AN AGING AND DECLINING WORKFORCE:
HOW TO BECOME ATTRACTIVE FOR TALENTED
GENERATION Y JOB SEEKERS?
Master thesis, Msc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
15-07-2011 Elske Huitema Volmolenstraat 39 7854 PH Aalden (06) 28327477 e-mail: elskehuitema@hotmail.com student number: 1686011 Supervisor/ university J. van Polen
Supervisor/ field of study L.L.G. Janssen
HR Advisor at Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland, Borger
Acknowledgement: I would like to thank Hans van Polen for his useful feedback and support during the writing process. I would also like to thank Lilian Janssen, for being committed to the research, for
FACING THE FUTURE OF AN AGING AND DECLINING WORKFORCE: HOW TO BECOME ATTRACTIVE FOR TALENTED GENERATION Y JOB SEEKERS?
ABSTRACT
Purpose – Building on applicant attraction and generational differences, this study aims to examine
how organizations which are located in aging and declining regions can become more attractive for talented generation Y job seekers, by investigating which work-related attributes are preferred by Gen Yers during a job seeking process. Also, the attractiveness of Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland is assessed.
Design/methodology/approach – 70 students with an economic/financial background filled a
questionnaire about preferred work-related attributes and their perceptions of Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland. 62 employees of Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland filled a questionnaire about to what extent work-related attributes apply to the organization.
Findings – Gen Yers are high-demanding when it comes to their career and assess most work-related
attributes as being (highly) important for them during a job-seeking process. Discrepancies exist about how Gen Yers perceive Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland as an employer and how employees perceive the bank.
Research limitations/implications – Organizations are better aware of which factors might attract
talented Gen Yers. Strategies are suggested to increase the attractiveness of organizations in general and Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland in specific. To increase generalizability, further research is needed.
Originality/value – Empirical evidence to support or disprove the stereotypes which exist about
Generation Y and about which factors attract these applicants.
Keywords – Applicant attraction, Generation Y, work-related attributes, geographic mobility, aging
workforce, declining workforce
INTRODUCTION
This research will be executed in commission of Rabobank Klenckeland. Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland operates in the banking industry and is located in Borger, in the province of Drenthe. Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland is part of Rabobank Nederland, one of the largest organizations in the Dutch banking industry. Currently, 99 employees are working at Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland. At this moment, the average age of the employees is 44.3, 50% of the employees is older than 45 and only 14% of them is younger than 35. The average age of the employees in the organization is higher than the average age of the working population in the Netherlands, which was 40,7 in 2009 (CBS). Currently, the high average age of the workforce does not create problems for the daily business of Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland. However, the management team of the bank is concerned that it might create problems in the future, especially in the light of demographic developments such as the aging and hazing population, which have an impact on the labor market. Surplus of talent might turn into a shortage of talent, and the threat of a ‘brain drain’ occurs when experienced employees retire and leave the organization, while there are too few young individuals available to replace them (Rappaport, Bancroft and Okum, 2003). Such a brain drain might affect the effectiveness and competitiveness of organizations negatively. Therefore, the management team of Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland is eager to know how they should deal with demographic developments, in order to be able to achieve their strategic goals not only now, but also in the future.
investigated the influence of demographic developments on the regional labor market in Eastern Germany (2008). They state that regions with a declining working population might face short-term advantages, since unemployment among low-skilled workers is likely to reduce. However, the more skilled employees tend to leave the region, which might result in negative long-term effects due to shortages on the supply side of the labor market. Schudde et al (2010) state that organizations in the Northern part of the Netherlands should respond to the demographic developments by investigating their environment and developing strategies to deal with the occurring developments.
The direct environment of Rabobank Klenckeland consists of the municipalities of Borger-Odoorn, Coevorden and Emmen, also called ‘South-East Drenthe’. In 2010, for the first time in history, the population of whole South-East Drenthe is diminished (Dagblad van het Noorden, 2011). It is estimated that the natural increase in population in this area will be smaller than 0% between 2010 and 2025 (Pellenberg and Van Steen, 2010), which indicates that death rates exceed birth rates. In addition, the potential workforce in South-East Drenthe is expected to decline between 2010 and 2020 (Provincie Drenthe, 2010). This decrease in potential workforce will be the highest in the municipality of Borger-Odoorn, namely an expected decrease of 12%. Research (Faun, Gardeniers, Meuwissen, Paashuis and Schakel, 2011) suggests that this decrease in (potential) workforce is likely to result in a tight labor market in the province of Drenthe. The demographic developments which take place in areas in the Northern part of the Netherlands, such as in South-East Drenthe, indicate that it might become a challenge for organizations like Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland to attract young, talented employees in the future.
The aging population and the approaching retirement of the Baby Boomers have ensured that many organizations are starting to put emphasis on attracting and retaining younger generations of employees (Twenge and Campbell, 2008). Jolink, Korten and Verhiel (2010) assume that younger generations of employees shifts from ‘nice to have’ to ‘need to have’ for employers. It is generally assumed that these younger generations have different values, attitudes and expectations than the older ones. They tend to be less loyal to an organization and, as a result, they might be more willing to leave the organization when work environment preferences are not met. . Research suggests (Westerman and Yamamura, 2007) that it is of great importance that organizations acknowledge the influence of generational work preferences and values of employees on the outcomes of the organization. Jolink et al (2010) also stress that organizations have to understand the needs and preferences of young generations, since these individuals are not likely to automatically adapt their behavior to what is perceived as ‘normal’ behavior in the organization. On the contrary, they are more likely to leave an organization when they have the feeling that their needs and preferences are not being heard.
of workers is likely to occur due to an aging and declining workforce, applicants have a higher degree of choice when selecting the organization they wish to work for (Ng, Schweitzer and Lyons, 2010). This results in the fact that working conditions and opportunities which are offered by the employer become more important. It is stated that organizations which are capable of offering employees jobs corresponding with their needs and expectations are in a better position when it comes to attracting the employees they need and want to attract (Snorbach, 2009). Therefore, it is important that employers get a better understanding about the needs and expectations of the youngest generation of the
workforce, Generation Y employees, who are born between 1979 and 1994 (Smola and Sutton, 2002), since they want to attract and hire these employees. The purpose of this research thesis is to attempt to find out how organizations which are located in aging and declining regions, like Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland, might increase their attractiveness to potential employees of Gen Y. The research question of this thesis is:
“How can organizations like Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland, which are located in aging and declining
regions, increase their attractiveness for talented Generation Y job seekers?”
In order to find an answer on this research question, we first examine what determines whether individuals are attracted to apply for a certain job at a certain organization. In addition, we aim to investigate what attracts Gen Y employees specifically. After that, we examine empirically which factors are important for Gen Yers during a job seeking process. This is interesting because it may provide a better insight in understanding how to make sure that organizations in rural regions, like Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland, are able to attract young employees, thereby helping these
organizations to achieve their strategic goals continuously. Moreover, we try to investigate empirically whether Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland is an attractive place to work for Gen Yers at this moment.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Applicant attraction
organization has no chance to hire these high-quality candidates later in the recruitment process (Connerley et al, 2003). Rynes and Barber (1990) also indicate that the attraction of top applicants can be viewed as one of the most vital determinants of organizational success. It is argued that
organizations make better use of their recruitment and selection investments when they manage to attract a large amount of qualified applicants to choose from (Boudreau and Rynes, 1985).
In 1990, Rynes and Barber already suggested that applicant attraction is supposed to become even more important for each organization in the 21st century, as a result of labor shortages due to
demographic developments. This is confirmed by many other authors later, Sags and Uggerslev (2010) for example state that labor shortages have ensured that attracting and recruiting of employees has ‘top priority’ nowadays. In addition, Michaels, Handfield-Jones and Axelrod (2001) indicate that attracting talented potential employees might become more difficult as a result of demographic and economic factors and state that there is an imminent ‘war for talent’. Furthermore, Dohm (2000) suggests that the retirement of Baby Boomers and the limited amount of younger employees might result in a tight labor market, in which it becomes more and more difficult to fill vacancies. Organizations are forced to put more emphasis on becoming an attractive place to work for potential employees (Lievens and Highhouse, 2003). Taken this together, it seems that a better understanding of applicant attraction is vital for organizations nowadays, organizations have to attract the talented employees they wish to employ before they are able to select them (Ployhart, 2006).
are looking for in a job or an organization. In addition to work-related attributes, the subjective perception of fit is also indicated to play an important role in applicant attraction (Chapman et al, 2005). Applicants do not have perfect information about work-related characteristics during a job-seeking process, simply because these are difficult to assess by an outsider (Roberson, Collins and Oreg, 2005). As a result, applicants base their decision of whether to apply for a certain job at a specific organization on information which is visible for them. It is assumed that perceptions of work-related attributes play an important role in providing applicants with information about how attractive an organization is for them, because they base their perceptions of working conditions on these ‘signals’ (Greening and Turban, 2000).
Perceptions of work-related attributes. As stated before, Turban et al (1998) report that (perceptions
of) work-related attributes have a direct influence on applicant attraction. It is argued that applicants tend to seek organizations which have characteristics that correspond with their personal attributes (Cable & Judge, 1994). Job seekers tend to base their decisions on whether to apply for a job at a certain organization on information which is available to them. It is argued that every individual prefers different work-related attributes, and their perception about to what extent work-related attributes are present at an organization influences their job-choice decision (Powell, 1984). Several other studies have also shown that applicants have different preferences concerning work-related attributes and that applicants evaluate whether a fit exists between their own preferences and the attributes of a job or organization while making job-choice decisions (Saks and Ashforth, 1997). The term person-environment fit (PE fit) is often used in research, which refers to the positive match between an employee and the work environment (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman and Johnson, 2005). Since this is a very broad term, it is suggested that different types of PE fit can be identified, like person-job, person-organization, person-group and person-supervisor fit. Kristof-Brown (2000) states that two of these forms of fit are distinguished most often in recruitment processes, namely the person-job fit (PJ fit) and the person-organization fit (PO fit). PJ fit is identified as the fit between an
applicant and the job requirements in terms of knowledge, skills and abilities, while PO fit refers to the fit between the values, norms and beliefs of an applicant and those of the organization. Chatman (1989: 339) defines PO fit as ‘the congruence between the norms and values of organizations and the values of persons’. Cable and Judge (1996) argue that job-search decisions of applicants are
based on PO fit. Schneider (1987) argues that in the attraction phase of the recruitment process, the interests, needs and preferences of individuals determine whether they feel attracted to an
organization. He suggests that individuals have different needs and values and they attempt to find an organization which fits best with these needs and values. When employers fail to understand the needs and values of the applicants they wish to attract, the pool of qualified applicants might be smaller (Smither, Reilly, Millsap, Pearlman and Stoffey, 1993). Therefore, it is important to assess what attracts the desired group of applicants, to get as much qualified applicants in your applicant pool as possible (Turban, 2001).
Generation Y
A generation is defined as ‘an identifiable group (cohort) that shares birth years, age location, and significant life events at critical development stages’ (Kupperschmidt, 2000: 66). As a result,
individuals from the same generation tend to share the same values. It is argued that, in all probability, individuals of the same generation possesses the same attitudes and norms toward work (Gursoy, Maier and Chi, 2008). Moreover, Smola and Sutton (2002: 379) state that ‘work values are more influenced by generational experiences than by age and maturation’. This indicates that work values differ across generations because each generation is influenced differently by the society and not because values fundamentally change as one matures. At the contrary, not all researchers agree that generations possess different needs and values. Deal (2007) for example states that basically all people of all generations desire the same things, however, each generation chooses to express itself differently than the other generations. He argues that generations differ in behavior, not in fundamental values.
Work expectations Generation Y. One of the most critical challenges which managers have to face the
coming decades is to attract, retain and motivate these Generation Y employees (Twenge, 2010). Research (Gursoy et al, 2008) suggests that it is important to understand the needs and values of each generation of employees, in order to create an effective and efficient workplace. According to
Terjesen, Vinnicombe and Freeman (2007), it is nowadays especially vital for organizations to become informed about the preferences of Generation Y applicants. In the light of the approaching retirement of the Baby Boom generation labor shortages might arise, therefore, organizations must recognize the importance of attracting Gen Y applicants before the shortages start to affect their daily business (Schooley, 2005). They should prepare themselves for embracing Generation Y employees. In addition, Jamrog (2002) states that in a tight labor market it becomes harder for employers to attract talented young individuals, since the talented ones have many employers to choose from. According to Tulgan (2009), Gen Yers will be the most challenging to attract, recruit and retain of all generations, because this new generation brings other behavior and attitudes to the work floor. In addition, their expectations tend to be high when they are entering an organization. However, organizations which accomplish to manage and engage these employees in turn will receive the most high-performing workforce ever, is expected by Tulgan (2009).
Not much is known nowadays about what exactly characterizes Gen Y employees, since this group is just entering the work floor. Though, popular literature about Gen Y employees states that these employees have extremely high expectations and ‘want it all’ and ‘want it now’ in terms of pay, benefits, rapid promotion, interesting and challenging work, and making a contribution to society (Ng et al, 2010). However, it is argued that Gen Y employees do not only put high demands on their employer, but also on themselves (Meister and Willyerd, 2010). Furthermore, research suggests that Gen Y employees tend to be less loyal to an organization than the older generations (Westerman and Yamamura, 2007). Gen Yers do not put strong emphasis on job security, because they simply do not expect to stay their whole career at the same employer (Broadbridge, Maxwell and Ogden, 2007). Dorsey (2010) states that this does not necessarily mean that Gen Y employees are less loyal, they just define loyalty differently than previous generations. He states that for Gen Yers loyalty is about the effort they put in their job instead of tenure. Another characteristic of Gen Yers is that they wish to have a good work/life balance and they are more family-oriented than earlier generations (Hershatter and Epstein, 2010). It is argued that this is a reaction to the fact that they have seen their parents, which most likely belong to the Baby Boom generation, making huge sacrifices for their career. In her research, Yeaton (2008) attempted to describe what specifically characterizes Generation Y
innovative thinking more than authority. Gen Y individuals are capable to multitask and perform well in groups (Yeaton, 2008). The continuous need for feedback which is described by Yeaton, is also acknowledged by Hershatter and Epstein (2010), who in addition state that as a result of this need, other generations at the workplace tend to describe Gen Yers as ‘high-maintenance’. Hershatter and Epstein argue that Gen Y employees ask for feedback continuously, because they like to be aware of their career progress.
As said before, Ng et al (2010) show that Gen Y employees have great expectations of their careers, they state that Gen Y workers see advancement and development opportunities as crucial and put strong emphasis on fast promotion and salary raise. They state that employers who wish to attract talented Gen Y applicants would do well to offer competitive salaries, development opportunities and engrossing work to Gen Y applicants. In addition, it is shown that although Gen Yers desire to have the flexibility to decide for themselves how and when to perform their tasks, they do value some direction and support from their supervisors (Martin, 2005). Furthermore, Martin (2005) argues that customization of career paths is of great importance for Gen Y employees, they want to be treated as individuals. Taken these characteristics together, Jamrog (2002) states that strategies to attract and recruit Generation Y employees should focus on the existence of a challenging work environment in which personal development and flexible work arrangements are highly valued instead of focusing on job security and compensation.
It seems vital for organizations in rural regions to investigate what actually attracts Gen Y applicants in jobs and organizations, since attracting talented Gen Y applicants might become a challenge for these organizations, as a result of the aging and declining workforce. Moreover, the geographic mobility among young individuals, which intensifies the ‘war for talent’ in rural regions, also indicates the importance of understanding how to attract Gen Yers. Working conditions become more
METHOD
Data collection
This study examines how organizations might attract Generation Y job seekers, by investigating which work-related attributes are perceived as being important by them during a job seeking process. Data for this study was collected by using a questionnaire which was filled by students from South-East Drenthe, who are enrolled in studies in economic and/or financial fields. We have chosen for these students specifically, because, from an attraction point of view, it seems to be wise to determine which individuals are able to perform the job and who are willing to accept the job offer possibly (Barber, 1998). In addition to that, Turban (2001) suggests that research about applicant attraction should focus on the applicant population, the group from which an organization tries to attract applicants, instead of only on applicants who actually decided to apply. Only then one can obtain a useful overview of how to convince as much individuals from the applicant population to apply as possible. Students with a background in educations with a economic and/or financial foundation are particularly appropriate for vacancies at Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland and especially these students are the potential applicants Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland wishes to attract. The students were send an online questionnaire with a cover letter describing the study and assuring confidentiality. The questionnaire included questions about which work-related attributes are desired by students when they start searching for a job after graduation and about the perceptions they have about to what extent these attributes are applicable to Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland. To increase the response rate, we also visited Stenden University in Emmen, where economic and financial studies are taught on bachelor degree, and asked students face-to-face to fill in the questionnaire on paper. The questionnaire was filled by 70 students, 56% of the respondents was male and their average age was 21. Most of the respondents were enrolled in the studies Commerciële Economie’ (Commercial Economy), and ‘Bedrijfseconomie’ (Business Economy), respectively 40% and 27.1%. The complete demographic profile of the students is shown in Appendix A.
of the employees on some questions might be sensitive for social desirability. For example, they might have the feeling that they more or less have to answer that there are a lot of training and development opportunities. Furthermore, certain items might be difficult to assess for the employees, because they cannot compare their situation with the situation at other employers. For instance, the perception might exist that Rabobank pays high initial starting salaries, however, maybe other organizations in the banking industry even pay higher starting salaries. Thus, in order to add objectivity and to get a complete view of the situation at the bank, we also decided to do some additional desk research to investigate to what extent certain work-related attributes are applicable to Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland.
Measures
Work-related attributes. In order to assess which work-related attributes are valued mostly by Gen
Yers, we used the 16 items which are utilized by Ng et al (2010) in their analysis of which work-related attributes are important for graduates when making job choice decisions. The items were measured on a 7-point scale (1 = not important at all, 7 = essential). Items included in the
questionnaire are ‘opportunities for advancement in position’, ‘work-life balance’ and ‘good variety of work’. The full list of the items can be found in Appendix C. Moreover, we also tried to examine the perceptions of the respondents about each work-related attribute at Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland, to get a better view of how Gen Yers assess the bank as an employer at this moment. Again, the items were measured on a 7-point scale (1 = not applicable at all, 7 = extremely applicable). For the
questionnaire which was spread among the employees of Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland, we also used the items of Appendix C and asked the respondents ‘to which extent do you think these work-related attributes are applicable to Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland?’. Again, the items were measured on a 7-point scale (1 = not applicable at all, 7 = extremely applicable).
Control variables. In this study, we controlled for gender, which is identified as a control variable in
early applicant attraction research. Jurgensen (1978) for example states that men have different work preferences than women, women put stronger emphasis on the type of work they perform, while men find it more important to have job security and advancement opportunities. Konrad, Ritchie, Lieb and Corrigall (2000) also argue that there are gender differences in work preferences. They state that men value promotions and challenging work, while women are more likely to prefer interpersonal
this study than the answers of first year students. However, we think that it is still interesting to investigate the needs and values of students who are in the beginning of their study, since then we are able to compare the preferences of students in different phases of their study. Furthermore, we asked whether the respondents have any work experience related to their study. When students have relevant work experience in their field of study, they might be more aware of the work-related attributes they prefer in their job after they are graduated. We also asked if they ever spend some time thinking about their future career. If they did, we assume that they are more aware of what they are looking for in a job. We also asked whether they view Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland as a potential employer, to investigate if the respondents currently think that Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland is an attractive place to work for them. In addition, we asked each respondent whether they want to search for a job in (the environment of) East Drenthe and why, because we were eager to find out how popular South-East Drenthe is as employment area among Gen Yers. As stated before, research suggests (Venhorst et al, 2010) that young individuals tend to leave peripheral regions in the Northern part of the
Netherlands. We tried to examine whether this so-called ‘geographic mobility’ really exists, because when it does, it might have consequences for the strategy Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland has to use for dealing with an aging and declining workforce. In the questionnaire for the employees we asked, besides gender, for age and years of service at Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland, because we are eager to find out whether these variables have any influence on the perceptions of the employees. We can imagine that people who work longer for the bank might have another view on opportunities for advancement in position for example than people who are newly employed at the organization.
Desk research. As said before, in addition to the questionnaire for the employees, we also
in its’ work environment. Finally, to examine whether the bank is ‘committed to diversity’, we looked at the male/female distribution, age distribution and nationality distribution within the bank.
Analysis. To a certain extent, the analyses of this research are descriptive, however some analyses
are conducted to examine whether differences exist among what Gen Yers think and want and the situation at Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) is used with the work-related attributes as dependent variables and ‘gender’, ‘year of study’, ‘field of study’, ‘having done an internship’ and ‘having work experience in field of study’ as independent variables in the case of the Gen Y respondents and ‘gender’, ‘generation’ and ‘years of service’ as independent variables in the case of the employees. One-way ANOVA analyses are used to assess differences between groups of respondents within the same sample and independent samples tests for comparisons between the samples. Furthermore, a paired-samples t-test is performed to examine differences between the preferences of Gen Yers and their perception of Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland. In the light of our relatively small sample sizes, we used the significance cut-off of p < .05.
RESULTS
Work-related attributes Gen Yers
The Generation Y students rate ‘good people to work with’ (M = 6.17), ‘challenging work’ (M = 6.09), ‘opportunity for advancement in position’ (M = 6.01) and ‘good variety of work’ (M = 6.01) as being highly important for them during a job-seeking process. Most other attributes also have a high mean, there are only two attributes with a mean ≤ 4.00, namely ‘opportunity to travel’ and
‘organization is a leader in its’ field’ (see Table 1.).
TABLE 1.
Preferred work-related attributes Gen Yers (N = 70)
Attribute M SD
Good people to work with 6.17 .742
Challenging work 6.09 .608
Opportunity for advancement in position 6.01 .577
Good variety of work 6.01 .860
Good training opportunities 5.84 .555
Good people to report to 5.80 .694
Opportunity to have a personal impact 5.79 .611
Job security 5.73 .992
Good work-life balance 5.66 1.089
Good health and benefits plan 5.53 .847
Good initial salary level 5.39 .937
Commitment to social responsibility 4.80 1.111
Opportunity to have a social impact 4.74 1.034
Strong commitment to employee diversity 4.29 1.241
Opportunity to travel 4.00 1.424
Organization is a leader in its’ field 3.44 1.481
MANOVA shows that ‘year of study’ has a significant influence on how work-related attributes are rated (Willks’ Lambda = .28, F(48, 152.48) = 1.7, p = .008). ‘Field of study’ (Willks’ ∆ = .46,
TABLE 2.
Preferred work-related attributes per year of study (N = 70)
Attribute Year 4 (N = 15) Year 3 (N = 12) Year 2 (N = 15) Year 1 (N = 28) M M M M
Good people to work with 6.33 6.08 6.20 6.11
Challenging work 6.20 6.08 6.27 5.93
Opportunity for advancement in position ** 6.27 5.75 6.20 5.89
Good variety of work 6.20 6.08 6.20 5.79
Good training opportunities * 5.87 6.08 6.00 5.64
Good people to report to 5.87 5.58 5.93 5.79
Opportunity to have a personal impact 5.87 5.50 5.80 5.86
Job security 5.60 5.50 6.07 5.71
Good work-life balance 5.93 5.83 5.60 5.46
Good health and benefits plan 5.40 5.58 5.87 5.39
Good initial salary level ** 5.27 4.75 5.67 5.57
Commitment to social responsibility 4.53 4.67 4.47 5.18
Opportunity to have a social impact 4.73 4.50 4.40 5.00
Strong commitment to employee diversity * 3.73 4.00 4.33 4.68
Opportunity to travel *** 3.40 2.92 4.33 4.61
Organization is a leader in its’ field *** 2.60 2.33 4.00 4.07
* p < .1 ** p < .05 *** p < .01
ANOVA shows (see Table 2.) that students of different years of study rate certain work-related attributes significantly different, namely, ‘good training opportunities’ (F (3,66) = 2.53, p = .065), ‘strong commitment to employee diversity’ (F (3,66) = 2.26, p = .089), ‘opportunity for advancement in position’ (F (3,66) = 2,96, p = .039), ‘good initial salary level’ (F (3,66) = 2.97, p = .038),
‘opportunity to travel’ (F (3,66) = 6.38, p = .001) and ‘organization is a leader in its’ field’ (F (3,66) = 8.22, p = .000). We performed post hoc analyses (Bonferroni) for attributes with a significance level of < .05. These analyses show that students who are in their third or fourth year of study rate
‘organization is a leader in its’ field’ significantly lower than first or second year students.
TABLE 3.
Preferred work-related attributes per field of study (N = 70)
Attribute Business Economy
(N = 19)
Commercial Economy (N= 28)
Other (N = 23)
M M M
Good people to work with 6.32 6.18 6.04
Challenging work * 6.21 5.89 6.22
Opportunity for advancement in position 6.05 5.89 6.13
Good variety of work 6.16 6.11 5.78
Good training opportunities 5.89 5.68 6.00
Good people to report to 5.74 5.79 5.87
Opportunity to have a personal impact ** 5.79 5.57 6.04
Job security ** 5.89 6.00 5.26
Good work-life balance 5.47 5.50 6.00
Good health and benefits plan 5.63 5.43 5.57
Good initial salary level 5.47 5.43 5.26
Commitment to social responsibility 4.68 5.04 4.61
Opportunity to have a social impact 4.58 4.75 4.83
Strong commitment to employee diversity 3.84 4.36 4.57
Opportunity to travel ** 3.37 4.43 4.00
Organization is a leader in its’ field 2.95 3.68 3.57
* p < .1 ** p < .05 *** p < .01
ANOVA also indicates (see Table 3.) that there is a significant difference in how ‘challenging work’ (F (2,67) = 2.45, p = .094), ‘opportunity to have a personal impact’ (F (2,67) = 4.10, p = .021), ‘job security’ (F (2,67) = 4.24, p = .018) and ‘opportunity to travel’ (F (2,67) = 3.35, p = .041) are rated by students who are enrolled in different studies. The latter three attributes have a significance level of
p < .05, post hoc analyses (Bonferroni) are performed for these attributes. Results show that
Commercial Economy students rate ‘opportunity to have a personal impact’ significantly lower than students who are enrolled in another study than Business Economy or Commercial Economy. On the contrary, Commercial Economy students rate ‘job security’ significantly higher than students with another study than Business Economy or Commercial Economy. Finally, Commercial Economy students find ‘opportunity to travel’ significantly more important than Business Economy students.
Geographic mobility Gen Yers. A majority of the Gen Y respondents (61%) states that they intend
environment of) South-East Drenthe after graduation. For this group of people, the most important reason to leave South-East Drenthe is because they wish to live in the bigger cities in the (Western part of the) Netherlands or even intending to go abroad. In addition, in the answers of both the Gen Yers who declare that they do want to search for a job in South-East Drenthe and those who do not,
concerns are expressed about the amount of vacancies available for highly educated individuals in this region. The respondents perceive that in other parts of the Netherlands the demand for labor might be higher.
Attractiveness Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland for Generation Y
The employees of Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland rate ‘good people to work with’ (M = 6.35), ‘commitment to social responsibility’ (M = 6.21), ‘good health and benefits plan’ (M = 6.21) and ‘good training opportunities’ (M = 6.00) as being very applicable to (jobs at) Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland (see table 4.) Most other attributes also have a high mean, which indicates that the employees of Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland think these attributes are also applicable to the bank. The only attribute with a mean ≤ 4.00 is ‘opportunity to travel’ (M = 3.35), although opinions about this seem to be divided, given the high standard deviation (SD = 1.45).
TABLE 4.
Differences between perceptions of employees about work-related attributes at Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland and the preferences of Gen Yers
Attribute Perceptions employees
(N = 62)
Generation Y preferences (N = 70)
M SD M
Good people to work with 6.35 .58 6.17
Commitment to social responsibility *** 6.21 .60 4.80
Good health and benefits plan *** 6.21 .70 5.53
Good training opportunities 6.00 .83 5.84
Good variety of work 5.95 .64 6.01
Good work-life balance 5.89 .81 5.66
Opportunity to have a personal impact 5.87 .69 5.79
Challenging work ** 5.84 .52 6.09
Good people to report to 5.84 1.00 5.80
Organization is a leader in its’ field *** 5.76 .86 3.44
Opportunity for advancement in position *** 5.27 .98 6.01
Good initial salary level 5.15 1.20 5.39
Opportunity to have a social impact 5.02 .98 4.74
Strong commitment to employee diversity *** 5.02 1.08 4.29
Job security *** 4.92 .87 5.73
Opportunity to travel ** 3.35 1.45 4.00
MANOVA results show that ‘gender’ has no significant influence on the perception of employees about which work-related attributes are applicable to Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland (Wilks’ ∆ = .79, F (16,45) = .74, p = .74). Also ‘generation’ (Wilks’ ∆ = .49, F (32,88) = 1.19, p = .26) and ‘years of service’ (Wilks’ ∆ = .08, F (128,287) = .94, p = .66) have no significant influence on the employees’ perceptions. To assess how attractive Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland currently is for Generation Y applicants, an independent samples t-test is performed, by comparing the preferences of Gen Yers with the degree in which each work-related attribute is applicable to Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland
according to the employees (see table 4.). Significant differences are found for ‘challenging work’ (t (130, 129.82) = -2.5, p = .014), ‘opportunity to travel’ (t (130, 126.35) = -2.54, p = .012), ‘opportunity for advancement in position’ (t (130, 104.45) = -5.21, p = .000), ‘good health and benefits plan’ (t (130, 129.52) = 5.04, p = .000), ‘job security’ (t (130, 130) = -4.95, p = .000), ‘commitment to social responsibility’ (t (130, 109.02) = 9.19, p = .000), ‘organization is a leader in its’ field’ (t (130, 113.2) = 11.12, p = .000) and ‘strong commitment to employee diversity’ (t (130, 129.96) = 3.59, p = .000).
Perceptions Gen Yers about Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland. A total amount of 40 respondents (57%)
indicates that Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland might be a potential employer for them. Table 5 shows the perceptions of Gen Yers about work-related attributes at Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland and compares this with the preferences of Gen Yers. A paired-samples t-test is performed, and significant differences are found for ‘opportunity for advancement in position’ (t (1,69) = 7.42, p = .000), ‘good training opportunities’ (t (1,69) = 2.89, p = .005), ‘good people to work with’ (t (1,69) = 5.23, p = .000), ‘good people to report to’ (t (1,69) = 2.18, p = .033), ‘good work-life balance’ ((t (1,69) = .609,
p = .037), ‘good health and benefits plan’ (t (1,69) = -2.480, p = .016), ‘good variety of work’ (t (1,69) = 7.59, p = .000), ‘challenging work’ (t (1,69) = 8.301, p = .000), ‘opportunity to have a personal impact’ (t (1,69) = 5.482, p = .000), ‘commitment to social responsibility’ (t (1,69) = -2.842, p = .006), ‘organization is a leader in its’ field’ (t (1,69) = -7.483, p = .000), and ‘strong commitment to
TABLE 5.
Differences between perceptions of Gen Yers about work-related attributes at Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland and preferred work-related attributes Gen Yers (N = 70)
Attribute Perceptions Gen Yers
about Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland
Preferred work-related attributes Gen Y
M SE M SE
Good people to work with *** 5.56 .101 6.17 .089
Challenging work *** 4.70 .147 6.09 .073
Opportunity for advancement in position *** 4.93 .129 6.01 .069
Good variety of work *** 4.59 .156 6.01 .103
Good training opportunities *** 5.40 .133 5.84 .066
Good people to report to ** 5.54 .099 5.80 .083
Opportunity to have a personal impact *** 4.97 .138 5.79 .073
Job security 5.49 .105 5.73 .119
Good work-life balance ** 5.34 .115 5.66 .130
Good health and benefits plan ** 5.80 .114 5.53 .101
Good initial salary level 5.34 .093 5.39 .112
Commitment to social responsibility *** 5.30 .123 4.80 .133
Opportunity to have a social impact 4.61 .140 4.74 .124
Strong commitment to employee diversity *** 4.97 .141 4.29 .148
Opportunity to travel 3.97 .169 4.00 .170
Organization is a leader in its’ field *** 5.13 .145 3.44 .177
* p < .1 ** p < .05 *** p < .01
Finally, to get a complete view of the attractiveness, the perceptions of Gen Yers about Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland are compared with the perceptions of employees about the bank (see Table 6.). Again, an independent samples t-test is performed, which shows significant differences for
‘opportunity for advancement in position’ (t (130, 129.94) = -1.917, p = .057), ‘good training opportunities’ (t (130, 126.6) = 3.544, p = .001), ‘good people to work with’ (t (130, 122.25) = -6.257, p = .000), ‘good people to report to’ (t (130, 119.2) = -1.863, p = .065), ‘good work-life
balance’ (t (130, 129.72) = -3.525, p = .001), ‘good health and benefits plan’ (t (130, 125.93) = -2.770,
p = .006), ‘good variety of work’ (t (130, 102.95) = -7.784, p = .000), ‘job security’ (t (130, 128.3) = 3.701, p = .000), ‘challenging work’ (t (130, 95.04) = -7.061, p = .000), ‘opportunity to have a personal impact’ (t (130, 114.69) = -5.506, p = .000), ‘commitment to social responsibility’ (t (130, 113.85) = -6.286, p = .000), ‘opportunity to have a social impact’ (t (130, 129.65) = -2.120, p = .036), ‘organization is a leader in its’ field’ (t (130, 124.65) = -3.461, p = .001) and ‘opportunity to travel’ (t (130, 126.04) = 2.435) = 2.435, p = .016).
TABLE 6.
Differences in perceptions of employees and Gen Yers about work-related attributes at Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland
Attribute Perceptions
employees (N = 62)
Perceptions Gen Y (N = 70)
M M
Good people to work with *** 6.35 5.56
Commitment to social responsibility *** 6.21 5.30
Good health and benefits plan *** 6.21 5.80
Good training opportunities *** 6.00 5.40
Good variety of work *** 5.95 4.59
Good work-life balance *** 5.89 5.34
Opportunity to have a personal impact *** 5.87 4.97
Challenging work *** 5.84 4.70
Good people to report to * 5.84 5.54
Organization is a leader in its’ field *** 5.76 5.13
Opportunity for advancement in position * 5.27 4.93
Good initial salary level 5.15 5.34
Opportunity to have a social impact ** 5.02 4.61
Strong commitment to employee diversity 5.02 4.97
Job security *** 4.92 5.49
Opportunity to travel ** 3.35 3.97
* p < .1 ** p < .05 *** p < .01
Desk research
Job security. In the period 2008-2010, twenty-five new employees were employed at Rabobank
Borger-Klenckeland. Six of them received a permanent contract when they initially entered the organization, the other nineteen employees received a fixed-term contract. One of these nineteen employees received a permanent contract after this period, eight of them still have a fixed-term contract and ten of them had to leave the organization after their contract ended. This means that 28% of the employees who were newly employed in the period 2008-2010 currently has a permanent contract.
Good initial salary level. Initial salary levels differ for each individual at Rabobank
CAO ABN AMRO, 2010-2013). At Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland, most often newly employed people start with the function ‘Verkoop&Service Adviseur Particulieren’ (Sales&Service Advisor Private clients), which is classified at salary level 4. Salary level 4 has a scale minimum of € 1621,10 and a scale maximum of € 2315,71. We compared this salary level with salary levels of similar functions at ABN AMRO and ING, by investigating vacancies on the World Wide Web. A comparable function at ABN AMRO is called ‘Klantadviseur Particulieren’ (Client advisor Private clients), which has a minimum salary level of € 1779,84. At ING, a similar function is called ‘Klantadviseur’ (Client advisor), which has a minimum salary level of € 1631,52.
Opportunities for advancement in position. For each individual employee there is a Performance
Management (PM) cycle, an annual cycle of planning, functioning, assessing and rewarding, with a short-term focus. Based on this PM cycle a Performance Potential Matrix (PPM) is made, in which performance and growth potential are combined, and which shows to what extent each individual employee is eligible for promotion within now and 5 years. Employees who perform well receive the opportunity for advancement in position. Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland uses this PM cycle from 2010. This makes it difficult to assess whether employees really receive the opportunity for
advancement in position based on this cycle. In the HR policy of the bank it is stated that annually a budget is determined for opportunities for advancement in position, based on the outcomes of the PM cycle. For 2011, the budget is 3 fte, which represents € 180.000,-.
Training and development opportunities. Every employee at Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland has a
personal development plan, which is discussed with his/her direct supervisor at least once a year. In this plan, each individual employee writes down his/her personal development needs and wishes, and makes arrangements about this together with his/her supervisor, each employee is offered study facilities. Moreover, there is a budget for internships within Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland, which can be used for employees who wish to orientate themselves on another function. In addition to that, an exchange of employees between different locations of Rabobank is also possible, so that employees can experience different work environments. At this moment, one employee makes us of the
opportunity to follow an internal internship within Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland and one employee is temporarily employed at another office of Rabobank. Furthermore, for each function within the bank a formal learning planner is developed, and each employee is required to follow the planner. This learning planner contains professional training modules, and is meant to keep the knowledge of the employees up-to-date. Periodically, it is checked by managers whether each employee is on track with the learning planner.
Commitment to social responsibility. In the mission of Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland it is stated
providing sponsor contributions and donations to social, cultural and sporting associations in the work environment of Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland. There is an annual budget of € 53.500,- for
sponsorship purposes. In addition, the bank has a so-called ‘Projectenfonds’ (Project fund), which is meant to support organizations or associations which are initiating innovative projects, by donating a time fee to them. The fund is meant to increase the livability of the direct environment in which Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland is operating. The annual budget of the fund is 2% of the profit after tax. Important conditions for both the sponsoring as the Project fund are that the activities are not harmful for the environment and are beneficial for a reasonable group of people.
Organization is a leader in its field. Clients of Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland are divided in
different segments, namely private clients, business clients and agricultural clients. Currently, the market share of the bank on the private market is 62,4%, the market share on the business market is 45,1% and on the agricultural market 88,2%.
Commitment to diversity. Currently, Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland has 99 employees, the
male/female distribution is 38/61. Most of the female employees (70%) are classified in salary scale 5 or lower, while most of the male employees (66%) are classified in salary scale 6 or higher. This indicates that the higher functions within the organization are mostly performed by men, since the salary scale is determined based on function. If we examine the age distribution of the employees, it is noteworthy that there is a large group of employees with an age between 35 and 54. Almost 70% of the employees belongs to this group. If we look at nationality distribution within Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland, we can conclude that all employees have a Dutch nationality.
DISCUSSION
Research findings and implications
The aim of this research was to investigate how organizations which are located in aging and declining rural regions, like Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland, can become more attractive for talented Generation Y applicants. We tried to describe the needs and preferences of this generation, and the results of this study should provide a better understanding about which work-related attributes are perceived as being important by Gen Yers during a job seeking process. When organizations are aware of these
Preferred work-related attributes Gen Yers. Results from this study indicate that most attributes
are highly valued by Gen Yers, 11 of the 16 attributes have a mean score of ≥ 5. This might confirm the conclusion of Ng et al (2010), who indicate that Gen Yers ‘want it all’ when it comes to their career. They highly value attributes as ‘good people to work with’, ‘opportunities for advancement in position’, ‘variety of work’, ‘opportunity to have a personal impact’ and ‘good training opportunities’. Only ‘opportunity to travel’ and ‘organization is a leader in its’ field’ do not seem to play a large role during job-seeking processes of Gen Yers. Especially students who are close to graduation rate these two attributes as being not that important for them. The results might give the impression that Gen Yers are somewhat demanding, but on the other hand, the things they demand – like good training and growth opportunities – also enable these individuals to create solutions for new problems in the organization and helps organizations to grow and innovate in the long-term (Robert Half). Another conclusion which can be drawn is that geographic mobility exists among young individuals, approximately 40% of the respondents designates that they surely will not search for a job in South-East Drenthe. This intensifies ‘the war for talent’, since this geographic mobility diminishes the supply of labor eventually, which results in a tighter labor market (Dohm, 2000).
Attractiveness Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland. Results show that there are significant differences
agree upon is ‘good initial salary level’. It can be concluded that, in general, the perception of the students does not correspond with what the situation at Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland really looks like, the bank might be a more attractive place to work for them than they think.
Implications. This study sought to develop a better understanding about the work-related attributes
which are found important by Gen Yers. The results of this study indicate that Gen Y applicants find a lot of work-related attributes important during a job-seeking process. In order to become more
attractive for Gen Y applicants, organizations might consider to focus in their recruitment messages on those attributes which are found important by Gen Yers. However, organizations should be aware that attracting Gen Yers will not happen by simply naming organizational attributes which have proven to be assessed as attractive by Gen Yers. Often, organizations tend to present themselves as being a positive place to work (Billsberry, 2007), and as a result, applicants might have an unrealistic view of what their job at the organization might look like (Cascio and Aguinis, 2011). This might lead to dissatisfaction when the job turns out to be different than expected. Therefore, organizations should give a realistic job preview (RJP) to each (potential) applicant. A RJP is ‘the presentation by an organization of both favorable and unfavorable job-related information to job candidates’ (Phillips, 1998: 673). A RJP might be important for generation Y employees in particular, since generally they are less loyal than other generations (Westerman and Yamamura, 2007), and therefore more likely to quit when their expectations are not met. So, rather than just naming those attributes which are assessed as being important by Gen Yers, organizations should mention those attributes which really apply to their organization. Another thing which should be kept in mind is that, although some general characteristics apply to most individuals within one generation, each employee is an individual, which is also confirmed by Twenge (2010). Lumping together individuals from the same generation should be avoided. Twenge (2010: 209) states that ‘it is more important to find the young employees you want – who are, for example, enthusiastic and hard-working – than it is to craft strategies that would attract the average member of their generation’. So, organizations should not be obsessed by devising strategies to attract the average Gen Yer, they should attempt to appeal to the talented ones of this generation. Furthermore, organizations should try to avoid to be blinded by focusing only on attracting Gen Yers. For example, sometimes personnel with formal, structured skills is needed, which applies more to Baby Boomers (Crumpacker and Crumpacker, 2007).
Gen Yers, for example by being visibly present at Universities in the area or providing students with the opportunity to take a look within the organization. Then, Gen Yers can become familiar with the organization and the opportunities which the organization is able to offer. As a result, the talented Generation Y individuals are better able to assess whether the organization is a desirable place to work for them and this might result in a positive attitude towards initiating a relationship with the
organization.
As a final remark, it is suggested that strategies should be developed to ‘win the heart and minds of Gen Y candidates’ (Kelly Services, 2008: 6). Some general strategies for every organization, based on the attributes which are found most important by Gen Yers, are:
- Offer a wide range of opportunities for personal development and growth opportunities, and be clear about career progression of the employees (‘good training opportunities’ and ‘opportunity for advancement in position’). Generation Y applicants are attracted by interesting development opportunities and chances to grow within an organization (ACCA and Mercer, 2010).
- Make sure that employees are given the opportunity to take initiative and work on things which make them enthusiastic (‘challenging work’, ‘good variety of work’ and ‘opportunity to have a personal impact’).
- Provide employees the opportunity to work in teams, with changing compositions, with people who inspire and complement each other (‘good people to work with’, ‘good variety of work’). - Give employees the opportunity to have a flexible work schedule, with flexible work hours or the
opportunity to work from home (‘good work-life balance’).
- Tell employees how and why their work contributes to the bigger picture (‘opportunity to have a personal impact’).
Limitations and future research
We acknowledge that this study has some limitations. First, our study only focused on students with an economic and/or financial background, who in addition are not actively searching for a job on the labor market yet. These students have no fulltime work experience in their field of study whatsoever, and might therefore be less aware of what they are looking for in a job or employer than those who do have fulltime work experience (Powell and Goulet, 1996). Another limitation is that we are not able to measure the job decisions which the respondents eventually will take. Although it is indicated that predictors of applicant attraction, such as perceptions of work-related attributes, are related with actual job choice decisions (Turban, Campion and Eyring, 1995), we do not know to what extent the
Gen Y individuals really bring ‘new’ needs and preferences to the workplace or whether they are searching for the same as individuals of other generations when they were young. In addition, it is difficult to assess how the labor market in Northern regions like South-East Drenthe will develop, different scenarios are possible (Schudde et al, 2010). The demand for labor does not only depend on demographic developments, but also on economic developments. When the economy recovers positively from the recession, a tight labor market is more likely to occur, as a result of a higher demand for labor. Jamrog (2002) also states that it is difficult to predict how the situation on the labor market will develop, but he states that it might be useful to analyze trends, to avoid big surprises and to be prepared for different scenario’s.
The results of this study have provided interesting insights, however, future research is needed. Future research might increase generalizability of the results of this study, by investigating to what extent Generation Y students with other backgrounds value the same work-related attributes as the students with an economic background. Furthermore, generalizability will also be enlarged by investigating real Generation Y job seekers, the already graduated students, instead of only undergraduate Gen Yers (Turban et al, 2008; Powell and Goulet, 1996). Then, it might become clear which work-related attributes really determine whether a Gen Y applicant is attracted to an organization. Moreover, organizations should not forget the ‘older generations’ as well. Attracting Generation Y applicants is not the only challenge organizations might face as a result of the aging and declining workforce, retaining the Baby Boomers (Hedge, 2011) and maintaining their productivity (Callanan and
Greenhaus, 2008) are some challenges which might be faced by organizations with an aging workforce as well. It is stated that only focusing on the needs and preferences of Gen Yers is not enough,
REFERENCES
ACCA, and Mercer, 2010, Generation Y: Realising the potential, assessed June 8, 2011, from: http://sup.kathimerini.gr/xtra/media/files/meletes/epix/acca8910.pdf
Barber, A.E., 1998, Recruiting employees: Individual and organizational perspectives, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Billsberry, J., 2007, Experiencing recruitment and selection, West Sussex: Wiley.
Boudreau, J.W., & Rynes, S.L., 1985, Role of recruitment in staffing utility analysis, Journal
of Applied Psychology, 70(2): 354-366.
Broadbridge, A., Maxwell, G.A., & Ogden, S.M., 2007, Experiences, perceptions and expectations of retail employment for Generation Y, Career Development
International, 12 (6): 523-544.
Burke, R.J., & Ng, E., 2006, The changing nature of work and organizations: Implications for Human Resource Management, Human Resource Management Review, 16: 86-94.
Cable, D.M., & Judge, T.A., 1994, Pay preferences and job search decisions: A person- organization fit perspective, Personnel Psychology, 47: 317-348.
Cable, D.M., & Judge, T.A., 1996, Person-Organization fit, job choice decisions, and organizational entry, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3): 294-311.
Callanan, G.A., & Greenhaus, J.H., 2008, The Baby Boom generation and career management: A call to action, Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10 (1): 70-85.
Cascio, W.F., & Aguinis, H., 2011, Applied Psychology in Human Resource Management (7th ed.), Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Chapman, D.S., Uggerslev, K.L., Carroll, S.A., Piasention, K.A., & Jones, D.A., 2005, Applicant attraction to organizations and job choice: A meta-analytic review of the correlates of recruiting outcomes, Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (5): 928-944.
Chatman, J.A., 1989, Improving interactional organizational Research: A model of person- organization fit, The Academy of Management Review, 14(3): 333-349.
Connerley, M.L., Carlson, K.D., & Mecham, R.L., 2003, Evidence of differences in applicant pool quality, Personnel Review, 32(1): 22-39.
Crumpacker, M, & Crumpacker, J.M., 2007, Succession planning and generational stereotypes: Should HR consider age-based values and attitudes a relevant factor or a passing fad?, Public
Personnel Management, 36 (4): 349-369.
Dagblad van het Noorden, Inwonertal daalt in hele zuidoosthoek, February 14, 2011.
Deal, J.J., 2007, Retiring the generational gap: How employees young and old can find
common ground, San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dohm, A., 2000, Gauging the labor force effects of retiring baby-boomers, Monthly Labor
Review, 123(7): 17-25.
Dorsey, J.R., 2010, Y-size your business: How Gen Y employees can save you money and
grow your business, Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.
Faun, H.M.F.G.M., Gardeniers, J.W.M., Meuwissen, J.J.L., Paashuis, B.L.E., & Schakel, L.P., 2011,
Arbeidsmarktonderzoek Drenthe 2011: Ontwikkelingen en prognoses op de Drentse arbeidsmarkt 2010-2014.
Gottlieb, P. D., & Joseph, G., 2006, College to work migration of technology graduates and holders of doctorates within the United States, Journal of Regional Science, 46(4): 627-659.
Gursoy, D., Maier, T.A., & Chi, C.G., 2008, Generational differences: An examination of work values and generational gaps in the hospitality workforce, International Journal
of Hospitality Management, 27: 448-458.
Hedge, J.W., 2011, Strategic Human Resource Management and the older worker, Journal of
Workplace Behavioral Health, 23 (1): 109-123.
Henschel, B., C. Pohl & M. Thum, 2008, Demographic change and regional labour
markets: The case of Eastern Germany, Dresden: Ifo Institute for Economic Research
Dresden/Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Dresden
Hershatter, A, & Epstein, M., 2010, Millennials and the world of work: An organization and management perspective, Journal of Business Psychology, 25: 211-223.
Human Capital Institute, 2008, The Silent Generation meets Generation Y: How to manage a four
generation workforce with panache, February 13: 1-15.
Jamrog, J.J., 2002, The coming decade of the employee, Human Resource Planning, 25 (3): 5-11.
Jolink, J., Korten, F., & Verhiel, T., 2010, Jongleren met talent: De match tussen organisatie X en
Generatie Y (2nd ed.), Schiedam: Scriptum.
Jurgensen, C.E., 1978, Job preferences (what makes a job good or bad?), Journal of Applied
Psychologyy, 63(3): 267-276.
Kelly Services, 2008, Gen Y @ work: A profile, assessed June 8, 2011, from:
http://www.kellyservices.ca/res/content/sg/services/en/docs/gen_y_white_paper.pdf
Konrad, A.M., Ritchie, J.E., Lieb, P., & Corrigall, E., 2000, Sex differences and similarities in job attribute preferences: A meta analysis, Psychological Bulletin, 126: 593-641.
Kristof-Brown, A.L., Zimmerman, R.D., & Johnson, E.C., 2005, Consequences of
individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person- group and person-supervisor fit, Personnel Psychology, 58: 281-342.
Kupperschmidt, B.R., 2000, Multigeneration employees: strategies for effective management,
The Health Care Manager, 19: 65-76.
Leibold, M., & Voelpel, S.C, 2006, Managing the aging workforce: Challenges and
solutions, Erlangen: Publicis KommunikationsAgentur GmbH.
Lievens, F., & Highhouse, S., 2003, The relation of instrumental and symbolic attributes to a company’s attractiveness as an employer, Personnel Psychology, 56: 75-102.
Martin, C.A., 2005, From high maintenance to high productivity, Industrial and Commercial
Training, 37 (1): 39-44.
McDonald, K.S., & Hite, L.M., 2008, The next generation of career success: Implications for HRD, Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10 (1): 86-103.
Meister, J.C., & Willyerd, K., 2010, Mentoring Millennials, Harvard Business Review, 88(5): 68-72.
Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H., & Axelrod, B., 2001, The war for talent, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Ng, E.S.W, Schweitzer, L., & Lyons, S.T., 2010, New generation, great expectations: A field study of the Millenial Generation, Journal of Business Psychology, 25: 281-292.
Pellenberg, P.H., & Van Steen, P.J.M., 2010, The Netherlands in maps, Tijdschrift voor
Economische en Sociale Geografie, 101 (2): 245-246.
Phillips, J. M., 1998, Effects of realistic job previews on multiple organizational outcomes: A meta- Analysis, Academy of Management Journal, 41: 673-690.
Ployhart, R.E., 2006, Staffing in the 21st century: New challenges and strategic opportunities,
Powell, G.N., 1984, Effects of job attributes and recruiting practices on applicant attraction: A comparison, Personnel Psychology, 37: 721-732.
Powell, G.N., & Goulet, L., 1996, Recruiters’ and applicants’ reaction to campus interviews and employment decisions, Academy of Management Journal, 39 (6): 1619-1640.
Provincie Drenthe, 2010, Demografische ontwikkeling Oost-Drenthe en Westerveld: Sturen
op woon- en leefkwaliteit.
Rappaport, A., Bancroft, E. & Okum, L, 2003, The aging workforce raises new talent management issues for employers, Workforce Demographics, 23 (1): 55-66.
Roberson, Q.M., Collins, C.J., & Oreg, S., 2005, The effects of recruitment message
specificity on applicant attraction to organizations, Journal of Business and Psychology, 19 (3): 319-339.
Robert Half, What Millennial workers want: How to attract and retain Gen Y Employees, assessed: June 15, 2011, from: http://www.accountingwebcgi.com/whitepapers/generationy_robert_ half.pdf.
Rynes, S. L., 1991, Recruitment, job choice, and post-hire consequences. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.) Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed.): 399-444. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Rynes, S.L., & Barber, A.E., 1990, Applicant attraction strategies: An organizational perspective, Academy of Management Review, 15 (2): 286-310.
Sags, A.M., & Uggerslev, K.L., 2010, Sequential and combined effects of recruitment information on applicant reactions, Journal of Business Psychology, 25: 351-365.
Saks, A.M., & Ashforth, B.E., 1997, A longitudinal investigation of the relationships between job information sources, applicant perceptions of fit, and work outcomes, Personnel
Psychology, 50: 395-426.
Savage, S., Collins-Mayo, S., Mayo, B., & Cray, G., 2006, Making sense of Generation Y:
Schneider, B., 1987, The people make the place, Personnel Psychology, 40: 437–453.
Schooley, C., Moore, C., Driver, E., Orlov, L. M., Ragsdale, J., & Fossner, L., 2005, Get ready: The Millennials are coming!, Forrester Research: Changing Workforce series, 5.
Schudde, B., Gardenier, J.D., Broersma, L. & van Dijk, J., 2010, Noordelijke Arbeidsmarkt
Verkenning 2010.
Smither, J. W., Reilly, R. R., Millsap, R. E., Pearlman, K., & Stoffey, R.W., 1993, Applicant reactions to selection procedures, Personnel Psychology, 46: 49-76.
Smola, K.W., & Sutton, CD., 2002, Generational differences: revisiting generational work values for the new millennium, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23: 363-382.
Snorbach, P., 2009, Gen Y for hire, Material Handling Management, 64 (3): 34.
Terjesen, S., Vinnicombe, S., & Freeman, C., 2007, Attracting Generation Y graduates: Organisational attributes, likelihood to apply and sex differences, Career
Development International, 12 (6): 504-522.
Tulgan, B., 2009, Not everyone gets a trophy: How to manage Generation Y, San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Turban, D.B., 2001, Organizational attractiveness as an employer on college campuses: An examination of the applicant population, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58: 293-312.
Turban, D.B., Campion, J.E., & Eyring, A.R., 1995, Factors related to job acceptance decisions of college recruits, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47: 193-213.
Turban, D.B., Forret, M.L., & Hendrickson, C.L., 1998, Applicant attraction to firms: Influences of organization reputation, job and organizational attributes, and recruiter behaviors, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52: 24-44.
Twenge, J.M., & Campbell, S., 2008, Generational differences in psychological traits and their impact on the workplace, Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23 (8): 862-877.
Venhorst, V., Van Dijk, J., & Van Wissen, L, 2010, Do the best graduates leave the peripheral areas in the Netherlands?, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Social Geografie, 101 (5): 521-537.
Westerman, J.W., & Yamamura, J.H., 2007, Generational preferences for work environment fit: effects on employee outcomes, Career Development International, 12 (2): 150- 161.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. Demographic profile students (N = 70)
Demographic N Percentage (%) Gender Male Female 39 31 55.7 44.3 Study Commercial Economy Business Economy Other 28 19 23 40.0 27.1 32.9 Year of study First year Second year Third year Fourth year 28 15 12 15 40.0 21.4 17.2 21.4 Work experience Internship Work experience Relevant work experience
26 64 22 37.1 91.4 34.4 Thinking about career
Often Now and then Never 43 27 0 61.4 38.6 0 Rabobank Borger-Klenckeland potential employer Yes No Maybe 7 30 33 10.0 42.9 47.1 Geographic mobility, intention to search for
