59
I:Convenient hours 4.26 4.30 4.33 4.34
I:Work alone 3.69 3.76 4.67 3.75
I:Autonomy 4.11 4.18 4.16 4.19
I:Helpful contribution to society 4.29 4.19 4.17 4.16
I:Fair and impartial 4.43 4.54 4.56 4.56
I:Constructive feedback 4.54 4.55 4.55 4.52
I:Loyalty 4.43 4.54 4.51 4.49
I:Job well done is recognized 4.61 4.66 4.64 4.62
 Table 3.18: Differences due to Marital Status

IMPORTANCE Single Married P

I:Intellectually stimulating 4.42 4.43
I:Challenging work 4.49 4.49
I:Interesting 4.54 4.52
I:Acquire new knowledge/skill 4.58 4.55
I:Accomplishment 4.44 4.48
I:Creativity 4.35 4.30
I:Variety 4.29 4.22
I:Use your abilities 4.51 4.51
I:Competence is recognized 4.48 4.49
I:Risk-taking 3.96 3.99
I:Designation 4.36 4.31
I:Salary 4.61 4.60
I:Job security 4.58 4.59
I:Physically comfortable 4.36 4.32
I:Promotion 4.65 4.59 p<0.05
I:Bonus/Incentive 4.45 4.44
I:Technology 4.28 4.23
I:Authority 3.88 3.88
I:Work highly regarded 4.02 4.06 p<0.05
I:Travel 3.94 3.75 p<0.05
I:Reputed organization 4.36 4.38
I:Fun 4.11 4.01
I:Friendly co-workers 4.39 4.31
I:Competent co-workers 4.26 4.24
I:Respected co-workers 4.29 4.25 p<0.05
I:Supportive supervisor 4.47 4.46
I:Supervisor valuing performance 4.58 4.57
I:Share knowledge 4.41 4.38
I:Work that family is proud of 4.32 4.36
I:Work-life balance 4.57 4.60
I:Convenient hours 4.34 4.32
I:Work alone 3.82 3.68 p<0.05
I:Autonomy 4.19 4.18
I:Helpful contribution to society 4.21 4.15
I:Fair and impartial 4.56 4.54
I:Constructive feedback 4.54 4.53
I:Loyalty 4.51 4.49
I:Job well done is recognized 4.64 4.63
 Table 3.19: No. of Respondents across 2 Clusters

Number of Cases in each

Cluster

Cluster 1 1677

2 3629

Valid 5306

Missing 0

Table 3.20: Chi-square Analysis & Test of Proportions across 2 clusters

Chi- Test of Test of

square proportions proportions
Variables Groups Cluster 1 Cluster 2 text (Cluster 1) (Cluster 2)
20–30 years 761 1815 0.45378652 0.50013778
31–40 years 698 1465 p<0.05
Age 41–50 years 154 276
>50 64 73 0.03816339 0.02011573
Gender Male 1312 2687 p<0.05 0.78234943 0.74042436
Female 365 942 0.21765057 0.25957564
0–5 years 475 1014

Professional 6–10 years 646 1611 0.39074863 0.44878593

experience 11–20 years 417 804 0.24893488 0.2221602
21–30 years 98 159 0.05538649 0.04270165
>30 years 41 41 0.02495435 0.01088473
0–2 years 471 1042
Tenure within
the company (N 3–10 years 1048 2367 p<0.05
= 5274, N 11–20 years 91 148 0.05455635 0.0409292
missing = 22:) >20 years 58 59 0.03477218 0.01631637
Campus 310 622
Type of hire
(N = 4846, N Lateral 1216 2698
missing = 460)
Government 480 1013
th
10 : Type of Private 812 1675
institution Convent 385 941
 Chi- Test of Test of
square proportions proportions
Variables Groups Cluster 1 Cluster 2 text (Cluster 1) (Cluster 2)
Regional 358 606 p<0.05 0.21347645 0.16698815
10th: Medium
English 1319 3023 0.78652355 0.83301185
Diploma/ITI 83 135
Highest Graduation 8 12
quali cation Post-graduation 779 1760
Doctorate and above 77 173
Others 730 1549
North 271 619
South 725 1627 p<0.05
Region
East 284 702 0.16935003 0.19344172
West 397 681 0.23673226 0.187655
Village 79 149
Town 300 660
Background Non-metro city 384 834
Metro city 914 1986
Single/Separated/Divorced/
Widowed 578 1323
Marital Status
Married 1099 2306
Staying alone 164 377
Family type Nuclear 1007 2119
Joint 506 1133
Family not dependent on my
Financial role earnings 324 676
Supporting earning member 757 1830 p<0.05 0.45140131 0.50427115
Only earning member 596 1123 0.35539654 0.30945164
<10th std. 203 403 0.32796661 0.30090934
Father's 10th/PUC/12th/ITI/Diploma 550 1092 0.35778175 0.3957013
education
Graduation 600 1436 p<0.05
Post-graduation and above 324 698
Agriculture 101 156
Father's Govt./public sector 956 2126
occupation Private sector 170 381
Professional/Others 450 966
<10th 456 859
Mother's std.10 /PUC/12th/ITI/Diploma
th
605 1414 0.36076327 0.38963902
education p<0.05
Graduation 456 974
Post-graduation and above 160 382
Mother's Agriculture 20 29
occupation Govt./public sector 286 656
Private sector 23 52
Professional/Others 1348 2892
No child 884 2034 p<0.05 0.52713178 0.56048498
Parental Status
Child 793 1595 0.47286822 0.43951502
 Table 3.21: Demographic Statistics across 4 groups

Pre- Pre- Rapid

Liberalization Liberalization Growth Plateaued
(Pre-1991) (1991-2001) (2002-2006) Growth
Professional
>21 years >10-21 years >5-10 years >0-5 years
experience
Sample size 310 1250 2257 1489
Variables Groups Freq % Freq Freq % Freq Freq % Freq Freq % Freq
Gender Females 33 10.65% 249 19.92% 568 25.17% 457 30.69%
Males 277 89.35% 1001 80.08% 1689 74.83% 1032 69.31%
0–5 years 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1489 100.00%
Professional 5–10 years 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2257 100.00% 0 0.00%
experience
10–20 years 0 0.00% 1221 97.68% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
20–30 years 228 73.55% 29 2.32% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
>30 years 82 26.45% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
0–2 years 17 5.48% 126 10.08% 416 18.43% 954 64.07%
Tenure within the
company 2–10 years 118 38.06% 941 75.28% 1833 81.21% 523 35.12%
(N missing = 22) 10–20 years 62 20.00% 175 14.00% 0 0.00% 2 0.13%
>20 years 112 36.13% 4 0.32% 1 0.04% 0 0.00%
Type of hire Lateral 224 72.26% 1029 82.32% 1779 78.82% 882 59.23%
(N missing = 460) Campus 44 14.19% 100 8.00% 313 13.87% 475 31.90%
Government 101 32.58% 361 28.88% 634 28.09% 397 26.66%
10th: Type of Private 123 39.68% 557 44.56% 1044 46.26% 763 51.24%
institution
Convent 86 27.74% 332 26.56% 579 25.65% 329 22.10%
th
10 : Medium Regional 92 29.68% 220 17.60% 411 18.21% 241 16.19%
English 218 70.32% 1030 82.40% 1846 81.79% 1248 83.81%
Diploma/ITI 45 14.52% 72 5.76% 71 3.15% 30 2.01%
Highest Graduation 138 44.52% 533 42.64% 1112 49.27% 756 50.77%
quali cation
Post-graduation 101 32.58% 576 46.08% 963 42.67% 639 42.91%
Doctorate and 1 0.32% 10 0.80% 6 0.27% 3 0.20%
above
others 25 8.06% 59 4.72% 105 4.65% 61 4.10%
North 30 9.68% 183 14.64% 370 16.39% 307 20.62%
Region South 140 45.16% 626 50.08% 1001 44.35% 585 39.29%
East 23 7.42% 176 14.08% 502 22.24% 285 19.14%
West 117 37.74% 265 21.20% 384 17.01% 312 20.95%
Village 8 2.58% 29 2.32% 108 4.79% 83 5.57%
Town 35 11.29% 173 13.84% 423 18.74% 329 22.10%
Background
Non-metro city 53 17.10% 257 20.56% 534 23.66% 374 25.12%
Metro city 214 69.03% 791 63.28% 1192 52.81% 703 47.21%
Married 290 93.55% 1124 89.92% 1580 70.00% 411 27.60%
Marital Status
Single/Separated/ 20 6.45% 126 10.08% 677 30.00% 1078 72.40%
Divorced/Widowed
 Pre- Pre- Rapid
Liberalization Liberalization Growth Plateaued
(Pre-1991) (1991-2001) (2002-2006) Growth
Professional
>21 years >10-21 years >5-10 years >0-5 years
experience
Sample size 310 1250 2257 1489
Variables Groups Freq % Freq Freq % Freq Freq % Freq Freq % Freq
Staying alone 8 2.58% 38 3.04% 176 7.80% 319 21.42%
Family type Nuclear 218 70.32% 810 64.80% 1318 58.40% 780 52.38%
Joint 84 27.10% 402 32.16% 763 33.81% 390 26.19%
Family not 24 7.74% 148 11.84% 391 17.32% 437 29.35%
Financial role dependent on my
earnings
Supporting earning
member 108 34.84% 486 38.88% 1170 51.84% 823 55.27%

Only earning
member 178 57.42% 616 49.28% 696 30.84% 229 15.38%
th
<10 grade 57 18.39% 117 9.36% 272 12.05% 160 10.75%
th th
Father's education 10 /PUC/12 /ITI/
Diploma 133 42.90% 411 32.88% 681 30.17% 417 28.01%
Graduation 81 26.13% 471 37.68% 888 39.34% 596 40.03%
Post-graduation
and above 39 12.58% 251 20.08% 416 18.43% 316 21.22%
Agriculture 24 7.74% 45 3.60% 113 5.01% 75 5.04%
Father's
occupation Govt./public sector 198 63.87% 849 67.92% 1321 58.53% 714 47.95%
Private sector 29 9.35% 100 8.00% 210 9.30% 212 14.24%
Professional/Others 59 19.03% 256 20.48% 613 27.16% 488 32.77%
th
<10 std. 114 36.77% 300 24.00% 572 25.34% 329 22.10%
Mother's th th
education 10 /PUC/12 /ITI/
Diploma 141 45.48% 523 41.84% 850 37.66% 505 33.92%
Graduation 45 14.52% 310 24.80% 610 27.03% 465 31.23%
Post-graduation 10 3.23% 117 9.36% 225 9.97% 190 12.76%
and above
Mother's Agriculture 7 2.26% 7 0.56% 22 0.97% 13 0.87%
occupation Govt./public sector 45 14.52% 251 20.08% 393 17.41% 253 16.99%
Private sector 2 0.65% 10 0.80% 35 1.55% 28 1.88%
Professional/Others 256 82.58% 982 78.56% 1807 80.06% 1195 80.26%
Parental Status Child 282 90.97% 977 78.16% 993 44.00% 136 9.13%
No child 28 9.03% 273 21.84% 1264 56.00% 1353 90.87%
Ordinal position Youngest 71 22.90% 408 32.64% 761 33.72% 505 33.92%
in the family Middle 92 29.68% 254 20.32% 403 17.86% 214 14.37%
Eldest 134 43.23% 498 39.84% 906 40.14% 627 42.11%
Only child 13 4.19% 90 7.20% 187 8.29% 143 9.60%
Overseas No 270 87.10% 1007 80.56% 1973 87.42% 1391 93.42%
exposure
(N missing = 71) Yes 33 10.65% 223 17.84% 262 11.61% 76 5.10%
 Table 3.22: Comparison of Mean Ratings across Indian Generational Cohorts

Generations Pre- Early Rapid Plateaued Pre- Early Rapid Plateaued

Liberalization Liberalization Growth Growth Liberalization Liberalization Growth Growth
(Pre 1991 (1991-2001) (2002-2006) (2007-2012) (Pre 1991 (1991-2001) (2002-2006) (2007-2012)
Simple Size 310 1250 2257 1489 310 1250 2257 1489
Most imp Most imp Most imp Most imp Least imp Least imp Least imp Least imp
values values values values values values values values

Fair & Job well done Promotion Promotion Work alone Work alone Work alone Work alone
impartial is recognized (4.66) (4.63) (3.53) (3.61) (3.77) (3.8)
(4.55 (4.63)

Job well done Promotion Job well Job well Travel (3.58) Travel (3.76) Travel (3.85) Authority
is recognized (4.62) done is done is (3.83)
(4.53) recognized recognized
(4.65) (4.63)

Work-Life Salary (4.59) Job security Salary (4.6) Fun (3.86) Authority Authority Travel (3.87)
balance (4.5) (4.65) (3.91) (3.9)

Supervisor Job security, Salary (4.65) Acquire new Authority Fun (3.96) Risk taking Risk-taking,
valuing Supervisor skills, work (3.87) (3.94) Work highly
performance valuing life balance regarded
(4.49) performance, (4.58) (3.96)
Work life
balance, Fair &
impartial
(4.56)
REFERENCES

Angeline, T. (2011). Managing Generational Diversity at the Workplace: Expectations and perceptions of different
generations of employees. African Journal of Business Management, 5(2), pp. 249–255.

Ansoorian, A., Good, P., and Samuelson, D. (2003). Managing Generational Differences. Leadership, pp. 34–35.

Appelbaum, S.H., Serena, M., and Shapiro, B.T. (2004). Generation X and the Boomers: Organizational myths and literary
Realities. Management Research News, 27 (11/12), pp. 1–28.

Bedi, H. (1991). Understanding Asian Managers. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Berl, P. (2006). Crossing the Generational Divide. Exchange, March/April, pp. 73–76.

Bijapurkar, R. (2007). Winning in the Indian Market: Understanding the transformation of consumer India. John Wiley &
Sons, p. 5.

Carlson, H. (2004). Changing of the Guard. The School Administrator, pp. 36–39.

Charrier, K. (2000). Marketing Strategies for Attracting and Retaining Generation X Police Officers. The Police Chief,
December, pp. 45–51.

Chatterjee, S.R., and Heuer, M. (2006). Understanding Indian Management in a Time of Transition. In Management in
India: Trends and Transition, Davis, H.J., Chatterjee, S.R., and Heuer, M. (Eds.). New Delhi: Response Books.

Chatterjee, S.R., and Pearson, C.A.L. (2000). Indian Managers in Transition: Orientations, work goals, values and ethics.
Management International Review, 1, pp. 81–95.

Chen, P.J., and Choi, Y. (2008). Generational Differences in Work Values: A study of hospitality management. International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 20(6), pp. 595–615.

D'Amato, A., and Herzfeldt, R. (2008). Learning Orientation, Organizational Commitment and Talent Retention across
Generations: A study of European managers. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, pp. 929–953.

DeSouza, P.R., Kumar, S., and Shastri, S. (2009). Indian Youth in a Transforming World: Attitudes and perceptions. New Delhi:
Sage Publications.

Dose, J.J. (1997). Work Values: An integrative framework and illustrative application to organization socialization.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, pp. 219–240.

Dreze, J. and Sen,A. (1999). India: Economic Development and Social Opportunity, Oxford University Press.

Edmunds, J., and Turner, B.S. (2005). Global Generations: Social change in the twentieth century. The British Journal of
Sociology, 56(4), pp. 559–577.

Egri, C.P., and Ralston, D.A. (2004). Generation Cohorts and Personal Values: A comparison of China and US. Organization
Science, 15(2), pp. 210–220.

E r i c k s o n , T. ( 2 0 0 9 ) . G e n e rat i o n a l D i ffe re n ce s b e t we e n I n d i a a n d t h e U. S . Ava i l a b l e o n l i n e at :
http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/erickson/2009/02/global_generations_focus_on_in.html (Accessed on 02
September, 2011).

Eyerman, R., and Turner, B. (1998). Outline of a Theory of Generations. European Journal of Social Theory, pp. 90–104
Feather, N.T., and Rauter, K.A. (2004). Organizational Citizenship Behaviours in Relation to Job Status, Job Insecurity,
Organizational Commitment and Identi cation, Job Satisfaction and Work Values. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 77, pp. 81–95.

Filipczak, B. (1994). It's just a Job: Generation X at work. Training, 31, pp. 21–27.

Flake, L.G. (2008). The Rise, Fall, and Transformation of the “386”: Generational change in Korea. The National Bureau of
Asian Research, NBR project report, pp. 100–122.

George, J.M., and Jones, G.R. (1997). Experiencing Work: Values, attitudes, and moods. Human Relations, 50, pp. 393–416.

Ghosh, R., and Chaudhuri, S. (2009). Intergenerational Differences in Individualism/Collectivism Orientations:

Implications for outlook towards HRD/HRM practices in India and the United States. New Horizons in Adult Education
and Human Resource development, 23(4), pp. 5–21.

Giancola, F. (2006). "The Generation Gap: More Myth than Reality". Human Resource Planning, 29 (4), pp. 32–37.

Gilleard, C. (2004). Cohorts and Generations in the Study of Social Change. Social Theory and Health, 2, pp. 106–119.

Gopalan, S., and Stahl, A. (1998). Application of American Management Theories and Practices to the Indian Business
Environment: Understanding the impact of national culture. American Business Review, 16(2), pp. 30–41.

Gursoy, D., Maier, A.T., and Chic, C.G. (2008). Generational Differences: An examination of work values and generational
gaps in the hospitality workforce. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27, pp. 448–458.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations. London: McGraw-Hill.

Holbrook, M.B., and R.M. Schindler. (1996). Market Segmentation Based on Age and Attitude Toward the Past: Concepts,
methods, and ndings concerning nostalgic in uences on customer tastes. Journal of Business Research, 37, pp. 27–39.

Hole, D., Zhong, L., and Schwartz, J. (2010). Talking about Whose Generation? Why western generational models can't
account for a global workforce. Deloitte Review, Issue 6. Available online at:
http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_US/us/Insights/Browse-by-Content-Type/deloitte-review/5d6e2bb18ef26210Vgn
VCM100000ba42f00aRCRD.htm (Accessed on 30 August, 2011).

Inside Facebook Gold. (2011). Available online at: http://gold.insidenetwork.com/facebook/ (Accessed on 04

September, 2011).

Joshi, A., Dencker, J.C., Franz, G., and Martocchio, J.J. (2010). Unpacking Generational Identities in Organizations.
Academy of Management Review, 35(3), pp. 392–414.

Judge, T.A., and Bretz, R.D. (1992). Effects of Values on Job Choice Decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, pp.
261–271.

Jung, C.G. (1953). The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. (1981, 2nd ed., Collected Works, Vol. 9, Part 1), Princeton,
N.J.: Bollingen.

Kakar, S., Kakar, S., Kets De Vries, M.F.R., and Vrignaud, P. (2002). Leadership in Indian Organizations from a Comparative
Perspective. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 2(2), pp. 239–250.

Kamdar, D. (2002). Patterns of Work Culture: Cases and strategies for culture building. Asia Paci c Journal of
Management, 19(1).

Kao, H.S.R., Sinha, D., and Ng, S.H. (1995). Effective Organizations and Social Values. New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Kapur, D., and Ramamurti, R. (2001). India's Emerging Competitive Advantage in Services. The Academy of Management
Executive, 15(2), pp. 20–33.

Karp, H.B., and Sirias, D. (2001). Generational Con ict: A new paradigm for teams of the 21st Century. Gestalt Review, 5(2),
pp. 71–87.

Khandwalla, P.N. (1996). Effective Corporate Response to Liberalization: The Indian case. The Social Engineer, 5, pp. 5–33.

Kim, D.J. (2008). Generation Gaps in Engineering? Master's dissertation submitted to the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. Available online at: http://sdm.mit.edu/docs/kim_thesis.pdf (Accessed on 03 September, 2011).

Krywulak, T., and Roberts, M. (2009). Winning the "Generation Wars": Making the most of generational differences and
similarities in the workplace. The Conference Board of Canada. November 2009. Available online at:
http://www.aqesss.qc.ca/docs/pdf/i-media/20091126/ConferenceBoard_Compete_Generation_Wars.pdf (Accessed
on 03 September, 2011).

Kupperschmidt, B.R. (2000). Multi-Generation Employees: Strategies for effective management. The Health Care
Manager, 19(1), pp. 65–76.

Lamm, E., and Meeks, M.D. (2009). Workplace Fun: The moderating effects of generational differences. Employee
Relations, 31(6), pp.613–631.

Lancaster, L.C., and Stillman, D. (2003). When Generations Collide: Who they are, why they clash, how to solve the
generational puzzle at work. New York: Harper Business.

Locke, E.A. (1991). The Motivation Sequence, the Motivation Hub and the Motivation Core. Organizational Behaviour &
Human Decision Processes, 50, pp. 288–299.

Losyk, B. (1997). How to Manage an X'er. The Futurist, 31, p. 43.

Lyons, S. (2004). An Exploration of Generational Values in Life and at Work. ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis: The
Humanities and Social Sciences Collection.

Macky, K., Gardner, D., and Forsyth, S. (2008). Generational Differences at Work: Introduction and overview. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 23, pp. 857–861.

Mannheim, K. (1952). The Problem of Generations. In Kecskemeti, P. (Ed.), Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 276–322.

McDonald, K., and Hite, L. (2008). The Next Generation of Career Success: Implications for HRD. Advances in Developing
Human Resources, 10, pp. 86–103.

Meglino, B., and Ravlin, E. (1998). Individual Values in Organizations: Concepts, controversies, and research. Journal of
Management, 24(3), pp. 351–389.

Meriac, J.P., Woehr, D.J., and Banister, C. (2010). Generational Differences in Work Ethic: An examination of measurement
equivalence across three cohorts. Journal of Business Psychology, 17 February.

Meyer, J.P., Irving, P.G., and Allen, N.J. (1998). Examination of the Combined Effects of Work Values and Early Work
Experiences on Organizational Commitment. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 19, pp. 29–52.

Murphy, Jr., E.F., Gibson, J.W., and Greenwood, R.A. (2010). Analyzing Generational Values among Managers and Non-
Managers for Sustainable Organizational Effectiveness. SAM Advanced Management Journal–Winter 2010, pp. 33–55.
Murphy, S.A. (2007). Leading a Multigenerational Workforce. AARP Project. NW, Washington. Available online at:
http://assets.aarp.org/www.aarp.org_/cs/misc/leading_a_multigenerationalworkforce.pdf (Accessed on 01
September, 2011).

Neelankavil, J.P., Mathur, A., and Zhang, Y. (2000). Determinants of Managerial Performance: A cross cultural comparison
of the perceptions of Middle level Managers in four countries. Journal of International Business studies, 31(1), pp.
121–141.

Parameswaran, M.G. (2003). Understanding Consumers: Building powerful brands using consumer research. Tata McGraw-
Hill (Paperback 1st Edition).

Parry, E., and Urwin, P. (2011). Generational Differences in Work Values: A review of theory and evidence. International
Journal of Management Reviews.

Rajesh, S. (2010), Unprecedented 4! Bridging generational differences: The India story. AVTAR, Diversity and Inclusion
Asia Network.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. New York: The Free Press.

Rood, S.A. (2011). Understanding Generational Diversity in the Workplace: What resorts can and are doing? Journal of
Tourism Insights, 1(1), Article 10, pp.79–89.

Roongrerngsuke, S. (2010). Attracting and Retaining Multigenerational Workforce in China, India, and Thailand. SHRM
Annual Conference, 2010 presentation, Available online at: http://www.avmgonline.com/product.php?
productid=18043 (Accessed on 04 September, 2011).

Ros, M., Schwartz, S.H., and Surkiss, S. (1999). Basic Individual Values, Work Values and the Meaning of Work. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 48(1), pp. 49–71.

Rupnow, W.S.K. (2011). Asian Culture Brief: Korea. A collaborative project between NTAC-AAPI and the Center for
International Rehabilitation Research Information and Exchange at the State University of New York at Buffalo. 2(1).
Available online at: http://www.ntac.hawaii.edu/downloads/products/ briefs/culture/pdf/ACB-Vol2-Iss1-Korea.pdf
(Accessed on 06 September, 2011).

Sabattini, L., Warren, A., Dinolfo, S., Falk, E., and Castro, M. (2010). Beyond Generational Differences: Bridging gender and
g e n e r a t i o n a l d i v e r s i t y a t w o r k . C a t a l y s t . A v a i l a b l e o n l i n e a t : h t t p : / / w w w. c a t a l y s t . o r g / l e /
401/beyond_generational_differences_ nal.pdf (Accessed on 01 September, 2011).

SHRM. (2011). Indian Human Resource Management and Talent Mindset. Society for Human Resource Management.
Available online at:
http://www.shrm.org/Research/Articles/Articles/Pages/Mgmtandtalentmindset.aspx (Accessed on 03 September,
2011).

Sinha, J.B.P., and Kanungo, R.N. (1997). Context Sensitivity and Balancing in Indian Organizational Behaviour.
International Journal of Psychology, 32, pp. 93–105.
Sinha, J.B.P., Daftuar, C.N., Gupta, R.K., Mishra, R.C., Jayseetha, R., Jha, S.S., Verma, J., and Vijayakumar, V.S.R. (1994).
Regional Similarities and Differences in People's Beliefs, Practices and Preferences. Psychology and Developing Societies,
6, pp. 131–149.

Sinha, J.B.P., Sinha, R.B.N., Bhupatkar, A.P., Sukumaran, A., Gupta, P., Gupta, R., Panda, A., Singh, S., Sengupta, S.S., and
Srinivas, E.S. (2004). Facets of Societal and Organisational Cultures and Managers' Work Related Thoughts and Feelings.
Psychology and Developing Societies, 16, pp. 1–25.

Smola, K.W., and Sutton, C.D. (2002). Generational Differences: Revisiting generational work values for the new
millennium. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, pp. 363–382.
Strauss, W., and Howe, N. (1991). Generations: The history of America's future 1584–2069. New York: William Morrow and
Company, p. 14.

Tulgan, B. (1996). Managing Generation X: How to bring out the best in young talent. New York: Nolo Press.

Whiteoak, J.W., Crawford, N.G., and Mapstone, R.H. (2006). Impact of Gender and Generational Differences in Work
Values and Attitudes in an Arab Culture. Thunderbird International Business Review, 48, pp. 77–91.

Wong, M., Gardiner, E., Lang, W., and Coulon, L. (2008). Generational Differences in Personality and Motivation: Do they
exist and what are the implications for the workplace?. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(8), pp. 878–890.

Yu, H.C., and Miller, P. (2005). Leadership Style: The X Generation and Baby Boomers compared in different cultural
contexts. Journal of Leadership and Organization Development, 26(1), pp. 35–50.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

KNOWLEDGE PARTNERS

Ravindran G, Ex. CEO , SHRM India

Nina Fernandes, Head – New HR Initiatives, Siemens Ltd, Ex. Head – Knowledge Advisory Services, SHRM India

Mark Schmit, Executive Director, SHRM Foundation

RESEARCH ADVISORY GROUP

Prof K B Akhilesh, Professor & Academician, Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore

Prof C Balaji, Founder at Partners in CIP

Dr. Rupande Padaki, Director, The P&P Group, Bangalore

Ms. Nirupama Kaushik, Executive Director, TNS Global

Mr. Ravishankar, CPO & Global HR Head, Mindtree Limited

Mr. Abhijit Bhaduri, Chief Learning Officer, Wipro Group

ANALYTICS SUPPORT

(For the pilot study): Humdinger Labs Pvt. Ltd., 59/202, Kamal Nivas, Putanna Road, Basavangudi,
Bengaluru – 560004

Prof. Nagadevera, Professor, Qualitative Methods & Information Systems, IIM Bangalore

Prof. LS Murthy, Professor, Production & Operations Management, IIM Bangalore

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH SUPPORT

Reshma Bachwani, Consultant, Consumer insights & brand communication, Illume, Bangalore

EDITORIAL SUPPORT

Sanjay Joshi, Editor, SHRM India

Anila Varghese, Freelance Editor

Aparna Krishnan, Senior Manager, Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.

Our sincere appreciation to all the participating organizations …

GODREJ & BOYCE

Become a member NOW.
Call us at 1800 103 2198 (toll free), 080 49042000
Email us at shrmindia@shrm.org
Log on to www.shrmindia.org

Gurgaon
605, 6th Floor, Global Business Park,
Tower B, DLF-III, Gurgaon, Sector 26,
Haryana - 122002

Other Locations
Mumbai | Bengaluru