generation y graduates and career transition: perspectives by gender

European Management Journal xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

European Management Journal

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate/emj

Generation Y graduates and career transition: Perspectives by gender

0263-2373/$ - see front matter � 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2013.12.002

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 (0) 141 331 3191.E-mail address: [email protected] (G.A. Maxwell).

Please cite this article in press as: Maxwell, G. A., & Broadbridge, A. Generation Y graduates and career transition: Perspectives by gender. Europeaagement Journal (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2013.12.002

G.A. Maxwell a,⇑, A. Broadbridge b

a Glasgow Caledonian University, G4 OBA, UKb Stirling University, FK 4LA, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Available online xxxx

Keywords:Generation YGraduatesCareersGender differences

The aim of this paper is to explore, by gender, UK Generation Y graduates’ views on their career transitionafter graduation from under-graduate business programmes. Following a literature review, the empiricalwork takes the form of an on-line questionnaire with business school graduates from a post-1992Scottish University in five recent academic sessions. Gendered nuances are found in several aspects ofthe respondents’ views on their career transition, including statistically significant differences in: morewomen continuing their student job after graduation; women being more accepting of starting aftergraduation in a non-graduate level job; and more women than men encountering gender discriminationin the workplace. The identified nuances and differences appear to be setting the genders on divergingcareer tracks as early as the transition from university, in that they seem to signal more career progress,even advantage, among the men than the women.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Interest in the Generation Y group of people – generally taken tomean those born in the period 1977–2000 – is apparently wellestablished now. Mello (2011; p43) for example notes that the highlevel of attention afforded to this group is not only because ‘theyare the current new entrants to the workforce’ but also becausethey ‘have different needs from their predecessors’. The predeces-sors of Generation Y are often labelled as Traditionalists, BabyBoomers, and Generation X, depending on when they were born,and contemporary workforces, uniquely, comprise all four genera-tions (Shaw & Fairhurst, 2008). What makes this combinationinteresting is the defining characteristics of Generation Y. Beyondbeing interesting, what makes study of Generation Y careersimportant is Generation Ys being increasingly recognised as ‘highcontributors to the economy’ (Poornima, 2009; p26) in sheer num-bers employed and in potential earning capacity, albeit in the faceof recessionary effects. De Hauw and De Vos (2010) note thatrecessionary times can modify elements of Generation Y’s careerexpectations. For it has been reported that ‘increasingly numbersof university leavers are finding work hard to come by’ Doward(2012; p4). Reflecting this, McDonald (2011; p797) comments that‘the tumult of global markets’ is shaping contemporary manage-ment approaches which encompass Generation Y, arguably under-lining the interest in, and importance of, study of aspects ofGeneration in the workplace.

To date, much of the academic study into Generation Y careershas concentrated on the anticipation phase, in Nicholson andArnold (1989) terms of career phases, in empirical work withuniversity under-graduates on their career expectations (e.g. DeHauw & De Vos, 2010; Hurst & Good, 2008; Ng, Schweitzer, &Lyons, 2010; Terjesen, Vinnicombe, & Freeman, 2007). Related tothis is literature on employer implications of recruiting anddeveloping Generation Y graduates (e.g. Connor & Shaw, 2008;Shaw & Fairhurst, 2008). This paper builds on the careeranticipation phase in its focus on graduates’ career transition intoencounter and adjustment in Nicholson and Arnold (1989)terminology. Career anticipation can be seen to be the phase ofnearing completion of a university course, while transition is thephase of transfer from full time study to encountering thenadjusting to a career after graduation. The aim of the paper is toanalyse, by gender, UK Generation Y business school graduates’views on their career transition after graduation. The centralresearch question is how Generation Y’s views may vary by gender.While some research work on graduate transition stage has beenconducted (e.g. Cennamo & Gardner, 2008; Hess & Jepsen, 2009;Kowske, Rasch, & Wiley, 2010) or is presently in train (e.g. TheUniversity of Warwick’s longitudinal Futuretrack study with2005/6 UCAS applicants), it rarely includes gendered consider-ations as this paper does. In order to address the aim and centralresearch question, the paper, firstly, discusses theoretical aspectsof the nature and employment expectations of Generation Y;secondly, it offers an overview of literature on gender in employ-ment. This is followed by presentation of the empirical findingson the views, by gender, on aspects of the career transition of

n Man-

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2013.12.002

mailto:[email protected]


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02632373

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/emj


2 G.A. Maxwell, A. Broadbridge / European Management Journal xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Generation Y business graduates from a post-1992 Scottish univer-sity, prior to key conclusions being drawn.

Sameness and difference in Generation Y

Published commentary on Generation Y is now expanding involume and momentum: an ABI scholarly journal search for thisarticle, for example, yields 394 articles, 137 of which are publishedin the period 2010-date. Underlining the contemporary signifi-cance of Generation Y, McDonald (2011; p797) asserts, in hisconceptualisation of contemporary management, that the‘transcendence of Gen Y values’ is one of the main ‘forces’ shapingmodern management. However, that Generation Y is unlike oldergenerations has been called into question by a few commentators.For example Murray, Toulson, and Legg (2011; p476) level that‘evidence of [generational] differences are largely anecdotal’ and,similarly, Parry and Urwin (2011) question the empirical – andtheoretical – base of differences in work values according togenerational category. In the same vein, Costanza, Badger, Fraser,and Severt (2012; p375) meta-analysis of generational differencesin job satisfaction, organizational commitment and turnoverintentions concludes that generational differences ‘probably donot exist’ in these regards. Nonetheless, in addressing the needfor more empirical evidence of the Generation Y phenomenon (ornot), in their own research on Generation Y, in New Zealand,Murray et al. (2011) find more similarities, or sameness, amongtheir 164 respondents. However, they do find some differencestoo as of the 69 constructs tested, eight are different for GenerationY. Also, Lyons, Schweiter, Ng, and Kuron (2012) cross-generationalresearch in Canada on career stages finds significant differences inthe Generation Y respondents, including the 20–24 age bracket ofearly career transition. Thus a mixed picture on sameness anddifference of Generation Ys can be seen to exist.

Several researchers, for example Deal, Altman, and Rogelberg(2010), readily acknowledge that Generation Y is not totally differ-ent from previous generations because shared characteristics doexist. Deal et al. (2010; p191) highlight the need for more empiricalresearch to inform understanding of similarities and differencesacross generations, asserting that the ‘relatively sparse empiricalresearch published [on Generation Y] is confusing at best andcontradictory at worst’. Therefore assumptions of generationalsameness are inappropriate; instead cross-generationalinvestigation of sameness and difference is appropriate.

Emphasising the case for further Generation Y research,Angeline (2011; p249) cautions that ‘work tensions and conflictsare inevitable if the Baby Boomer, Generation X, and GenerationY employees fail to understand and accept the unique and differentcharacteristics of each group, and to embrace their similarities’. Ina similar vein to understanding differences, Kapoor and Solomon(2011; p308) find that ‘employers must identify the separatecharacteristics of each generation in their workplace’. Taking thispoint, there is now a growing body of pan-generational research.This includes the work of: Kowske et al. (2010) on job satisfaction;Boyd (2010) with professionally employed MBA students; Meriac,Woehr, and Banister (2010) on work intentions; Andert (2011)on expectations of leadership; and Lub, Marije, Bal, Blomme, andSchalk (2012) on the psychological contract for example. All findgenerational differences, often alongside some generationalsameness.

Consequently, sameness and difference in generational charac-teristics can be seen to co-exist across generations co-working inorganisations today. The increasing volume of pan-generationalempirical evidence is therefore gradually and evidently buildinga more textured understanding of Generation Y. Nonetheless thereis still apparently a tendency for this age bracket to be viewed as a

Please cite this article in press as: Maxwell, G. A., & Broadbridge, A. Generationagement Journal (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2013.12.002

collective group, yet Ng et al. (2010) national survey suggestsGeneration Y’s expectations and values are not homogenous, ratherthat they vary by several factors including gender. Further, it isworth noting that the current research on Generation Y is mainlylocated in westernised advanced economies, notably the USA,Canada, the UK and Australia. As a result, Generation Y is arguablya largely westernised and advanced economy concept at present.Other recent research on Generation Y concentrates absolutelyand not comparatively on this generation. An overview of thissecondary data is presented next in order to add to understandingof the ‘complex and sometimes paradoxical generation’(Hershatter & Epstein, 2010; p211) that is Generation Y.

Defining characteristics of generation Y

As signaled by Meier and Crocker (2010), failure to understandGeneration Y in the workplace can give rise to issues. Hence appre-ciation of the defining characteristics of this generation matters.One particularly defining characteristic is the high level of familiar-ity with, and literacy in, information technology among GenerationYs (Flowers, Jones, & Hogan, 2010; Hershatter & Epstein, 2010).Flowers et al. (2010; p1) dub generations Ys ‘technology-savvynew type of workers’. More generally, published work by on Gen-eration Y (Broadbridge, Maxwell, & Ogden, 2007) sets out four cat-egories of characteristics that demarcate Generation Ys from oldergenerations. These theoretically informed and empirically en-dorsed categories are: employment terms and conditions; manage-ment approach and organizational culture; personal careerdevelopment; and personal values. In relation to under-graduateGenerations Ys, as examples in each category respectively, thereare expectations of: career fast tracking and higher entry level(Broadbridge et al., 2007); managerial support (Martin, 2005) anda positive company culture (Morton, 2002); taking individualresponsibility for their careers (Broadbridge et al., 2007) andopportunities for career development and responsibility (Kerslake,2005); and workplace diversity and equality (Broadbridge et al.,2007). Above all, it is the personal career development category,with its high number of characteristics, that seems most importantfor under-graduate Generations Ys (Broadbridge et al., 2007), afinding which chimes with others (e.g. De Hauw & De Vos, 2010;Ng et al., 2010).

De Hauw and De Vos (2010; p293), for instance, support the po-sition that personal career development is of primary importanceto Generations Ys in their finding that Generation Ys tend to have‘high expectations of job content, training, career development,and financial rewards...suggesting these expectations are largelyembedded within the generation’. Similarly, Ng et al. (2010;p281) find that Generation Ys ‘place greatest importance on indi-vidualistic aspects of jobs’, in keeping with – and possibly rein-forced by – the emphasis on individualism in contemporaryhuman resource management. Further, they posit that GenerationYs can ‘have realistic expectations of their first job and salary butseek rapid development and the development of new skills, whilealso ensuring a meaningful and satisfying life outside of work’ (Nget al., 2010; p281). Moreover, Richardson (2010) study of Genera-tion Y students in Australia underlines the centrality of career pre-occupations in promotion opportunities and career paths, as wellas Generation Y student concerns with relationships with manag-ers, and pay and conditions.

Related to Generation Y’s apparent inclination towards preoccu-pation with their personal career development is their inclinationtowards placing expectations on organisations to accommodatethis (Hershatter & Epstein, 2010). So strong is this characteristicthat Hershatter and Epstein (2010; p211) level that it is one of‘two compelling factors that differentiate Millennial [Generation

Y graduates and career transition: Perspectives by gender. European Man-


G.A. Maxwell, A. Broadbridge / European Management Journal xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 3

Y] behaviours in the workplace’, while Alexander and Sysko (2011;p1) discuss ‘the entitlement mentality’ among Generation Y in theUSA. Other conspicuous mind-set characteristics, according toFlowers et al. (2010; p1), are ‘demands for instant gratificationand a high feeling of importance’. Thus Generation Ys, again tiltedto those in economically advanced and westernised countries,emerge from the secondary sources as a collective group whichis not only career-centric but also, arguably, self-centred anddemanding. With much of the empirical work on Generation Ysto date focusing on under-graduates’ anticipation of their careers,as a combined gender group, as noted earlier, there is a researchgap in exploration of the contours of Generation Y, women andmen graduates transitioning into employment after graduation,the focus of this paper. That gender is an important factor in ca-reers in the UK is well documented, for example generally in O’Neilet al. (2008) review of the literature on the career patterns of wo-men since 1990 and more specifically in studies on women’s careerpreferences (Gallhofer, Paisey, Roberts, & Tarbert, 2011). Women’scareers can be paradoxical and challenging (O’Neil et al., 2008). Inreviewing women’s career development impediments at seniororganisational levels, Smith, Caputi, and Crittenden (2012; p437)note that there are ‘specific problems and obstacles related to thecareers of women’. Appreciating the current nature of gender inemployment is therefore important.

Gender in employment

Gender disadvantage for women seeking entry and advance-ment in employment persists in developed countries, albeit lessso than previously, as Eikhof (2012; p8) points out in an EU andUK context: ‘while women’s fortunes in the workplace haveundoubtedly improved in the twentieth century, the earlytwenty-first century sees women still at a disadvantage’. Further,she asserts that ‘gender equality in work and employment is stillthe aspiration, not the reality’ (ibid.), with work-life balance seem-ingly proving elusive for many working women (Wheatley, 2012).While there has been progress in gender equity in employment,disadvantage permeates women’s work experience more thanmen’s, often in a veiled way (Broadbridge & Simpson, 2011) and of-ten fused with maternal and domestic roles (Lewis & Simpson,2010). Moreover, intersectionality between gender and otherfactors, such as ethnicity, can deepen discrimination (Fielden &Davidson, 2012).

However, the nature of, hence language around, gender inemployment has changed shape in the last decades (Smith et al.,2012). Fundamentally though, vertical and occupational segrega-tion remain key co-ordinates of women’s disadvantage, even dis-crimination. An increasing body of literature centres for exampleon disadvantage in and difficulties for women in leadership (Sna-ebjornsson & Edvardsson, 2013), a traditional territory of mascu-linity (Patterson, Mavin, & Turner, 2012), men (Powell, 2012) andpower (Alimo-Metclafe, 2010). Borrowing from the long estab-lished expression of the glass ceiling to indicate vertical segrega-tion, the term glass cliff is often utilised now to signal theprecariousness of women in senior leadership for example (Ryan& Haslam, 2005, 2009). Also, with the disproportionate representa-tion of women in leadership posts in the public and private sectorsin general in the UK (Jenkins, 2012), there is an issue of occupa-tional segregation here. Others spheres of occupational segregationoperating to marginalise women include, for example, politics(Campbell, 2013), news media (Ross & Carter, 2011), knowledgework (Eikhof, 2012), technology, electronics and computing (Evans,2012), science (Bevan & Learmouth, 2013; Rhoton, 2011) and fi-nance (Lyonette & Crompton, 2008). Even when women are heavilyrepresented in industrial sectors such as retailing, their careers can


be complex and conflicted (Broadbridge, 2010). Within thiscomplexity and conflict, there is evidence that men and womencan differ in their underlying career attitudes, for example inself-direction and organisational mobility preferences (Enache,Sallan, Pep, & Fernandez, 2011).

Indeed, contemporary career patterns per se are recognized asbeing increasingly complex, even chaotic according to Pryor andBright (2011) due to factors such as high rates of organisationalchange and recent shifts in people’s individual aspirations aroundwork and personal fulfillment. Continuing to research gender inemployment can also support understanding of contemporarycareers more widely, reinforcing the relevance of the genderedGeneration Y research presented in this paper. The empirical workoutlined next focuses on Generation Y graduates’ career transitionfollowing their graduation in the UK. To restate, the aim is toexplore, by gender, their views on their career transition from un-der-graduate business programmes. The central research questionis how Generation Y’s views may vary by gender.

Research design

Like Hershatter and Epstein (2010; p211), the stimulus for theexploratory empirical work delineated here is the ‘authors’ own-. . .insights and experiences with Millennials [Generation Ys] inuniversity’. Both authors have a non-Generation Y positionality,possibly lending some objectivity to the primary work which com-prises an on-line graduate survey conducted via Survey Monkey ina post-1992 university in Scotland in summer 2012, followingpiloting. Factoring in a gendered element into the analysis of theprimary work may also add more texture to the gradually expand-ing understanding of Generation Y (Ng et al., 2010) as discussedabove. The survey comprised a number of nominal and ordinalquestions on biographical data and employment status forexample, alongside 43 five-point (strongly disagree to stronglyagree) Likert-type rating scale statements on the graduates’experiences of their first jobs and their jobs overall since theirgraduation. The questionnaire statements were informed by earlierwork with under-graduates on their prospective career anticipa-tions (Broadbridge et al., 2007) and the wider literature above.The question responses covered in this paper mainly focus on thosewhere gender nuances are apparent. Broadly, these can themed,firstly, into career entry and, secondly, into career expectationsand experiences.

The survey population of 3084 is made up of business schoolgraduates finishing university in the period 2007–2011 inclusive.These are graduates of under-graduate programmes, hence theyare transitioning from full time university study to embarking ontheir careers as graduates. The overall survey response rate, follow-ing piloting, was a rather modest 5% (rounded), that is 142 usablequestionnaires from graduates in the Generation Y age bracket,43% (61) of whom are men and 57% (81) women. (A follow-up, veryshort questionnaire was conducted on a small, random sample ofthe survey population to gain insight into the response rate. Noreasons for non/response bias were revealed.) All of the respon-dents are British although this was not the intention. However,as the vast majority of under-graduate students in the businessschool are home students it is not surprising that this is reflectedin the respondent profile. Clearly the modest respondent numbers,though distributed across the years of graduation, are a limitation,precluding advanced statistical analysis. Descriptive statistics,through SPSS, are used however to discuss the findings, includingmeans per responses and the non-parametric Mann–Witney U testin order to identify if – and where – statistical difference occursacross the gender groups, when p 6 0.05 constitutes a significantstatistical difference. Three significant statistical differences are



Table 1Significant gender differences.

Item Significance

Continuing in student job after graduation p = 0.041Acceptance of starting in a non-graduate job after graduation p = 0.035Experience of gender discrimination p = 0.014

Table 3Employment intentions.

% age of malerespondents

% age of femalerespondents

I am not actively looking for another jobbut if another offer came up i wouldexplore it further

38 49

I have no intention of changing jobs forthe forseeable future

38 32

I am actively looking for another job 24 19


found as can be seen in Table 1. (The p values are not included inthe following tables as most are not significant; instead the threesignificant differences are included in the commentary on thefindings.).

Findings

Employment profile of respondents

In total 42% of the respondents reported they have held a grad-uate level job at some point in time since graduating. However, thegender split in this reveals that the men have been more successfuloverall: just over half of them (54%) responding to this questionhad ever held a graduate job since graduation compared to justover a third of the women (35%) who answered this question, de-spite a slighter higher percentage of women (95%) being in fulltime work (c/f 90% of men). A significant difference (p = .041) isfound in more women than men continuing their student job aftergraduation, as indicated in Table 1 above. The sector that employsthe largest number of the respondents (27% of all respondents) isthe financial services/banking and finance, though as Table 2 belowindicates this is a higher employer of men than women (Lyonette &Crompton, 2008), unlike retailing where the converse is the case(Broadbridge, 2010). Thus an element of vertical segregation ap-pears in the relative success of the men and occupational segrega-tion in main sectors of employment.

Career entry

As highlighted in the literature review, personal career develop-ment and initial career entry seems to be particularly important forunder-graduate Generation Ys (Broadbridge et al., 2007; De Hauw& De Vos, 2010; Ng et al., 2010). One indicator of gender split in ca-reer entry lies in job mobility: 50% of the men have been in theircurrent job for less than 1 year, compared to 29% of the women,hence the male respondents seem to be changing jobs more often.Another indicator of initial career is employment intentions amongall respondents wherein resides another gender difference asTable 3 displays.

Although most female respondents are not currently in a grad-uate level job, as can be seen above, 49% are not actively looking foranother job yet would consider another offer if it came up and 19%are actively seeking another job. Among the men, although 53%have or have had a graduate level job, 38% would consider anotheroffer if it came up though are not actively looking for another job,and 24% are actively seeking another job. This may suggest a great-er degree of passivity in changing jobs among the womenrespondents.

Table 2Main sectors of employment.

% age of menrespondents

% age of femalerespondents

Financial services/bankingand finance

53 22

Retailing 6 21


Thus in terms of early career destinations and intentions thereare traces of gendered career tracks, possibly linked to genderdifferences in underlying career attitudes (Enache et al., 2011).The men seem to have both more success in achieving graduatelevel employment and be more proactive for this in changing jobsmore often. However, the findings also reveal that 36% of femalerespondents and 21% of male respondents continued in their stu-dent jobs as their first job on graduating. The responses to thestatements below in Table 4 may shed some lights on the reasonsfor this, particularly with reference to prevailing economic condi-tions. They also appear to underline further the tendency of themen towards greater (pro)activity initially in their careers.

It may be that a degree of passivity arises as a modification ofcareer expectations due to economic conditions (De Hauw & DeVos, 2010), although this is evidently more pronounced amongthe women respondents as they embark on their careers. Indeed,a statistically significant gender difference is found in the accep-tance of starting in a non-graduate level job (p = .035), as notedin Table 1. Generation Y’s stand-out characteristic of expectationof career fast-tracking and higher entry level (Broadbridge et al.,2007) is therefore apparently less than stand-out among thesurvey respondents early in their careers. In addition, while themajority of both genders indicate that they were prepared in theirfirst job to work longer hours for career gain, as shown in the tableabove, 51% of the men strongly agree compared to 34% of thewomen. Therefore, it can be seen that Generation Ys’ views on theircareer entry are not homogenous, rather there are discerniblegender nuances among the questionnaire respondents. This sup-ports Ng et al. (2010) finding that the Generation Y group variesby gender.

Career expectations and experiences

Moving onto the findings from the questionnaire in relation tocareer expectations and experiences may cast more light on gen-dered Generation Y perspectives. Previous generalised studiespoint to high expectations as discussed earlier (e.g. Alexander &Sysko, 2011; Flowers et al., 2010; Hershatter & Epstein, 2010).When all respondents were asked the extent to which they agreedor disagreed with the statement ‘I am satisfied with my overallemployment experience to date’, 61% of the women respondentseither agreed or strongly agreed, compared to 82% of the menrespondents. Although overall career satisfaction is greater amongthe men, it does seem for the majority of respondents that theirexpectations are being met on the whole, albeit possibly recessionmoderated (De Hauw & De Vos, 2010), as above. Table 5 offers keyfindings on the graduates’ career expectations.

While the men and women are evidently similar in their re-sponses on the meeting of their career expectations, as seen inTable 5, traces of gendered career tracks are apparent when thisfinding is taken alongside overall satisfaction: men seem to beahead of their female counterparts in overall satisfaction, as earlier,yet similar in their expectations being met, suggesting the womenhave lower expectations. Nonetheless the importance of ‘climbing



Table 4Initiating careers.

% age of male respondents(agreeing/strongly agreeing)

% age of female respondents(agreeing/strongly agreeing)

Mean (1 = strongly disagree to5 = strongly agree)

I accepted that i had to start my career in a non-graduate level job

34 41 2.3 for men; 2.9 for women

I was aware that the national economic conditionslimited my initial job prospects


I am prepared in my first job to work longer hours forcareer again

82 (of which 51% strongly agree) 89 (of which 34% strongly agree) 4 for men; 4.04 for women

Table 6Gender discrimination.

% age of male respondents(agreeing/strongly agreeing)

% age of female respondents(agreeing/strongly agreeing)


I have encountered no gender discrimination in theorganisations I have worked in


I have been given equal opportunities 85 76 3.9 for men; 3.7 for women

Table 7gender in the workplace.

% age of male respondents (agreeing/strongly agreeing)

% age of female respondents (agreeing/strongly agreeing)


The glass ceiling no longer existsfor women


Gender issues have not beenrelevant to me


Table 5Career expectations.

% age of male respondents (agreeing/strongly agreeing)

% age of female respondents (agreeing/strongly agreeing)


I am satisfied with my overall employmentexperience to date


My initial expectations of my career havebeen met so far


Climbing to the top of the career ladder isimportant to me



to the top of the career ladder’ is rated the same by men andwomen, possibly again referencing women’s lower trajectory andpitch in their initial careers.

Further, the responses are similar for the genders in their viewson the glass ceiling, as displayed in Table 6. As this table illustrates,only a minority of all the respondents opine that there is no longera glass ceiling for women in the workplace, reflecting the com-ments on Eikhof (2012) and Broadbridge and Simpson (2011) ondisadvantage for women in employment. At the same time, themajority of both genders report that gender issues – to date – havebeen irrelevant to them, though the inference is that they opinethat the glass ceiling does/will affect women in the workplacegenerally.

Whilst gender issues apparently are not a prominent feature forthe respondents, experience of gender discrimination does emergeas being an item of statistically significant gender difference(p = .014). As can be seen in Table 7 below, the men assert thismore strongly than the women, with 92% agreeing/strongly agree-ing with the statement on this (‘I have encountered no gender dis-crimination in the organisations I have worked in’.), pointing towomen encountering more gender discrimination than men,though not necessarily being discriminated against themselves as


most women (76%) consider they have been given equalopportunities. The inference here is that there may be a perceivedbi-furcation by gender in discrimination as careers develop afterthe transition phase: women respondents are significantly morelikely to have come across gender discrimination where they haveworked, albeit not necessary applied to them.

Therefore it is apparent that gendered nuances reside in severalaspects of the views of respondent graduate Generation Ys in theircareer transition with regard to expectations and experiences, inparticular around gender discrimination. Again, such gender heter-ogeneity supports the stance of Ng et al. (2010) on Generation Ysnot having homogenous opinions.

Conclusions

The empirical exploration, by gender, of the perspectives ofGeneration Y (business) graduates from a post-1992 Scottishuniversity on their transition after university exposes severalnotable nuances which, taken together, suggest a tentative gendernarrative of Generation Y graduates encountering their careers.The gendered nuances reveal themselves across aspects of career




entry, and career expectations and experiences alike. As regardsviews on career entry, the men are more successful in attaininggraduate level jobs, are more mobile across jobs, and are more pre-pared to work longer hours in their first job for career gain. Also,the men are significantly different in being less likely to continuein their student job and to accept that they have to start theircareer in a non-graduate job, modifying their expectations lessthan the women in light of recessionary economic conditions atthe time of their graduation. The picture that emerges overall incareer entry on graduation from an under-graduate businessprogramme is that the men seem have a higher level of careersuccess, even aspiration, than their female counterparts. High ca-reer expectations has been noted as a particular characteristic ofGeneration Y (e.g. Broadbridge et al., 2007; De Hauw & De Vos,2010; Ng et al., 2010) so it is interesting that women seem in gen-eral to have lower expectations in the empirical study discussed inthis paper. That women have lower career expectations than themen in the respondents is reflected too in views on career satisfac-tion, with most women reporting that their initial – and relativelylow – career expectations have been met. It is perhaps unsurpris-ing then that the men report a higher rate of satisfaction with theircareer employment experience to date. However, whilst a genderdifference is suggested here in career performance and mindset,the genders share their view on the importance of achieving a highlevel of personal career success. In contrast, a significant differenceis found in more women encountering gender discriminationwhere they have worked, though not necessarily directly appliedto them as the majority opine that they have received equalopportunities.

Thus the paper addresses the central research question of howGeneration Y’s views may vary by gender in career transition aftergraduation. What emerges in sum from the findings presented hereis that not only is there a shade of difference in the views across thestudied graduate Generation Ys, but also that these differences ap-pear to be setting the genders on diverging career tracks as early asthe transition from university. For the type and extent of differ-ences seems to be affording preferential career progress, evenadvantage, to the men above the women suggesting careers aremore challenging to women Generation Y (Broadbridge & Simpson,2011; Eikhof, 2012; O’Neil et al., 2008) and/or underpinned by dif-ferent attitudes (Enache et al., 2011). Though more tentative thanconclusive, due to the number of questionnaire respondents, theseconclusions offer some texture to add to understanding of the Gen-eration Y, addressing the concerns of several commentators arisingfrom lack of understanding (e.g. Angeline, 2011; Kapoor & Solo-mon, 2011; Meier & Crocker, 2010) and homogenized understand-ing (Ng et al., 2010). Replication research would further inform thedevelopment of these conclusions. The findings here also give riseto a need to unpick the suggested gender issues further. Qualitativeresearch with Generation Y business graduates could, for example,explore the emergent findings on perceptions of the existence of aglass ceiling and the forms of gender discrimination encounteredin the graduates’ workplace. More generally, in addition to re-search on how Generation Y graduates’ views may vary by gender,research is called for on the underlying reasons for gender varie-gated views. Thus there is a need to develop more insight intonot only how perspectives may vary by gender among GenerationY graduates in their career transition, the focus of this paper, butalso into why these perspectives may vary to bring about furtherinsight.

References

Alexander, C. S., & Sysko, J. M. (2011). A study of the cognitive determinants ofGeneration Y’s entitlement mentality. Allied Academies International Conference,Academy of Educational Leadership Proceedings, 16, 1–6.


Alimo-Metclafe, B. (2010). An investigation of female and male constructs ofleadership and empowerment. Gender in Management, 25(8), 640–648.

Andert, D. (2011). Alternating leadership as a proactive organisational intervention:Addressing the needs of the baby boomers, Generation Xers and Millennials.Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 8, 76–84.

Angeline, T. (2011). Managing generational diversity at the workplace: Expectationsand perceptions of different generations of employees. African Journal ofBusiness Management, 5, 249.

Bevan, V., & Learmouth, M. (2013). ‘I wouldn’t say it’s sexism, except that. . ..it’s allthese little subtle things’: Health care scientists’ accounts of gender in healthcare science laboratories. Social Studies of Science, 43(1), 136–158.

Boyd, D. (2010). Ethical determinants for Generations X and Y. Journal of BusinessEthics, 93, 465.

Broadbridge, A. (2010). Choice or constraint? Tensions in female retail executives’career narratives. Gender in Management, 25(3), 244–260.

Broadbridge, A., Maxwell, G., & Ogden, S. (2007). 13_2_30: Experiences, perceptionsand expectations of retail employment for Generation Y. Career DevelopmentInternational, 12, 523–544.

Broadbridge, A., & Simpson, R. (2011). 25 years on: Reflecting on the past andlooking to the future in gender and management research. British Journal ofManagement, 22, 470–483.

Campbell, R. (2013). Leaders, footsoldiers and befrienders: The gendered nature ofsocial capital and political participation in Britain. British Politics, 8, 28–50.

Cennamo, L., & Gardner, D. (2008). Generational differences in work values,outcomes and person-organisation values fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology,23, 891.

Connor, H., & Shaw, S. (2008). Graduate training and development: Current trendsand issues. Education and Training, 50, 357.

Costanza, D. P., Badger, J. M., Fraser, R. L., & Severt, J. B. (2012). Generationaldifferences in work-related attitudes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business andPsychology, 27(4), 375–394.

De Hauw, S., & De Vos, A. (2010). Millennials’ career perspective and psychologicalcontract expectations: Does the recession lead to lowered expectations? Journalof Business and Psychology, 25, 293.

Deal, J. J., Altman, D. G., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2010). Millennials at work: What weknow and what we need to do (if anything). Journal of Business and Psychology,25, 191–199.

Doward, J. (2012). Half of graduates face long hunt for work as regional dividegrows. The Observer, 30(9/12), 4.

Eikhof, D. R. (2012). A double-edged sword: Twenty-first century workplace trendsand gender equality. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 27(1),7–22.

Enache, M., Sallan, J. M., Pep, S., & Fernandez, V. (2011). Career attitudes andsubjective career success: Tackling gender differences. Gender in Management,26(3), 234–250.

Evans, C. (2012). Recruitment initiatives aimed at increasing the gender diversitywithin ITEC employment. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An InternationalJournal, 31(8), 741–752.

Fielden, S., & Davidson, M. J. (2012). BAME women business owners: Howintersectionality affects discrimination and social support. Gender inManagement, 27(8), 559–581.

Flowers, W., Jones, E., & Hogan, R. L. (2010). Employee development approach forGeneration Yers: A conceptual framework. Journal of Global BusinessManagement, 6, 1–9.

Gallhofer, S., Paisey, C., Roberts, C., & Tarbert, H. (2011). Preferences, constraints andwork-lifestyle choices. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 24(4),440–470.

Hershatter, A., & Epstein, M. (2010). Millennials and the world of work: Anorganisation and management perspective. Journal of Business and Psychology,25, 211.

Hess, N., & Jepsen, D. M. (2009). Career stage and generational differences inpsychological contracts. Career Development International, 14, 261.

Hurst, J. L., & Good, L. K. (2008). Generation Y and career choice: the impact of retailcareer perceptions, expectations and entitlement perceptions. CareerDevelopment International, 14, 570.

Jenkins, K. (2012). Balancing gender at the top. The Political Quarterly, 83, 726.Kapoor, C., & Solomon, N. (2011). Understanding and managing generational

differences in the workplace. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 3, 308.Kerslake, P. (2005). Words from the Ys. Management, 2, 44–46.Kowske, B. J., Rasch, R., & Wiley, J. (2010). Millennials’ (lack of) attitude problem: An

empirical examination of generational effects on work attitudes. Journal ofBusiness and Psychology, 25, 265.

Lewis, P., & Simpson, R. (2010). Meritocracy, difference and choice: Women’sexperiences of advantage and disadvantage at work. Gender in Management,25(3), 165–169.

Lub, X., Marije, N. B., Bal, P. M., Blomme, R., & Schalk, R. (2012). Different or alike?International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 24(4), 553–573.

Lyonette, C., & Crompton, R. (2008). The only way is up?: An examination ofwomen’s ‘‘under-achievement’’ in the accountancy profession in the UK. Genderin Management, 23(7), 506–521.

Lyons, S. T., Schweiter, L., Ng, E. S. W., & Kuron, L. K. J. (2012). Comparing apples toapples. Career Development International, 17(4), 333–357.

Martin, C. (2005). From high maintenance to high productivity: What managersneed to know about Generation Y. Industrial and Commercial Training, 37, 39–44.

McDonald, P. (2011). It’s time for management version 2.0: Six forces redefining thefuture of modern management. Futures, 43, 797.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0263-2373(13)00158-8/h0005





























































































Meier, J., & Crocker, M. (2010). Generation Y in the workforce: Managerialchallenges. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, 6, 68–79.

Mello, J. A. (2011). Strategic management of human resources (3rd ed.). UK: South-Western Cengage Learning.

Meriac, J. P., Woehr, D. J., & Banister, C. (2010). Generational differences in workethic: An examination of measurement equivalence across three cohorts.Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 315.

Morton, L. P. (2002). Targeting Generation Y. Public Relations Quarterly, 46–48.Summer.

Murray, K., Toulson, P., & Legg, S. (2011). Generational cohorts’ expectations in theworkplace: A study of New Zealanders. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources,49, 476.

Ng, E. S. W., Schweitzer, L., & Lyons, S. T. (2010). New generation, greatexpectations: A field study of the millennial generation. Journal of Businessand Psychology, 25, 281.

Nicholson, N., & Arnold, J. (1989). Graduate entry and adjustment to corporate life.Personnel Review, 8, 23–25.

O’Neil, D. A., Hopkins, M. M., & Bilimoria, D. (2008). Women’s careers at the start ofthe 21st century. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(4), 727–743.

Parry, E., & Urwin, P. (2011). Generational differences in work values: A review oftheory and evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(1), 79–96.

Patterson, N., Mavin, S., & Turner, J. (2012). Envisioning female entrepreneur:Leaders anew from a gender perspective. Gender in Management: AnInternational Journal, 27(5–6), 395–416.

Poornima, S. C. (2009). Motivating through satisfaction: An on-going effort of HR inorganisations. IUP Journal of Management Research, 8, 26–38.

Powell, G. (2012). Six ways of seeing the elephant: The intersection of sex, gender,and leadership. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 27(1–2),119–141.


Pryor, R., & Bright, J. (2011). The chaos theory of careers: A new perspective on workingin the twenty-first century. New York: Routledge.

Rhoton, L. A. (2011). Distancing as a gendered barrier: Understanding womenscientists’ gender practices. Gender and Society, 25(6), 696.

Richardson, S. (2010). Generation Y’s perceptions and attitudes towards a career intourism and hospitality. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, 9,179.

Ross, K., & Carter, C. (2011). Women and news: A long and winding road. Media,Culture and Society, 33, 1148–1165.

Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2005). The glass cliff: Evidence that women are over-represented in precarious leadership position. British Journal of Management, 16,81–90.

Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2009). Glass cliffs are not so easily scaled: On theprecariousness of female CEO’s positions. British Journal of Management, 20,13–16.

Shaw, S., & Fairhurst, D. (2008). Engaging a new generation of graduates. Educationand Training, 50, 366.

Smith, P., Caputi, P., & Crittenden, N. (2012). The maze of metaphors around glassceilings. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 27(7), 436–448.

Snaebjornsson, I. M., & Edvardsson, I. R. (2013). Gender, nationality and leadershipstyle: A literature review. International Journal of Business and Management, 8(1),89–103.

Terjesen, S., Vinnicombe, S., & Freeman, C. (2007). Attracting Generation Ygraduates: organizational attributes, likelihood to apply and sex differences.Career Development International, 12, 504.

Wheatley, D. (2012). Work-life balance, travel-to-work, and the dual careerhousehold. Personnel Review, 41(6), 813–831.



























































generation y graduates and career transition: perspectives by gender

Documents